How is local causality possible?

[glengarry]

Instead of this:

"Matter tells space how to bend and space tells matter how to move"

We say something like this:

"A wave function tells the field equations how to bend space and bent space tells other wave functions how to move"

Is that an interesting thought?

 

[billschnieder]

Local causality simply means only local causes and effects are possible. By local we mean in the 3-dimensional vicinity of the event. In other words, non-local causes and effects must propagate no faster than the speed of light. So how is this possible? I would say it part and parcel of our collective experience.

Shouldn't you be asking how non-local causality is possible?

 

[ansgar]

No, mathematics is the reality. What we see with our eyes is not. If maths says something you think is wrong, then you are wrong, not maths.

Quantum physics is connected to real world. Our senses are not, they are just tricks the evolution gave to chimps so they can eat more bananas. Maths is our only way to explore reality, even if it gives us answers an average chimp would not believe.

I would just stick to "math is a better way to describe reality than our senses"... our way to think of math is also just a product of evolution ;)

 

[ansgar]

No, many theoretical physicsts would say that even the term 'description' is too strong. That is, according to the standard, Bohr/Bell notion of QM, the only thing involved is the prediction of the results of a given experimental arrangement over an infinite number of trials.

I am a theoretical physicsts...

description means in this sense mapping world onto a mathematical formulated theory

 

[ansgar]

You are mistaking my meaning entirely. First of all, I absolutely do not believe in the scientific method, if our working definition for this notion is that already proven theories must necessarily pass an additional round of [empirical] testing in order to be 'sanctified.'

but since physicists DO follow the scientific method, isn't this the very reason for your "objections"?

You should instead firstly argue WHY one should not follow the scientific method more generally THEN discuss your issue with local causality...

 

[inflector]

No, mathematics is the reality. What we see with our eyes is not. If maths says something you think is wrong, then you are wrong, not maths.

IMHO, this is a complete crock of bird excrement.

IF, you had mathematics that was sufficiently developed to describe reality, and IF you had the correct equations, then mathematics would model reality sufficiently to believe the math above all else. Until then, forget it.

There is so much in physics that physicists do not yet understand that there is no way you can say that our current math IS REALITY.

Math is nothing more than condensed logic and analysis notation. It is a very useful way of reusing the brainpower and analytical thinking of other bright people in the past. It is one of humanity's greatest ongoing achievements. If you have the right equations, and that's a BIG IF, you can make lots of inferences from those equations because of the work of thousands of mathematicians before you. But if the equations are wrong, the conclusions will be wrong.

Much of the work of science has been the discovery of better equations and models to represent reality.

For 200 years, science had Newton's equation for gravity. Perhaps you would have thought that the math in Newton's equation represented reality if you had lived 150 years ago. You would have been wrong then as you are undoubtedly wrong now.

Physics does not have a valid theory which combines gravity and quantum mechanics. We know that general relativity and quantum mechanics are not compatible. So which part of the "reality" of the math should we believe when they contradict each other?

The most arrogant and amusing mistake in science, and one that keeps on repeating, is to think that the current theory will never be replaced with a better one in the future.

 

[haael]

IF, you had mathematics that was sufficiently developed to describe reality, and IF you had the correct equations, then mathematics would model reality sufficiently to believe the math above all else. Until then, forget it.

I meant mathematics in general, not our current theories.

 

[zonde]

Now, I want to talk about the differences between this thread and the thread called, "https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=395509""

The problem with that thread is that it assumes the reality of something called 'local causality,' for which, as I have tried to show, there is not a sensible 'theory' of it in existence.

You talked about problems with interacting point particles. How did you jumped from problems with point particles to problems with local causality?
How local causality depend from concept of point particles?

On the contrary, if we start from the simple assumption that physical bodies, in their most elementary sense, do indeed occupy three-dimensional space, then we can start to put some puzzle pieces in place.

Now, the great thing about quantum theory is that the 'probability wave' concept of QM is not the only one in existence. That is, we have this thing called the 'wave function' and we are allowed, theoretically, to do whatever we damn well want with it, as long as what we happen to do with it is indeed logically warranted.

Now you jump from volume of physical bodies to wave function without apparent connection.

Have to say it's very hard to follow your reasoning.

 

[RUTA]

So, I am trying to do my best to get some of the clearest thinkers in this forum to put in their two cents in terms of how they might—deep down inside—like to see the discipline that is known as theoretical physics get out of its, for all practical purposes, 80-year-long rut.

Here is my idea: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0908.4348. This is the revision in the "revise and resubmit" stage at Foundations of Physics. You can just read the intro and conclusion, the mathematical physics in the middle is thick. Keep in mind that it's simply an idea -- it's not accepted for publication yet (and it may not be).

 

[DrChinese]

This statement just shows how "off the mark" you are in terms of how the typical theoretical physicist understands the nature of his/her own profession.

You said this responding to haael. I would say few theoretical physicists believe that QM = = reality. QM is a theory, and theories have utility. So accusing the majority of the field of something based on one person's statement is "off the mark".

 

[glengarry]

Local causality simply means only local causes and effects are possible.

Yes, and as I have tried to show, this kind of phenomenology, is in fact, theoretically impossible, with the result being that the term 'local causality' is meaningless.

By local we mean in the 3-dimensional vicinity of the event.

Wrong. There is no rigorous, mathematical definition for the word 'local,' apart from the concept of the geometric point.

In other words, non-local causes and effects must propagate no faster than the speed of light. So how is this possible? I would say it part and parcel of our collective experience.

If there is no such thing as 'local causality,' and if the word 'local' is the only way that we have heretofore come to understand the word 'cause,' then there is obviously a need to reframe this word in a new context--with the implication being that the word will possibly fall completely out of favor, in the most theoretically fundamental sense.

Shouldn't you be asking how non-local causality is possible?

Given all of the above, I think it stands to reason that this question, quite possibly, is perfectly meaningless. That is, unless we want to redefine the term 'location' to mean...

