Certainly there are other dimensions associated with physical expressions of emotions for example that affect our ontological choices. Could these be just dimensions that we experience but cannot mathematically quantify? They are after all measurable experiences that are subjective just like the experience of time. Consider that spacetime can be defined as here-now and there-then, meaning it is not a manifold that requires a dynamic time. What happens to the electron here-now affects the positron there-then. This eliminates the causal question posed by the disjoint of quantum theory and relativity theory. The world we experience at any moment is here-now in connection to every there-then. For example when we see a star explode as a supernova HERE-NOW, the information a second ago a light-second away is the same as the information a year ago a light year away, same as there-- at star light years ago from the star. So how can we say that is ontological in any sense of the word when it is manifest in the entire manifold.....Unless our minds here-now is the driving force that generates a collapsed state of reality we call the entire spacetime manifold and its events THERE-THEN all the way to the Big Bang. My interpretation is that each moment generates a collapsed state of a static manifold that we call universe,... and with some practice, we may be able to collapse states here-now that have different there-then pasts AS LONG AS THEY CONFORM to CAUSALITY all the way to the BIG BANG. Would you know if the past was different and the moment you experience here-now is any different from reality if the entire past you obverse is causally connected? Ontology gets out of the picture on the one hand but also comes in in a brutal way on the other hand since the universe is now subjective at each moment (which is included in the entire there-then manifold)..

The unknown exists, and has at least two types: The unknown we know and the unknown we don't know. This is not vain philosophy, it can be said, and used in applications, in maths, physics, etc. It is not an ontological question.

How much do we know so much about something we never, literally, observed, someone may ask.

But observation is finite valued and one cannot observe all aspects of anything. What beam or wavelength or tool defines observation. So what we know depends on the tools we know. What we don’t know depends on the tools we don’t have. What we don’t know about what we don’t know depends on depends on what we know about the tools we use to know.

That answer was given, as the merit and fault of current natural science, in

Preprint The "next physics"

Thanks. Will read it.

"On the question of the nature (ontological status) in relativity and quantum theories"

"The question of the nature (or ontological status) of fundamental physics theories, such as spacetime in special and general relativity, and quantum mechanics, have been, each, a permanent puzzle, and a source of debates."

Yes, the basis of the so-called fundamental criteria of modern physics often lack in common logic, concerning the nature of reality. Looking at your examples, in my view spacetime should be looked at as a valuable perspective rather than reality itself. Since all galactic entities move in regard to all other entities, their changing position in space relates to time. Their relative position is then be described as a relative point in space in a changing sequence of time, described by X,Y,Z, and T in a Cartesian coordinate system.

Quantum Mechanics is not a theory since it lacks logic. For this Quantum Theory (QT) of many varieties of interpretations and theories have been proposed. None of these IMO address ontology concerning a logically consistent theory. QT IMO is the most ridiculous aspect of modern physics, where logic is its most obvious failing.

For example a proposed QT that would involve hidden variables in a physical background field of some kind could be designed to explain QM in a totally logical way, explaining the probabilities and statistics involved. Such a theory would dispose of Special Relativity since a preferred reference frame would be a physical field surrounding the gravitational center of the mass of the field. Such a field would explain General Relativity as being the result of pressure differences and flows within a background field surrounding matter, rather than as being the warping of space surrounding matter, which is a nebulous term.

I propose that the collapse of the wave function in QT is simply the transformation of an illogical multipolar state to a unitary state or monopole using a Mobius transformation. A simple YES-NO situation of measurement is an example. The two states are a dipole tied in the vacuum before measurement. Note that "Mind..Observer" come into the picture. The states become monopolar when a measurement is made.. They are still dipoles but are now infinitely spatially apart with the unknown state at spatial infinity. In my theory they still form a higher dimensional dipole symmetry on two spaces mirror symmetric. If the states are massive, then these states will have an attraction in the high dimensions that locally causes a (parametric, not necessarily literal) curvature in the relational space they inhabit. The entire theory of special and general relativity still survives on the two sheets but the sheets are related by quantum waves.., AS a simple example, take two parallel mirrors and stand between them. If you wave your hand, the images formed are discreet images between the mirrors and they are a complete history of what happens between the mirrors as if time is involved. Now view Causality as a simply a break in symmetry between the mirrors that generates the notion of an ordered set of images rather than as generated by a time difference. Time is no longer needed since the asymmetry between the images is equivalent to time. If you wave you hand fast enough, the difference between the images becomes evident. So let's say that this difference is a relative measure of relational symmetry of the mirrors and the locations of your hand between the mirrors. If these mirrors are falling in a gravitational well, they will distort to curves that have minimal Lagrangians..and the images will also distort accordingly. No fields have been called upon, but the equivalence id clear since the images will conform to the mirror symmetries and GR!

