There are no empirical refutations I can think of. Perhaps the theory may eventually express results in an improved way.

Diracs relativistic QM is generally fairly consistent with SRT.

I suspect other things will be reformulated before you get to QM

Thanks, Juan Weisz.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Great Question. I have performed more than a hundred experiments, some of which are posted on this site, that seem to indicate that the photon is a complex, dynamic system ["Investigation of Near Field Photon Interference and Implications for Quantum Theory", "Anomalous Photon Interference", "Experimental Determination of Photon Interference Point", "Polarity and Photon Interference", "Separately Polarized Double Slit Experiment"] All of these sets of experiments seem to demonstrate that the photon is never a non-locality or frozen in time. These may not be the most demonstrative challenges to Quantum and Relativity theories, but they are part of the greater bulk of evidence. You might be interested in my post: "Absurdities and Alternatives".

Barry Fleagle, I find your answer wonderful. The composite nature of photons -- and for that matter even of gravitons -- has been a matter I have always held, but I had no way of accessing experimental or even theoretical-physical proofs for this. I am really thankful to you. I have downloaded all your papers and cite them when I write my next work.

YOU ARE A RATIONAL BEING....

I took a look at information about you in the internet. Seems to me that mainstream physicists will hate you. But I think you have revolutionary potential in your work.

Arto Annila ("Back to Reality: A Revision of the Scientific Worldview") says that Reality is made of photons. I found this very simplistic.

But in a cursory manner, I have argued for the composite nature of quanta / wqvicles of any kind, inclusive of gravitons. Please take a look at my GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX AND COSMOGENETIC CAUSALITY IN QUANTUM ASTROPHYSICAL COSMOLOGY (2018), and ESSENTIAL COSMOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY FOR ALL (2022).

Raphael Neelamkavil

“….There are no empirical refutations I can think of. Perhaps the theory may eventually express results in an improved way….”

- that is indeed essentially so; however QM has really fundamental problems. But that

“….Diracs relativistic QM is generally fairly consistent with SRT. I suspect other things will be reformulated before you get to QM…….”

- isn’t correct. Dirac’s relativistic QM and, say, the Feynman-Stueckelberg QED suggestion that antiparticles move in negative direction in time, really contradict with SRT, in SRT there is no antiparticles and negative direction in time motion.

More, including about some QM fundamental problems, see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics

Cheers

A very prestigious physicist and mathematician, Adrian Melott, demonstrated that remote entanglement is impossible with multiple entangled particles actualizing in different gravitational fields. You can find a summery at the following link www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528834.70www.arxiv. org/pdf/1001.38300-new-maths-triggers-a-call-to-ironout-quantum-world.html If you search you will find many challenges to quantum theory in publications and on Research Gate as well. After the E.P.R. experiment, which seemed to discredit the concepts of non-locality and remote entanglement, Bohr introduced the concept of instantaneous communication to save his theory. The only experiments that seem to confirm the Bohr interpretation are the Bell Theorem Inequality Experiments. However, a dynamic photon that can rotate between one set of symmetries and a paired photon that can rotate between the opposite set of symmetries can also explain the Bell Theorem without any hocus pocus (this is mentioned in some of my speculative papers).

There are difficulties in QM.(but not overt contradiction)

For example the QM of several particles is well addressed by non relativistic theory, but not in relativistic. However spin is better addressed in relativistic.

They have found other difficulties in relativistic QM.I have my own way of solving the velocity problem, but not yet a good one for many particles.

So problems in theory, not experiment.

Sergey

You are wrong, becuse SRT is just a classical theory, does not address quantum particles. But Dirac theory is shown to have Lorenz transformation.

The foundation of QM is based on interference experiments of light and other particles.

This paper present an EXPERIMENT that rejects this foundation:

Interference Experiment with a Transparent Mask Rejects Wave Models of Light

Optics and photonics journal vol. 9, No. 6 jun 2019

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=93056

https://doi.org/10.4236/opj.2019.96008

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFDB-K_sSjU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A07bogzzMEI

What is Wrong with Foundations of QM?

The tragedy of the last century, perhaps, was the gradual shift in our focus from the physical reality to the abstract mathematical formulations, which are supposed to describe physical reality. We appear to have been steadily indoctrinated into believing that due to complexity of physical reality, we can not even demand deeper understanding and mental visualization of the basic phenomena in quantum mechanical world. In order to come out of this situation, we need to critically re-examine our fundamental basis, foundational assumptions and implied beliefs.

In QM, most of our treatment is highly mathematical. While dealing with, say motion of electrons, we can fill volumes in mathematical treatment but we can neither mentally visualize the shape and size of these electrons nor can we visualize the instant to instant motion of these electrons.

