Community Appeal!

The key result (and the Rosetta Stone in this essay) is the mathematical derivation of Planck's Law without using energy quanta. I ask that you check this link showing the experimental blackbody spectrum and the theoretical curve obtained using Planck's Law. "The FIRAS data match the curve so exactly, with error uncertainties less than the width of the blackbody curve, that it is impossible to distinguish the data from the theoretical curve"! I show in my essay that Planck's Law is a mathematical tautology. Such remarkable fit of data I argue can only be explained by this result!

I have tried for several years to have the results in this essay be 'peer reviewed' by professional physics journals. Though all these efforts were rejected, the results were not refuted. My sole purpose for submitting my essay to this contest is to get the 'generals' to consider this 'message'. This is the closest to 'peer review' that I can hope to get. Read the essay. Study the mathematical arguments. Consider 'a world without quanta' sketched by these results. And if you feel, as I do, that these deserve consideration by the 'panel of experts', I ask that you support my efforts to get this 'message' to the 'panel'.

Constantinos

    Ray,

    You write, "I am not challenging the accuracy of Planck's Law."

    That is not the issue! The real question is WHY Planck's Law is indistinguishable from the experimental data! The reason for this remarkable fact is because, as I show in my essay, Planck's Law is actually a mathematical tautology! This does not in any way take away any other 'truisms'. Rather provides more understanding of these. If such a mathematical fact brings to serious question other physical results, than in my humble opinion the physical results have to be more carefully reconsidered. Perhaps here lies more fruitful application of the Rosetta Stone in my essay!

    Furthermore, it is a mistake to think that this results (re: Planck's Law) depends on any assumptions regarding the 'energy function', E(t). I show in my essay that Planck's Law taken as EXACT is mathematically equivalent to E(t) being a simple exponential function. However, if we take Planck's Law as a limit approximation (better than any experimental accuracy) then E(t) can be ANY integrable function. Thus, in all circumstances Planck's Law is a mathematical statement describing the interaction of measurement. And that explains why the 'measurements' are indistinguishable from the theory.

    Ray, there are so many other results in my essay that neatly tie all together. Let me highlight three:

    1)A relationship between entropy and time. This leads to a more intuitive interpretation of The Second Law of Thermodynamics to say that "all physical processes take some positive duration of time to occur".

    2)Planck's Law and Boltzmann's entropy equation are mathematically equivalent.

    3)The Photoelectric Effect can be explained without using photons. The photoelectric current obtained provides a better experimental fit that includes the 'asymptotic tail' to the data.

    (I have not included this result in my essay, but details can be found at "The Photoelectric Effect Without Photons".

    Best wishes,

    Constantinos

    • [deleted]

    • Post #37

    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

    Dear Ray,

    If I were to have been introducing elliptical orbits, you would be asking to see the epicycles behind the ellipses. Your argument then would have been, "since epicycles explain the orbits of the planets, your ellipses inadvertently assume such epicycles and so your argument is (epi) cyclical"!

    The way to understand the results in my essay is to understand them for what they show. Don't try to 'see' the epicycles that these replace!

    Constantinos

    • [deleted]

    • Post #39

    Hi Constantinos,

    I am not a physicist who is happy to sit on a few Centuries worth of understanding Reality and believe that is all there is. I am in favor of replacing all "epicycles" with the appropriate geometries.

    Bose developed Bose-Einstein statistics in the 1920's by studying Planck's Blackbody Radiation Law in depth. I think that your analysis is very similar to Bose's. This is fine for describing bosons, photons are bosons, and photons are involved in our experimental observations. My essay addresses these three fundamental spin statistics. I did not derive them from first principles (the Partition Functions of Quantum Statistical Mechanics), but did try to describe them in terms of Lucas Numbers.

    Likewise your eta is a hybrid combination of a Hamitonian and Action. Perhaps eta has a good common-sense interpretation, but the Hamiltonian is useful for Liouville's Theorem and the variational principle, and Action is useful for the Principle of Least Action.