Michael: What is the connection between your opinion above, and this thread? It seems off-topic.

This question enquires of the nature (or ontological status) of fundamental physics theories.

My theory ties in the mind, the observer and the observed.

The answer of the question cannot be in the mind, cannot be subjective. It is about the reason to be objective.

But what determines logical structure? Isn’t the observable world logical? Isn’t the mind part of what determines what is classically causal. No objective analysis can leave out the subjectivity of the local “observable”.

Not subjective, not one mind.

Ed.

Maybe you could ask yourself what kind of status science in general has,

since you are asking these questions as to status.

The key names in this field are Kuhn, Popper, Bachelard, Bunge, Klimovsky,

and so on. Maybe you wont progress in physics, but you would acquire a balanced view of scientific activity. Any theory has its temporary limitation in science history.

regards, juan

Juan: Yes, one could do another sampling and slice through data using that particular sample. But there are other ways, and I am trying to the more open-minded first, such as in RG, in my sampling.

You came with a novel way to see comoving, which is off the usual path, I cannot use it for physics, but can use for stories around the concept. It is a social computation.

The closest I ever got to comon sense in the quantum, goes all the way back to Zeno, who asked himself, what is the position of a moving arrow. The answer is that it has none.

A state of motion has nothing to do with a state of rest or position.

Hence uncertainty.

I know that clever people have an answer to this, but nature chose the answer, not me. One answer gives classical, the other quantum.

Juan and all: Today, we are a long way from Zeno. For example, we found that a state of motion has everything to do with a state of rest or position. Let us see why, in more detail.

In physics, motion is in effect replaced — on the basis of the hypothesis of locality — by a continuous infinity of hypothetical momentarily comoving inertial observers. It is like a sequence of very fast light flashes, where the spots are at rest and build a path of nearby points into the actual, continuos motion, where the interval is ds, an infinitesimal.

Here, the motion of the observer and the otherwise identical instantaneously comoving inertial observer have the same velocity and position. In SR, for two observers comoving, they are defined as having the same velocity and position, on this concept.

Ed.

I think you just gave me the Classical answer (refering to SR and inertial frames) All you needed was Classical Mechanics.

If it has everything to do why cannot it be simultaniously measured? (QM)

Juan and all, What I said is that position is the integral (in Calculus) of motion. Zeno did not know this. It is also valid in QM.

But why it cannot be simultaneously measured in QM, is distinctive from the non-QM answer I gave you. It is because IF one represents the properties by waves, the waves are not independent at the same moment in time, the properties are conjugate.

You can get away from this limitation, by measuring first one property and then, at another time, the second.

This is used, for example in LIGO at Caltech.

Dear Ed,

You wrote "You can get away from this limitation, by measuring first one property and then, at another time, the second."

No...You can not.. Because you need same eigenstate which correspond to the well define operator. In QM two conjugate variable can not be measured because both don't share common eigenstates..

Yes, Classical mechanics is largley based on the derivative and integral,

started by Newton, much later than Zeno. But his intuition was good enough for QM

In SR you just shift frame and the moving object becomes stationary, here I believe everything in comon. All goes to show a terrible contradiction between QM and special relativity.

I like finding old references that preanounce science at a much later time,

for example in Hegels Logic you find a description of what a quantum (in general language) is.

Measurement at a later time could have its problems. Depends on a lot of things.

The first measurement might disturb too much. There is usually some very short dephasing time.

Juan, Gokaran and all: I see no terrible contradiction, but a difference in the number of dimensions, a basic discontinuity. Hegel is incorrect, contradictory himself, Zeno also, every idea has its preparation, though, and they prepared the time, but are not themselves the time.

Gokaran and Juan: QM separation follows what I described, I am just the customer service rep for someone else's product -- nature. You can consult the manual, in case of doubts.

Ed. Both Classical Mechanics of one body and the quantum of a single particle

both takeplace in x , y, z, t;

I see no difference in dimension in the fundamental base space. The Physics difference, not formalism disturbs me.

