Please calm yourselves!

There will be always question what is classical interpretation of QM. But maybe it's the same question like "is sun round about earth or earth about sun" - We know that it does't matter. As we know QM is not classical theory with functions for observables (Theorem of commutative algebra representation). We also know that QM IS NOT Statistical theory. Statistical interpretation comes after measuerment but we don't have distribution functions at basic level. The states (or wave functions) are vary hard object - they arent something we can put in classical reality nor particle nor waves. So it's very hard say that Schrodinger equations give as deterministic evolution of something real. 

Bohm and EPR paradox also show us that quantum system  made of many subsystems is not the same as classical object made with many particles - difference with cartesian product and tensor product. 

There are very beautifull work with cathegory theory in QM but it's very hard math and of cours it's just begining. 

So we can derive new properties of materials and nature but thinking suggest us that something is wrong. We should remember that before SR people also thing that somethin is wrong with Einstein idea. 

I'm wery interesting of comments in Your question. 

Best 

Sebastian 

Dear Gianrocco,

again I see myself as a small child looking at the question that you post. If this problem was not resolved for 100 years and there are still 2 groups of physicists including great people having opposite opinion, what smart can I say?

But I will just forget for the moment about their greatness and will try to tell what I think personally. If we have a lot of indeterminacy on micro level, it is not necessarily that it will propagate on the macro level. The reason is in the existence of stable structures that survive within a broader range of parameters than the range of uncertainty. We may never know where is electron rotating around nucleus now (its probability density is given by Schrodinger equation) but we know that till atom is stable, nothing happens on the upper level.

The biological organisms are even more stable systems, and the decay of just few nuclei (in the presence of radiation) will not end the life. I also do not think that some bifurcations in our personal decisions depend on realization of a certain quantum-mechanical trajectory. I personally more in favor of determinism at macro level.

However, we should not forget the science of complexity (see Ilya Prigogine, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Prigogine and other authors). Here the key point is whether a system s stable or unstable. In the first case small uncertainty does not perturb its existence, while in the 2nd gives rise to complex evolution.

Brian Arthur wrote about increasing returns to scale as the reason of instability for social and economic systems. From mathematical perspective, there exist already low-dimensional systems that give rise to chaotic behavior, which is deterministic but empirically looks more like stochastic. In those critical moments of bifurcations a trembling hand of some dictator can reverse the history, while in many other points in time determinism prevails.

Dear Yuri,

my compliments for your outstanding contribution. Now, being only an economist fond of philosophy and elementary physics, going through my notes, it came to my mind the following which may have a connection with the content of your intervention. Then, I’d say that  the EPR paradox criticized a fundamental feature of quantum systems according to the Copenhagen interpretation (Bohr and Heisenberg), later known as ‘quantum entanglement’. According to the orthodox theory, two physical systems interacting should be treated as a single system, described by a single quantum state: an "entangled", or "braided" state.

Schrödinger, who shared the skepticism towards the orthodox theory, pointed to another problematic aspect: the ‘superposition principle’, one of the cornerstones of quantum mechanics. It says that if a system can be in two distinct states, it can also be in any linear combination. This overlap results in an observable phenomenon of interference. However, if you observe the system, this is induced to assume a given state. According to Schrödinger, this postulate and the concept of 'plot' had potentially paradoxical consequences. In particular, the Austrian physicist described an ideal experiment in which the overlap of two distinct atomic states can be "transferred" to a macroscopic object, decidedly going against common sense.

I hope to have understood the notes appropriately and I am confident that at least you would appreciate my good intentions.                                                                             .

Thank you and best wishes, Gianrocco

Well, Gianrocco, I also have physical and mathematical education and even some papers written long ago, but in  nonlinear wave theory and not quantum mechanics.

As for superposition principle, I think that is has more mathematical rather than empirical origin. There is well developed theory of linear operators in mathematical physics which is also widely used by theorists in physics. That is why I am suspicious that we can duplicate, triplicate, etc micro world and reach macro level. Somewhere there should be a structural change that goes beyond quantum mechanics.

There is good tool of applied mathematics named "asymptotic theory" (see for example https://www.math.ualberta.ca/~bowman/m538/m538.pdf ; it is not the best example, but I am not sure that I can find books online about that). It starts from more general and unsolvable system, then uses small parameter and derives the limit theory which is valid when it is small. I guess that both quantum mechanics and relativity can be some limits of unknown system of equations when 2 different small parameters are used: a) scale for quantum mechanics and b) speed for relativity. So when typical distance is macro and speed well below the speed of light, we can asymptotically forget both theories and use classical physics.

Pure mathematicians may find it weird, but physicists often do not even work explicitly with small parameters doing wild approximations on their way of deriving new equations.

Just to finish with my philosophy. To great extent it was influenced by the principles of dialectics applied both to natural and social sciences. One of its principles is a transition of quantity into new quality. I think that asymptotic theory is a good mathematical tool to describe such transitions.

A bit oversimplified one might say that QM is a consistent theory based on deductive reasoning and the axioms of linear algebra and the concept of a linear space. It is not complete in the sense that pioneering QM does not include gravitation and that it only concerns isolated systems.

Despite these drawbacks QM yields a remarkable agreement between precise quantum chemical predictions and the most accurate experiments including sophisticated

advanced instrumentation.

It is usually concluded that the many-body Schrödinger equation, in particular, and also quantum mechanics in general describe reality to an unsurpassed exactitude.

Erkki is right that QM is not complete. Look at all the papers in arXiv on QM research. A lot of work is still going on.

.

Matt Roos - this is argument for You ? papers on arXiv ?? 

QM as theory is consistent. This is theory of non-commutative observables. From Gelfand-Naymark theorem We know that We can represent it by operators in some Hilbert Space. But We can also show that logical structure made from lattice calculations (Von Neumman) give us somethin different then Boealen algebra from classical physics. The difference is from non distributivity. So this is reason why conclusions from QM are different then in classical physics. This theory give us different kind of logic so for persons who think only in classical logic it may by seen like not consistent. 

but i can agree that QM is not complete - We still don't know everything about it.

;) 

Erkki J. Brändas

Look that inconsitence with gravity is in QFT formulate in flat minkowski space-time not in QM. of cours we don't know what should be gravity (if there should be something like gravity) in QM. But in Newton theory we also don't know anything about qluon interaction, weak interaction or gravity as curvature of space-time. 

Best 

S. 

The simple answer is no!  A theory that does not have reality involved in the workings of the system can not be considered complete.  To be complete it must show how the big and the small are the same when described by the theory.

Amrit,

I do not agree with your downgrading and redefining time to be only a numerical order. First of all energy-momentum is conjugate with time and space. Second STR, deduced axiomatically from its postulates, gives the Klein-Gordon Equation and the Eigentime relation, the later an important invariant in Physics.

Introducing quantum representations of the observables as appropriately defined operators, Einstein's laws of relativity follows, including the time delay, redshift, light deviations in a gravitational field etc. Downgrading time as you have done serves no purpose and is inconsistent with the physical formulation of natural laws.