 

[glengarry]

I am a theoretical physicsts...description means in this sense mapping world onto a mathematical formulated theory

This idea of 'mapping' is indeed one way of thinking about what physical theorization entails. But in the end, all we get with a 'map' is a distorted, scaled down representation of the objects of experience simply so we can perform some task, by way of having the ability to predict an outcome. And in today's intellectual climate, this idea of 'mapping' is the apex of the possibilities in which the majority of employed theoreticians view their occupation. I happen to find this state of affairs distressing.

You can think of me more in the model of Einstein, in the sense that I have constantly been looking for a way in which to 'picture' reality, as it is; that is--what do these things that we call 'atoms' essentially 'look like'? In other words, what is the ultimate form of matter?

But the problem with today's intellectual culture is that the very question is somehow verboten. That is, we aren't even supposed to ask it, for fear of being branded as 'unrealistic Platonists.' My entire point is that it is rather Aristotlean realism itself that is the barrier when it comes to making progress in terms of developing believable, purely ideal models of the physical universe. This is why I am trying to drum up support for a group of unrepentant, unapologetic rationalist-idealists who want to collectively effect a radical overthrow of the sickly, decaying institution that is known as academic theoretical physics. And oh yeah... I might happen to know of the whereabouts of some serious weaponry that will allow this to happen!

 

[glengarry]

but since physicists DO follow the scientific method, isn't this the very reason for your "objections"?

You should instead firstly argue WHY one should not follow the scientific method more generally THEN discuss your issue with local causality...

All I'm trying to say is that the notion of a need to 'empirically prove' a thing (i.e. 'theory'), which in itself is proof is a thoroughly backward way of viewing the entire paradigm of the theoretical project, and it leads to things like vicious circles, contradictions, and other forms of 'logic hell.' I think I've been very clear on why this reasoning is the case, and you might be wise to carefully read the writings of guys like Bohr, Einstein, and Bell, when they are, in so many words, saying precisely the same things that I am saying. The only difference is, in their cases, their professional reputations (i.e. salaries) were contingent on the fact that the public institutions that supported them thought that their works possessed some kind of fairly immediate, productive consequences--for example, the Manhattan project. For this reason, they could not afford to be nearly as blunt as I am being.

 

[glengarry]

Physics does not have a valid theory which combines gravity and quantum mechanics.

Not one that is widely known or 'generally accepted,' but that doesn't mean that there isn't one anywhere in existence!

We know that general relativity and quantum mechanics are not compatible.

Only if you assume that scalar distinctions are 'real' rather than mere prejudices caused by everyday experience. But other than that, like I said in a post above, how about something like...

"A wave function tells the field equations how to bend space and bent space tells other wave functions how to move"

Anyone interested in how this can work, conceptually and mathematically speaking?

 

[glengarry]

You talked about problems with interacting point particles. How did you jumped from problems with point particles to problems with local causality? How local causality depend from concept of point particles?

I just want to know how it can possibly be the case that these two notions are not dependent upon one another. That is, if our only rigorous definition of 'location' is one and the same with the geometric point, then it stands to reason that a logically consistent theory of local causality will have to show how it is possible that there can be a phenomenology of inter-acting geometric points. It seems to me to be patently obvious that even the slightest bit of thought on this matter will show that such a theory is indeed an impossibility.

Furthermore, continuous field theories have nothing whatever to say on this matter because a 'field,' conceptually speaking, is simply a restatement of the fact that the momentum of a body has been, is being, or will be altered at some point in time. And of course, quantized fields have nothing new to offer, because such a thing only represents a subset of all of the possible locations within a continuous field.

Now you jump from volume of physical bodies to wave function without apparent connection.

Have to say it's very hard to follow your reasoning.

Do you even know what the Schrodinger equation, as such, is? It is a dynamical, space-filling object--i.e. a generalized wave equation whose solutions give us things called 'standing waves.' See: The Laplace equation.

 

[glengarry]

You said this responding to haael. I would say few theoretical physicists believe that QM = = reality. QM is a theory, and theories have utility. So accusing the majority of the field of something based on one person's statement is "off the mark".

Yes, that was my exact point. He/She said "Quantum physics describes true reality" and I was saying that theoretical physicists, in general, wouldn't tend to make statements of such an unsophisticated nature. My only accusation, in this instance, was towards haael. My accusation against the mainstream theoretical physics establishment is an altogether different point that I was not making here.

 

[Frame Dragger]

@Glengarry: Ahh, Glengarry, not to get all "Glenross" on you, but you can respond to many things in one or two SINGLE posts, and that makes it much easier to keep a thread... well... tidy.

I also may not know Zonde or even grasp why he holds some of the views he does, but I'm fairly certain that he's familiar with the Schrodinger Equation... as that is pretty much de rigour for knowing ANYTHING about QM. For the rest, I've read 3 pages of you pushing a personal "thesis" (aka your idea of how things are) sans any references or math of note to back it. Given the tone you're now adopting, don't you think that might be wise, when making the level of claim you're trying to assert?

@Haael: I think Inflector has the right of it. You're backpedaling so quickly that it's leaving skidmarks on the pavement. Math is amazing, and QM is marvelously predictive... until the next descriptive theory comes along, or a fusion of QM and GR replaces both. Bottom line, what you mean is being lost in your zeal to tout an absolute mathematical truth, which is something I usually only hear from my old Rabbi as a way to link physics-math-god.

@All: Maybe this forum needs a "Philosophy of Science/Semantics" Subforum.

 

[glengarry]

Here is my idea: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0908.4348. This is the revision in the "revise and resubmit" stage at Foundations of Physics. You can just read the intro and conclusion, the mathematical physics in the middle is thick. Keep in mind that it's simply an idea -- it's not accepted for publication yet (and it may not be).

So many things to say and so little time :)

Okay, so far, I have only looked at the thing, and only read a handful of sentences. Here is my initial assessment, in the BIG scheme of things:

I have come up with this general equation as regards theoretical proposals:

"How interesting" = "How good an idea"/(complexity * length)

In other words, Bell had this theme that he constantly brought up in his writings, and it just had to do with whether or not a theoretical question is, in fact, 'interesting.' So, the only thing that caused his own 1964 paper, and the original EPR paper of 1935 that inspired it to be 'interesting,' was that, when the appropriate variables were input into this equation, the result was—relatively speaking, of course—a very high one.

