[deleted]
I gave you a boost yesterday, but I think you might have given me a bigger boost than I gave you. I seem to get boosts now and then and then slowly sink downwards over a number of days.
Thanks LC
A World Without Quanta? by Constantinos Ragazas
Constantinos,
Congratulations on getting to where your essay will be evaluated!
There is good news on the C-field front!
The 12 Mar 2011 issue of 'Science News' has two articles on the C-field:
The first (p.14) states that the C-field generated by a spinning Black Hole imparts (detectable) angular momentum to light passing through the field, circularly polarizing the light. Martin Bojowald suggests upgrading most telescopes to search for more of this.
The second article (p.20) on quantum vortices has Kerson Huang of MIT speculating that the vortices in the (C-field) 'superfluid' after the big bang may be responsible for the gaps of empty space between galaxies.
From 'Fly-by' mysteries to spinning Black Holes to the Big Bang, the C-field is being recognized as having physical reality responsible for observable effects.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
[deleted]
Hi Constantinos,
I've already scored your essay. I think you have a great idea. This prime physis should be sufficient to explain the properties of gravity; although it may not be so obvious how, at the moment.
Your prime physis might be equivalent to what string theorists call, the brane.
[deleted]
Dear Constantinos,
You are the one mathematician in this contest that will ever get closest to what I am trying to convey spiritually / philosophically in Theory of everything. I wish you all the best in your pursuit to make the scientific world see what we are trying to convey. I hope that we can together make the science and spirituality converge and let the future generations enjoy the singularity of love.
Love and Peace,
Sridattadev.
[deleted]
Hi Constantinos,
I'm glad you are going to get the hearing you have been waiting for!
Best wishes,
Lev
[deleted]
I hope you win brother!
[deleted]
Dear All,
Thank you for your good wishes! I am humbled by your support.
best wishes,
Constantinos
Dear Constantinos,
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]
Alan,
Thank you for your post and good wishes.
Regarding gravity, however. Non of my papers deal with either gravity or electricity. And though I have some ideas, I am not prepared at this time to sensibly express them. Let me just say only that I don't believe in gravity as a Universal Law! I just don't believe in Universal Law entirely! I just can't imagine God setting forth 'universal laws' that men could know and God be so restricted. I think that God makes up the rules 'on the fly' and always a step or two ahead of any human understanding. In my opinion, we cannot 'explain' anything. The best we can do is simply 'describe' what we see.
Your Archimedes screw idea sounds mysterious to me. But I cant evaluate it to give you proper feedback. In all my papers I seek to 'make sense' of physics and provide physical meaning to physical ideas. At this time, I have no such sense about an Archimedes screw view of gravitons. Especially since I don't believe in gravitons! And as far as spacetime is concerned, my view is that this contradicts basic thermodynamics.
But that's just me. I don't rule out anything that has the power of explanation and that can make sense.
All the best,
Constantinos
Hello Constantinos,
As promised, I'm posting my comments on your essay. I'm not sure, if you will like it, but I've tried to do my best.
The main result is a claim that the well-known Planck radiation law could be derived mathematically, as " an exact mathematical identity (a tautology) that describes the interaction of energy". The presented derivation is based on the "Mathematical Identity" Eq.(1), where the r.h.s. depends on the average value Eav. Notice that the demanded integrability of E(t) is generally not sufficient for the existence of Eav, E(t) have to be at least continuous on the respective closed intervals. If Eav exists, then Eq.(1) becomes a trivial identity [math] \eta = \eta [/math] In my opinion, Eq.(1) and the whole "mathematical machinery" developed in the associated papers is rather superfluous for the task of "reverse engineering" the Planck formula. Instead, a direct calculation of Eav gives immediately
[math] E_{av} = \frac{1}{\tau}\int_{0}^{\tau}E_{0}e^{rt}dt = \frac{E_{0}}{r\tau}\left[e^{r\tau} - 1 \right] [/math]
and hence
[math] E_{0} = \frac{E_{av}r\tau}{e^{r\tau}-1} [/math]
which takes a Planck-like form. Assuming that the exponentiated expressions are equal
[math] r\tau = \frac{h\nu}{kT} [/math]
we get
[math] E_{av} = kT, \; \tau = \frac{h}{kT} [/math]
exactly as stated in your presentation. The assumption that
[math] \eta = h [/math]
is not needed here, notice also that the limit in Eq.(3) enforces that
[math] \eta = 0 [/math]
in contradiction to the previous statement (!)