In the formalism of QM, all information about a particle is encoded in its wave function - a complex function that evolves according to the Schrödinger equation. The Schrödinger equation determines the evolution of wave-function ψ over time, and it is mathematically a type of wave equation. However, in this wave picture of matter represented through the wave-function ψ the real physical particles got lost in the probabilities. This statistical picture of matter particles was never approved by de Broglie, who believed that the particle must move in the wave, in phase with it, and that it is wrong to consider a wave propagation without localization of the particle. The de Broglie–Bohm theory is today the only interpretation giving real status to matter-waves in quantum theory. Bohmian mechanics is characterized by the pilot-wave model and the causal interpretation of QM.

Kinetic Energy and the ψ Wave Field

There is a direct correlation between the kinetic energy of a particle in motion and the existence of the ψ wave field. Since the energy density in electrostatic and magnetic fields is proportional to the squares of electric and magnetic field strengths, it is quite possible that the kinetic energy of the moving particle may be existing as field energy of the associated ψ wave field. In contrast to the current interpretation, the intensity of the wave function or |ψ|2, may actually represent the kinetic energy density of the particle. As such, difference in dynamic or relativistic mass and the rest mass of an electron in motion may be contained in the field energy of its ψ wave field. We can generally say that any change in the motion of a particle will induce a corresponding change in the kinetic energy as well as the overall ψ wave field of that particle and vice versa.

Potential Energy as Interaction Energy

The electrostatic field of an electron, with radially decaying electric field strength, can be identified with its field energy density proportional to the square of the electric field strength. A significant portion of the mass energy of the electron is actually stored or contained in this electrostatic field. The field energy component of the electron mass is an integral part of the electron and is not dependent on the existence of any other charge or field in its vicinity.

Now, let us consider a proton and electron pair separated by distance R. Their respective electrostatic fields will get superposed almost throughout their spatial extension. Consequently, the combined field energy of the proton-electron system, being proportional to the square of the resultant field strength, will be slightly less than the total sum of the individual field energies of the isolated charges. This reduction in the combined field energy of the proton-electron system, is precisely the negative interaction energy due to the Coulomb interaction and is known as the negative potential energy of the proton electron pair. Therefore,

Potential energy of proton-electron pair = V(R) = -e2/4πε0R (1)

Or, interaction energy released by the system = |V| = e2/4πε0R (2)

The energy released from the proton-electron field interaction, as given by equation (2), is converted into the kinetic energy of the electron, assuming the proton to be relatively at rest. As the kinetic energy of a particle is contained in its ψ wave field, potential energy of the proton-electron pair may signify the transfer of interaction energy released from the combined electrostatic field of the system to the ψ wave field of the electron. The Schrödinger's wave equation is intended to describe the variations in ψ wave field of a moving particle as a result of such energy transfers.

It is therefore obvious that the potential energy of an electron with respect to a proton at distance R, represented as V(R), cannot be regarded as a field parameter in the sense that it does not represent any entity distributed in space. For example, the electrostatic field or field energy density can be regarded as field parameters because they represent the entities which are existing or defined at all space points of the associated field at any instant of time. On the other hand, potential energy is the interaction energy depending entirely on relative location of the electron with respect to the proton at any particular instant and is not defined or existing at any other space point at that instant.

Total Energy E as externally supplied or removed energy

The total energy E of a system of two interacting particles is intended to represent the sum total of mass energies, including electrostatic field energies, plus any external energy added or subtracted from the system. In actual practice however, the mass energies of the interacting particles are regarded as invariable constant and removed from consideration. Therefore, the total energy E of a system is assumed to be zero when the particles are infinitely separated. When the particles approach one another to a separation distance R and their fields get superposed, their potential energy and kinetic energy still sum up to zero if no external energy is supplied or removed from the interacting system. In all other cases, when some finite energy content is either added to or removed from the system, sum total of the potential and kinetic energies is a finite number which is called the total energy E of the interacting system.

E = K.E. + P.E. = T + V(R) (3)

Total energy E is +ve when this amount of energy is externally added or supplied to the system of interacting particles and is -ve when it is extracted, or taken out of the system. Generally, a negative E will represent a bound state of the system of interacting particles and referred as binding energy of the system. When total energy E gets removed or emitted out of the system, this energy is ultimately extracted from the mass energies of the interacting particles. Even though a constant total energy E or a stationary energy state implies the constancy of sum of K.E. and P.E. of the system, there could still be tremendous variations in the kinetic and potential energies during the periodic motion of interacting particles.

Schrödinger’s Equation

The Schrödinger's equation is derived from the energy conservation principle as applied to a moving particle, by making use of the following two operators and the de Broglie relations.

p -> -ih1∇ where h1= h/2π

E -> ih1∂./∂t

Expressing kinetic energy T in terms of momentum p and mass m of the electron, with no potential energy term, Schrödinger’s wave equation for a free particle can be written as,

ih1∂ψ(r,t)/∂t = -(h12/2m).∇2ψ(r,t) .... (4)

Here, ψ(r,t) represents the wave function for a free particle and r is the position vector of any field point within the region of space covered by the wave function. Specifically, r is not the position vector restricted to the center of the free moving particle but the position vector of any field point.

