A World Without Quanta? by Constantinos Ragazas

Dear Georgina,

Always enjoy hearing from you. I recall fondly some intense exchanges we had on these blogs last year. We have many ideas in common and hope our intellectual explorations find resonance with others as well. You are very correct in characterizing my views as a call for a return to 'physical realism'. I try to make my arguments as mathematically rigorous as I can, but the underlying idea is simple: Physics must provide us with 'physical explanations' that 'make sense'. Too much reliance on mathematical derivations is no different than failed metaphysical attempts to answer the question 'what is' the Universe. Mathematical models of the Universe are metaphysical. They ultimately fail.

My attempt to show that we can have 'a world without quanta' begins with a mathematical derivation of Planck's Law (what started it all one hundred years ago) using only continuous processes and not needing energy quanta. This Law is shown to be a mathematical description of the interaction of measurement - what in essence Physics is or should be.

Constantinos

Dear Steve,

Thank you for your good wishes! I hope my essay adds positively to the much needed conversation about physics and man.

My absence from the fqxi blog pages in the past few weeks was because I am more focused now in writing my results for a chapter in an upcoming book on Thermodynamics. I was contacted by Hayrani Oz (a professor of aerospace engineering) to coauthor this chapter with him. He has read my posted papers and finds them significant. These fit well with ideas and methods he has been using in his own work and teaching.

Hope to be more involved once again after this project is over. But this essay contest will surely be bringing me back more regularly! Good to have the opportunity to share ideas with others. We are all on the same side seeking clarity of what we 'know'!

Constantinos

John,

Thanks for your kind thoughts! I should tell you that in these blogs responding to your posts has always been an interesting challenge. Our conversations on cosmology emboldened me to make my views public (though reluctantly). But I decided against 'self-censorship' and if I truly believe in an idea I am also obligated to share it with others interested in having a good and open discussion. Physics, we both agree, needs more of this openness. The dominant attitude should be 'how to make sense' of an idea, rather than 'how to knock it down'. We are very fortunate for FQXi that allows this open honest public discussion.

I have tried opening the links in your post, but failed to connect.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Hello Edwin,

Thank you for your comment. Hope you don't mind me greeting you by your personal name! Blame it on FQXi for fostering such atmosphere!

The most significant result in my essay is the mathematical derivation of Planck's Law using simple continuous processes and without using 'energy quanta'. This derivation shows that Planck's Law is a mathematical truism (not a Law of Nature) that describes the 'interaction of measurement'. And that is why it is so incredibly accurate in fitting the experimental data!!!

This result acts as a Rosetta Stone that allows us to transform physics into a simple, intuitive, and physically sensible formulation. The quantity 'eta' comes from this Rosetta Stone formulation. In fact, Planck's constant h is such a quantity. The quantity 'eta' is both 'accumulation of energy' (the time-integral of energy) as well as 'action'. So the formulation of basic physics I have made in my papers combines both concepts into one 'prime physis' (undefined and undefinable). I wont go into details with this post, but ask you to read the essay carefully for many surprising results.

One results that deserves special mention, however, is The Second Law of Thermodynamics. I show that this Law states that 'all physical processes (physical events) take some positive duration of time to occur'. The immediate implication of this is that 'physical time' is 'duration', t-s, rather than 'instantiation', t=s. How we can consider 'events' as points in a spacetime continuum is problematic in light of this. Can it be that GR is inconsistent with Thermodynamics? And can this explain why we need dark matter and dark energy for Cosmology based on GR to be consistent?

You ask for an explanation of mass and gravity and electric charge. Do you mean 'mathematical equations' or 'physical explanations'? Too often we confuse 'description' as 'explanation' ! Does Newton's Law of Gravity 'explain' gravity? Does Maxwell's equations 'explain' electricity and magnetism? I am not looking for more mathematical descriptions, unless those descriptions are deduced from a physical view that makes sense and are mathematical truisms that describe the interaction of measurement. The essence of Physics is 'measurement'. I find mathematical models of the Universe inadequate. It is hubris to think that we can encapsulate the Universe in some mathematical model, no matter how 'approximate' it is. For me, this is our modern version of seeking to answer the age-old question of 'what is'.

I just don't believe that the Universe operates by some God-given Universal Laws and we can 'know' them! This is the Metaphysics of Physics and I just don't believe in it! But I do believe in a Creative and Evolving Universe. As such, the Universe 'creates' its own Laws and probably makes these up on the 'fly'! There are no Universal Laws! Just laws of man that encapsulate what we observe and understand.

Have tried reading your essay, Edwin. But it feels like more Ptolemaic epicycles! What is a C-field?

I have the advantage that you understand what I am saying!