The point here is that there could very easily be very good ideas that are lost within a muddle of—I want put this as politely as possible—'extreme learnedness,' to the point where the 'How interesting' result is approaching zero. But this is the how the machinery that is modern theoretical physics operates.

You see, there is, buried deep down inside all of us, a tiny little Einstein who just wants to imagine great things and then write them down in ways that are undeniably compelling, to even the most 'amateur' of theoreticians.

Just think of it this way. You've just come up with a new whiz-bang microprocessor that is capable of feats of wonder. And you desperately want to inspire people to put its uses to full advantage, so that word will spread as to how great your product is, and so you can sell them by the boatloads. So what do you you? You need to write a manual on how to use the thing, of course. So the question at hand is: Are you going to waste anybody's time with a manual that is unnecessarily long or complex, or are you going to describe how to use its features as plainly and as efficiently as possible? That is, isn't this latter way of doing things the way that is truly beautiful and inspiring? And isn't this going to make your product appear to be all the more 'interesting'?

The problem with today's intellectual culture is that the notions of 'interesting' and 'erudite' are throughly conflated, to the point where the goal in theoretical physics (and other academic fields) is no longer to stimulate and to elevate the reader by way of creating works of sublime beauty; it is rather to give off an appearance of intellectual superiority so that the reader surrenders his or her will-power to the author—who is trying to represent a position of authoritativeness (get it: author<=>authority ?), but who in all reality, is attempting a bluff in order to hide an idea that is probably not altogether 'good.'

The cure to all of this is for theoreticians to start coming up with 'good' ideas, and then to allow the ideas to speak for themselves (just as the microprocessor manufacturer wants the product in question to speak for itself). That is, the best thing that a writer can do is to just 'get the hell out of the way,' because if the idea is indeed 'good,' then it will, of its own nature, expose itself in a way so as to maximize the final result of the 'How interesting' equation.

What I'm trying to say is that I, too, have an idea that I think is pretty darn 'good,' if I do say so myself. And through all of these posts, I have just tried to let this idea do the writing, in hopes that you will find what I have written to be 'interesting'—in the sense that Bell talked about so many times. So, what I am coming to realize, is that the entire process of writing papers for today's journals is set up in order to ensure that the result of the 'How interesting' equation is sure to be minimized. For, it is only in this way that the academic professions can continue in the anonymous, workman-like fashions that they currently enjoy.

So, yeah, whosoever wants to allow the intellectual culture to continue in its current fashion will write in ways so as to appear as 'worldly' and 'learned' as possible while keeping all of their really cool ideas bottled deep inside of themselves. But if not, I mean if you really want to be the next Einstein, you are going to have to learn how to say things like:

"A wave function tells the field equations how to bend space and bent space tells other wave functions how to move"

Isn't that just a little 'interesting'?

 

[haael]

@Haael: I think Inflector has the right of it. You're backpedaling so quickly that it's leaving skidmarks on the pavement. Math is amazing, and QM is marvelously predictive... until the next descriptive theory comes along, or a fusion of QM and GR replaces both. Bottom line, what you mean is being lost in your zeal to tout an absolute mathematical truth, which is something I usually only hear from my old Rabbi as a way to link physics-math-god.

My internal Rabbi tells me so: the reality either is maths or it just doesn't exist. Do you believe in existence of puppies, girls or Moon? I guess so. Then, do you believe in existence of atoms? Electrons? Pi mesons? Wavefunctions? Gauge fields? Symmetries? Where does your experience cease to be "reality" and starts to be a "theory", model, map, description?

I suspect people cannot accept QM as reality, because it is just too odd. If current physics was about solid tiny colliding rocks, no one would complain. Also, I guess when people call QM only a model, deep in their hearts they wait for some true theory, that will hopefully not contain all that probabilities, entanglements and collapses. However, my prophecy is that the next physical theory will be even more strange. You will be missing these days when physics was about something so intuitive as quantum entanglement.

I'm saying that QM is real, in the sense: all quantum phenomena really do exist and this is not just a computational trick. Further theories will replace QM, but quanta themselves won't go away.

So, either you accept QM as reality or you will never accept any physical theory as reality. But in the latter case you will have problems to postulate real existence of even such innocent objects as puppies, girls and Moon.
I know I'm crazy saying that QM is real, but you are even more crazy saying it is not.

 

[Frame Dragger]

So many things to say and so little time :)

Okay, so far, I have only looked at the thing, and only read a handful of sentences. Here is my initial assessment, in the BIG scheme of things:

I have come up with this general equation as regards theoretical proposals:

"How interesting" = "How good an idea"/(complexity * length)

In other words, Bell had this theme that he constantly brought up in his writings, and it just had to do with whether or not a theoretical question is, in fact, 'interesting.' So, the only thing that caused his own 1964 paper, and the original EPR paper of 1935 that inspired it to be 'interesting,' was that, when the appropriate variables were input into this equation, the result was—relatively speaking, of course—a very high one.

The point here is that there could very easily be very good ideas that are lost within a muddle of—I want put this as politely as possible—'extreme learnedness,' to the point where the 'How interesting' result is approaching zero. But this is the how the machinery that is modern theoretical physics operates.

You see, there is, buried deep down inside all of us, a tiny little Einstein who just wants to imagine great things and then write them down in ways that are undeniably compelling, to even the most 'amateur' of theoreticians.

Just think of it this way. You've just come up with a new whiz-bang microprocessor that is capable of feats of wonder. And you desperately want to inspire people to put its uses to full advantage, so that word will spread as to how great your product is, and so you can sell them by the boatloads. So what do you you? You need to write a manual on how to use the thing, of course. So the question at hand is: Are you going to waste anybody's time with a manual that is unnecessarily long or complex, or are you going to describe how to use its features as plainly and as efficiently as possible? That is, isn't this latter way of doing things the way that is truly beautiful and inspiring? And isn't this going to make your product appear to be all the more 'interesting'?