Schrödinger's Equation for Hydrogen with Wrong Potential Energy Term

With the inclusion of potential energy term the total energy E for Hydrogen atom is given by equation (3) which may be written in terms of momentum p as,

E= (p2/2m) + V(R)

Accordingly, equation (4) gets modified to,

ih1∂ψ(r,t)/∂t = -(h12/2m).∇2ψ(r,t) + V(R)ψ(r,t) .... (5)

Here, r is the position vector of any field point within the region of space covered by the wave function and R is the position vector of the center of the electron at the instant t. The complex relationship between the variations of total, kinetic and potential energy, and the corresponding space-time variations of the ψ wave field representing the kinetic energy, is reflected through the Schrödinger's wave equation (5) involving the potential energy term V(R). However, the standard Schrödinger's wave equation is normally written in the form,

ih1∂ψ(r,t)/∂t = -(h12/2m).∇2ψ(r,t) + V(r)ψ(r,t) .... (6)

Here potential energy V(r) is not restricted to the potential energy corresponding to the instantaneous position vector R of the electron but V(r) represents the potential energy of the electron located at all field points designated by the position vector r at any instant t. In other words, when you compute the wave function ψ(r,t) at any field point r at an instant t, by using Schrödinger's Equation (6), you implicitly assume that the electron is also located at the same field point r at exactly the same instant. That is, you inadvertently assume that the instantaneous location of the electron is dispersed all over the field points of the Psi wave function instead of being localized at one position R.

This is precisely the mistake that has introduced all the weirdness in QM. Unfortunately, in QM the potential energy of an electron has been CONFUSED with or mixed-up with its electrostatic field.

Article Wrong Potential Energy Term in Schrödinger’s Equation for Hy...

It is easy not to confuse field with potential. Field is often a vector field.

The potential is a scalar. The field is a gradient of the potential, at least in electrostatics.

I disagree with the modern trend of making things ever more mathematical,

you loose a lot of physics and people along the way.

Right Schrodinger is non relativistic, no concept of retardation in it.

Its realism comes from approximation, avoidance of high speeds, very heavy nuclei, etc.

Unfortunately, in Schrödinger's Equation for the Hydrogen atom the potential energy of an electron has been CONFUSED with or mixed-up with electrostatic field of the proton - that is time invariant function of r.

For an isolated electric charge its electrostatic field physically exists in its surrounding space and the magnitude of its field strength keeps decaying with distance from the center of the charge. For an isolated electric charge, there is no potential or potential energy existing anywhere in the space occupied by its electrostatic field. This is an important point which usually gets obscured by the mathematical description of the situation.

An equally important point is that we need to quantify the strength of electrostatic field associated with an isolated electric charge. For the quantification of electrostatic field we make use of Coulomb interaction. That is, for quantifying the magnitude of electrostatic field at point P located at distance r from the center of an isolated electric charge Q, we bring a unit test charge at point P and measure the Coulomb interaction force acting on the unit test charge at that point. The magnitude and direction of this Coulomb interaction force is then used to quantify the strength of electrostatic field at that point.

Similarly, electrostatic potential too is used to characterize the strength of electrostatic field but actually it represents the Coulomb potential energy of the unit test charge at that point. The most significant point here is that whereas the inherent electrostatic field of an isolated charge is physically spread out in the space around the charge particle, the electrostatic potential or potential energy of the test charge is only the Coulomb interaction energy which depends on the instantaneous location of the test charge.

The conceptual flaw in the Schrödinger's Equation is that the potential energy of the interacting electron has been wrongly assumed to be time independent, physically distributed in the surrounding space instead of being dependent on instant to instant location of the electron.

Article Wrong Potential Energy Term in Schrödinger’s Equation for Hy...

Juan

“…..Sergey You are wrong, becuse SRT is just a classical theory, does not address quantum particles. But Dirac theory is shown to have Lorenz transformation.…..”

- sorry, but that is rather questionable claim; including in that I’m wrong. I write practically always no more 1 post/day in concrete thread, and so every post contains practically always only correct information.

While what you write really isn’t correct, SRT isn’t a “classical theory”, that is in mainstream physics the base of “classical theories”, say, electrodynamics, fast bodies mechanics, etc.

So SRT only postulates that Matter’s spacetime on all scales is Minkowski 4D space, where the Lorentz transformations act also on all scales, including on the QM scale.