The infinite dimensionality of Hilbert space were you thinking about?

By the way, the Classical motion of a particle and the quantum evolution itself both take place smoothly, save for the concept of quantum measurement.

Hegel simply described what he thought was a quantum, some finite quantity, I see no contradiction there. You can only be mistaken in your own time. Perhaps, the difference between the language quantum and the meaning in the theory of QM?

You are right, no one fortells future theories as they are going to be precisely, they just give out ideas that will later help.

Juan and all: Simply restated, the position of a moving arrow is its anti-derivative (the integral of its velocity): s = ∫vdt. We came a long way from Zeno, who did not know Calculus. It is equivalent to nursery rhymes, "profound knowledge" such as Humpty-Dumpty that can define any word as he pleases, but it is not a scholarly principle.

QM is not in the same space as Newtonian Mechanics, because in NM time is absolute, and in QM there is a fusion of spacetime, for example, in Dirac equation (not Schrödinger). In case of doubts, consult the manual.

You simply restate the basis for Clasical mechanics.

Yes , relativistic quantum mechanics, has characteristics of SR.

You always use spacetime, fused or not.

I simply think that Zeno provided some though basis, for what later turned into QM.

Quantized time symmetry future-past may help the discussion..

Dear Prof. Gerck,

Since Physics analyses the question of how is energy created and how it is expended in a closed system at various states of temperature and pressure and time , if we study it from the point of view of spacetime as spacextime and Special Relativity, analytical theories of energy say for e.g. in a stock market can be created and work done by movement of stocks and prices. This we have analysed in say solving the P vs. NP problem (Mallick, Hamburger & Mallick (2016)) using String Theory Methods to study the resultant field and interaction picture of market forces and actions. This is a new Physics Theory as answers come out say in terms of the Physical properties of the Computer System which is used to carry out the experiment, and relates quantum theory with relativity using "String Matching Field Theory".

S.K.Mallick

for S.K.Mallick, Somak Raychaudhury, Sandipan Mallick

RHMHM School of Mathematical Sciences Thinking,

USA, Japan, India

A DISCLAIMER is included. All questions are answered in the discussion text. The objective of this discussion is clear, please do not post off-topic questions.

Mallik

You are in to too many things at a time for me. In an adiabatically closed system

you cannot change the energy in it.(familiar with conservation of energy?)

If you had solved the P vs no P problem, maybe they would have given you a prize by now. I cannot see why string theory should be relevant here.(you need a lot of logic, but not high dimensions)

Nor has there been much success in joining say GR and the quantum.

Go slow if you wish to make some point, with care.

Dear Dr. Weisz,

We have mention of our results on the www in special wavelets. We have obtained mini prizes in our bank accounts , may be because we are not full fledged mathematicians. However, we are more interested in the Nobel Prize and by outside luck we may win the Physics Prize. However, since I am afterall trying to explain Economic Market or market type data we are trying to build models with good statistical results. So we have merged String Theory (basic postulates like String perturbation and condensation and string categories and M Theory type integration in Electronic Stock Market systems and electronic research library systems (AM and DAM). We have found significant improvements in market driven statistical data where prior theory said markets might fail and market based actions will not be possible in the space of efficiencies. As my Professor Boyan Jovanovic at NYU, Economics Dept. used to say - you throw in variables in the model and check the results. He is a big shot Chicago man in New York! Very close to where the Manhattan Project had been conceived. Therefore conservation of energy has been dealt with mathematically (please refer to www.researchgate.net/profile/Soumitra_Mallick for some of our research) by reintrepreting the Higgs Mechanism as a Stock and Flow dataflow (genetic RTP actions with GA) and analogously light stock and flow or hydrodynamical process. This can amongst other things build "sustainability" in market architecture. I hope we could rationalise some of our knee jerk science, we agree with you fully.

S.K.Mallick

for S.K.Mallick, S.Raychaudhury, S.Mallick

of the RHMHM School,

USA, Japan, India.

Juan, conservation of energy is only true when in a classically confined Minkowski or Euclidean space. It is not true for all dimensional volumes in a non-Euclidean space. There are dimensions where matter and energy are commingled as mixed labels... A simple example is the Casimir trap with wavelets hf + 2hf + 3hf +...+nhf = -1/12 hf.