The problem with today's intellectual culture is that the notions of 'interesting' and 'erudite' are throughly conflated, to the point where the goal in theoretical physics (and other academic fields) is no longer to stimulate and to elevate the reader by way of creating works of sublime beauty; it is rather to give off an appearance of intellectual superiority so that the reader surrenders his or her will-power to the author—who is trying to represent a position of authoritativeness (get it: author<=>authority ?), but who in all reality, is attempting a bluff in order to hide an idea that is probably not altogether 'good.'

The cure to all of this is for theoreticians to start coming up with 'good' ideas, and then to allow the ideas to speak for themselves (just as the microprocessor manufacturer wants the product in question to speak for itself). That is, the best thing that a writer can do is to just 'get the hell out of the way,' because if the idea is indeed 'good,' then it will, of its own nature, expose itself in a way so as to maximize the final result of the 'How interesting' equation.

What I'm trying to say is that I, too, have an idea that I think is pretty darn 'good,' if I do say so myself. And through all of these posts, I have just tried to let this idea do the writing, in hopes that you will find what I have written to be 'interesting'—in the sense that Bell talked about so many times. So, what I am coming to realize, is that the entire process of writing papers for today's journals is set up in order to ensure that the result of the 'How interesting' equation is sure to be minimized. For, it is only in this way that the academic professions can continue in the anonymous, workman-like fashions that they currently enjoy.

So, yeah, whosoever wants to allow the intellectual culture to continue in its current fashion will write in ways so as to appear as 'worldly' and 'learned' as possible while keeping all of their really cool ideas bottled deep inside of themselves. But if not, I mean if you really want to be the next Einstein, you are going to have to learn how to say things like:



Isn't that just a little 'interesting'?

You know, I eschew Interpretations of QM, and granted that's what RUTA does, but your dismissal is groundless, based on rhetoric and frankly using your thesis of "length". You're not being polite, you're being rude in company of those who can fully appreciate it. More importantly, you're adding nothing to the thread you started (rudely).

@Haael: QM is the best theory we have now, but that doesn't mean that I or anyone should accept it on face value. Neither QM or GR are fully explanatory, and I don't believe that QM is the "end of the road". I don't see why I should base an ontology on what happens to be RECENT. I believe that QM is amazingly useful, and clearly in need of unification with the concepts of GR, which are ALSO predictive and useful.

You say that quanta won't go away, you may be right, but I think it's time for you to stop prosthelytizing and start citing. This isn't the philosophy sub-forum.

 

[SpectraCat]

"A wave function tells the field equations how to bend space and bent space tells other wave functions how to move"

Isn't that just a little 'interesting'?

I would say that it is striking ... in order to be interesting it would need a shred of an argument, or an equation to begin the process of explaining/backing it up. I have been waiting for such to materialize before commenting.

On the surface, it looks like any such theory would have to encompass quantum gravity, so it may well be interesting if you can support it. Would you like to try, or do you just want to keep ripping academic theoretical physicists to shreds instead?

A word of advice: on this forum you need to restrict yourself to theories that are supported in the literature. The moderators will generally tolerate a bit of "stretching" to incorporate new ideas, but if you really want to branch out into new territory, then you need to use the "Independent Research" sub-forum of the General Physics section (which has its own set of rules). If you choose to do that, please cross post here .. I would like to at least have a look at what you have thunk up.

 

[DrChinese]

The point here is that there could very easily be very good ideas that are lost within a muddle of—I want put this as politely as possible—'extreme learnedness,' to the point where the 'How interesting' result is approaching zero. But this is the how the machinery that is modern theoretical physics operates.

First, this forum is not really intended as a place to debate the value or the approach for theoretical physics.

Second, I am sure that anyone who takes a good look at the papers being written will notice that in between a lot of papers of marginal value exist papers of import. Most of those important papers will not be immediately obvious, some will. The Bell paper took a while to take off, for example, and someone might have judged it useless at the time.

So my last point is that criticizing someone else's approach is like criticizing one's choice of spouse. We all have our own sense of what will work for us. So I would rather see your idea, than see your idea of how *I* should come up with an idea. I.e. if you have something "interesting" to share, I am sure you will find a ready audience. We don't need to be prepped or qualified first. There are some outstanding people reading these forums, trust me.

 

[jtbell]

"A wave function tells the field equations how to bend space and bent space tells other wave functions how to move"

Anyone interested in how this can work, conceptually and mathematically speaking?

It is PF policy that in order for a theory to be discussed here, it must already be "out there" in the professional community and literature. We do not cater for the development and promotion of personal theories. Follow the "Rules" link at the top of every page here, and read the section Overly Speculative Posts.

The one exception is our Independent Research forum, which you may want to investigate.

 

[RUTA]

What I'm trying to say is that I, too, have an idea that I think is pretty darn 'good,' if I do say so myself. And through all of these posts, I have just tried to let this idea do the writing, in hopes that you will find what I have written to be 'interesting'—in the sense that Bell talked about so many times. So, what I am coming to realize, is that the entire process of writing papers for today's journals is set up in order to ensure that the result of the 'How interesting' equation is sure to be minimized. For, it is only in this way that the academic professions can continue in the anonymous, workman-like fashions that they currently enjoy.

So, yeah, whosoever wants to allow the intellectual culture to continue in its current fashion will write in ways so as to appear as 'worldly' and 'learned' as possible while keeping all of their really cool ideas bottled deep inside of themselves. But if not, I mean if you really want to be the next Einstein, you are going to have to learn how to say things like:

Isn't that just a little 'interesting'?

As you point out, we (theoretical physicists) value the opposite approach -- develop the formalism, show how it works, check it, then find a succinct summarizing statement. Wheeler's summary of GR is "The boundary of a boundary equals zero;" theoretical physicists don't find this compelling in and of itself (it's a mathematical tautology, actually), but when shown formally how it relates to Einstein's eqns, we find it very interesting.

So, you ask me if I find your idea interesting. Of course, my response is "Show me the corresponding formalism, explain how it works, and provide empirical tests." After you've done that, your statement will be pithy. In and of itself, it could be a witticism.

 

[glengarry]

@Glengarry: Ahh, Glengarry, not to get all "Glenross" on you, but you can respond to many things in one or two SINGLE posts, and that makes it much easier to keep a thread... well... tidy.