Lorentz transformations follow from the Poincaré relativity principle, which is indeed extremely mighty, including in QM, however in SRT this principle is claimed as absolutely mighty, up to postulating that Matter’s spacetime is imaginary [mathematically] Minkowski space, what is at least two times absurdity – in Matter’s spacetime all dimensions are evidently for any normal human real mathematically, and letters in Lorentz transformations by no means can relate, besides for/by some completely transcendent reasons and ways, what really is postulated in SRT , to all points in the spacetime.

Correspondingly in SRT many physical parameters/variables are really imaginary mathematically, that that is hidden in covariance/contravariance mathematical trick doesn’t change this SRT fundamental problem.

Correspondingly for Dirac to develop really adequate to the reality “relativistic” version of QM, while in SRT 4-momentum pi is rather strange mix of 3D momentum, p, and energy, E, i.e. SRT P is (E/c,p), where either E/c or pis imaginary, it was necessary to invent non-existent in SRT, and in really scientific physics at all, though, fantastic “ sea of negative energy”, and further indeed very nicely solved “relativistic” Hamiltonian operator problem by transformation valid at low energy 2Ψ-function Pauli into 4Ψ-function unction.

Really, as that rigorously shown in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model, see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physicsand

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics;

– Matter’s spacetime is the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), where, including, 4D real momentum P is defined, (Pcτ,PX,PY,PZ) , absolute value of which is P=E/c. And, besides, really the Dirac equation is not as HΨ(x,t)=iћ∂Ψ/∂t, but PΨ(x,t)=iћ∂Ψ/∂t, where P is non-existent in QM operator of the whole momentum above.

Correspondingly in this case there is no any necessity in any "negative” energies, all this vector components, including Pcτ, can have negative “time” directions, whereas if Pcτ

SR is not classical perhaps by date of appearance, but it is in the sense

that only concrete quantities are used, not opertors, not wave functions.

That is the feature that makes it hard to join with QM

So while it is fashionable to call anything quantum , Dirac theory is one of the few serious attempt to create what we now call Relativistic Quantum Mechanics.

I wont deny that the dicussion of negative enegies created quite some buzz.

Another area that perhaps is advancing tward this kind of integration is the use of electromgnetic potentials in the quantum phase shifting effects.

It is realized perhaps that the scalar potential of a gravitational field can act as any other scalar potential of QM, The vector potential is recognized

as a phase shifting one. EM theory is naturally relativistic, as you perhaps know.

Juan Weisz, I agree. But the question that remains is this: Is there a way of choosing between the various definitions of the foundational methods or entities of QM, SR, GT, etc?

In other words, is there any way of refuting the foundations of QM?

I dont think so, QM is getting still stronger by the year, more confirmed.

However, once it has become really digested, as other theories such as Newton, they can look back and say some of its limitations, corrections and so on,

It probably does have deficiencies, but we are not mature enough yet to say what they are.

Conceptually, it is problematic yet, a lot of people indicate that. But they are not ready to correct this yet.

Juan Weisz,

I agree. But this is a distressing matter that QM is such.....

If any of you finds time, please take a look at the discussion between me and Jean-Louis Boucon in Academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/s/084b0465db?source=work

It is not good to cite the whole conversation here. Too long!

Some of the most solid refutations or challenges to the foundations of quantum mechanics include:

Comparing quantum mechanics with relativity, both theories have been extremely successful in their respective domains, but they are incompatible when applied to phenomena at very small scales and high energies, such as those encountered in black holes or the early universe. This incompatibility has motivated the search for a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) or a Theory of Everything (ToE) that can provide a consistent framework for both quantum mechanics and relativity.

Efforts towards unifying quantum mechanics and relativity have focused on developing quantum gravity theories, such as string theory, loop quantum gravity, and others. String theory, in particular, has been a leading candidate in unifying all fundamental forces, including gravity, into a single framework that could be applied to other sciences as well. However, progress in developing a GUT or ToE has been slow, and no complete, experimentally verified theory has been developed so far.

In conclusion, while the foundations of quantum mechanics have faced significant challenges and alternative interpretations, the theory has remained remarkably successful in explaining and predicting physical phenomena. Efforts to develop a GUT or ToE that incorporates both quantum mechanics and relativity have made progress but are still ongoing, and the search for a unifying framework that encompasses all of science continues.

MATHEMATICAL CONTINUITY IN NATURE Vs. CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN (PARTIALLY) DISCRETE "PROCESSUAL" OBJECTS. (Have patience to read till the end.)

Insistence on mathematical continuity in nature is a mere idealization. It expects nature to obey our idealization. This is what happens in all physical and cosmological (and of course other) sciences as long as they use mathematical idealizations to represent existent objects and processes.

But mathematically following nature in whatever it is in its part-processes is a different procedure in science and philosophy (and even in the arts and humanities). This theoretical attitude accepts the existence of processual entities as what they are.