    I know that you are a competant Mathematician, but you seem to be rederiving Physics that has existed for decades. That's OK with regards to this essay contest, where the purpose is to present a perspective of whether Nature is analog, digital, both, neither or undecided. My problem is that your Prime Physics basically includes Bose's assumptions, and therefore excludes Fermi's treatment of particles, and therefore is a biased perspective of this continuous vs. discrete question.

    Have Fun!

    Dr. Cosmic Ray

    Hello Ray,

    You write "I am in favor of replacing all "epicycles" "

    What if 'elementary particles' were "epicycles"? Will you be willing to replace these also?

    You write: "This is fine for describing bosons, photons are bosons, and photons are involved in our experimental observations."

    Where in the mathematical derivations do I say or use 'photons' or properties of 'photons' or Bose-Einstein or Fermi or any other such think? That you seem to 'see' these conceptual ghosts in my work point to the mind-set with which you seek to understand these results. Reality is often simpler than the mind with which we 'see'.

    The E(t) that appears in all of my results can be any integrable function. But taken as exponential for simplicity and exactitude of formulation - see my comment in my essay about that! But in the context of my discussions on physics it is 'energy'. Any energy.

    You write: "Likewise your eta is a hybrid combination of a Hamiltonian and Action".

    Actually, Ray, my eta is undefined and undefinable -- in principle! Therefore, not a 'hybrid' by logical necessity. Eta is the only quantity in all of my mathematical derivations in my essay that could be taken as 'prime physis' (first nature). But the way all my results are derived, eta could also be the fundamental quantity pertaining to any other context. I like to think of eta as being! But then I'd be opening myself up as 'being' metaphysical. An accusation that is really ludicrous coming from physicists with claims of 'time travel' and 'multiverses' and 'backward causality' and 'entanglements'.

    You write: "...but you seem to be rederiving Physics that has existed for decades ..."

    Well, the same could have been said replacing epicycles with ellipses. Certainly the planetary orbits didn't change. There was no 'new physics' in having one more description of planetary orbits. What was revolutionary, however, is a 'new view' of how the same physical phenomena could be understood better.

    You write: "... your Prime Physics ... is a biased perspective of this continuous vs. discrete question."

    Ray, I specifically address in my essay just that question of continuous vs. discrete:

    1) Energy propagates continuously but interacts discretely.

    2) Before there is discrete manifestation of energy, there is a continuous accumulation of energy.

    3) For energy to manifest, there is an equilibrium condition locally and a minimum threshold of accumulation that has to occur. This minimum is Planck's constant.

    I have no idea what "biased perspective" you are referring to. Is it the 'epicycles' that you want to see in my results and I don't show you? Maybe it is my bias towards 'physical realism' and my expectation that physics provides us with 'physical explanations that make sense'.

    Ray, we had similar conversations like this before. I don't believe we have come any closer to understanding one another, but it is always fun trying!

    Constantinos

    • [deleted]

    • Post #41

    Dear Constantinos,

    While I'm really just an uneducated, highly experienced information systems analyst (retired) who can't do the math, I very much enjoyed much of what I understood of your essay. I particularly liked: "energy propagates continuously but interacts discretely"; Ptolemy's epicycles: "...we can write bad physics using good math"; "We can't fault Math for the failings of Physics". I had previously been struck by Ptolemy's equations predicting the motions of planets through the sky as an example of a correct but invalid mathematical proof - are the quotes original?

    I was compelled to delve into physics in 2008 when, recovering from a long illness, "Most of our Universe is Missing" was on TV and happened to hear astronomer Vera Rubin explain the observations leading to the establishment of dark matter saying (paraphrased): "...we had expected that they [stars in spiral galaxies] would rotate [orbit] just like planets in the Solar system." I've spent much of my time since trying to learn how to explain that she had meticulously applied standard analytical processes to the first survey of spiral galaxy rotational characteristics to produce a simply incorrect assessment - establishing the requirement for dark matter in physics! I think that the simple answer to that whole debacle is that, in all cases, galaxies are not planetary systems.