Constantinos

Edwin,

You write, "You seem to think that your mathematics is 'observed' by the behavior of the universe"

Actually I don't! That quote sounds like 'mathematical modeling' and I don't believe in it! The results in my papers are really mathematical truisms (tautologies) that describe the interaction of measurement. My formulation of Planck's Law, for example, is just a mathematical identity that describes the functional relationship between E, ΔE and Eav. What is the quantity E does not matter!!! In Planck's Law, of course, E is energy.

None of the mathematics in my essay seeks to 'model' physical phenomena. But these mathematical formulations describe our measurements and the concepts and ideas (like force and energy) we use in understanding our measurements mathematically. The only real tie to 'physical reality' in any of this is the 'prime physis' quantity 'eta'. This may be thought of as the 'what is' (as 'Being'). But in my formulation it remains undefined and undefinable!

Planck's constant h is 'eta'. But in my work 'eta' is a variable while h is a constant. Many surprising outcomes flow from this 'small but significant' distinction. Besides what I mentioned in my previous reply to you, another surprise is that Plancks' Law and Boltzmann's entropy equation are mathematically equivalent! Want more? Read my essay!

Energy is mathematically defined as the time-derivative of 'eta' while momentum is defined as the space-derivative of 'eta'. Similarly temperature and entropy can also be mathematically defined. Newtons' Second Law of Motion for example expresses the mathematical truism that 'mixed partials are equal'. And so for all other results in my essay! But these are mathematically valid. Nothing to do with 'modeling' of physical behavior. Like the Law of Gravity, or Maxwell's Equations, etc. seek to do.

In my view, 'measurement' is the essence of Physics. And a mathematical formulation of Physics based on mathematical identities describing measurement establish the connection between Math and Nature. And answer the question "why should our mathematical calculations be reflected in our measurements of Nature?"

We have barely scratched the surface, Edwin! And this from a non-physicist! Imagine if ...

Constantinos

Edwin,

Re-reading my last post, I agree with you! The argument is just too subtle to make in one response. By 'mathematical modeling' I have in mind, for example, the Law of Gravity. By 'mathematical identities' describing measurement I have in mind Planck's Law as is formulated in my essay.

The distinction between 'mathematical modeling' of the Universe and 'mathematical identities' describing our measurements of the Universe deserved more than this! Anything less does disservice to this deep and significant distinction I unwisely sought to make in one post.

Thanks for the consideration.

Constantinos

Georgina,

Thank you for your very kind and thoughtful comments. We agree on many of the fundamental attitudes. I will try to address questions that you raised ...

You write,

"...[Planck's Law] is not a Law of the Universe..."

That is a key distinction that I believe needs discussion. Yes, I do say that my derivation of Planck's Law shows that this Law is not some 'Universal Law of Physics', but rather a mathematical statement, a truism in fact! I go even further, however, and argue that ALL laws of physics should be likewise.

My basic view is that 'before manifestation there is accumulation' of energy. I have many and varied reasons for saying this. We experience this in everyday lives and in so many ways. It is 'sensible' and so 'makes sense' . Planck's constant h is the minimal accumulation of energy that can be manifested. But I further argue in my essay that the existence of h is due to our theoretical regime. That in a sense our definitions of energy and temperature, etc., and the theory we weave from these become like a 'conceptual lens' through which we 'see' Nature. And that 'conceptual lens' has a build in 'focal point' beyond which we cannot go. That 'focal point' is Planck's constant! It has nothing to do with the Universe!

You say,

"... I am not persuaded that it is time that gives objects physical existence ..."

There are many ways of conceptually understanding time. Certainly, time as an ordering parameter of the occurrence of events is not what I have in mind. This gets a little tricky to make clear in a comment. But try to understand my statement about 'time and existence' in the context of everyday life and not exclusively as it is used in Physics. What I have in mind is not 'time' as a parameter to sequence events, but rather as 'duration' of an event. Such 'duration of time' results from the 'entity' being in 'equilibrium' with the 'environment'. As long as that 'equilibrium' is maintained, the 'entity' exists.

Since we are talking about 'time', I should share with you recent insights I have on this key distinction: time as 'duration' and time as 'instantiation' (ordering parameter). I mathematically demonstrate in the essay that Thermodynamics asserts that 'any physical process (event) takes some positive duration of time to occur'. However, physical events in GR are described by (x,y,z,t) with time in the sense of 'instantiation', t=s. In my opinion, this violates Thermodynamics. 'Dark energy' and 'inflation' seek to correct for this flaw!

You further say,

"...you are saying that physics is a man-made construct like history, culture and politics and not God given or written in the Universe."

Certainly, any think created by man is man-made. I don't believe in God-given Universal Laws. To my philosophic sensibilities, this is just absurd! But I like to say something more regarding all this. Creation follows the same processes, whether it is in History, or Politics or personal lives or Physics. This is plainly so, since all of these activities is what WE do as human beings! I find I get clearer understanding of Physics thinking about Politics!

Constantinos