This theoretical attitude accepts in a highly generalized manner that

(1) mathematical continuity (in any theory and in terms of any amount of axiomatization of physical theories) is totally non-realizable in nature as a whole and in its parts: because the necessity of mathematical approval in such a cosmology falls short miserably,

(2) absolute discreteness (even QM type, based on the Planck constant) in the physical cosmos (not in non-quantifiable “possible worlds”) and its parts is a mere commonsense compartmentalization (from the "epistemology of box-type thinking" -- Ruth Edith Hagengruber, Uni-Paderborn): because the aspect of the causally processual connection between any two quanta is logically and mathematically alienated in the physical theory of Planck’s constant, and

(3) hence, the only viable and thus the most reasonably generalizable manner of being of the physical cosmos and of biological entities is that of CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE PROCESSUAL OBJECTS.

PHYSICS and COSMOLOGY even today tend to make the cosmos mathematically either continuous or defectively discrete or statistically oriented to epistemically logical decisions and determinations. Can anyone suggest here the existence of a different sort of physics and cosmology until today? A topology and mereology of CAUSAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN PARTIALLY DISCRETE PROCESSUAL OBJECTS, fully free of discreteness-oriented category theory and functional analysis, is yet to be born. Hence, causality in its deep roots in the very concept of To Be is yet alien to physics and cosmology till today.

LINGUISTIC PHILOSOPHY and even its more recent causalist child, namely, DISPOSITIONALIST ONTOLOGY are (1) overly discrete about “entities” without clearly reconciling the geometrical tendency to make every physical representation continuous, (2) comatose about the impossibility of linguistically definitional approach to the logical demands of existent physical objects without first analyzing and resolving the metaphysical implications of existent objects being irreducibly in EXTENSION and CHANGE, and (3) unable to get at the causally continuous nature of the partially discrete processual objects in the physical world.

PHENOMENOLOGY has done a lot to show the conceptual structures of ordinary reasoning, physical reasoning, mathematical and logical thinking, and reasoning in the human sciences. But due to its lack of commitment to building a physical ontology of the cosmos and its purpose as a research methodology, phenomenology has failed to show the nature of causal continuity (instead of mathematical continuity) in the only physically existent objects, namely processually discrete objects, in nature.

HERMENEUTICS has just followed the human-scientific aspect of Husserlian phenomenology and projected it. Hence, it was no contender to accomplish the fete.

POSTMODERN PHILOSOPHIES qualified all science and philosophy as being perniciously cursed to be “modernistic” – by thus monsterizing all compartmentalization, rules, laws, axiomatization, discovery of regularities in nature, logical rigidity, etc. as an insurmountable curse of knowing and as a synonym for all that are unapproachable in science and thought.

THE PHILOSOPHIES OF THE SCIENCES seem today to follow the beaten paths of linguistic-analytic philosophy, physics, mathematics, and logic, which lack a FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPT OF CAUSALLY PROCESSUAL PHYSICAL EXISTENCE.

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

CAN NON-CAUSALITY IN QUANTUM PHYSICS BE OF LESS INTERPRETIVE VALUE if the following is acceptable?

I believe it is common knowledge that mathematics and its applications cannot prove causality directly. What are the bases of the problem of incompatibility of physical causality with mathematics and its applications in the sciences and in philosophy? The main but general explanation could be that mathematical explanations are not directly about the world but are applicable to the world to a great extent. Hence, mathematical explanations can at the most only show the ways of movement of the processes and not demonstrate whether the ways of the cosmos are by causation.

No science and philosophy can start without admitting that the cosmos exists. If it exists, it is not nothing, not vacuum. Non-vacuous existence means that the existents are non-vacuously extended. This means they have parts. Every part has parts too, ad libitum, because each part is extended. None of the parts is an infinitesimal. They can be near-infinitesimal. This character of existents is Extension, a Category directly implied by To Be.

Similarly, any extended being’s parts are active, moving. This implies that every part has impact on some others, not on infinite others. This character of existents is Change. No other implication of To Be is so primary as these. Hence, they are exhaustive.

Existence in Extension-Change is what we call Causality. If anything is existent, it is causal – hence Universal Causality is the trans-science physical-ontological Law of all existents. By the very concept of finite Extension-Change-wise existence it becomes clear that no finite space-time is absolutely dense with existents. Hence, existents cannot be mathematically continuous. Since there is change and transfer of impact, no existent can be absolutely discrete in its parts or in connection with others.

Can logic show the necessity of all existents being causal? We have already discussed how, ontologically, the very concept of To Be implies Extension-Change and thus also Universal Causality.

What about the ability or not of logic to conclude to Universal Causality? In my argument above and elsewhere showing Extension-Change as the very exhaustive meaning of To Be, I have used mostly only the first principles of ordinary logic, namely, Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle, and then argued that Extension-Change-wise existence is nothing but Universal Causality if everything existing is non-vacuous in existence. For example, does everything exist or not? If yes, let us call it non-vacuous existence. Hence, Extension as the first major implication of To Be. Non-vacuous means extended, because if not extended the existent is vacuous. If extended, everything has parts.