    I really can't do the math, but I'd very much appreciate if you could read last year's brief (2 page) essay: "Mass Distribution Characteristics Invalidate the Galaxy Rotation Problem". I think you'll see why I particularly liked your essay.

    Thanks,

    Jim

      • [deleted]

      • Post #42

      Hi Constantinos,

      I know that our perspectives are different. My model has many "fundamental" particles (Ptolemy's epicycles in your analogy?), but they decompose into simplified fundamental symmetries (Kepler's ellipses in your analogy?). I think that your derivation of Planck's Blackbody Radiation Law using properties of Exponential Fuctions may accidentally assume Bose properties. This is OK for photons which are bosons. We could probably bounce minor disputes back and forth all day. I would simply suggest that you don't use this result universally...

      I think your essay's point is that energy is absorbed continuously and measured discretely, and you support that position with your "eta" term which probably should have an application in Measurement Theory.

      Good Luck in the Essy Contest and Have Fun!

      Dr. Cosmic Ray

      Dear Jim,

      Thanks for your kind words. And thanks for your vote of confidence in what the essay seeks to accomplish. To your question, "...are the quotes original?". Most everything that I write is original. That's why there are rarely any references to outside sources. The writing is my conscious effort to communicate my thoughts in as clear and concise way as I can. I find long expositions rather imposing and often confusing. So I try to capture the essence of what I seek to communicate in brief haiku-like statements.

      What is important in your intellectual venture in physics is not your education, but your passion for ideas and commitment to Truth and Reason. Contrary views by many physicists, as to the need for specialized expertise to do physics, have only dug us deeper into the 'rabbit's hole'. They have created a Universe that defies common sense-experience. These theorists have put us in conflict with our lives. This cannot be good! What is mostly needed in physics are 'physical explanations that make sense'. Physics has failed to deliver on this mission. More abstract math is not needed. Great new ideas can be found in unsuspected places by unsuspected people.

      I have read your linked paper and agree with much of what you say. But I must confess to you that I have not kept up with the many fascinating discoveries in astrophysics and cosmology, or given any of this thoughtful reflection. It's only just recently that I started to show more interest in cosmology, thanks to Peter Jackson and John Merryman in these forums. So please take my comments as provisional and with some skepticism.

      I agree with you that 'dark matter' is used like another 'epicycle' to bring observation in line with theory. And I also agree that the application of established theory to new fronts is a little like generals fighting the 'last war'! We simply take on faith that the laws of physics we have established here on earth are the same everywhere else in the Universe.

      I don't believe in 'universal laws'. But I do believe in our ability to describe mathematically regularities in the world we know. But we must not confuse 'description' for 'explanation'. We have yet to 'explain' anything!

      Fortunately, non of this has any bearing on any of the mathematical derivations and physical results in my essay!

      Best wishes,

      Constantinos

      • [deleted]

      • Post #44

      Dear Constantinos,

      Thanks very much for your quick response and consideration.

      Sorry if I strayed too far afield, but you might be more interested in a mathematical approach (I had had considerable correspondence with one of the authors), "General relativistic dynamics applied to the rotation curves of galaxies".

      I wholeheartedly agree with an assessment that there is an overreliance on mathematical proofs to establish correctness. Of course I'm biased by my ineptitude, but I personally think that analytical methods of prediction, while offering perhaps practical utility in analyzing events, do not necessarily enhance understanding of causal processes. I think that physical effects are still actually produced by mechanical processes and that understanding those actual processes is the essence of knowledge rather than any reliance on some mysteriously derived predictive analytical model.