In addition your Falsifiability cases A and B are not properly formulated as they reveal an odd or even erroneous understanding of time. If you try to do away with time as a fundamental entity in physics you also leave out the proper understanding of its conjugate quantity energy!

Physics is e.g. formulated in terms of energy - momentum as they evolve in space-time. This leads to various conservation laws (Noether's theorem), i.e resulting in symmetries and invariances etc. Stationary problems are dealt with time-independent equations and, if time is important, by time-dependent equations.

In general one can go from one formulation to the other via appropriate Fourier-Laplace transformations, which connect time propagations with frequency dependent spectral functions, i.e. from the time domain to the frequency domain or vice versa.

Dimensional reasoning is of course important, but they (e.g. Planck time, Planck length) contain no information regarding a physical process – for this you need time-dependent master equations to increase the knowledge of nature.

Indeterminism is maybe due to motion.

If we think that relativity, uncertainty principle and problem of measurement are a same thing, QM could be completed:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281112494_Relativity-Heisenberg-Schroedinger

Data Heisenberg-Schroedinger

Amrit Sorli

there are many evidence that SR with 4-dim manifold is better then each other dim to describe many experiments. I never understand why people try go back to Arystotelian "NOW" theory and why everyone think that we should describe things exactly like we see it.  From my window I see that sun move around earth , and that earth is flat so why we don't get this pictures only ??

 relativity, uncertainty principle - They are two different things describe by two different theory. We can marge this two in QFT but I don't think that You propose this like thinking.  

George E. Van Hoesen

A theory that does not have reality involved in the workings of the system can not be considered complete.  To be complete it must show how the big and the small are the same when described by the theory. - So, we measure everything in rational numer because rational nubers are real ? Can You touch integral or we should not use them? Can we devide one apple for three the same part ? or it's not real ?  

Anything underneath the wave function is obscure. Even the notions of space and time are not well defined. Hilbert spaces are applied, but are applied in the wrong way.

QED and QCD work but nobody can explain why these methods work.

However, current quantum physics serves applied physics well. It describes how elementary particles behave. It does not explain why these objects behave as they do.

Hans van Leunen 

In Your opinion we should not use even classical physics. Can You explain what is force in Newton theory ?

In this way we can not have any theory because You always need some quantity at the begining and You must describe what this quantity is. You think that describe it by words is better then in math ?? 

QCD and QED are not some methods !!! They are not some algorythm like in statistics. 

They are Theories !!! with some basics assumptions and with math. Our work is  find minimal assumptions to get maximal possibiliti of computation some entities with we measure. 

In this way we can werify this theories. 

If You think different show better theories or different way to describe "reality" but remember that Your theory should give better values of some observables that we have. 

tech.: 

why wave function is bad ?? Wave function is just vector in hilbert space |psi> in some basis you choose - Your |psi> REPRESENT STATE OF QUANTUM SYSTEM (not real object like particle or wave - we use this words because it is simpler). In classical phys your states are cartesian product of position and velocity or momentum. -This is because it is minimal informations You need to compute newton eq and get other Observables. EVen in this You don't have any reality in position and momentum. etc.

S. 

S. 

Georg,

All we can ask for is a consistent theory based on physical facts (from observations and deliberate experiments) ordered by rational and deductive reasoning. If the theory is consistent it is not complete and if complete is not consistent (Gödel).

Sebastian

Please read "Foundations of a mathematical model of physical reality" ; http://vixra.org/abs/1502.0186 for comprehending my arguments.

Indeed, I interpret QED and QCD as suitable recipes, but not as explanations of how physical reality works. If I understood him correctly this is also the view of Feynman. 

Hans,

Although I understand what you say you appear a bit pessimistic. Also we should first of all, as scientists, concentrate on "how questions". The "why question" is the Holy Grail of Philosophy, however it will be e.g. be encountered in research related  to consciousness and the "Hard Problem".

Nevertheless it is not difficult to define space-time as conjugate quantities to momentum-energy. It is not circular as this approach leads directly to formulations of physical laws and the process of evolution.

Before gravitational physics can consistently be included in a fundamental quantum-mechanical description of space, time and matter the answer to the question posed here would appear to be negative. In other words, we are still looking for a more unified theory of physical reality that covers all energy scales up to the Planck scale. However, this does NOT mean that the fact that quantum theory is not deterministic (in the usual sense of this notion) indicates that a quantum-mechanical description of Nature will be superseded by a fully deterministic description. There are many results (von Neumann, Kochen-Specker, Bell, etc.) suggesting that it is impossible to come up with a local deterministic description of physical reality that reproduces all well tested predictions of quantum mechanics. -- Before it is possible to say much more about the question debated here it would be important for participants to develop a clearer idea of what is meant by a "quantum-mechanical description of physical reality". I fear that most people have confused views about this particular topic. This state of confusion is a kind of intellectual scandal that we ought to overcome! There isn't any compelling reason why this is not possible.

Maybe quantum dynamics are exactly true and we don't need any "interpretation."  The problem always comes down to how does the classical world interact with the quantum one.  I would argue the problem is what are the particular quantum limit systems that can correspond to classical bodies.  From here the many worlds interpretation and Born statistics arises naturally through quantum dynamics itself.  A secondary question is in the adequacy of the the framework to construct classical objects and their durability.  

My two cents:  a new mechanical, atomistic, kinetic, and completely deterministic theory of the universe has been developed, based on several seminal ideas by the late Dr. Frank Meno, called "Gyron Aether Theory."  What mainstream physics thinks of as "the quantum level" is actually many orders of magnitude larger than the Planck length, needle-shaped, fundamental quanta of this theory.  The theory remedies the inadequacies of an old quantum theory of gravity - Le Sage, or "push gravity," that was seriously considered by Newton, Huygens, Kelvin, Maxwell, Lorentz, Poincare, and JJ Thomson.  Some of the gyrons have a high degree of axial spin, leading to a self-grouping tendency and resulting ultimately in a vacuum consisting of a network of toroidal vortices tightly interconnected over both long and short distances by a mutual exchange of superluminal streams of "arrow-mode" gyrons.  This almost instantaneous interconnectedness of the network over large distances is responsible for the findings of quantum field theory.

For details, see the link below.

vixra.org/abs/1311.0060

IMHO, a theory is "completed" if it has been proven wrong in certain experimental situations. Only then we learn limits to its validity. Before that, any theory is "incomplete" and open to developments. The latter may be triggered by experiment as well as by internal problems of the theory itself. In quantum mechanics, we have both types of incompleteness: there is no quantum theory of gravitation, and there is a lot of confusion regarding quantum measurement (to name just two). 