A point of addition now has been Change. It is, so to say, from experience. Thereafter I move to the meaning of Change basically as motion or impact. Naturally, everything in Extension must effect impacts. Everything has further parts. Hence, by implication from Change, everything causes changes by impacts. Thus, we conclude that Extension-Change-wise existence is Universal Causality. It is thus natural to claim that this is a pre-scientific Law of Existence.

In such foundational questions like To Be and its implications we need to use the first principles of logic, because these are the foundational notions of all science and no other derivative logical procedure comes in as handy. In short, logic with its fundamental principles can help derive Universal Causality. Thus, Causality is more primary to experience than the primitive notions of mathematics.

The Irretutable Argument for Universal Causality. Any Opposing Position?

Very very short. https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Irretutable_Argument_for_Universal_Causality_Any_Opposing_Position

If an electron A at a specific spacetime loses a certain number of quanta of energy (say, 100 quanta), naturally its total energy has come down. Or, will anyone claim that it has thus increased or that it is in a constant state? Now imagine that it is accelerated later by other forces.

Consider another electron B at another spacetime. It has not lost so many quanta of energy (say, only 50 quanta). Like A, now B is also being accelerated with the same amount of energy.

Of course, whether our measurement of the acceleration energy in the two cases is absolutely exact is yet another ambiguous matter, but we suppose that they are equal.

Will the latter be at a better position in the total energy content than the former? Or, will it be claimed that their energy, mass, etc. After receiving equal acceleration from outside, are equal, merely because they are both electrons already taken to possess a certain mass?

Moreover, we know that in the path that both the electrons take there will be other physical influences which we do not determine and cannot. These influences must be at least slightly different from each other.

In short, the mass, energy, etc. of the two electrons will never be equal at any physical state, not have they been absolutely equal at any time. And we know that nothing in the world is in a static state. So, there is no reason to suppose that electrons will have a static mass, energy, etc.

Of course, we can calculate and fix them as supposedly static mass, energy, etc. These will be useful for practical purposes, but not as absolutes.

That is, our generalized determination of an exact mass for an electron need not be the exact energy, mass, etc. of an electron in various physically processual circumstances. At normal circumstances within a specific chemical element, and when freed from it, the electron will have different values.

This shows that no electron (in itself) will be identical in all its properties with any other. Our description of these properties may be considered as identical. But this description in physics is meant merely for pragmatic purposes! One cannot now universalize it and say that the mass, energy, etc. of electrons are the same everywhere.

What about the said values (mass, energy, etc.) of other particles like photon, neutrino, etc.? I believe none can prove their case to be otherwise in the case of these particles / wavicles too.

That is, there is nothing in the world, including electrons, quarks, photons, neutrinos, etc., with an exact duplicate anywhere else. This is the foundation for the principle of physical identity.

Reification of Concepts in Quantum Physics?

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

I have revised the basic text of the following discussion substantially:

Criteria to Differentiate between Virtuals and Existents in Scientific Theories

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

Friends,

Kindly read the following chain-conversation between an earnest scholar with insight into philosophy, the physical sciences, and logic::::

Alessandro Rizzo added a reply

2 days ago

Logic, as we commonly understand it, is a system of thought based on the reasoning capabilities of the human mind. It allows us to take premises, apply rules, and arrive at conclusions. We view these principles as universal due to their applicability to the wide range of situations we encounter in our daily lives.

However, when we push beyond the confines of human experience and begin to probe the complexities of the universe, we find instances where these principles appear to falter. Traditional logic isn't always equipped to handle the strange, often counterintuitive phenomena observed in realms such as quantum physics.

Particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously in a quantum superposition, an assertion that seems to defy the Law of Non-Contradiction. Entangled particles influence each other instantaneously over vast distances, which challenges our logical understanding of cause and effect.

These instances do not necessarily mean our logical principles are incorrect, but they highlight that our traditional logical framework may be incomplete. It's like trying to comprehend a three-dimensional object with two-dimensional understanding—our perspective is inherently limited.

While the principles of logic remain powerful tools for navigating the world as we perceive it, we must remain cognizant of their limitations. They represent one dimension of a multifaceted reality, and unlocking a more comprehensive understanding of the universe may require us to augment, or even transcend, our conventional logic.

Recommend

Share

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

2 days ago

Alessandro Rizzo,

This is a very good realization: "However, when we push beyond the confines of human experience and begin to probe the complexities of the universe, we find instances where these principles appear to falter." Mostly it is so. The whole of analytic logic is developed for just for normal life-situations, technically scientific applications, and today for direct computer applications. Of course, this need not be the case with math. Math has a wider set of background considerations today. Ordinary logic is always based on direct needs.

