[deleted]
Trying to make sense of a lot of these essays is tying my brain in a knot.
A World Without Quanta? by Constantinos Ragazas
[deleted]
Hello dear Constantinos,
You are welcome. I am happy for you, it's cool that your ideas are recognized.You merit it.
We search indeed all the truths and truth, as starwalkers of our Univers.
Best Regards and good luck still.
Sincerely
Steve
Constantinos Ragazas,
I had forgotten how much I enjoyed your previous essay.
In my essay I note that "A continuous universe evolves to discrete reality, where quantum conditions carve up the continuum, such that analog inputs occasion digital outputs or threshold crossings."
Your approach seems to "accumulate energy until a threshold crossing".
I also agree with you that "space must be filled with something", but I wonder how you account for mass, charge, and gravity in terms of 'eta'. I would invite you to look at my essay for concepts that are compatible with yours.
I also think that you might find Marty Green's essay very interesting. I did.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
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
Constantinos,
Thanks for your reply. I have studied your essay, and there is much I like about it. I think we agree upon the desirability of "a physical view that makes sense".
You state: "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..."
If you read my first page, you will find that that is exactly what I am saying, that the laws must evolve from the universe itself.
As for the C-field, Maxwell first noted that if mass replaced charge, and gravity replaced the electric field, then Coulomb's law and Newton's law are identical. He decided, based on this symmetry, to use G and mass in place of E and charge in all of Maxwell's equations. But since there is an (electro-)magnetic field, he needed an analogous (gravito-)magnetic field to complete the equations. The C-field is my name for what Maxwell and others refer to simply as the gravito-magnetic field. It has nothing to do with the magnetic field, it is the gravity analog thereof.
Later it was found that the same equations fall out of the 'weak field approximation' of General Relativity.
So the field exists. There is some argument as to the strength of the field. Martin Tajmar has measured it to be 10^31 times stronger than Maxwell believed (based only on simple symmetry) and my calculations agree with Tajmar's results.
You seem to think that your mathematics is 'observed' by the behavior of the universe. I hope you decide to give 'my mathematics' the same chance.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
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
Constantinos,
I believe there are some subtleties in your argument that I am missing, but, nevertheless, I like your essay and agree with the points I mentioned above.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
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
[deleted]
Gus,
What a nice and bold piece of work you have written! I know you have been working and thinking about this for quite some time. I want to wish you the best, as your work begins to be exposed and seen by others...
Miguel
[deleted]
Constantinos,
I really like the way your essay is written. Right from the outset you "lay it on the line." It is also written in a very clear way that takes the reader on a smooth journey from your original premise right through to your conclusion. It does not confuse the reader with too much information nor does it merely reiterate current mainstream thinking.
You said "Just as we can write bad literature using good English we can also write bad physics using good math. In either case we do not blame the language for the story. We can't fault math for the failings of Physics." That is so well said. I have tried to illustrate this in some of my blog forum posts, by saying how magical illusion described mathematically would make the magic appear to be real. You make the excellent point "mathematical truths are always conditional."Which you then go on to elaborate. You are right beautiful mathematics alone does not make something true.Just before your derivation of planks law you make a heartfelt plea for realism. It is a viewpoint that many will agree with , quite possibly more than will openly admit to it.
Although you have presented the derivation of planks law before. I think I finally get why you are doing this. You are showing that it is a result of the process of detection and not a Law of the Universe itself. Please correct me if I am wrong on this. So this quantity h is a threshold that allows a phenomenon to cross the boundary from unobserved reality to observed reality. There is certainly a difference between what can be detected and made a part of our experienced or as Edwin says "received reality" ( I call image reality) and what just is, unobserved.
I am not persuaded that it is time that gives objects physical existence but it is necessary for their detection, so that they can be perceived.They are manifest to us because of the duration of the processes by which we detect them. As there has to be an interaction with the detector which has duration and transmission and processing of the information to give awareness, which also has a duration. Though this kind of elapsed time could be considered at a foundational level to be just universal spatial change. For any object to go from what it was (configuration) to what it is (configuration) and from where it was (location) to where it is(location) time can be used as a description. Both configuration in space and location in space are spatial descriptions however. So that kind of time is not really foundational(what is).I think the spatial change is foundational and it is our desire to use terms of measurement that labels it with energy or time or momentum.
You are right there is "something" that is which allows causality. It is missing from the space-time model of the universe where time is a geometric dimension and there are theoretical points in time and space.I have tried to argue that both a model with universally uni-temporal time that allows passage of time to occur (through continuous spatial change) but is not a time dimension, and space-time which is a model of the appearance of reality, spread over time and space, are necessary.