The next problematic thing is the assumption that E(t) applies to the "sensor' rather than to the "source", because it seems to imply that the "source" radiates only when the radiation could be absorbed by an appropriate "sensor", tuned to the proper frequency. Notice that such a behavior would be rather awkward and, to my knowledge, was never observed.
The postulated "undefined and undefinable prime physis" fundamental quantity is another highly problematic thing. Several contradictory statements about the mysterious \eta quantity are scattered over the essay and the associated papers. According to the energy, momentum and force definitions given on page 4 of the essay it have to be a sufficiently smooth function of position and momentum variables. Later, on page 6, according to the discussion of the Schroedinger equation, it should be rather a complex-valued function to accommodate for the in general complex-valued wave function. Finally, while discussing the Planck constant h, there is a statement that "\eta can be any value". To my knowledge, a quantity which is compliant with all this statements cannot exist.
Well, maybe it means that a world without quanta cannot exist either ?
Best regards,
-Joachim.
[deleted]
Dear Joachim,
Thank you for taking the time to not only read my essay and referenced papers, but even to critique these on paper. I will try to answer you as clearly as I understand your points. Some of the mathematical notation did not clearly come through in the text and I'll try to piece together what you may have meant from the text itself.
1) "Notice that the demanded integrability of E(t) is generally not sufficient for the existence of Eav,"
I am not sure what you are saying here. If E(t) is an integrable function, then the integral of E(t) over an interval [0,t] must exist. And if such an integral of E(t) over an interval [0,t] exists, then certainly the 'average E' over that interval [0,t] must exist since this by definition is nothing but the ratio of the value of the integral over the interval. But this is just too simple to have escaped you! So you must have something else in mind! Whatever that may be, however, it is NOT what I have in mind. The math is clear and simple.
2) You write, "If Eav exists, then Eq.(1) becomes a trivial identity ".
Well YEA! That is a simple identity! But 'trivial' is a subjective assessment. That this simple mathematical identity leads to Planck's Law makes it not trivial at all, in my thinking!
3) You write, "Instead, a direct calculation of Eav gives immediately ... "
[sorry I can't cut/paste your equations here!].
Joachim, if you feel that calculating Eav is simpler, go for it! I don't see your point. Notice the clumsy backtracking that you are forced to do at the end of that series of derivations.
4) You write, "The assumption that η = h is not needed here"
That's because you made even bigger assumptions comparing Planck's Law with what you derived and setting exponential expression equal. I purposely wanted to avoid just that! But if you are comfortable with what you've done then I have no problem with this. Either way you are showing (as I am showing) that Planck's Law can be derived without using energy quanta. And that raises the possibility for "A World Without Quanta" existing!
5) You write, "notice also that the limit in Eq.(3) enforces that η = 0 in contradiction to the previous statement (!)"
Perhaps the mathematical limit enforces that η= 0. But since we cannot measure in physics below the threshold h, we have for all experimental purposes the mathematical limit produces once again Planck's Law. But as a best possible approximation rather than exact identity. And with lesser restrictions on E(t) - namely that E(t) be just any integrable function and not an exponential.
6) You write, "The next problematic thing is the assumption that E(t) applies to the "sensor' rather than to the "source", because it seems to imply that the "source" radiates only when the radiation could be absorbed by an appropriate "sensor", tuned to the proper frequency. Notice that such a behavior would be rather awkward and, to my knowledge, was never observed."
The 'sensor' is where measurement takes place or energy is absorbed. The 'interaction of measurement' is a functional relationship between the intensity of energy, the energy absorbed by the sensor, and the average energy. I simply wanted to contrast this with the traditional way Planck's Law was derived. You can choose to make something else of this, or not. If you do seek to make something else out of this distinction beyond what I was intending, then I am afraid you'll be missing the real point of my derivation - which is and remains as showing that Planck's Law is a mathematical identity that describes the interaction of measurement. It is a mathematical identity no less than the Pythagorean Theorem -- with application to Physics.
7) You write, "The postulated "undefined and undefinable prime physis" fundamental quantity is another highly problematic thing."
What I wanted to highlight with this is that starting with the quantity η it is possible to define and to mathematically derive Basic Law of Physics. I only gave a thumbnail sketch of this. Much is left out and needs to be filled in by others as well. I purposely avoided any discussion about any specific properties. But you are absolutely correct in that the definitions of energy, momentum, and force do require that η be smooth. I only alluded to Schrodinger's equation as having the same underlying form as the definition of energy I give. I simply overlooked all constants and i in making such very broad comparison. But that's all. It is meant only as an interesting suggestion for others to consider.