Yes, thanks for the advice. I wasn't sure if it would be better responding singly or all at once.

I also may not know Zonde or even grasp why he holds some of the views he does, but I'm fairly certain that he's familiar with the Schrodinger Equation... as that is pretty much de rigour for knowing ANYTHING about QM. For the rest, I've read 3 pages of you pushing a personal "thesis" (aka your idea of how things are) sans any references or math of note to back it. Given the tone you're now adopting, don't you think that might be wise, when making the level of claim you're trying to assert?

I need to make an admission about myself. I have a form of autism that is called Asperger's syndrome. This basically means that I do not socialize very well with people and I tend to get excited by the topics of conversation in which I am engaged. Please understand that whenever I am involved in writing a response, I very quickly forget about 'who' I was responding to, and I just let the topic at hand guide me where it may.

As regards the Schrodinger equation, I simply take it for granted that people understand it to be a dynamic, space-filling form, and not just as a kind of probability field. But I can definitely see that people who do not have familiarity with the de Broglie-Schrodinger version of quantum theory would take it to simply in the way that Max Born understood it.

And as regards my 'personal thesis,' I have only merely hinted at it in a highly generalized way. That is, my strategy was to see if I could get people to start 'vibing' with be, in the conceptual sense. For, if I can't do this, then none of the math would make all that much sense. Besides, I am only now learning how to do all of that LaTeX stuff that will allow me to make the math presentable.

You know, I eschew Interpretations of QM, and granted that's what RUTA does, but your dismissal is groundless, based on rhetoric and frankly using your thesis of "length". You're not being polite, you're being rude in company of those who can fully appreciate it. More importantly, you're adding nothing to the thread you started (rudely).

I wasn't trying to dismiss RUTA--I said that I only read a couple of sentences. I was only trying to make a general point about the state of today's papers, given that the most 'ground breaking' papers in the past have tended to have a number of pages that could easily be counted on two hands.

But after I did read some of the paper, I saw that there were some interesting concepts that I could definitely agree with. I just don't want to give a full critique of it quite yet.

Again, I don't intend to be rude. If you could just see me while I type, then you would see that I just get excitable about theory. It's an Asperger's thing.

And I fail to grasp how you could say that I've "added nothing." Rude, maybe. But I've "added" a heck of a lot!

I would say that it is striking ... in order to be interesting it would need a shred of an argument, or an equation to begin the process of explaining/backing it up. I have been waiting for such to materialize before commenting.

Yes, you are completely correct sir! Anyway, here is how the basic math would work (just to whet your appetite as I learn LaTex).

We start with a 3-sphere, which we'll denote with U (the Universe). This exists in E4-space.

Then we have a 2-sphere, which is the boundary for a 3-ball which we will denote with E (an Element), which is defined in E3-space.

We then discover an arbitrary solution to the original Schrodinger equation, which just means that were are trying to construct an actual, harmonically oscillating body. (We are not squaring anything here, which would only give us a Born probability field.)

Then, we perform an inverse azimuthal equidistant projection so that E is given the form of U. This just means that we are essentially contorting a "flat [3-dimensional] map" so that we can recover the actual 3-spherical "landscape." (I realize that these geometric ideas might need more fleshing out for people who mainly stick with analytical techniques.)

Now, we let time start elapsing so that the U manifold will start behaving in a dynamic, oscillatory fashion.

We can repeat the above procedure as many times as we want, so that each new E can be any solution to the wave equation and that the "point of connection" of the 2-spherical boundary of every E can exist at any arbitrary location on U.

This is our universe: you can think of it as a "unity," such that all of the waves are super-added into a completely Fourier summed waveform, or you can think of it as a sheer multiplicity, such that each E is a separate entity, or you can think in terms of ensemble's of E's "playing against one another."

Now, this is only the beginning. Up to here, we have only constructed a "bare mathematical object" that as of yet has no rhyme or reason. That will come later... stay tuned!

On the surface, it looks like any such theory would have to encompass quantum gravity, so it may well be interesting if you can support it. Would you like to try, or do you just want to keep ripping academic theoretical physicists to shreds instead?

I hope to be able to show you that the above model (after I've added all the details) will indeed include a compelling account of the gravitational as well as the inter-atomic phenomena. Also, I really do not like being so negative. I'd much rather be constructive, like I am being right now!

A word of advice: on this forum you need to restrict yourself to theories that are supported in the literature. The moderators will generally tolerate a bit of "stretching" to incorporate new ideas, but if you really want to branch out into new territory, then you need to use the "Independent Research" sub-forum of the General Physics section (which has its own set of rules). If you choose to do that, please cross post here .. I would like to at least have a look at what you have thunk up.

Well, the good thing about what I'm doing is that it uses no other math than the tools that are already given to us by QM (the wavefunction) and GR (the field equations). Since I am not going off on a mathematical "free for all" like those crazy string theorist, loop quantumists and company, I hope to be able to keep it within the "warm confines" of the "already established" milieu. I mean, in many ways, I am only doing things, mathematically speaking, that are an arm's reach away from de Broglie's and Schrodinger's "original" plans.

First, this forum is not really intended as a place to debate the value or the approach for theoretical physics.

I understand your point. However, I just think that I fit more into that "old school mode" where the "big ideas" (philosophy), the logical techniques (math), and the dynamic interpretations (physics) were pretty darn indistinguishable. I mean, those guys who were doing their thing in Europe in the early part of the last century were very worldly (e.g. performing renditions of Faust for their own amusement).

Second, I am sure that anyone who takes a good look at the papers being written will notice that in between a lot of papers of marginal value exist papers of import. Most of those important papers will not be immediately obvious, some will. The Bell paper took a while to take off, for example, and someone might have judged it useless at the time.

You are quite right... for every generalization, there are a likely to be very many exceptions. I'm just speaking from an extremely biased perspective, in that I think that I've found something that will turn out to be really interesting!