I think in your final paragraph you are saying that physics is a man-made construct like history, culture and politics and not God given or written in the Universe. Again please correct me if I have misinterpreted your intention.I think that, if I have not misunderstood, that is a good point. All we can have are our man-made models of reality. They are not reality itself. It is a well written, enjoyable and thought provoking essay.I hope it gets the attention it deserves.
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
[deleted]
Dear Constantinos,
I agree with some of your views and the basic approach.I like,in return,you too to read my article and express your views on it.
Good work and best wishes.
Sreenath B N.
[deleted]
Fascinating essay. Really makes one think about all the conventional thought processes.....
Georgina,
Just one further point to stress in my previous post regarding Planck's Law.
Planck's Law marks the turning point in Physics that brought us to where we are today, and all the 'quantum weirdness' and assault on common sense. It has been thought by physicists that this Law proves we live in a 'quantized Universe'. They came to that conclusion because no one at the time, and for decades latter, was able to derive this Law without using energy quanta. I show in this essay that there is a very simple mathematical derivation of this Law that does not require energy quanta. Had this derivation been known 100 years ago, it would have changed the direction Physics has taken.
Constantinos
[deleted]
Hi Constantinos thank you.
I am glad that you have reiterated those points and confirmed my understanding of them in your essay. I didn't understand "where you were coming from" when you were posting on FQXi blog forum and assumed that because you were using mathematical arguments you were trying to mathematically describe the function of the universe. Now its very clear and I do not disagree.
Good luck, Georgina.
[deleted]
Constantinos,
also about duration. I agree with you on this point too. I have said (words to the effect) "Some configurations are replaced by new ones and some configurations persist." Those that persist are the ones we are able to continue to experience (so they have duration).I don't think time has to be brought into it but it does make it clearer and easier to understand when you do.
For the equilibrium idea I can imagine a sand bar. So long as the sand eroded by the wave action is balanced by the sand deposited it will remain in equilibrium and will persist. If the equilibrium becomes unbalanced the sand bar might be completely eroded or might grow into an island. So the recognition of it as an unchanging object or feature depends upon equilibrium over a duration of time , as you say. It is an analogy that applies to all sorts of other ideas. For example water droplet that might evaporate or freeze, or population of animals that retains the same morphology or evolves or dies out.
Best regards, Georgina.
Georgina,
In my thinking, physical time has all to do with 'duration'. And 'duration' has to do with 'equilibrium'. Of course, we have various abstract ideas about time, but physical time as I have come to understand it is what gives 'entities' existence! It's also what The Second Law of Thermodynamics says, as I mathematically demonstrate in my essay.
It all fits well together. We can recognize this sense of time in all experiences we have, not just physics. These are not so much 'analogies' (though they are) but rather 'manifestations' of the same process of Creation!
I believe points (x,y,z,t) in the spacetime continuum identifying 'events' contradict Thermodynamics. Events need 'duration' as well as 'extension' to be physically existing. I truly believe dark matter and dark energy (as well as inflation) required to make Cosmology consistent with Thermodynamics is due to this subtle deficiency in GR.
Constantinos
[deleted]
Yes and I agree. At that foundational level there is no time dimension and no space-time only space. There is change which generates causality and the passage of time and also as you point out some parts in equilibrium which allows them to endure and so have duration over that passage of time. Causality and thermodynamics are occurring in space, not in space-time, at the foundational level, over time or with a duration. There is no passage of time in space-time alone it is a static block.
Constantinos
A wonderful essay, and with both an important point and fundamental conceptions astonishingly consistent with and part of a falsifiable picture of Local/Reality physics painted by a whole swathe of other essays here, but needing a deeper comprehension and broader viewpoint than in the past to understand. (You'll have seen the threads on Georgina's Edwin's and mine to link to the others). The threads are as interesting as the essays!
I believe this is quite unprecedented, which gives us hope that physics may be about to arise out of it's current deep rut. But then again we may all just be ignored again! Let's not let that stop us this time.
Keep up the good work.
Peter
[deleted]
Hello Peter,
Thanks for your comment. I do believe that there is a group now coalescing around similar ideas. What's binding us together, however, is our loud call for 'physical realism'. My sense is that call may be getting heard. More from the ranks of physicists are now considering 'a world without quanta'.
We have at least gotten the conversation going. And that's a good think!
Constantinos