But the following is difficult from the viewpoint of the realistic necessities behind the formulation of the foundations of any sort of logic. "Particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously in a quantum superposition, an assertion that seems to defy the Law of Non-Contradiction. Entangled particles influence each other instantaneously over vast distances, which challenges our logical understanding of cause and effect."

Either it is because such physics is extremely fragile; otherwise it is because any sort of logic cannot really apply to such physics. Even counterintuitive forms of logic falter there!

Hence, I have been following a different course of thought in order to conceptualize what basically would be problematic in quantum, statistical, and other sorts of counterintuitive physics. You can see some such works of mine in very short summary forms in some of my discussion questions (suggested at the end of this intervention).

I recognize that you are an informatics person. An information for you: Just today I have finished the work of a 200 pp. book in English and Italian:

COSMIC CAUSALITY CODE AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICS, MIND, AND VIRTUAL WORLDS

and

IL CODICE DI CAUSALITÀ COSMICA E L’INTELLIGENZA ARTIFICIALE: FILOSOFIA ANALITICA DI FISICA, MENTE, E MONDI VIRTUALI.

Now I must begin searching for a publisher....

Here are the said suggestions to some of my discussions in RG:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

📷

Alessandro Rizzo added a reply

2 days ago

Dear Raphael Neelamkavil,

Your exploration of the philosophical underpinnings of quantum physics is both thought-provoking and challenging. As someone who has grappled with the mysteries of the quantum world, I appreciate your efforts to question and redefine our understanding of these complex concepts.

You rightly point out the limitations of conventional logic when applied to quantum phenomena. Indeed, the quantum world often seems to defy our everyday understanding of reality. Quantum superposition and entanglement, for instance, challenge our intuitive grasp of cause and effect, as well as the principle of non-contradiction. However, I would argue that this does not necessarily mean that these principles falter, but rather that they take on new meanings in the quantum realm.

Your concept of Universal Causality is intriguing. The notion that everything that exists is in causation, even quantum-mechanical processes, is a bold one. I would argue, however, that causality in the quantum realm may not be as straightforward as in the macroscopic world. Quantum mechanics often deals with probabilities rather than certainties, which adds a layer of complexity to our understanding of causality.

Your criteria for differentiating between "virtuals" and "existents" is an interesting approach to understanding scientific theories. The idea that anything not in Extension-Change is non-existent is a compelling one. However, I would caution against too rigid a definition of existence. The quantum world has shown us that reality can be far stranger than we might imagine.

Your discussion of reification in quantum physics raises important questions about the nature of mathematical entities like wave functions. It's true that we must be careful not to confuse our mathematical models with the physical reality they represent. However, these models have proven to be remarkably successful in predicting the behavior of quantum systems, which suggests that they capture some essential aspect of quantum reality.

Finally, your analysis of potential energy and the wave function collapse is insightful. These concepts are indeed more complex than they might appear at first glance. However, I would argue that they are useful tools for understanding and predicting the behavior of physical systems, even if they do not correspond exactly to physical entities or processes.

Your exploration of these topics is a valuable contribution to the ongoing dialogue about the nature of quantum reality. However, there are a few points to discuss.

1. **Universal Causality**: While your concept of Universal Causality is intriguing, I believe that causality in the quantum realm may not be as straightforward as in the macroscopic world. Quantum mechanics often deals with probabilities rather than certainties, which adds a layer of complexity to our understanding of causality. It's not that causality doesn't apply, but rather that it may manifest in ways that are not immediately intuitive.

2. **Existence and Non-Existence**: Your criteria for differentiating between "virtuals" and "existents" is an interesting approach. However, I would caution against too rigid a definition of existence. The quantum world has shown us that reality can be far stranger than we might imagine, and phenomena that don't fit neatly into our conventional understanding of existence may still have significant physical implications.

3. **Reification in Quantum Physics**: Your discussion raises important questions about the nature of mathematical entities like wave functions. However, while we must indeed be careful not to confuse our mathematical models with the physical reality they represent, these models have proven to be remarkably successful in predicting the behavior of quantum systems. This suggests that they capture some essential aspect of quantum reality, even if they don't correspond exactly to physical entities or processes.

4. **Potential Energy and Wave Function Collapse**: Your analysis of these concepts is insightful. However, I would argue that they are useful tools for understanding and predicting the behavior of physical systems, even if they do not correspond exactly to physical entities or processes. The wave function collapse, for instance, may not be a physical process in the conventional sense, but it is a crucial concept in the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

I appreciate your efforts to challenge conventional wisdom and push the boundaries of our understanding. Even though we may not agree on all points, such dialogue is essential for the advancement of science.