So my last point is that criticizing someone else's approach is like criticizing one's choice of spouse. We all have our own sense of what will work for us. So I would rather see your idea, than see your idea of how *I* should come up with an idea. I.e. if you have something "interesting" to share, I am sure you will find a ready audience. We don't need to be prepped or qualified first. There are some outstanding people reading these forums, trust me.

Thanks for those sage, calming words!

 

[glengarry]

It is PF policy that in order for a theory to be discussed here, it must already be "out there" in the professional community and literature. We do not cater for the development and promotion of personal theories. Follow the "Rules" link at the top of every page here, and read the section Overly Speculative Posts.

The one exception is our Independent Research forum, which you may want to investigate.

Yeah, I realize all of that. I wasn't really trying to speculate there, I guess I was trying to goad people into calling me out like you guys have been. I've been behaving rather immaturely, I know, but I was really getting into those arguments that were making me feel so "superior."

I just hope that you don't think that my blending together of the Schrodinger equation with the concept of the Riemannian manifold will count as being some kind of "Independent Research" (or: all the fun that can be had by playing with dimensions and more!).

As you point out, we (theoretical physicists) value the opposite approach -- develop the formalism, show how it works, check it, then find a succinct summarizing statement. Wheeler's summary of GR is "The boundary of a boundary equals zero;" theoretical physicists don't find this compelling in and of itself (it's a mathematical tautology, actually), but when shown formally how it relates to Einstein's eqns, we find it very interesting.

No, I think that some of the stuff you are saying is pretty well interesting. The only major problem that I had with the 15 or so minutes that I spent with your paper is that I didn't see a rigorous definition for the form of the universe. In my book, without this as an initial assumption, then all of the internal elements will just logically fall apart (think set theory here...)

So, you ask me if I find your idea interesting. Of course, my response is "Show me the corresponding formalism, explain how it works, and provide empirical tests." After you've done that, your statement will be pithy. In and of itself, it could be a witticism.

Yeah, I guess I was acting pretty "pithiful" :)

(But you don't really mean for me to provide you with "empirical tests" do you? Them are fightin' words :)

 

[glengarry]

So, I am just going to keep fleshing out the mathematical observations that I began yesterday (post #60 above)...

We have a singular mathematical object, U, that consists of arbitrary "inverse projections" of elemental standing waves (derived from the Laplace/Schrodinger wave functions), which are each singly denoted by E_n, such that n is any integer from 1 to the total number of elements in the Universe.

The crucial thing that I failed to mention about each E is that it "pops out" of the wave equations with an amplitude of, for the sake of simplicity, 1.

But in order to create an "interesting" universe, we are going to have to mix things up a bit. So, we multiply each E by a scaling factor, such that the following relation holds:

max_amplitude * frequency = universal constant

I call this the "natural wave postulate," and it just says that maximum displacements and harmonic frequencies are inversely proportional. So, we have amplitudes that are as large as we want, with the result being that frequencies are correspondingly small. Let's take this to the extreme, and we have these relations:

1) infinite amplitude = zero frequency
2) infinite frequency = zero amplitude

Number 1 gives us "perfectly space-like conditions," and number 2 gives us "perfectly matter-like conditions."

Now, here is the other crucial thing that makes all of this fit together. As you know, when we wrap a map (ball) upon itself in order to create a globe (sphere), the space near the boundary of the map becomes compressed, and at the boundary itself, the compression is infinite.

The good thing about a 3-dimensional map is that two of its dimensions are being compressed the closer that we get to the 2-spherical boundary. So, in terms of being on the 3-sphere itself, the closer that we get to the infinitely compressed boundary, the originally flat space of E gets compressed as a square function but the amplitude of the wave itself decreases according to a function of the first order (remember that the boundary of any standing wave is always a "node"--i.e. zero amplitude).

So say that we have an E with an extremely low amplitude and correspondingly high frequency. This will appear very much "local" and "material" to us because we have to get very, very close to the nodal boundary before the elemental space becomes compressed enough in order finally allow the amplitude to be "felt." We can think of this kind of element as, for example, an "electron."

Conversely, with an E of extremely high amplitude (and very low frequency), this object might even appear to be standing still, and we will have to get a far distance away before we can overcome its effects (i.e. a bare "gravity field"). And the way that we determine these effects is via a universally applicable inter-elemental dynamic law:

The maximum amplitude of the composite waveform (U) tends to a minimum. That is, the maximum points (antinodes) of any E_n will tend to seek out the minimum points of the waveform given by: U - E_n.

And if I am not mistaken this is simply a restatement of the second law of thermodynamics. It is by way of the satisfaction of this law that, in theory, we should be able to replicate/"predict" every observable phenomenon that happens in our universe.

Now, this completes the exposition of the basic elements of our universal theory (i.e. not my personal theory--this is our universe!), and the next phase is to "interpret" the mathematical object, U, governed by the dynamical principles (the natural wave postulate and the second law of thermodynamics), such that we develop a purely objective picture within our own minds as to how the universe "works." And in order to do this, we need to develop "sub theories," the most important one being called: the theory of practical signal transmission and reception (or just: the theory of signals). This will give us the essential parts of special relativity, and then we can go on from there...

 

[glengarry]

I'm not sure, but I think that everyone from yesterday is either gaping in wonder over the possibilities that I've presented them or they've simply just dropped off of the face of the earth.

I mean you guys asked for math, and I've tried to accommodate you.

Is it good? bad? so-so?

 

[SpectraCat]

Well, you are in the Philosophy forum now, and the readership here is much lower. It took me a while to figure out that the thread had been moved.

Regarding the math, to be honest, you lost me at "E4-space" ... that is not something I am familiar with ... my formal math training ends at elementary functional analysis (that was a loooong time ago), and I never had set theory.

The whole 2-sphere to 3-ball to E thing confused me .. then all of a sudden you are talking about solutions to the Schrodinger equation, and somehow relating them to the E you have defined. Perhaps this is clear when you add equations to tie it all together, but I really can't follow it in its current form.

 

[glengarry]

Well, you are in the Philosophy forum now, and the readership here is much lower. It took me a while to figure out that the thread had been moved.

Regarding the math, to be honest, you lost me at "E4-space" ... that is not something I am familiar with ... my formal math training ends at elementary functional analysis (that was a loooong time ago), and I never had set theory.