Hope I adequately addressed your points.
Best wishes,
Constantinos
Hello again Constantinos,
Let me clarify my points:
1) If E(t) is not continuous in [0,t], but only integrable, then Eav may be "out of range", i.e. not allowed as a value of E(t). Certainly, exponential real functions used in your derivations are extremely regular and not affected by such problems. Indeed, "the math is clear and simple" in such cases, but nevertheless the general statements are flaved when seeen as rigorous mathematics.
2) Well, I guess that starting from Eq.(1) it is possible to promote many known relations or "laws" to "mathematical identities (tautologies)" in a similar way, the key is here to find the right, sufficiently regular functions (like exponentials in your essay) and a justification to fix appropriately some "free parameters" (like Eav=kT)
3) Indeed, it is a "clumsy backtracking" :-) Or a "fit" if your permit, which sounds more "scientific" :-) But your approach is, in my humble opinion, in the same league, only done in a different, rather excrutiating way.
4) Well, a "fit" is always only a "fit", even if done in different steps. I do not think, that it may be regarded as a "mathematical derivation of the Planck Law".
5) In a mathematical approach to physical problems we cannot change the rules because of some physical limitations or constraints, otherwise we may get at best some heuristics, if not plainly wrong results. We may of course change the employed mathematics and, e.g., use nonstandard analysis instead, but always in consistent way!.
6) From the physical point of view, a blackbody radiates because it is a blackbody, and the Planck formula describes that radiation sufficiently well when compared with experimental data. There are several known derivatons of the Planck formula, the Einstein derivation [Phys.Z.18, 121 (1917)] based on a two-level model involves also an exponential form for E(t) at the "source". But it is not only a"fit" or Ansatz there, as it reflects the statistics of the radiating atoms at thermal equilibrium, i.e. it tells us something about the possible radiation mechanism.
The measurement of the blackbody radiation is another story, and if we want to measure the radiation itself, we have to eliminate somehow the detector influence, usually through proper setup and calibration. The detector radiates too !
The model presented in your essay tries to describe the interaction between the radiating blackbody and a detector working in a very specific way and it is at the same time claimed that it reflects exactly the radiating blackbody. This is a wrong approach in my opinion, although it may lead nevertheless to a correct formula. The Ansatz for E(t) (I mean here the formula itself) does not allow for a differentiation between the "source" and the "sensor".
7) The statements about the "prime physis" quantity that may be found at various places in the essay and the papers are really confusing. Particularily, the identity \eta=\eta, remainded me at some point the famous verse "I am that I am" from the Torah.
Going down to earth, "prime physis" have to be rather an action functional, maybe something in the spirit of the Hamilton-Jacobi or Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman approaches. In principle, it should allow to derive most of your statements about energy, momentum, etc., without sacrifying mathematical rigor. On the other hand, I'm afraid that it would be hard to get some new physics out of it, or even some new results in that way, unless the system under consideration will be sufficiently complicated (as, e.g., in Ref.18 or Ref.20).
Best regards,
-Joachim.
[deleted]
Hello Joachim,
Let me clarify your points:
1) You write, "... Eav may be "out of range", i.e. not allowed as a value of E(t)". Nowhere in any of my results is Eav associated with a particular time, say E(t) = Eav. So this objection is mute and inconsequential.
2) You write, "... I guess that starting from Eq.(1) it is possible to promote many known relations or "laws" to "mathematical identities (tautologies)" in a similar way".
Certainly mathematical identities can be applied to physics whenever appropriate. I am using this 'trivial' mathematical identity Eq.(1) to derive Planck's Law. But if you know of other such applications of this 'trivial' identity to physics, I'd be very happy to know about them? But what's your point? Say there were 100 more such applications (like there are probably for the Pythagorean Theorem), does that take away anything from this application to Planck's Law? Please ...
3) You write, "...I do not think, that it may be regarded as a "mathematical derivation of the Planck Law"."
Actually, I am showing Planck's Law is only a reflection in Physics of a larger mathematical truth! Planck's Law I show is not a 'Law of Physics' but rather a Mathematical Identity applied to Physics. In much the same way that we can apply the Pythagorean theorem to measure distance. Here, we are measuring 'intensity of energy', knowing the amount of energy that is absorbed at a given temperature. Of course, this happens when measurement is made! And that is exactly why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from that obtained using Planck's Law!!!
4) You write, "In a mathematical approach to physical problems we cannot change the rules because of some physical limitations or constraints,..."