      Best wishes to you and your work,

      Jim

      To the question, "Is the Universe Continuous or Discrete? ", we argue that we cannot know 'what is' and strike a philosophical balance and answer, "it is neither and both".

      Quite well argued, Constantinos.

      With so many theories about multiple universes, reality can discretely get entangled in the concept of one universe. Is reality one truth for all universes?

      Best regards,

      Jim Hoover

        Jim,

        Thank you for your encouraging words. Such vote of confidence means a lot to me and my efforts.

        For me, the notion that we can 'know' the Universe is no different than the notion that we can 'know' someone else's experiences. In all cases (whether human or physics) we can only know what we feel and what we understand of what we feel. All 'mathematical models' of the Universe are premised on the notion that we can know 'what is'. Thus, in my humble opinion, these are deeply flawed and will ultimately fail.

        Best wishes,

        Constantinos

        • [deleted]

        • Post #47

        Dear Constantinos,

        Mathematical models do not assume that we can know what is. They assume that we can objectively describe narure in mathematical language.

        Nevertheless, as promised, I did read and will comment on your essay. I have a number of technical objections, though I will only address one show-stopper that I see no way to fix: paragraph 5 (prime physis). Your claim that all attempts to give physical meaning to quantum mechanics have failed cannot possibly be true, because QM is founded in nothing BUT physical observation, which is prior to the mathematics. There is no "mind boggling mystery" in the calculation of the probability function, an extension of the statistical mechanics that is well understood in classical terms. Then, to identify the wave function psi as a "quantity" (?) which redefines the Schroedinger equation as a Hamiltonian operator infinitely extended over the universe ... you just managed to say that the energy content of the universe (Hamiltonian) is equal to the total energy content of the universe. Yes, I should say that it is.

        I didn't want to do this. I just wanted to leave it at agreement that a foundational model in continuous function physics is a noble goal. I truly do wish you luck in getting the hearing you desire. You'll have to be prepared to meet some serious referee objections, however.

        Tom

        Dear Tom,

        Welcome to my world! Sorry about barging into yours uninvited and admitedly a little rude. But more to your comments.

        Tom, you say "... we can objectively describe nature in mathematical language"

        Judging the behavior of a person according to our system of values, thinking and expectations I claim is not 'knowing' the other person. Same is true of Nature.

        Tom, your first 'technical objection' is the easiest to respond to. You write,

        "Your claim that all attempts to give physical meaning to quantum mechanics have failed cannot possibly be true, because QM is founded in nothing BUT physical observation"

        Tom 'physical meaning' is not the same as 'physical observation'. If you feel that QM has indeed provided us with 'physical meaning', can you please explain your 'physical understanding' of wavefunctions and of QM more generally? Even the great Feynman humbly acknowledged that 'no one understands QM'.

        You write, "There is no "mind boggling mystery" in the calculation of the probability function,..."

        Well Tom, the calculations can and do 'boggle the mind' if these calculations have no 'physical meaning'. Are we now so far removed from reality to not even 'make sense' of what 'making sense' means? Even the revered Einstein asked of Bohr, "what is the physical picture"? Let's not confuss mathematical abstractions with reality! The failing of physics is in not providing physical explanations that make sense.

        As for associating in my essay the wavefunction with the quantity eta, this is a suggestion that seems to emerge from all the other results. Nothing more at this time.

        Looking over your post, I don't see in your comments anything about the most important results in my essay. To begin with, my mathematical derivation of Planck's Law using simple continuous processes and without needing energy quanta. As important is the demonstration that Planck's Law is a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. And this, I claim, explains why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from the theoretical curve.

        Tom, whether you believe these results are correct or not, don't you agree that these are significant and deserving of a careful review by the panel? And Tom, I am prepared to answer honest questions from referees concerning all my mathematical derivations in my essay. I only ask for that opportunity. You can help!