Most quantum physical theories use Hilbert spaces in several ways. In fact combinations of separable Hilbert spaces and Gelfand triples are used, because separable Hilbert spaces cannot handle continuums. Most scientists do not know that both spaces are only dumb structured storage spaces and neither the separable Hilbert space nor the Gelfand triple contains means to control the coherence of its spatial and dynamic content. This can only be done by mechanisms that are external to these storage media. None of the physical theories that I know treat these mechanisms. They only suggest that this control is performed by operators or by so called "states". Also most scientists are not aware that the separable Hilbert space and its companion the Gelfand triple can only handle number systems that are division rings. Only three suitable division rings exist. These are the real numbers, the complex numbers and the quaternions. In current quantum physics these facts are hardly touched.

Every now and then somebody thinks they have discovered quaternionic quantum mechanics.  It always leads nowhere.  The moral is physics is not math.  It's harder.  That is why research degenerates to mathy nonsense.  Easy to generate papers if all it takes is some new math toy and no real progress on conceptual foundations.  

Dear Gianrocco:

My answer is yes, in the same sense that classical mechanics is complete; both CM and QM are completed within their scope of reality.  Classical mechanics is not superseded by SR or GR, it is complemented by them.  The same is, I’m sure, the destiny of QM.

Nevertheless, the source of troubles for QM, as well as, CM, SR and GR, I believe started with Newton and continued with Einstein by their conception of the following properties of reality:

·        Mass.  As we all know, this is Newton’s creation. The problem with the concept of mass is that it is a black-box solution to inertia and gravity; we don’t know what it is, so we label it “mass”.  That makes all of the above incomplete by intent and by definition.

QM attempts to penetrate the black box to some extent, but fails to get rid of it and replaces it with a “probability density” that collapses into “mass” by some process.  OK… Now we broke up the black box into smaller black boxes and relabeled them “probability density” “collapse process” and “mass”.

·        Force field:  The inputs and outputs to the black box are “force fields”, which do nothing more than to complete the definition of the original “mass” black box.  We still don’t know what this thing labeled “mass” is.  We then model the “probability density” by means of the wavefunction, improving the situation, but we are still left to deal with the “collapse” process.

Force fields are being replaced nowadays by force carrier particles, which in my opinion, is a better idea, because it introduces the concept of “messenger of information”.

·        Spacetime. Here comes Einstein…  The problem here is two-fold,

first, Einstein assumes, like most before him, that spacetime is what surrounds energy and mass, as if the vacuum can have properties, which doesn’t make sense to me because nothingness is exactly that, “nothingness”.  I choose instead to model spacetime as the conglomerate of objects conforming reality by means of Broglie-Bohm waves, where the pilot wave IS the object.  This may be hard to accept, but it is just a model anyway, like QM.

On the other hand, with the help of Minkowsky, Einstein models time as another dimension, at par with space.  Here is where I agree with Amrit Sorli to the extent that, making it a dimension makes things unphysical.  We should model time as a process, the same process we labeled “collapse” in QM.  I choose it to be an orthogonal process, so that I can account for relativity and conjugacy.

What I am presently attempting to do is to replace the current model of spacetime by a discrete-event model, as in discrete-event simulation (DES), to get rid of the concept of mass, time as a dimension and spacetime as a description of nothingness.

I’m sure that by this time, my software engineering background is showing.

Best Regards,

Bernardo.

we should take one thing : physics without math is just primitive statistic not science. 

By QM here We udnderstand physical theory (i think so) in math.

We don't ask why it is better use numbers and math then words.  

i think we agree ?

s.

@Clifford Chafin

Please prove that Maxwell based differential calculus is correct and quaternionic differential calculus is incorrect. The two methods clearly differ and deliver for example different wave equations. The read : “Division algebras and quantum theory” by John Baez. http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5690  and try to disprove that paper.

Dear Readers,

This relates directly to the subject question by giving a brief general overview regarding development of current physics theory and a new work (Posts 1 thru 5 on RG’s site).  The overview may be of interest to those who would like a summary of these theories.  Parts of this summary are well known, but are worth repeating.

Overview.  After Maxwell showed that light propagates in a waveform and Einstein showed that light consists of particles called photons,  it was reasoned by de Broglie and Schrödinger that matter (such as the electron) could also be modeled similar to the photon, because it too exhibited wave/particle characteristics in an interferometer.  From this, came Schrödinger’s probabilistic differential wave equation for a charged particle, which with other factors yielded quantum mechanics (QM).

Quantum electrodynamics (QED) was initiated by Paul Dirac, when he rewrote Schrödinger’s differential wave equation for a charged particle in a relativistic form with spin operators.  However, the new form yielded implausible solutions such as negative energy states.  To overcome these problems, the equation was reformulated and reinterpreted as a field equation.  In addition to using known electromagnetic concepts, later versions of QED incorporated concepts such as creation and annihilation operators, renormalization, abstract operators and state space, quantum vacuum, virtual particles, anti-particles, and force mediators; some of which are yet to be accepted universally.  While current QED is empirically designed to give accurate predictive results,  it remains a probabilistic theory based on an abstract physical model and abstract mathematical formulation.  Gravity is not addressed in the model.

Since gravity,  in general relativity,  is thought to be due to curved geometric spacetime, effort has been and continues to be made to incorporate and merge QED with spacetime.  For example, in some of these studies, electromagnetic fields have a value at every point of spacetime, and that the intermingling of electric and magnetic manifestations, described by Maxwell’s equations, give spacetime its structure.  The propagation of the field is determined by the electromagnetic wave equation, which now requires spacetime for description.  The electric and magnetic profiles of the electromagnetic field are determined by the rate of motion of the observer.  In general relativity, curved spacetime is assumed as being continuous;  thus, current studies are also focused on possible quantization of spacetime at the smallest of scales, for example the Planck scale.

Critique.   Because the composition and mechanism of matter was not known, Schrödinger’s differential wave equation for a charged particle, as outlined above, was derived without having proper understanding of matter and of how it worked;  thus, some assumptions had to be made at the time.  Just from a practical point of view,  how could he be expected to write a formulation for matter without knowing it conceptually?  From this theory, to the next refinement of it, to the next refinement of that, to the next…etc, current QED theory is now in place.  All of this work was done empirically based on observations and measurements to give good matching results,  not on the underlying composition and mechanisms of matter that give such observations and measurements.  If the composition and construction of matter had been known at time of Schrödinger,  it would have been understood that his work would have required a different approach.  The subsequent chain of theories that followed would have been different, as well.

It is shown in the new work, previously referenced, that the electromagnetic work of Coulomb, Maxwell, and Lorentz gives us the basis to derive the electromagnetic composition and mechanism of matter, fields, radiation, and fundamental forces without needing to rely on assumptions and empiricism as Schrödinger, and those thereafter, had to.  Please remember that general relativity was derived by starting with Newton’s gravitational work and making relativistic-type adjustments to it;  Newton’s equation is recovered in general relativity at slower velocities and weaker gravitational fields, which give negligible relativistic-type effects.  Curved spacetime was invoked as a possible explanation for gravity,  rather than thinking that the gravitational force,  implied by Newton’s formulation,  could act at a distance. The new referenced work, which derives Newton’s formulation, shows that when the gravitational fields of two bodies overlap, the gravitational force between them is mobilized;  this gives the appearance of the force acting at a distance. A similar action occurs between two separated magnets, as shown in the referenced work;  when their dipole fields overlap, a magnetic force is mobilized at a distance.

A big obstacle that keeps QM/QED in place is that many QM effects cannot be explained in terms of classical mechanics.  Bell’s Theorem is a good example.  If it had been known by Bell,  that the electron and the photon have axes along which, their dynamic elements translate and/or oscillate,  then measurements and/or affects on the properties of either the electron or photon would vary in accordance with the cosine of the angle between the axis of measurement and the axis of either the electron or photon.  Thus, Bell’s work would have shown that the correlation/angle relationship would not be linear, but instead would be related to the cosine function as reproduced in experiments and would not need to be attributed to quantum mechanics.  In all cases,  the Bell inequality equation would be violated.

Please see the attached list of other QM phenomena that cannot be understood in terms of classical mechanics because the composition and underlying dynamic mechanism of matter are not properly understood.  For example,  if the makeup of matter were properly understood,  then QM/QED/Curved Spacetime  would not need to be invoked.  The statements given here may seem bold to many,  but it seems impossible to avoid this when theories are so different.

Regards,

Dan Correnti

Hans,

I am not sure I understand your abstract theory, but it has an appealing aim, namely to arrive at and include stochastic (Poissonian) Processes. In fact the latter can be derived rigorously in a non-Hermitian setting. This leads to symmetric representations that contains irreducible (Jordan) blocks. It is straightforward to prove that the associated time evolution becomes Poissonian.

Dan,

Metaphysical statements like "if we would know this and that ... we would not need QM" or whatever is not helpful. It makes further little sense to downgrade time as suggested above by some. Since time is conjugate to energy, you cannot alter the definition of one  without consequence for the other.

Jürg anticipated that actual references to "physical reality"may block communication. Indeed it looks so, since using this metaphysical concept promotes confusion. We do not know what reality is – we can only obtain first person subjective impressions and then compare this documentation as third person narratives. What we can do is to order facts using rational theories based on deductive reasoning.

@Hans, on page 2 of the paper the usual consensus is stated "At first glance, the lesson seems to be that real, complex and quaternionic quantum theory stand

on an equal footing, at least mathematically. In particular, while quaternionic Hilbert spaces may be unfamiliar, we shall see their definition soon, and they turn out to be quite well-behaved in many respects. But experiments seem to show that our universe is described by the complex version of quantum theory, not the real or quaternionic version."

It is not necessary that I disprove any of Baez's results.  Nature has shown them irrelevant.  

Dear Dan,

Excellent and clear overview of current physics theory, especially for a learner.

Thank you so much, Gianrocco

Response to question: ABSOLUTELY NOT. There is at least an alternative that does not have the problems of (mainly)  Dirac's Quantum Mechanics. Its mere existence means that their is another quantum mechanical view of the world. It may (it will!) at least confer a new perspective on old problems. But, as it happens with a new good theory, it comes with its own set of questions.  

What a coincidence for you, Prof.Tucci. The main paper on this subject is in the Rendiconti of la Sapienza, 1962. The author? Some poor guy who believes himself a new Einstein?. NO!!!!!!l The author is the same one of Kaehler manifolds and of the Cartan-Kaehler theory of exterior systems. Pure genius.

Incidentally, hiis previous paper on the subject is from 1961 and its titled is "Die Dirac Gleichung".(The Dirac Equation).  But do not read 1961 before 1962.

.

It is as completed than Ptoleme description of universe before Copernic. With a time anthropocentered reference system trying to explain finite cycled phenomenons, some complexities occurs !

Quantum theory, as people working in the field know, has never been complete and this has nothing to do with Einstein’s hidden variables nor with gravity.  The incompleteness of quantum theory comes from the fact that the wavefunction satisfies the Schrodinger equation and solutions to the Schrodinger equation do not collapse. While the modulus squared of the wavefunction tells us the probability of collapse to one outcome, there is no mathematical description that explains to us why we observe that specific outcome and not others. This well known issue is called the ‘measurement problem’ and while people are working on it, it remains unsolved, which means quantum theory remains incomplete. It's incomplete because it does not describe everything within its domain of applicability.

The moves you make are strange.  I am not advocating for some feature of the world that I find appealing. The Schrodinger equation is deterministic while the outcome of an experiment is not. There is a simple tension there that you have washed away.

The point is that outcomes of experiments appear random despite the fact that the thing that describes them comes from a deterministic framework.  In terms of explaining the world, there is a glaring tension there that you seem to be missing.

It's not me that we should focus on but on an entire field of research which, according to you, should not exist. But that's the kind of thing one gets into on websites like this.

Erkki,

Your feedback is appreciated because it appears you are trying to be constructive.  But please realize,  we are trying to do the same.  Our view of physical reality is represented by the proposed physical models that are given in the referenced work in the earlier post.  All that can be asked for, is that you consider them.

Regards, Dan

To put things into perspective let me start with a seemingly unrelated remark:

One of the most powerful methods for investigating the logic connections between assumption is the search for models. If an ancient scientist would have had the intuition to think about the provability of the parallel axiom by considering what we call the Klein Beltrami model of hyperbolic geometry he would have seen at once: All 'normal' axioms of Euclid concerning points and lines are satisfied in this model, and nevertheless for any pair of a line and a non-incident point there are infinitely many parallels! Problem solved! The existence of a single unique parallel can not be a consequence of the remaining Euclidean  axioms.

In the spirit of such a model based proof I have 'completed' standard quantum theory to a deterministic theory which does not only predict probabilities for measuring results but the measuring results itself. It is made sure that any essemble of predicted measuring results is consistent with the probabilistic predictions of standard quantum theory. It is not claimed that the mechanism used in the proof (algorithically working pseudo-random generators) are actually underlying Nature's selection of actual measurement results from quantum mechanical possibilities. What is definitively shown is that such a deterministic background is logically  consistent with traditional quantum mechanics.  

Research On a deterministic disguise of orthodox quantum mechanics. Version 2

Hilbert spaces can be used in several different ways and usually quantum physics uses only one of these possibilities. It is partly due to its focus on the wave function. Other approaches use a density operator. Still another possibility is to use closed subspaces of a separable Hilbert space in order to represent elementary objects. Remember that the set of closed subspaces of a separable Hilbert space has the same relational structure as an orthomodular lattice has. Quantum logic has this same structure. In 1936 Birkhoff and von Neumann gave their discovery this name because the structure is very similar to the relational structure of classical logic. However, the elements of the orthomodular lattice are not logical propositions. It is more relevant to interpret these elements as construction elements. On the other hand not all closed subspaces of the Hilbert space act as construction elements. What singles out Hilbert space subspaces as actual elementary construction elements? Only those subspaces represent elementary particles. Subspaces are spanned by orthonormal base vectors that can be eigenvectors of normal operators. This means that the corresponding eigenvalues characterize the objects that are represented by the subspace. What do these eigenvalues characterize?

In order to understand whether a theory is inconsistent or incomplete, its foundations must be known and must be carefully investigated with trustworthy tools. Especially it must be checked that the whole theory is directly or indirectly derived from its foundations.

For example it is false to start a theory with hypothetical notions of time and space. These notions cannot exist without a supporting number system and that number system would be more fundamental. Several number systems exist and many of them exist in multiple versions. A selected foundation must let the tolerated number systems emerge and then introduce progression and space in a straightforward way. The most difficult step will be to find a foundation whose expansion does not turn into dynamical or spatial chaos.

So, what is more primitive than number systems and has sufficient structure and capabilities to let number systems emerge? Skeleton relational structures exist that can do this. Classical logic is an example of a skeleton relational structure. Its elements are propositions and the structure defines the relations that are tolerated between these elements. This structure does not contain numbers and has no means to let number systems emerge. However, another skeleton relational structure exists that has a slightly different structure. It is mathematically known as an orthomodular lattice and it is known that this structure characterizes the set of closed subspaces of a separable Hilbert space. The Hilbert space uses number systems that are division rings. Suitable division rings are real numbers, complex numbers and quaternions. Quaternions are ideally suited for the storage of dynamic geometric data. With other words the orthomodular lattice is a proper choice for selecting the foundation of physical reality.

The separable Hilbert space is no more and no less than a structured storage medium for discrete data that can be stored into quaternions. This extension of the foundation cannot handle continuums and has no means to ensure dynamic and spatial coherence. Continuums can be handled by adding the Gelfand triple to the Hilbert space.

Ensuring dynamic and spatial coherence can only be done by dedicated mechanisms that fill eigenspaces of operators that reside in the separable Hilbert space. These mechanisms are external to the Hilbert space! Without these mechanisms nothing occurs.

Current physical theories ignore these mechanisms. This is exactly the facet that makes current physics incomplete.

Hans,

unfortunately only the one-particle states come with this easy characterization by mass, spin, momentum. In a two-electron space each electron makes not a subspace (contrary to what too many textbooks write) but only a factor in a tensor product.

I sort of agree with Ulrich but I would say it slightly differently.  The space the system lives in can be spanned by a tensor product of one particle states but, generally, the system is not separable.  He is right in that textbooks do a horrible job of emphasizing this point.  

@Ulrich

The tensor product of two quaternionic Hilbert spaces is a real Hilbert space. That must not be a problem, because depending on the selected model a tensor product is not needed. It only means that using tensor products of Hilbert spaces is not advisable. It only works within a completely complex number based model.

Se: "Division Algebras and Quantum Theory"; by John Baez

Hans,

the description of scattering of particles (the most important task of quantum physics) needs a mathematical structure similiar to a tensor-product. The nice work of our great magician J. Baez says nothing against this.

@Charles

Boolean logic is not represented by an orthomodular lattice. It is represented by a complemented distributive lattice. These latiiices have different structure; An orthomodular lattice is an orthocomplemented weakly modular and atomic lattice. The distributive law does not hold for the orthomodular lattice.

@Ulrich

I agree that John Baez's paper does not forbid tensor products of Hilbert spaces  in general. It discourages the use of tensor products of quaternionic Hilbert spaces. I only state that Hilbert spaces can be applied in several ways and only in a few of these applications a tensor product is needed. It is possible to represent elementary particles by closed subspaces of a separable Hilbert space and composites of these particles by combined subspaces. In that case the whole universe is represented by a single infinite dimensional separable quaternionic Hilbert space and its companion Gelfand triple.

Complex number based models pose problems to handle symmetry related properties of particles. This is easier done with quaternionic Hilbert spaces. See for example: "On the Origin of Electric Charge"; http://vixra.org/abs/1507.0185

With great respect, this question is typical of so many questions disucssed in physics: it is contextually incomplete. Such are the standards used in metaphysics and philosophy, where it doesn't matter (because no one is intersted in empirical validation). By contextually incomplete  I mean that important details are either implicit, unstated, missing, avoided, hidden, or even not regarded as significant, yet their absence creates the difficulties in the first place. Taking this question, for example, I would want to to know the following:

1) Who is deciding what is a "complete description of reality"? Define reality.

2) How is this to be decided empirically?

3) Do you believe in absolute truths in physics, i.e, propositions such as "electric charge is never destroyed.", or do you follow the principles of science rather than metaphysics and see such statements as contextual?

4) Do you believe there is a difference between metaphysics and physics? If so, what is it?

In my experience, people fall on one side or the other of the realist/contextuality fence. Fine. Choose which one you like, but don't expect to use the standards used on one side of the fence to argue about issues that really belong on the other. side.

I agree entirely with the answer given by Jürg Martin Fröhlich (4 days ago)

@George,

as a learner in physics and philosophy let me choose my answer, within your very ‘deep’ contribution, that I believe to be more congenial to my knowledge. Then, some comments to a part of your intervention.

I trust that what I am going to say  is closely connected to other reflections and personal considerations that have appeared previously in respect of other matters being debated on RG. On this occasion, I would like to develop those ideas and personal considerations and indicate that the person mentioned by science  is the same as that in metaphysics; so you can not ignore that the scientific description of the world is not able to satisfy the need for understanding of reality on the part of every subject and that moves from an original push, a question that is both scientific and existential: " The world what it is ? ". This demand must find primarily its answer in the life of every man, understood as cognitive adventure. Knowledge of a ‘personal’ truth, relating to the subject in his uniqueness and individuality: an existential truth. This can be achieved through the spirit which must express and realize the existence of each individual through his acts that take place in time and space. Therefore, each person can not directly understand his ‘being’ if not mediated by his actions, by his own experience. The approach is therefore a method of critical reflection on them to grasp their meaning and significance of the ‘being’ that produces them. Metaphysics is helpful in that it seeks to explore and decide what is metaphysically possible, i.e. what can be in reality. Then metaphysics performs the function of a condition which must exist before any presumption of truth about its effectiveness can be corroborated by experience. Scientific disciplines, having to determine what is actually true based on experience, investigate its contents. But, those contents can be determined only on the basis of a more general framework that specifies what is metaphysically possible.

@Charles

Since the discovery in 1936 of quantum logic by Garret Birkhoff and John von Neumann several scientist have tried to formulate what kind of logical propositions could be used as elements of this lattice. The group around Jauch. Emch, Finkelstein and Piron have produced several documents that concern these attempts. This discussion is still ongoing and is not very fruitful. In the introductory paper Birkhoff and von Neumann already indicated the the set of closed subspaces of a separable Hilbert space has exactly the lattice structure of what they called "quantum logic". At the same time efforts were undertaken to use this orthomodular lattice as a foundation of axiomatic quantum physics. Constantin Piron and Maria Pia Solèr were in particular active in this direction. John Baez recently devoted an interesting overview paper on the subject. These developments have stimulated me to interpret the elements of the orthomodular lattice not as logic propositions, but instead as construction elements that fit in modular systems. This would mean that elementary objects are represented by atomic elements of the orthomodular lattice. This interpretation raises another problem. Not all closed subspaces of the separable Hilbert space represent construction elements. Thus, there must be extra criteria than being a member of an orthomodular lattice in order to be classified as an elementary construction element or a composite of such elementary objects. The extension of the model from orthomodular lattice to the Hilbert space offers opportunities to find these extra criteria.

Hilbert spaces offer much opportunities that are not explored by current physical theories and that offer a different view on quantum physics. These opportunities are investigated in "Foundations of a Mathematical Model of Physical Reality"; http://vixra.org/abs/1502.0186

I want to say something in case it benefits somebody like it would have benefited me decades ago in connection with these topics.

I joined Research gate just months ago, since then, I have received congratulations from the organization because of grat interest in a few of my papers, specially in quantum mechanics and one on the foundations and testing of special relativity. They are related, though not in an obvious way. Details upon request.

 My point here is that THE FORM taken by our fundamental questions in QM is largely dependent on how the theory was born. The main emphasis soon became in the particle picture and spinors with the advent of relativistic quantum mechanics. In the early sixties,  Kaehler developed an alternative where psi starts as a field and electrons/positrons emerge from it through solutions with symmetry of systems of equations written in Kaehler's superb formalism.

I have been cranking "the Kaehler machine" to the point where I am now doing algebra of quarks (including color and flavor). Three days ago, the arxiv posted a paper of mine "Algebraic quarks from the tangent bundle: Methodology" after their moderators apparently deliberated for a whole month. This is not a complaint at all. For me, it means that they care about what they post, when at variance with the paradigm.

So, there is at least an alternative version of quantum mechanics, grounded in math, but connecting immediately with the "Kaeher-Dirac equation and the fine structure of the hydrogen atom. It has positrons without the problem of negative energy solutions. And it takes us in unsuspected directions.

The Kaehler papers are in German and are not for those who do not have ability with math, though they are written  in physicists style. But I thought I had to let you know of their existence. Sorry, if this happens to also be self serving, but that should not be reason for not informing you. Good luck. 

The quaternions have a mostly destructive history.  When Hamilton discovered them he and other British mathematicians so exaggerated their significance that it caused them to lag behind important continental advances.  They periodically pop up whenever someone is looking to generalize some set of expressions that requires a division algebra.  It is almost always fruitless.  

The history of quantum logic is another such herring.  Logic was formalized and then the obvious thing was to try to extend valuation and make it incorporate quantum states of reality.  The people overly fond of this tend to think of von Neumann as one of the greatest intellectuals of the 20th century despite the fact that most of his work has turned out to be just mathy toys with little physical value.  Sometimes this line of thinking bears fruit as in Dirac's derivation of his equation but his work had to be completely rethought multiple times and his "hole theory" is now just a historical curiosity in particle theory (see Weinberg).  In general, the kinds of immediately obvious extensions that appeal to mathematicians are not the kind that work for physics and I believe strongly that we have gravitated to such clever derivations of results to save space because more physical arguments are much harder and longer.  It now seems that string theory, supersymmetry and much of the work done since 1970 is not proving fruitful.  Maybe it is time to quit messing with formalism and get back to hard questions.  

I have learned in a long career of working with students that one can motivate people and make them come up with good results only with the help of positive examples and positive incentives. It is pointless to complain about the uselessness or sterility of quaternions, quantum logics and string theory. Such remarks don't have anything to do with the question that is being asked here, and they discourage young people. Talking about hard questions without giving examples isn't very helpful either. -- Let's return to positive thinking: Do we have a way of talking about quantum mechanics and about what it is that is described by quantum mechanics that is logically coherent and physically viable? Put briefly: Do we understand quantum mechanics? I think that, with a little extra effort, the answer is "yes"! The description of a realm of Nature belonging to physics that quantum mechanics is providing is as complete as possible, from the point of view of present-day theory.

To Charles Francis:

"In my view the philosophy that qm is already as complete as possible has denied the pursuit of answers like these, and hindered the progress of research in science."

Permit me to disagree. I feel that it actually is the attempts to go BEYOND quantum theory that have hindered progress and wasted peoples' time. I could give plenty of examples; but politeness prevents me from doing that.

"Forgive me if I am a little skeptical but I have generally found that when established physicists make this claim, they do not mean that they understand quantum mechanics, but that they have only circumscribed the question so that they can make correct calculations in quantum mechanics."

I actually mean that I have started to understand quantum mechanics! (But, then, you may think that I am not an established physicist.) My occupation with quantum mechanics has been motivated by the desire to remove an intellectual scandal: That there is plenty of ongoing confusion concerning the meaning of the most successful theory of physics. Now I am not naive: I am not particularly optimistic that my ideas (as well as other peoples' ideas) about quantum mechanics, intended to be logically coherent and physically plausible, will be studied seriously (except by a small circle of colleagues) and considered to remove some of that intellectual scandal. But since I don't have to make a career, anymore, I can afford to pursue them anyway. -- If you are interested in what my views are, please, consult the papers uploaded on arXiv and on RG.

"If we are prepared to pursue such questions, we can establish things like Feynman diagrams actually describe underlying structure, they are not only aids to calculation. Once we understand underlying mathematical structure as graph, and spacetime as emergent, unification between qed and gr turns out to be not too difficult."

Forgive me; but statements like this one strike me as meaningless - period - and tend to discredit opinions that you have communicated and that may be valuable. Let's not be arrogant!

@Clifford

Quaternionic differential calculus is a consistent and compact mathematical theory. In contrast Maxwell based differential calculus is provable not complete and is provable inconsistent and is clumsy due to its spacetime model, which has a Minkowski signature.

If you disagree, then you must be capable to disprove the content of: "Quaternionic versus Maxwell based differential calculus"; http://www.e-physics.eu/QuaternionicVersusMaxwellBasedDifferentialCalculus.pdf

Many very personal views exist about quantum physics. At the same time no commonly agreed view exists of what quantum physics is. If quantum physics was completed, then the validity and description of this theory would be widely known and all universities would lecture this theory. That is not the case. Physics merely takes the shape of a set of competing religions, where every pastor preaches his own interpretation in which he strongly believes. Some institutions build complete bastions that are meant to defend their view. This is merely based on economic reasons than for scientific reasons.

It is not difficult to disprove current physical theories. In the course of their development many inconsistencies and misconceptions have entered these theories. These defects are not easily repairable. Repair often involves a widely reformulation of the theory.

1) Scientists expect from a Theory to be more than a black box which provides acceptable data in answer to experiments. A Theory should provide an uunderstanding of what it is, even if it is in general and somewhat vague terms. This is necessary because a Theory must be taught and is the fertile ground upon which other ideas can germinate. Newton's laws are succesful not only because they are quite good in their predictions, but because almost everybody can understand them. When reading the posts here it is clear that Quantum Physics do not provide this framework : the scientific community do not agree about what it means. This is nice for journalists always looking for new mysteries (how nice to have Higgs boson, and dark matter, and why not a force like in Stars wars ?) and profitable for the scientists who are stalking the journalists in quest of fame, a Nobel prize or a tenure, but this does not make science. So the question of this post is fully legitimate.

2) Scientists should be careful not to confuse reality (the physical world as it is) and the objects, essentially mathematical in Physics, they use to represent this physical reality. They are right to use these representations, because they are efficient, and it is quite easy to grasp properties which are attached to the physical objects, but that does not mean that these objects are the reality. It is always disturbing to read narratives about photons, wave functions, ... as if they were real things. In Relativity one can represent a 4 dimensional universe with past and future, that does not mean that the future exists somewhere. In QM the principle of superposition is generally accepted, but this is mathematical property of vectors, that does not mean that the real world is the superposition of virtual worlds. We are right to represent material objects as if they occupy a geometric point, this is not an issue, even if the object is a galaxy : this is a matter of efficiency, not an act of faith.

3) Physicists, and mostly QM physicists, emphasize the role of experiments, and the procedures used to collect them, notably the circumstances in which this is done (simultaneous measures or not). However in most domains the physical objects are represented as variables which can take an uncountable infinite number of values. Whatever the statistical procedure used, it must start by stating a simplified version of the mathematical object, such that the specification can be described by a finite number of parameters, which can then be estimated. There is an unavoidable uncertainty in this process, which does not come from reality, or even from the imprecision of the measures, but from a discrepancy between our theoretical representation (in the model) and our practical representations (in the expermiments)   In short : we work in parallel with two different representations, without noticing that this introduces some distorsion. And this has far reaching consequences. The observables are no more than the effect of this reduction.

4) von Neumann, Birchkoff, Jauch and others (like Charles Francis I presume) propose a formal system to explain the main axioms of QM (Hilbert space,...). This is a commendable endeavour, because it strives to give an understable content to the theory. It is mainly aimed at building a formal system of physics, which can be then assimilated by some structural isomorphism to the mathematical objects (Hilbert spaces,...). Mathematicians attempted to do the same at the beginning of the XX° century : build a clean, consistent mathematics which encompasses the patchwork of the existing theories, with as few axioms as possible. They discovered, to their surprise, that to achieve that they must give up two requirements :the objects of the formal system become puraly abstracts, without any relation with physical objects (such as lines and points had in Euclide's geometry), they are defined only by their properties. And the choice of the axioms is not unique (Gödel's incompletness theorem). So the same risks exist for a formal system in Physics. The concepts (particles, force, momenta,...) that we use are perhaps vague and imperfect, but they can be easily related to physical phenomena. This is not the case with a wave function.

To Hans,

Actually quaternions are nowadays superseded by Clifford algebras, which are more general, easier to use, and are at the base of the spinors.

I consider Clifford algebras, Jordan algebras, Grasmann algebras and spinor based representations of quaternions as obscuring the structure and behavior of quaternions and quaternionic functions. Dirac's equation is an example of that way of presenting quaternionic equations. It uses four component spinors and 4x4 matrices. The problem with quaternions is that they exist in several versions. For example quaternions exist in right handed and in left handed versions. Due to the four dimensions of quaternions do quaternionic number systems exist in sixteen versions. It is better to indicate these versions with special superscripts, than use spinors and matrices as is done by Dirac. In that way the Dirac equation can be represented by two quaternionic equations. One treats the electron and the other treats the positron. It would already be better to use two component spinors and 2x2 matrices instead of the four component spinors and 4x4 component matrices. In that way the original equation split in an equation for the electron and an equation for the positron. Each of these equations use left handed spinors and right handed spinors.

The importance of quaternions becomes clear in the way Hilbert spaces and Gelfand triples can use these number systems. In Hilbert spaces multiple versions of quaternionic number systems can coexist.

Hilbert spaces and Gelfand triples can represent physical spaces by quaternionic number systems or by continuous quaternionic functions. Separable Hilbert spaces can only handle countable sets, but the Gelfand triple can handle continuums. As a consequence in these spaces several versions of physical spaces can coexist. 

I challenge everybody to understand what this means by using Clifford algebras or spinors.

To Hans,

I do not worship Dirac's equation. I prefer to start from the beginning and understand what is the meaning of spinor, that is a representation of the relativist momentum of material bodies, at any scale. One needs to use a representation of Clifford algebras to do this (a spinor is a vector in a representation of a Clifford algebra), and one uses a complex representation (this avoids the choice of a signature). Then spinors are vectors of a complex 4 dimensional vector space, and antiparticles appear naturally, as well as the spin. And spinors can be used to model deformable bodies in the GR context, such as galaxies.

An advantage of Clifford algebras is that one can the same for force fields, and then one can quantize these fields, including the gravitational field.

@Jean Claude

The standard model reveals that a short list of electric charges exist and the structure of that list suggests that it has something to do with three dimensional space. This impression is increased when the color charges are noticed. The sixteen versions in which quaternionic number systems exist invite to try to relate these charges to the versions of the quaternionic number system. It is possible to find a relatively simple algorithm that couples these versions to the charges, but that algorithm requires that the charges relate to differences between these versions and a selected reference version. In the context of my previous comment this means that versions of spaces are coupled, where one space acts as reference version. This idea is worked out in "On the Origin of Electric Charge"; http://vixra.org/abs/1507.0185

The Dirac equation is analyzed in "The Dirac Equation in Quaternionic Format"; http://vixra.org/abs/1505.0149

To Hans,

Try to interpret charges by quaternionic numbers is a kind of Great Unification, why not ? But from my point of view it is a bit futile as long that one keeps gravitation out of the loop. All the time and money spent in Particles Physics have bring nothing useful, meanwhile we still do not know anything about gravitation which is by far more important.

It is outright stupid to claim that "all the time and money spent in Particles Physics have brought nothing useful,..."! Why do people on RG like to insult colleagues who are engaged in serious efforts? NOT GOOD!

To Charles,

I do not think that it is possibile to avoid infinity in an axiomatic physics (Jauch uses it).

I agree that concepts such as space and time are vague, are they metaphysical ? The path from concepts, representation in models, measures, is a bit tortuous. Expect to have a perfect adequation between the narrative, the formal representation, and the measures is, from my point of view, very ambitious.

Let us take an example : the distance between two points is something which is easily understood. However any measure of length will give, up to scale, a rational number. If we follow Eddington we have two possibilities : either use only rational numbers in our models, and give up differential calculus, or assume that the physical reality is discreet.

I think it is simpler to accept that our concept of lengh is imperfect, but easy to understand and conveniens for the narrative, can be represented by a real number because this is convenient in the computations, and be aware that any measure will provide a result which has some specificities, without pretending anything about what is the reality. The key is to keep in mind at the successive steps that there is a difference between what it is and what we have in mind. And actually the analysis of these differences provides itself powerful tools : tell that the state of a system can be represented as a vector in a Hilbert space is fruitful (and can be proven from the way we format the models), as long that one does not tell that the world is a Hilbert space or that an object exists because its wave function has collapsed.