What rules am I changing? Or do you mean our 'views' which in fact do constraint us and mentally limit us? Physics has failed to provide us with a 'physical view' that 'makes sense'. It's time we change the rules! We can start with a proper understanding of Planck's Law as a mathematical identity that describes the interaction of measurement!
5) You write, "From the physical point of view, a blackbody radiates because it is a blackbody,"
Oh! And I thought it was because of some oscillators that clink on to the wall of a furnace! Now I know better! It is really because "a blackbody radiates because it is a blackbody". That makes perfect physical sense. Thank you!
6) You write, "... the identity \eta=\eta, remainded me at some point the famous verse "I am that I am" from the Torah"
That's the nature of IDENTITY! You should read the Torah more faithfully. It contains much truth!
7) You write, "..."prime physis" have to be rather an action functional..."
I left eta as an undefined quantity in my essay. Thus, all the results I have listed are purely mathematical and very general. Of course, these mathematical results are Basic Law in Physics - such as Newton's Second law of Motion, Conservation of Energy and Momentum, Kinetic Energy, Boltzman's Entropy Equation, etc. Planck's constant is such a quantity eta! Eta can be thought as being both 'action' as well as 'accumulation of energy'. All these results are obtained without prescribing any structure or properties to eta. If we were to give eta more specific structure, we will be able to obtain more results! I can only do so much! Perhaps you can do more ...
Best,
Constantinos
Constantinos,
let me try once again, hopefully this time with more success:
1) It seems that either "integrable" is synonymous to "continuous on closed intervals" in your essay/papers, or you questioning some well known mathematical results. As I wrote, only the general statements involving "any integrable function" are problematic. If still in doubt, then consult a reasonable calculus handbook or ask a friendly mathematician.
2) Well, just try the same with the Fermi-Dirac distribution, with the Ansatz E(t)=E0e-rt and apropriate "fit", this time fitting for -rt, and voila, you have it!
But it is only "the art of fitting", nothing more.
You skipped my point 3), does it mean that you agree with me here ?
In the following 3) below refers to my point 4), and so on.
3) "Mathematical truth" refers to formal constructions, developed in an axiomatical/deductive way, while "physical truth" reflects the knowledge gained from experiments. In theoretical physics, mathematical methods are used to model the "physical truth", maybe with predictive results, but nothing more. Even the most elegant results have to be rejected if not confirmed experimentally. Sure, Pythagorean theorem may be used to measure distances, but this theorem does not impose that the physical space is Euclidean!
4) You wrote "What rules am I changing ?" Let me cite your answer on the pointed out contradiction:"Perhaps the mathematical limit enforces that \eta= 0. But since we cannot measure in physics below the threshold h, we have for all experimental purposes the mathematical limit produces once again Planck's Law"
It seems that you simply ignore the results that are inconvenient.
5) The blackbody radiation is a property of the blackbody, therefore in a sense "blackbody radiates because it is a blackbody" as I wrote in my previous posting in a somewhat strange-looking wording.
If you determine the radiation spectrum of some object, and it can be identified as blackbody spectrum corresponding to a definite temperature T, then this object is identified as a blackbody heated to the temperature T.
It seems that you ignored the rest of my point 6) ? Because I think it is important, let me repeat it below:
--------
The measurement of the blackbody radiation is another story, and if we want to measure the radiation itself, we have to eliminate somehow the detector influence, usually through proper setup and calibration. The detector radiates too !
The model presented in your essay tries to describe the interaction between the radiating blackbody and a detector working in a very specific way and it is at the same time claimed that it reflects exactly the radiating blackbody. This is a wrong approach in my opinion, although it may lead to a correct formula. The Ansatz for E(t) (I mean here the formula itself) does not allow for a differentiation between the "source" and the "sensor".
--------
In other words, a blackbody radiates in approximately the same way when measured or not. Just imagine a device for remote temperature measurement, do you think that the temperature of the measured object is as indicated on the device only during the measurement ? And what when the device is broken ?
6) Although I agree with your statement about Torah, I'm still confused by the contradicting statements about \eta, see below
7) You wrote: "I left eta as an undefined quantity in my essay. Thus, all the results I have listed are purely mathematical and very general."
Pardon me, but it is simply impossible to derive _any_ results for an undefined quantity. Or I'm missing something important here ? Maybe you mean the physical interpretation of \eta, not the definition ?
Any mathematical construction needs a non-contradictory set of axioms, definitions, etc., otherwise it is _not_ mathematics for sure.