The whole 2-sphere to 3-ball to E thing confused me .. then all of a sudden you are talking about solutions to the Schrodinger equation, and somehow relating them to the E you have defined. Perhaps this is clear when you add equations to tie it all together, but I really can't follow it in its current form.

E4=4 dimensional Euclidean space
E3=3 dimensional Euclidean space

Then we have a 2-sphere, which is the boundary for a 3-ball which we will denote with E (an Element), which is defined in E3-space.

An Element (E) is just a 3-dimensional space that is bounded by a 2-dimensional sphere. The equation that you want to solve for is given here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace's_equation

This is the equation that gives you spherical harmonics--i.e. the fluctuating "heat map" that exists as a dynamically oscillating 3-ball. This is the essential "heart" of the Schrodinger equation, in that this is all Scrodinger himself intended it to be. He was not interested in probability fields, just the dynamical standing wave itself.

Also, the atomic orbitals that are used as the models of atoms by chemists are given by these solutions.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital

"An atomic orbital is a mathematical function that describes the wave-like behavior of either one electron or a pair of electrons in an atom."

This mathematical function is just the Laplace eqn/ original Schrodinger eqn.

 

[glengarry]

All that I'm trying to do is to get you guys to see the wavefunction simply as that: a mathematical function that "spits out" a wave. We can visualize a 1-dimensional standing wave simply as an oscillating guitar string and a 2-dimensional standing wave as a vibrating drumpad. But there is no way to visualize an oscillating 3-dimensional space, because we cannot picture a fourth dimension into which the parts of this space are free to extend. This is one reason why we need to "bend" this "flat" 3-dimensional space so that it becomes a 3-dimensional sphere. This way, the internal spatial elements that previously had no range of motion are now capable of manifesting as a "real" wave.

But of course, there is no possible way to visualize this, so the best we can do is to think of a vibrating drumpad being contorted into a harmonically oscillating, 2-dimensional, spherical object.

And after our standing wave has been successfully contorted, the entire boundary that is used to define it will be "smashed" into a single point. This is what happens when we wrap a flat map to conform to the shape of a globe. In the case of the 3-dimensional sphere, the thing that becomes a point is a 2-dimensional surface.

And because of the spatial compression that results from all of this, the closer that one approaches the nodal (i.e. non-oscillating) boundary point from within the context of universal space will allow an observer to "feel" the contorted wave's amplitude, even though it is actually getting smaller from within the context of the flat, 3-dimensional space in which the wave was defined.

The reason why the standing waves that resulted from the Schrodinger equation were never accepted as actual physical objects was because there was no way to recreate the local, particle-like effects of, for example, visible tracks within a cloud chamber experiment, by way of the standing waves, as they exist in their native, flat spaces. But this "wrapping procedure" solves this problem once we imagine the universe to have a spherical shape and that the standing waves, mathematically defined within flat, 3-dimensional Euclidean space, are then made to conform to the universe through means of map projections.

If you ask me why or how the great designer would go through all of this trouble, I wouldn't be able to answer you. But the point that I want to make is that the mathematics works, and it is not very complicated. You just have arbitrary numbers of flat waves that are contorted into spheres. That is the entirety of the geometric construction that you have to worry about.

Then, you just need to add in the formal constraints in order to make the universe "interesting" and "natural." This is where the natural wave postulate (freq * amplitude = universal constant) and the second law of thermodynamics comes into play (so that all of the phenomena will be predictable).

And that, my friends, is the sum total of the mathematics that you need to be able to understand. The problem, though, is that you will not be able to "solve" for anything because I have never heard of a mathematical problem that tries to minimize the summed amplitudes of dynamic, interacting three-dimensional standing waves, much less one that considers these waves in the distorted forms that they inhabit.

But what we can do, for example, is to consider the case of two one dimensional standing waves that exist in the forms of vibrating loops (i.e. the "strings" of string theory), that occupy the same universal space. One should be able to write computer programs that easily handles this case, but once you start adding many more loops, then the calculations difficulties might begin to explode.

Since I'm into computer programming, and I have nothing else to do with my time but to get people to believe in what I'm trying to do here, there's a chance that I'll start putting my money where my mouth is by writing something that you can look at and play with. I'm not making any promises, though, and besides, there is definitely no better way to visualize any of this but in your own head!

Also, there is a major philosophical difficulty that is cleared up by thinking of the universe to exist in the shape of a sphere. That is, if the universe were just an "interior space" (rather than a continuous, exterior manifold), then we would be able to think of a central point of the universe (a thought that presents major difficulties) and we would also be able to think of a point where space just "ends" at some boundary, and on the other side of this boundary would be...?

So we need a continuous space in order to avoid this problem. But this does not then mean that we are free to consider an infinite flat space since this theoretically falls apart because of the age old problem brought up by Parmenides between the many and the One. In other words, the only way to avoid a bare multiplicity that simply "flies apart" is by positing that there is, in fact, a universe (i.e. a integrated, universal set which is, in fact, composed of parts).

So, the only solution that I have ever heard of that takes into consideration the need for:

1) A continuous, universal form
2) Individual elements that are dynamic and oscillatory
3) Individual elements that can be thought to exist at discrete locations (i.e. "particles")
4) Individual elements that can be thought of as diffuse and forceful (i.e. "gravity fields")
5) Individual elements that are "reciprocally active" (i.e. they affect one another)

...is what I have come up with.

By the way, I have had this thing sitting in my head for nearly a year and a half now, and I am the type of guy who normally quickly scraps whatever theory he happens to be working on because it somehow doesn't satisfy him as being simple and/or fundamental enough. But to me, the mathematical object, U, is just so simple and compelling that I am simply not able to keep myself from sharing it with the world any longer.

 

[RUTA]

No, I think that some of the stuff you are saying is pretty well interesting. The only major problem that I had with the 15 or so minutes that I spent with your paper is that I didn't see a rigorous definition for the form of the universe. In my book, without this as an initial assumption, then all of the internal elements will just logically fall apart (think set theory here...)