This thread is about what it says. Other topics are off-topic, but may try to use this space. To avoid driving the cogent answers into the RG "Show previous answers" hidden area, my responses are mostly provided in the discussion head, if needed, trying to preserve this space for others, I read them all. Please help keep the discussion on-topic, for higher efficiency. Anyone can start a new discussion in RG, of their own.

Yes, given short enough time interval, you can violate conservation of energy

due to the uncertainty principle, in the quantum. But in a thermodynamic setting there are rules. The role of energy in GR is quite a complication, not fully understood yet.

Well, you guys can already guess my opinion, so I leave off. The style used is

in case of doubt, add even more advanced spooky stuff...not rationality.

GR is a spacetime theory that incorporates the energy momentum tensors of matter as spacetime adjuncts. I agree that the short term interval of violation is quantum related. In my PCC theory, th short term violations occur when the energy-momentum tensor takes on mixed time labels which in the Plank limit become simultaneous (now) and then we get real momenta instead of pseudo momenta. See my book on Kindle Principles of Causal Conspiracy Books 1 & 2.

When something is correct, this is a sign that it can be be proved in more than one way. In support of this question, we found evidence of the same answer of the ontological status, as given above, in two aditional and diverse ways. Please see at:

Preprint On Four Relativistic Neutral Particle Accelerators

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_only_one_or_even_infinite_inertial_reference_frame_enough_in_physics2

Ed.

So just what accelerates your neutral particles, you claim they exist in nature?

Gravity can do this?

Juan Weisz : Thanks. It is in the paper, in the four corners of it.

Maybe I would believe Hubble flow, due to dark energy?

But for final speeds not exceeding that of light.

Juan Weisz : It works, even for speeds > c and accelerating ...see the reference on the Cosmology site ...

Michael

1+2+3+.....+n= n (n+1)/2 ?

gives triangular numbers.

Obviously we need to trascend these two contradictory versions of reality,

relativity and the quantum. Quantum field theory seems to be the contemporary

state of affairs...at least to make the statistical aspect of QM more real.

But QFT neads more work.

Juan, 1/2(n+1)^2 - n/2-1/2 is the nth triangular number.

Although almost all those points, and others not listed, are in my RG publications, I tend to see things through QM.

Reality is observer-dependent, in QM. Starting with the Heisenberg principle, observer and experiment cannot be dissociated. There is no objectivity in QM -- but there is a coherent abstract view one can pursue in QM.

Now, from that common, coherent, abstract view in QM, one can pursue instances of a subjective, intersubjective, and objective natures, and mixed, ordering them into a scale, even contradictory to themselves. It is a cornucopia of choices! All validated by the same common, coherent, abstract view that has the "seed thought" of the subject. It is like a manifold, connecting different domains to one another, although no connection is seen directly between them.

QM and SR are necessary for EM, so its easy to have RQM -- it is a "match made in heaven". Gravity is modeled by extrinsic curvature of spacetime in GR, when QM is utterly ignored, incompatibly, but more than that, it is of a different type, in HoTT and TCS terminology.

In this abstract view, one is concerned with testable relationships, one is focusing on the essence of a hypothesis in the Scientific Method. A hypothesis is not a guess, a hypothesis is a testable relationship, no more and no less.

Accordingly, SR is not a guess, but a testable relationship.

In that abstract sense, SR passed the QM test and the EM test, and yet it MUST be observer-dependent, which seems to contradict several old "principles", but actually extends them, it does NOT deny them. When I summarize, for example:

"Comoving observers NEVER measure time dilation or length contraction, whereas non-comoving ALWAYS do. It does not matter the acceleration, nor the velocity."

then goodbye to "relativistic speed" or "inertial observer", they are limited to a platonic model, a human-made domain, not Nature.

In Nature, an "inertial observer" can see different realities, whether comoving, or non-comoving; reality can be the same also, no matter the acceleration, nor the velocity.

What really distinguishes observers, is whether they are comoving or not. Here, as normal in Physics, comoving is a technical word, and means "same position and velocity", not necessarily identical objects; in cosmology comoving observers see the same wavefront, so it is coherent with other related fields.

Depending on the SR formulation as the stance that one uses, even no SR, more or less "paradoxes" will result. The less "paradoxes" the better. The same with EM, thus we want to eliminate what is not necessary. Can the Maxwell equations be excluded in EM? Other questions follow.