        Wishing you well,

        Constantinos

        In reading your paper I find one curious question. This is I think the same as the question I raised last summer. The equation δt/ħ = 1/kT defines a scale of fluctuation, here with a Euclideanized time. This is a scale of time where the observable uncertainty or disorder of a quantum system is equivalent to thermal fluctuations at some temperature. However, in much of what you do it appears to be used as a variable. It is used as a time in various integrations and as units in a time line. This step actually requires some subtle justification.

        Cheers LC

          Dear Lawrence,

          In "A World Without Quanta" there are no "scales of fluctuation" or "disorders of a quantum system". All the simple logic and mathematical derivations in my essay become clear and convincing if viewed without using the prism of current theory. I am not a physicist! I have no idea what you are talking about. But we can have a good conversation on the results in my essay if you keep to the language and terms I use in it.

          The time variable t is a continuous variable, but the equation you point to δt/ħ = 1/kT does not appear anywhere in my essay in that form. The closest to it, I think, is Δt = h/kT. If that is what you are referring to than I can explain that this duration of time is for an 'accumulation of energy' h to occur. This is a result shown in the essay.

          You write,

          "... in much of what you do it appears to be used as a variable..."

          If the 'it' is time t, then yes. It is a continuous variable. The view in all of this is of a 'continuous Universe'. The amazing think is that it is possible to have such a naïve view, and still explain and derive basic results in physics. That's all I can do! Perhaps you and others can do much more. Take it as 'food for thought' and see if it can nourish your physics.

          The key result in the essay is "Planck's Law is an exact mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement". The mathematical derivation is simple and elegant. It does not use 'energy quanta' or statistics. Furthermore I argue that it can fully explain why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from theory. Please comment on that!

          As a further enticement, I am about to post a paper that proves the following proposition using and extending the same ideas in my essay:

          "If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave"

          Please help me get this essay to the 'church'!

          Best regards,

          Constantinos

          Dear All,

          Using the same ideas in my essay, I am now able to mathematically prove the following proposition:

          IF THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT, THEN LIGHT IS A WAVE.

          I will be posting this result as soon as I have a clean writeup of it.

          Best wishes,

          Constantinos

          • [deleted]

          • Post #52

          Constantinos,

          I clicked on the link you generously left in your comment and indeed I am deeper into the rabbit's hole!

          Everything that exists comes from a prior condition. It was once something that could exist but did not exist. In that condition it was a potential, possibility, or probability. The distinction here would be how much otherness would have to occur in sequence and magnitude in order for its existence to become an actuality. If just a little a probability if more a possibility or if a lot a potential.

          In all cases the link to everything that could or does not exist is already established. And in this statement the most fundamental question is not what is it but what creates the "potential" of it. How can it and all other alternative its be accommodated in our sensory environment? It seems to me that the creation of a single it would have to include the potential for the existence of all alternative its.

          If reality is not deterministic but instead evolving from previous events, decisions and consequences we are not going to discover a creation event for it but a creation event for the potential of it and all other possible its. Is this your prime physis eta and was it created?

          Respectfully,

          Irvon

            • [deleted]

            • Post #53

            Hi Constantinos,

            Your Properties of Exponentials assumes (I suspect accidentally) the same "fundamental" form as Bose's Partition function (derived in the 1920's). Bose was also studying Planck's Blackbody Radiation Law, so it is no wonder that you and Bose agree on the form of your equations and agreement with experimental data.

            My point is that this Bose Partition function IS FUNDAMENTAL TO BOSONS. Photons are bosons, and therefore it is legit to use this for photons. BUT, fermions obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle, have a fundamentally different type of symmetry from bosons (now I'm reverting back to the importance of Supersymmetry in handling these two distinct and disjoint symmetries in a unified manner) and cannot be analyzed with Planck's Law.

            Planck's Law is great for studying photons, but unless all is photons (isn't that Jason Wolfe's claim?), you cannot use Planck's Law universally as your Rosetta stone.

            Have Fun!

            Dr. Cosmic Ray