I think Smolin also argues for a necessary cosmological component to unification schemes in his book, "The Trouble with Physics."

Yeah, I guess I was acting pretty "pithiful" :)

(But you don't really mean for me to provide you with "empirical tests" do you? Them are fightin' words :)

I was using "pithy" to mean "concise and full of meaning." Perhaps we're having problems communicating because I also have Aspergers :-)

I certainly don't require any empirical tests of your idea to be interested in it. Just give me a corresponding formalism. From there you should be able to at least speculate as to how it will unify quantum physics and GR.

 

[RUTA]

All that I'm trying to do is to get you guys to see the wavefunction simply as that: a mathematical function that "spits out" a wave. We can visualize a 1-dimensional standing wave simply as an oscillating guitar string and a 2-dimensional standing wave as a vibrating drumpad. But there is no way to visualize an oscillating 3-dimensional space, because we cannot picture a fourth dimension into which the parts of this space are free to extend. This is one reason why we need to "bend" this "flat" 3-dimensional space so that it becomes a 3-dimensional sphere. This way, the internal spatial elements that previously had no range of motion are now capable of manifesting as a "real" wave.

But of course, there is no possible way to visualize this, so the best we can do is to think of a vibrating drumpad being contorted into a harmonically oscillating, 2-dimensional, spherical object.

And after our standing wave has been successfully contorted, the entire boundary that is used to define it will be "smashed" into a single point. This is what happens when we wrap a flat map to conform to the shape of a globe. In the case of the 3-dimensional sphere, the thing that becomes a point is a 2-dimensional surface.

And because of the spatial compression that results from all of this, the closer that one approaches the nodal (i.e. non-oscillating) boundary point from within the context of universal space will allow an observer to "feel" the contorted wave's amplitude, even though it is actually getting smaller from within the context of the flat, 3-dimensional space in which the wave was defined.

The reason why the standing waves that resulted from the Schrodinger equation were never accepted as actual physical objects was because there was no way to recreate the local, particle-like effects of, for example, visible tracks within a cloud chamber experiment, by way of the standing waves, as they exist in their native, flat spaces. But this "wrapping procedure" solves this problem once we imagine the universe to have a spherical shape and that the standing waves, mathematically defined within flat, 3-dimensional Euclidean space, are then made to conform to the universe through means of map projections.

If you ask me why or how the great designer would go through all of this trouble, I wouldn't be able to answer you. But the point that I want to make is that the mathematics works, and it is not very complicated. You just have arbitrary numbers of flat waves that are contorted into spheres. That is the entirety of the geometric construction that you have to worry about.

Then, you just need to add in the formal constraints in order to make the universe "interesting" and "natural." This is where the natural wave postulate (freq * amplitude = universal constant) and the second law of thermodynamics comes into play (so that all of the phenomena will be predictable).

And that, my friends, is the sum total of the mathematics that you need to be able to understand. The problem, though, is that you will not be able to "solve" for anything because I have never heard of a mathematical problem that tries to minimize the summed amplitudes of dynamic, interacting three-dimensional standing waves, much less one that considers these waves in the distorted forms that they inhabit.

But what we can do, for example, is to consider the case of two one dimensional standing waves that exist in the forms of vibrating loops (i.e. the "strings" of string theory), that occupy the same universal space. One should be able to write computer programs that easily handles this case, but once you start adding many more loops, then the calculations difficulties might begin to explode.

Since I'm into computer programming, and I have nothing else to do with my time but to get people to believe in what I'm trying to do here, there's a chance that I'll start putting my money where my mouth is by writing something that you can look at and play with. I'm not making any promises, though, and besides, there is definitely no better way to visualize any of this but in your own head!

Also, there is a major philosophical difficulty that is cleared up by thinking of the universe to exist in the shape of a sphere. That is, if the universe were just an "interior space" (rather than a continuous, exterior manifold), then we would be able to think of a central point of the universe (a thought that presents major difficulties) and we would also be able to think of a point where space just "ends" at some boundary, and on the other side of this boundary would be...?

So we need a continuous space in order to avoid this problem. But this does not then mean that we are free to consider an infinite flat space since this theoretically falls apart because of the age old problem brought up by Parmenides between the many and the One. In other words, the only way to avoid a bare multiplicity that simply "flies apart" is by positing that there is, in fact, a universe (i.e. a integrated, universal set which is, in fact, composed of parts).

So, the only solution that I have ever heard of that takes into consideration the need for:

1) A continuous, universal form
2) Individual elements that are dynamic and oscillatory
3) Individual elements that can be thought to exist at discrete locations (i.e. "particles")
4) Individual elements that can be thought of as diffuse and forceful (i.e. "gravity fields")
5) Individual elements that are "reciprocally active" (i.e. they affect one another)

...is what I have come up with.

By the way, I have had this thing sitting in my head for nearly a year and a half now, and I am the type of guy who normally quickly scraps whatever theory he happens to be working on because it somehow doesn't satisfy him as being simple and/or fundamental enough. But to me, the mathematical object, U, is just so simple and compelling that I am simply not able to keep myself from sharing it with the world any longer.

I'm not sure I understand what you are describing. You're not thinking about the wavefunction on a 3 sphere, are you? The wave function for N particles exists in a space with 3N dimensions, so it doesn't map into the space of spacetime unless you're only talking about one particle.

 

[ansgar]

this is like the worst thread I've read, it such a mess and glengarry have no working experience or knowledge on the things he is criticising... omg

 

[haael]

natural wave postulate (freq * amplitude = universal constant)

This assumption is false. First of all, wave amplitude has a physical meaning in QM, namely probability or particle count if you wish. Here, you pick it up and identify with spacetime deformation. In quantum gravity you will have three parameters to mess up with: frequency (momentum), amplitude and actual space deformation. The two former are independent, according to QM.
What is worse, as the frquency is momentum, you say that the more momentum, the less spacetime bend we have. This is contrary to GR.

So there are two inconsistencies that this "natural wave" brings up: dependence of frequency and amplitude and the inverse relation between momentum density and space warp.

I'm looking forward for you to introduce some nonlinearity to accommodate interactions. I will ask you to derive electromagnetic force then.