A World Without Quanta? by Constantinos Ragazas

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.

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.

Constantinos,

Okay and thanks for the reply.

Kind regards,

Alan

I'm still rooting for you brother! :) May your heart be at peace, and your mind beautiful.

Yasu Constantinos

As I understand it your essay and addenum are mathematical elucidations of a physically realistic model of physics based on a unique new derivation of Planck's constant (h). That is great. You singled out Einstein's quantum assumption as the basis of the conceptual troubles that faced quantum mechanics later on. I fully agree with your approach and think that that the idea (that the photon is a point in space as well as a package of energy) is at the basis of half the trouble with the foundational understanding (and future development) of physics today. I have presented my reasons for that in my present fqxi paper and also in the earlier 2005 Beautiful Universe paper on which it is based.

You have presented the idea of energy absorption in "equal-sized sips" that is only manifested when 'delta E' energy is accumulated. As I understand this is somehow related to the so-called 'semi-classical theory' that has been debated following Einstein's 1905 paper and then abandoned when Schrodinger presented his equation. I liken the gradual absorption of energy in the sensor and its sudden release to that of water in the Japanese garden 'deer-chaser' mechanism .

The other half of the trouble with physics today that you do not deal with (gravity and quantum mechanics incompatibility) is also due to one of Einstein's assumptions - the constancy of the speed of light in SR (and GR) and again the sensible objections raised at the time were swept away by SR's success, albeit for the wrong reasons. I wish I had your skill to describe my physical intuitions in mathematical form! Incidentally your continuous derivation of planck's constant (h) solves a fundamental problem in my own theory: the spinning of the universal node I theorized is continuous yet the transfer of momentum is in units of (h). Your formulation can explain that little problem.

Best wishes from Vladimir

Dear Constantinos,

More power to us to help demystify physics - I cannot imagine it will be easy to do that using our partial forays against this or that concept - it is all connected, and unless it is all re-written correctly from scratch it will not be a clear and simple theory.

I mention this because your starting point is accepting the c=constant hypothesis, then you cleverly show that assuming light velocity is constant implies wave motion, On the other hand you reject the concept of spacetime because of the thermodynamics argument. However the constancy of the speed of light is the basis and reason for flexible and continuous spacetime. This may constitute a contradiction?

In my theory I assume that light velocity in vacuum is not constant but is a maximum of c and slows down in gravitational fields - the concept of spacetime has to be trashed once and for all, and the Lorentz transformations applied in an 'absolute' universe as I have outlined.

Best wishes from Vladimir

Hello Vladimir,

You write, "...your starting point is accepting the c=constant hypothesis...".

Just to clarify this point, nothing in my essay or papers assume CSL. It is not needed, it is not necessary, it is not relevant to my work. To tell the truth, I really have not much considered SR or GR in my work, with the exception of the spacetime continuum. And this only in the context of my results concerning entropy, time, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. For me it makes so much sense that there must be a positive duration of time for any physical event to occur. That it just is plainly false to talk about 'events' happening instantaneously at t = s.

I believe that CSL must be derived and not simply assumed. I have some ideas how that can be, which are in line with what you argue: that c is a maximum but the speed of light can vary in a 'vacuum'. One problem! I don't believe in 'vacuums'. Though we can think and consider 'empty space' as a mathematical abstraction, physically and philosophically it does not make sense. 'Physical space' by definition can't possibly be 'empty'.

All the best,

Constantinos

Hello Constantinos

Sorry if I misunderstood your ideas. I too do not believe in the vacuum (in my theory everything - matter space, radiation is made up of the lattice nodes, but I used the word vacuum to stress the fact that the speed of light can change in a gravitational potential in space...a different case than when it slows down while passing through a transparent medium such as glass or water (refraction). In fact the two effects are identical in my theory ...

It is interesting to think of things this way: Einstein proposed CSL = contracting space / dilating time. In other words observations are absolute (light) but spacetime are relative. This is so physically unrealistic and unnecessary. Rather, think of it this way: c = variable measured distance traveled / fixed (absolute) time interval. In fact as many have argued - a time interval can be thought of as a change of state of the entire universe and there is not time dimension. I wonder how the laws of thermodynamics can be stated in such a world?

Best wishes from Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

I am entirely guided by 'physical realism' in all my reflections and reasoning in physics. I have as much trouble with 'lattice points' as I do with 'vacuums'! Does that mean that 'vacuums' and 'lattice points' cannot be considered? I don't go that far. Certainly these and other abstract mathematical formulations have been successfully used in physics.

But here is my problem with all this. We do not 'know' what all these results so obtained mean! These don't 'make sense' to us, though we believe these have 'mathematical certainty'. Physics, unlike mathematics, requires more of us. Having 'mathematical certainty' is not enough! We must also maintain the connection of our ideas with our 'senses'. Who do you trust to know the truth about time-travel. The 'man in the street' or the 'theoretical physicists'?

Simply put, all my efforts are to 'find meaning where meaning is not found'. I have done that successfully with Planck's Law; showing that the counter-intuitive concept of 'energy quanta' and 'bundles of energy' is not necessary. In my essay I prove that Planck's Law is a 'mathematical truism' and not a 'physical law' and can be derived continuously without statistics.

Have you discussed your ideas with Peter Jackson and Ray Munroe? They may be more in tune with this than I.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Dear Constantinos,

You are more focused in your approach to physics than my rather swashbuckling forays into imagined worlds of nodes gyrating to create us and our universe!

Perhaps both our approaches are necessary, considering how mainstream physics seems to hover between the entrenched even ossified positions of many physicists, with the wild quantum-weirdness-many-universes infinite dimensions where 'anything goes' seems to be the slogan. Both Peter Jackson and Ray Munroe have already kindly encouraged me with their stimulating responses. I should spend more time on physics and hope to do so. More power to them and to you.

Vladumir

lightness and purity of one of the three also because the successful operation of generation Mido Mido beauty lies in .

Dear Constantinos Ragazas,

Our opinions about 'mathematics' and 'modern physics' converge: 'Writing bad physics using good mathematics leads to counter-intuitive physical explanations', and 'modern physics does not provide physical explanations that make sense'. As you have stated somewhere above, physical realism is necessary, and is possible; and I would like to add, physical realism is the truth.

The existing convention is that we arrive at certain 'mathematical relations', verify these with experimental results, and based on these arrive at conclusions regarding 'the nature of the physical world'. This may appear to be the right path. But mathematics can trick us. A unique mathematical relation can have different physical interpretations, from which we have to select the right one. But from the time of Newton, physicists habitually selected the interpretation that looked 'mathematically simple and beautiful'. They did not care whether there can be other interpretations. The net result is that we have arrived at wrong conclusions that does not make any sense.

What is required is a 'physicalist' approach: Out of the possible interpretations based on a certain equation, select 'one' that has a clear physical meaning. And it is possible to do so. The equations of Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics and relativity mechanics can be interpreted in alternate ways to obtain physical explanations having sense. Please go through my essay: A physicalist interpretation of the relation between Physics and Mathematics.

Regarding energy I would like to ask a question: What is energy? My answer is that fundamental particles of matter move at speed 'c', or motion is a fundamental property of matter. Energy is a measure of this motion, and is always discrete. If you feel interested, please visit my site: finitenesstheory.com.