You wrote also: "Perhaps you can do more ..." Maybe, but I'll definitely start from checking the present status of such approaches, look for similarities, etc. One could waste a lot of time trying to crack open doors!
Best regards,
-Joachim.
[deleted]
Joachim,
I can see that you like to argue! Me too! This can go on for a very long time! Hope one of us gets tired of this soon!
You write: "...consult a reasonable calculus handbook or ask a friendly mathematician."
My background is mathematics! An 'integrable function' is by definition one whose integral EXISTS! And if the integral exists over [0,t] than the ratio of the integral over the interval also exists. By definition this ratio IS the AVERAGE! Please ...
You write: "You skipped my point 3), does it mean that you agree with me here ?".
No I do not agree with you! I just got tired of addressing irrelevant trivialities whose only aim is to divert the discussion from the more salient relevant points.
I think I will stop with that!
Constantinos
Dear Constantinos,
Indeed, our discussion seems to lead nowhere. I do not think that my points are only "irrelevant trivialities", just ask another competent persons about that.
I wrote my comments only because you asked for it, and because we are here at FQXi to discuss even the strangiest things.
All the best and good luck with your efforts,
-Joachim.
Dear Lawrence,
You seem to see in my derivation of Planck's Formula Laplace transform. That may lead you to some deeper insights, but from my perspective I don't see the point. I just lose the physical meaning of that math.
All the results in my essay have a clear and simple physical meaning and are mathematically argued. What is the physical meaning of the Laplace transform you are arguing I inadvertently used in my derivation of Planck's formula? And does this also show what I am showing? Namely, that Planck's formula is a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. This is why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from the one obtained from Planck's formula.
I do not argue with the mathematics used in physics. Rather, I argue with the physics in the mathematics used. What motivates me in this intellectual venture is my desire to understand physics physically. Modern Physics lacks physical meaning that makes sense. The 'man in the street' knows more about 'time travel', for example, than the theorist who with mathematical certainty asserts it.
We need 'physical realism'. I show in my essay this is possible. My derivation of Planck's Formula avoids energy quanta and discrete statistics. In this view, we gain a clearer understanding of what the Formula actually means.
Constantinos
Constantinos,
Okay and thanks for the reply.
Kind regards,
Alan
Hello Anthony Dicarlo,
Thanks for your email. Sorry that I wasn't as clear as I thought I was in describing the physics that you thought you'd find in the essay. Especially since my main objective is greater 'physical realism' in physics. One suggestion perhaps that may help. Don't try to understand the essay from the perspective of current physics! It's much simpler than that! Certainly, don't look to find in the essay a formulation of physics based on 'information'.
In the first sentence that you referenced, I wasn't attempting in any way to trace the history of quantum physics. Rather, I was only setting the stage for the discussion to follow in the essay. And that originates with Planck's Law which even now is taken to conclusively demonstrate the existence and need of 'energy quanta'. The central theme in my essay is to show that this just is not necessary. I provide a mathematical derivation of Planck's Law which does not use quanta and discrete statistics. In fact, I demonstrate that Planck's Law is not even a 'physical law' that in some deep way depends and describes some inner workings of the Universe. This Law I show is a mathematical tautology. It describes how we can calculate identically the 'intensity of energy' from the 'changes in energy' (the amount of energy absorbed by the sensor) at a given temperature.
You write, "I can't quite envision a physical model of your "interaction of energy." "
Simple: Consider a sensor that can absorb energy (something like a thermometer). Think of the sensor at some fixed point. The sensor is radiated by energy with intensity E0 and after a short interval of microscopic time Δt the sensor absorbs an amount of energy ΔE (as with osmosis). These 'equal size sips' of energy ΔE occur in discrete imperceptible steps Δt which collectively raise the sensor (thermometer) to that final reading. This explains why the final reading is not reached asymptotically but is reached actually through such discrete Δt steps. Planck's Law I argue is a mathematical tautology that describes at each discrete step Δt how E0 and ΔE are related at a given temperature T. The 'interaction of energy' here is the radiation/absorption that takes place at the sensor.
You further write, "please provide me with one piece of information you can obtain regarding the cosmos that does not include as the root electromagnetic coupling to your senses. "
I would even go further and argue that even the "electromagnetic coupling to your senses" is only our human way of understanding such experience. I don't go that far in my essay to explain how we humans can know! But I can say with certainty that I know Planck's Law is a mathematical tautology and not some 'physical law'.
All the best,
Constantinos
Please read this ADDENDUM to my essay:Attachment #1: ADDENDUM_to_the_essay_Ragazas.pdf