A World Without Quanta? by Constantinos Ragazas

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.

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.

Fascinating essay. Really makes one think about all the conventional thought processes.....

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.

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.

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

Hello Constantinos,

Loved your essay and your characterization of time. I have a similar view.

If you get a chance check out my essay here

I'm sending good thoughts.

Pete

Hi Constantinos,

I understand that you are trying to find a common-sense approach to understanding Nature, but I'm not sure that Hamiltonian mechanics had to be rewritten (eta is closely related to H). H is Energy, and is very important in Liouville's Equation. In contrast, eta is energy absorbed within a time interval, and thus may have applications with Measurement Theory.

Your treatment of Planck's Law as a truism is interesting, but ultimately this may be due to the facts that 1) Planck's Law is based on bosonic photons, and the 2) Partition Function for Bosons has the same features as your Planck-like Characterization of Exponential Functions. Check out Equations 1-4 of the free partial preview of my book.

If Planck's Law is a truism, then this would have devastating implications for Maxwell-Botlzmann Statistics, and for Fermi-Dirac Statistics. Remember, Planck had to modify the "standard" Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics to explain Blackbody radiation, but Maxwell-Boltzmann has many other valid uses.

I know that Multiverses are not generally popular - after all, we shouldn't be able to directly observe alternate Universes or Realities. But could other "minimum sips" of eta be possible? Would these imply other scales, and how similar or different would those scales be relative to our reality?

I agree that there may be a scale at which spacetime is comprised of something - whether that "something" is the prime eta that you propose, or the "vacuum" related to the Higgs vev, or Causal Dynamical Triangulation or Spin Foam, or a revised quantum version of the old classical "aether"...

I would appreciate your professional opinion of my essay.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Hi Constantinos,

I enjoyed this paper because it included more of your ideas. Most of your prior papers were 2 or 3 page papers that referenced other 2 or 3 page papers.

I am not challenging the accuracy of Planck's Law. I'm asking which is more fundamental - Planck's Law vs. the Partition functions of Quantum Statistical Mechanics? If Planck's Law is a truism (based on your assumptions involving the properties of exponential functions), then it seems to negate the fundamentality of Fermi and Maxwell statistics. If the Partition Functions are truisms, then all three statistics, Bose, Maxwell and Fermi are allowed.

Planck developed his ideas in 1900. Einstein took Planck's ideas to the next level with his explanation of the Photoelectric Effect in 1905. For all of the talk about Relativity, Einstein won his Nobel Prize for his early development of Quantum Statistical Mechanics - ironically Einstein later questioned Quantum Mechanics...

I see how mechanics can be derived from eta, but also see huge similarities between eta, the Hamiltonion, and Action. I don't consider eta so much of a new concept, as just being a different (perhaps more common-sense?) way to formalize these old concepts.

I have been quiet on the blog site lately. Too many of the discussions sound too similar...

I hope my latest essay is not an incomprehensible code. As a mathematician, you might enjoy some of it. I only have a little bit of physics involving scales, intrinsic spin, and supersymmetry.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Hi Constantinos,

There seems to be a disconnect between our conversations.

Planck's derivation of Blackbody Radiation is correct, and therefore, fits the data remarkably well. In the case of the Cosmic Microwave Background, we only observe slight variations in effective Temperature as we scan different angles.

My point is that your "Planck-like Characterization of Exponential Functions" makes assumptions that automatically include the Partition Function for Bose-Einstein Statistics - pretty much the same as Satyendra Nath Bose's original derivation of Bose-Einstein Statistics in the 1920's based on Planck's Blackbody radiation formula.

I honestly think that you have made a circular argument here:

By inadvertantly including the Bose-Einstein Partition Function, you may have inadvertantly excluded the Maxwell-Botlzmann Statistics for identical particles, and the Fermi-Dirac Statistics for particles of odd symmetries (fermions that obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle).

Its just my opinion. You might run the idea by Lawrence Crowell or Philip Gibbs.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray