Dear Philippos Afxentiou

I don't know exactly the concept of Lee Smolin you have in mind. Do you have a link to a paper of Lee Smolin that describes the concept in a clear way? Because I cannot remember a paper of Lee Smolin that uses the term "principle of novelty". Some of Lee Smolin's papers are about philosophy of science so perhaps I have missed the topic.

With kind regards, Sydney

Philippos Afxentiou

This is what I found in Wikipedia on the page for Lee Smolin:

“Smolin does not believe that quantum mechanicsis a "final theory":

I am convinced that quantum mechanics is not a final theory. I believe this because I have never encountered an interpretation of the present formulation of quantum mechanics that makes sense to me. I have studied most of them in depth and thought hard about them, and in the end I still can't make real sense of quantum theory as it stands.”

I agree with Lee Smolin but I would qualify the comment as follows. Since its inception, quantum theory has aimed at observables and developing equations to predict the results of experiments. We should limit the scope of quantum theory to this.

Then as a separate investigation we should determine the fundamental nature of matter. This starts with the description of light as a wave in the medium of space. Then it follows that electrons, neutrons and protons are looped waves in the medium of space.

Then we have to show how the progress of these waves and their interactions lead to the results predicted by quantum theory.

Here is an example of this theory applied to the hydrogen bond:

Preprint The Hydrogen Bond (June 2022)

Richard

He proposes a principle called Precedence principle in quantum mechanics. In this, there is some space for novelty, i.e. when the precedence in events is small, some novel are allowed in the same way new proteins are formed in biology or evolution. He has paper called "Principle of precedence"

Sorry, the paper you refer too is: "Precedence and freedom in quantum physics" and it was published in 2012.

Download: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.3707

Lee Smolin tries to force a new "entrance" into quantum reality in relation to the evolution of the universe. In other words, the paper is about new interpretations of known concepts.

In my opinion his paper is not well suited to discuss at RG because there are hardly members who are familiar with the framework (at least that is my experience during the couple of years I am a RG member).

With kind regards, Sydney

Philippos Afxentiou

Sydney Ernest Grimm

Thank you for the link. I found this within the paper:

“Principle of precedence: When a quantum process terminating in a measurement has many precedents, which are instances where an identically prepared system was subject to the same measurement in the past, the outcome of the present measurement is determined by picking randomly from the ensemble of precedents of that measurement.”

I have to say that this is a very unbelievable hypothesis which implies that some mechanism is remembering experimental results.

This reinforces my view that we should consider quantum theory as just predicting results. Trying to derive a physical description from the mathematical model is the wrong way round. We should understand the nature of fundamental physics first and then apply the math.

Richard

Dear Richard Lewis

The quote describes another way to interpret the “tangible” reality behind probability.

The description is not based on an already functioned mathematical model about quantum reality. The words describe a proposed causality between probability and the past (the previous measurements under the same conditions). Thus Lee Smolin’s attempt is to get an understanding of the relation between previous measurements and the present measurement that is “ruled” by probability. Because it is obvious that there exists a relation.

That is why he use the words “by picking randomly …”. Unfortunately pure random doesn’t exist so it is what I tried to describe in my previous comment: Lee Smolin tries to force a new "entrance" into quantum reality. He just want to create a "fresh" conceptual framework. In my opinion his attempt is laudable in relation to a lot of contributions of other theorists to understand the topic (understanding quantum reality).

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm I always find it most helpful to refer to a specific experimental example.

Thinking of the dual slit experiment with light, the observed outcome if the photons are sent one at a time is that dots appear on the screen seemingly at random. After a time the dots are seen to follow the characteristic interference pattern.

The quantum theory wave equation will predict the probability of a dot appearing at a particular point on the detection screen.

The Spacetime Wave theory asserts that light is a real physical wave in the medium of space and when this wave arrives at the screen it is spread out over the region of the interference pattern. Then there is an interaction with the orbital electrons on the detector screen but only one electron can absorb the photon. The probabilistic effect takes place at the point of detection.

The precedence theory as stated suggests that it is the historical effect of previous experiments which determines the outcome.

If we just limit quantum theory to predicting the outcome of the experiment we do not have a measurement problem and we can stop trying to work out whether it is the Copenhagen interpretation or the many worlds interpretation or something else which describes fundamental reality.

Then we can independently from first principles work out the fundamental nature of matter and radiation.

Richard

Dear Richard Lewis

Recently some theorists have expressed their opinion with the statement: “local reality doesn’t exist in a non-local universe” (Noble prize physics 2022). Their opinion is based on the assumption that the whole universe creates physical reality “instantaneously” and they doubt/reject the idea that physical reality is the sum of the properties of all the distinct constituents together.

The consequence is that “All that happens is rearrangements of elementary particles with unchanging properties by unchanging laws” is not for granted (see first sentences of Lee Smolin’s Introduction).

He explains the origin of this "new" ideas with the help of the double slit experiment (page 3) and at the end he formulates some postulates (page 4/5).

He stated a “Principle of precedence” too (page 5).

"When a quantum process terminating in a measurement has many precedents, which are instances where an identically prepared system was subject to the same measurement in the past, the outcome of the present measurement is determined by picking randomly from the ensemble of precedents of that measurement."

All these ideas focus on the interactions within quantum reality. So it isn’t that the “principle of precedence” predicts that the measurement of one photon in the double slit experiment is determined by all the double slit experiments in the past (e.g. in the first half of the 20th century). That is not what Lee Smolin describes.

If you start a double slit experiment every outcome/position on the detection screen is possible. But if the experiment envelopes a multiple of transferred quanta there is a relation between the measured positions on the screen.

In other words, he tries to describe in an accurate way his interpretation of what happens in/during the experiment(s).

However, this paper is from 2012 so I am not surprised if he recently has changed his ideas a bit. Anyway, his approach is focussed on QM and in my opinion that is more or less comparable with Einstein’s outdated spacetime.

By the way, "first principles" are a bit vague (your last sentence). So what do you have in mind?

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm First principles would mean first deciding on the nature of light, then deciding on the nature of the electron. Then deciding on the nature of the proton and neutron. Then determining the cause of electric charge. Then determining the cause of the quantisation of the electron and thus the cause of the quantisation of light.

Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on the Unification of Physics

https://youtu.be/zEu-_0ACl3I

Then applying the ideas to explain the results of quantum theory using classical ideas.

Preprint The Hydrogen Bond (June 2022)

Richard

Dear Richard Lewis

I have a different interpretation: first principles – in relation to the reality of the universe – is something else. But don’t be “shocked”, because when I was young I decided to study the foundations of physics. Only to discover that physicists didn’t know what the foundations of physics are. The information I could obtain at that time showed they had the idea that the foundations of physics are directly related with the history of physics. Thus an enumeration of the “main results”, from Newton to Maxwell, etc., explained in an insightful way.

However it is obvious that the foundations of physics are independent from the human scientific culture (although it is helpful to know how we got all these knowledge). Thus the foundations of physics are about the basic properties of our universe. Because these properties result in the amazing amounts of different phenomena at every scale size that are analysed and described by physicists.

Unfortunately knowledge about the basic properties is problematic because measurements can only show the mutual relations between the involved phenomena (a first principle). That is why equations are important in theoretical physics because an equation is the transcript of an observed/measured mutual relation.

In other words, advertising a method that everybody already have tried during the previous centuries is not really promising. Therefore your “goal” seems to be that your decisions on the nature of the phenomena (light, electron, etc.) are more realistic than the concepts of these phenomena by other physicists.

But if we want to understand the “first principles” we have to analyse physical reality (the results of phenomenological physics) with the help of logic (philosophy) and mathematics (e.g. set theory and topology).

Physicists claim that their method of empirical research (the scientific method) is superior in relation to the efforts of philosophers in the past on the same topic (understanding the nature of reality). But it shows that it is founded on the over-emphasizing of their own ideas because of the lack of progress over such a long period of time (more than half a century).

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm I completely agree with all you have said in your most recent post. I think it is important to use philosophical argument and logical deduction starting from a premise that seems valid.

My premise is that space is as described by general relativity and is therefore a wave transport medium with the ability to store and release energy.

From this initial assumption all else follows by logical deduction.

Richard

Dear Richard Lewis

Einstein’s theory of Special and General relativity is founded on the concept of the existence of spacetime. They verified the hypothesis with experiments/observations and because the outcomes were in line with the predictions of the theory they draw the conclusion that spacetime is real. That’s why the whole conceptual framework of cosmology is build upon Einstein’s spacetime.

However, spacetime is a worrying concept (classic physics) and I have spoiled more than a decade to understand that is must be some kind of a model instead of physical reality. Fortunately nowadays the problem is easier to entwine than 50 years ago.

Since 1977 we know that the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMBR) has a dipole (https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8s11274p). That means that we can measure– with the help of the Doppler effect – the velocity and direction of the motion of the solar system in relation to the rest frame of the electromagnetic field (the CMBR).

In 2022 the existence of the rest frame of the electromagnetic field is confirmed by Jeremy Darling

(https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ac6f08). It shows that the velocity of the solar system is about 368 km/s in relation to the structure of the electromagnetic field (See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lPJ5SX5p08). The consequence of the existence of a rest frame by the electromagnetic field is that quantum time is a constant, determined by Planck’s constant (h) and the constant speed of light (c). Because “inside” a rest frame the duration of an electromagnetic wave over a fixed distance in vacuum space is always the same.

The video above shows that the proposed curvature of space – forced by the existence of local matter – cannot have a nice curvatureat all. Because Einstein’s deformed geometrical space around a celestial body must actlike a “swirl” and that is not what the theory of General relativity predicts.

But the real problem of Einstein’s theory of General relativity is his own famous formula E = m c2, the equivalence between mass (matter) and “free” energy. The equation shows that I have to multiply the concentrated energy of the mass with c2 to get “free” energy again. The constant speed of light – a stream of “free” quanta – has the velocity of the speed of light (c) so it isn’t c that is worrying because it is obvious that I have to restore the velocity of “free” energy to every “locked” quantum of the mass. It is the square in c2 that is difficult to understand. Because c2 is like a coefficient without a meaning and that cannot be true because the equation is in line with the measurements.

To create the mass (m) I have to concentrate “free” energy from vacuum space around. But at the moment I concentrate 2 or more quanta the speed of light is gone. So I have to conclude that I have transferred a property (a variable) of vacuum space around to create the concentration of energy (m). So what is represented by c2 ?

The most obvious property of space is volume, actually just Euclidean volume. To curve the volume of space, space itself must have a structure. Because a 100% homogeneous body has no difference in spatial properties within its boundary. Einstein didn’t use the concept of a structure so his theory is like a “castle in the air”. Nevertheless, space has a structure because the detectable differences – caused by the existence of a structure – are described in QFT.

The consequence is that the nature of energy is the result of the local differences between the surface areas of the units of the structure of space itself (c2). If the volume of these units is a variable accelerating a particle will result in the “blow up” of the boundary of the particle.

Thus how is it possible that a local concentration of energy (m) can curve space? Energy is surface area and not volume. That means that the whole geometrical foundation under Einstein’s theory of General relativity is a mathematical fantasy.

This comment is a bit too long so I will write another one because we cannot ignore that Einstein’s theory of relativity is in line with a lot of observations/experiments. So what does his theory represents? And is the insight useful in relation to existing research?

With kind regards, Sydney

In 1920 Einstein told the students at the Leiden University that without the existence of matter in the universe there is no theory of relativity. He probably didn’t realize that there has been a period in the history of our universe that there was no matter around. A conclusion that is confirmed in 2011 by Eric Verlinde who showed that Newtonian gravity is an emergent force too so gravity has no basic quantum field on its own. In line with Einstein’s spontaneous opinion in 1920.

But if gravity is an emergent force field it must be mediated by one of the basic quantum fields. In line with the observations and measurements that gravity can influence electromagnetic waves and visa versa. The consequence is that gravity is mediated by the electromagnetic field. The latter is obvious because all the changes in the universe originate from the electromagnetic field and the force of gravity is the causation behind the change in position of an object in relation to another object.

If we concentrate “free” energy to create matter there shows to be a threshold that must be passed before the concentration of energy becomes matter (proton/neutron). The origin of the threshold is known, it is the resistance of the local scalars of the Higgs field against geometrical deformation. Thus if the threshold is passed because a local scalar has decreased its magnitude, more energy from vacuum space around can be concentrated and this surplus of energy is termed “rest mass”.

The consequence is that the local flat Higgs field gets vectorized because of the decreased scalar. So we know what is going on in vacuum space at the moment matter is created and there cannot be any doubt that gravity is the local vectorization of the flat Higgs field. The consequence is that gravity is Newtonian gravity as a push force (vector force) from vacuum space around the matter object. And the geometrical “shape” of the magnitudes of the gravitational vectors show to be similar to Einstein’s curved space. However, the influence of vectors is instantaneous and is not limited to the speed of light (like the vectors of the super positioned magnetic field).

Thus Einstein wasn’t wrong, he just used inadequate terms (time, space) and ignored the existed consensus that macroscopic reality must be “build up” by an underlying microscopic reality. Actually, this concept originates from the ancient Greek philosopher/mathematician Parmenides of Elea (500 BC).

So Einstein’s “time” is the rate of change of matter objects and the curvature of space is the vectorization of the universal scalar field (Higgs field). The only “difference” is the velocity of the influence of the gravitational force.

I hope that you can use some parts of my coments.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm A very comprehensive answer and it is so difficult to know what to trust as the foundation.

I set down as my foundation assumption that General Relativity is a correct representation of the way mass and energy curve Spacetime. I will come back to this.

Then I draw the conclusion that this implies that light is a wave in the physical medium of space and therefore the postulates of special relativity have to be discarded.

I see no conflict in saying that GR is correct and SR is wrong.

Then after much analysis and investigation into the fundamental nature of matter, I have reached the conclusion that quantum theory must represent only a method of calculating experimental results.

So any derived physical description from the maths of quantum theory and QFT I would discard. I do not believe in probability distributions of point particles or many worlds or virtual particles or forces arising from the exchange of particles.

When you consider an electron proton and neutron to be looped waves in Spacetime this explains HOW mass curves Spacetime.

The nature of electric charge is explained as a local compression of the medium of space. The electron as a looped wave in the medium has expansion and compression in each wavelength which causes the orbital electrons of an atom to align with a half wavelength displacement.

This alignment explains the quantisation of the electron and thus the quantisation of light. This supersedes Quantum theory as it explains causes.

Richard

Sydney Ernest Grimm Thinking further about your concern regarding E=mc^2.

Taking the example of the neutron as a looped wave in Spacetime of three wavelengths we can use E=hf to determine the free energy of the neutron.

Then we are asking the question why is this E equal to mc^2? Well the definition of m must be either inertial mass or gravitational mass.

We could think of the energy as a kind of kinetic energy of the wave which is travelling at speed c.

Does this answer your concerns?

Richard

Sydney Ernest Grimm As regards the CMB dipole I look at it this way.

The universe is finite with a space boundary. The Milky Way galaxy is located around 26 million light years from the centre of the universe. The Milky Way galaxy is approximately at rest in the space rest frame and so is being carried away from the centre at a speed of around 552km/s due to the expansion of space.

There are sufficient galaxies in the universe to create an event horizon which was located at a distance of 8.77 billion light years from the centre at a time 13.8 billion years ago. The CMB radiation is coming from radiating matter held at the event horizon.

If we were located at the centre of the universe we would see no anisotropy. However, being located at 26 million light years from the centre we do see the CMB as anisotropic. The 26 million light years is calculated using 552km/s and Hubble.

Richard

Dear Richard Lewis

The whole framework of theoretical physics can be compared with a spider web. So if we want to replace certain concepts or even theories we have to fix the structure of the web too. So the task is not only to replace "dubious threads" with better ones, we have the responsibility to assure that the whole framework is still credible.

In my last 2 comments there is only 1 “physical change”: the influence of the force of gravity is instantaneous (Newtonian gravity) instead of an influence that is limited by the speed of light (Einstein’s curved spacetime). But this is not an infringement of the existing gravitational data because there exist no measurement that have solved the dispute between both types of influence. Thus the whole framework of theoretical physics is still intact. The only "change" is the meaning of some main concepts that underlay our understanding of physical reality.

In other words, if you eliminate or ignore existing theories you have to rebuild the conceptual framework again. For example without probability all the calculations in particle physics are meaningless (no evidence of a relational structure). But particle physics is “connected” with the theory of atoms and the internal structure of atoms in relation to vacuum space around. For example, the fine structure constant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant).

The more we change parts of the existing theoretical framework, the more we have to “fix” the whole theoretical structure. Your last 3 comments describe changes that will force you to replace nearly the whole conceptual framework of theoretical physics, inclusive the mind boggling high energy particle physics. I don’t think that one person can fix that in a life time.

So may be it is wise to rethink some of your conclusions just to reduce the enormous task to rewrite the text books.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm Yes it will be a lot of work. I am 77 and I can’t do it on my own.

Actually, I have done my best to make a start and now it’s up to everyone else.

Richard