Hans, you said: "that list suggests that it has something to do with three dimensional space". I could not agree more with you.

After one month of deliberation (it must have been thoroughly scrutinized), arxiv posted my  paper "Algebraic quarks from the tangent bundle: methodology". There I deal with algebraic color and algebraic flavor and neutron decay (beyond the obvious that a d quarks goes down to a u quark.

To Jürg,

Sorry if you have been offended. I am not a colleague on anything. I am just a tax payer, and I see that the collectivity has spend a lot of efforts and money for what ? To check that the Standard Model 40 years old is valid ? The first practical use of particles physics would have been to improve nuclear reactors, but it seems that they still are basically the same as they were designed 50 years ago. So, yes, I am disappointed. And the only theory that we have about gravitation is GR, religiously preserved in the same formalism as 70 years ago. Are Theoricists in Physics dedicated to comment always on the same Holly Scriptures, or will they, some day, bring something new, and useful ? So there is some legitimacy to question the way the efforts - paid by everybody - are distributed. We need new, fresh ideas, and this is becoming more urgent. Particles Physics is difficult, it has not progressed in many years, but is still fashionable. Perhaps is it time to reallocate the ressources, and the first to give an advice should be the scientists themselves, before others take the matter in their hand.

Quote; "Why do people on RG like to insult colleagues who are engaged in serious efforts? NOT GOOD!"

I agree. Nevertheless, something is happening with HEP that has brought otherwise respectable physicists to utter all sorts of derogatory comments and insults. I wonder whether Jürg Martin Fröhlich would care to comment. I am willing, perhaps even wishing·to hear, a sociological explanation. Thanks. 

Jean Claude,

I largely (not totally) agree with your criticisms. You say: "...and the first to give an advice should be the scientists themselves, before others take the matter in their hand." They are already doing that. May be that is the problem. in the US, the members of congress stopped the building a still larger accelerator in Texas, a construction with which you would not have agreed.

Charles,

As you know, since gravity given by general relativity, is thought to be due to curved geometric spacetime, effort has been and continues to be made to incorporate and merge QED with spacetime. For example, in some of these studies and as you know, electromagnetic fields have a value at every point of spacetime, and that the intermingling of electric and magnetic manifestations, described by Maxwell’s equations, give spacetime its structure. The propagation of the field is determined by the electromagnetic wave equation, which now requires spacetime for description. The electric and magnetic profiles of the electromagnetic field are determined by the rate of motion of the observer. In general relativity, curved spacetime is assumed as being continuous; thus, current studies are also focused on possible quantization of spacetime at the smallest of scales, for example the Planck scale.

If you are incorporating one or more of the above phenomena of curved spacetime in your new paper that will merge QED with gravity, then it will be important to derive working physical models of QED and curved spacetime. For example, it is not scientific to just say that mass causes spacetime to curve to some particular shape, and from this, a planet’s trajectory around the sun is determined. You will need to explain and physically model how and why the planet interacts with spacetime to cause spacetime to bend. In order to do this, you will need to determine what matter and spacetime are made of and how they work. If you believe spacetime consists of the intermingling of electric and magnetic manifestations, then you will need to explain what electric and magnetic manifestations are made of and how they work. Once you also determine what the underlying mechanism and makeup of matter is, then you be able to see how matter could then possibly interact with spacetime. Once all of the above is understood, then you will be able to write supporting mathematical formulations that describe how matter can cause spacetime to curve into a particular shape. Best wishes in this difficult task, which if completed, in a plausible manner, will remove the confusion demonstrated in this thread.

A simpler theory of nature is that matter and fields occupy empty space and that spacetime is a measuring tool that utilizes the effects of special relativity. General relativity utilizes special relativity except it accounts for variable velocity due to acceleration. The attached article is excerpted from a book that gives a simpler understanding of particle physics and gravitation, without having to invoke mysterious and esoteric concepts. For those who are interested in viewing the attached article, selecting the text hyperlink gives a better view of the abstract than the view by selecting the photo hyperlink.

It is shown in the new work, that the electromagnetic work of Coulomb, Maxwell, and Lorentz gives us the basis to derive the electromagnetic composition and mechanism of matter, fields, radiation, and fundamental forces. Please remember that general relativity was derived by starting with and geometrizing Newton’s gravitational work and making relativistic-type adjustments to it; Newton’s equation is recovered in general relativity at slower velocities and weaker gravitational fields, which give negligible relativistic-type effects. Curved spacetime was invoked as a possible explanation for gravity, rather than thinking that the gravitational force, implied by Newton’s formulation, could act at a distance. The new referenced work, which derives Newton’s formulation, shows that when the gravitational fields of two bodies overlap, the gravitational force between them is mobilized; this gives the appearance of the force acting at a distance. A similar action occurs between two separated magnets, as shown in the referenced work; when their dipole fields overlap, a magnetic force is mobilized at a distance.

 Regards,

Dan Correnti

Article UNVEILING of the ELECTRON (Post #1) [A Proposed Electron Structure]

If we look at Richard Feynman and his thoughts on the situation then we see that there is a contradiction in the way we approach the partial pair production and annihilate as if there is no contradiction in the conservation of charge.  

There is a flaw in the way we look at one or the other and I think that there is no annihilation of the particle's there is the coming together of them but something with a nuetral charge is created and we just over look the issue in favor of not understanding the situation.

If someone has a problem with what I have said then tell me your logical argument, but just a down vote is not meaningful.  This just lets me know that I must be close to the truth if you think the only way to argue the logic of what I say is by a vote down.

If you do not like what Feynmann thought was going on then let me know.  However if you think he was correct then the other arguement is moot.    

Dan, after a lengthy text where you treat space-time as if matter would interact with it, you turn to "A simpler theory of nature ..." and make correct statements. You have received one vote up and one vote down. If I would vote I would give you one vote down for the first half and one up for the "simpler theor".

Another blog that is going astray!

Sorry Jürg,

But so far your contribution has been essentially :

QM is good, and everybody can understand it with some effort

it is a scandal (quoted 3 times) that people have confused views on the topic

but we are still waiting for a useful point of view. You ask for positive contributions, do these positive contributions mean : read the Holy Gospels ?

This is a fact that there have been many divergent interpretations of QM. A quick search with Google brings 5 millions references. If everything was so clear, it would not be any problem, and probably no use for theoricists...

Have you read the last post by Peter Jakuboski on A Proposal for ResearchGate Administration? I think it goes in the direction of your intervention. Gianrocco Tucci

Particle generation and particle annihilation are observed like so many particle physics phenomena as black box processes. Something goes in and something else comes out. What happens must obey conservation laws. What happens inside the box is completely unknown. If you are content with this situation then for you the physical theory is complete.

I belong to the people that like to understand what happens inside the black box and I am especially interested in why it happens that way.

In his New Zealand lectures Feynman explained his views on QED and explained that he discovered a recipe that appeared to work, but he also explained that he does not fully comprehend why this recipe works. The recipe contains some steps that do not have proper theoretical support.

See: http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8