Recommend

Share

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

2 days ago

Alessandro Rizzo, thanks a lot for the fine formulations. Very wise and thoughtful. Congrats. At the end of this intervention I give 2 of my discussions, which are on the QM and Statistical notions that are involved in physics. Let me express just a few thoughts hereunder, with an introductory statement: I have been into this field of publication at least for more than 2 decades; but by way of reading and reflection, I have been in it for more than 3 decades.

Our statistical measures, e.g., of the position of an electron at a given time, does not depend on the model of statistical interpretation that we give, but instead, they depend on the very statistically managed measurements and their proportions of certainty of discovery, prediction, determination, or definition thus achieved. Hence, the varied successes of QM and statistical physics at this level in predicting the related phenomena are all due to the application of the mathematical apparatus, and the model thus achieved, to physical instruments.

That is a sort of algorithm-driven instrumentalization, in a general sense. This, e.g., is exactly why quantum informatics and the various quantum technologies can have success stories.

Let me illustrate this sort of success with a simple example. There are two leaves on a tree at a distance of one meter, but one over the other. Drops of water fall onto the first, and get flown onto the second. We create a signaling system as the drops fall on the first and the second leaves. The nature of light signals take care of the technology behind the signaling. We do not have to bother why light signaling is the way it is!

Here we know that the drops are not exactly spherical / globular. But, for the purpose of mathematical applications, we consider them as spherical drops and reduce them even into the shape of points for the sake of "mathematical precisioning" within the context of the mathematics available -- but which does not harm the signaling. We know clearly that theoretically these are not absolute truths or models...!

The signaling system is related directly to the temporal and spatial approximations of the falling of the drops on the two leaves. As the signals fall on another electronic device (at a distance), and the signals trigger a certain motion on the device. Using this system, let us suppose that we can instrumentalize some other physical process. Whatever the actual physical process and the shapes involved in fact are, the system works and produces the expected results!

We may later give a detailed physical explanation of the approximations involved in the implementation of the theory of, say, "Water Drop Signaling". These are not merely interpretations, but also closer approximations to what is happening in the reality externally to our interpretation. Note clearly: the theoretical model and approximations used in it are all just approximations of what really is the case in nature. We are not able to delve into all the processual layers of the object set and unearth all possible explanations of the processes and all their layers.

In order to apply our theory of the specific and precisioned processes with all their complexity in physics, we need to create instruments that work in accordance with this new theory and other related these physical and other theories which work only at a certain level of instrumentation in the given case. What works at the electronic level need not work at the nano level of physical activity.

We cannot also finalize our theory by stating that whatever works at the nano level is final and that there are no deeper layers within the object set. Even as we discover deeper layers and begin to formulate methods of instrumentation at that level, the instruments can continue to work without any hindrance. The only thing is that the instruments can further be made more precisioned and more effective. This does not work as an argument against the existence of the deeper layers beyond the nano structures!

That is, this means that the first set of interpretations and their instruments can go on to work and produce technological successes. They will continue to yield successes. This is why even now Newtonian physics yields many successes, especially at the engineering level!

Similarly, the successes of QM need not suggest that they capture some essential aspect of quantum reality in a very exact manner. Of course, this is the case to a certain extent (say, statistically), but this certainly at a certain narrowly real interpretational level.

The statistics here is a model, and therefore, is based on the measures of our ability to capture the causes and the processes within a given circumstance and sample. Statistics is thus the admission of the extent of reach into the exact correspondence of the truth projected by our measurements with respect to what is actually happening in the object process!

But this fact of lack of absolute truth in our models and theories does not affect the successes at the level of application of the possible experimental results of the theory! Now you see clearly that what quantum physicists call as the statistical truths of quantum physics are not truths but models, using which there are certain instruments and their theory of apparatus-wise obedience of quantum physics.

This is also the case with respect to Relativity. Just take the case of the Lorentz factor: Root of [(1 - (v-squared) divided by (c-squared)]. What does it in fact mean? That I am willing to measure the movement process (v) of a particle only in terms of the experimentally rather well determined / fixed luminal and luminally comparable energy propagations c.

But this means also (and exactly) that, since I use luminal velocity as the criterial velocity (merely because I have natural vision and instrumentational vision at the level of c at this epoch of the history of advancements in science), my calculation forbids v from exceeding the luminal velocity limit c!!!

Does this mean that there should not be superluminal velocities?

If there are real-valued (not complex-valued) superluminal velocities, whereby the superluminal velocity in question is C1, C2, etc., which can replace the c, and c can be placed at the place of v in the nominator, in the Lorentz factor. Thus, we have a real solution for the EPR problem, too!

After all, the c is not fixed or fixable as an absolute constant except by a convention that has proved it to be so in our region of the universe, and not for all the possibly existing worlds! Using this convention, we can continue to make our Water Drops Signaling work. But this success in measuring the lack of temporal lag in the working of the instrument need not mean that c is a universal constant for all the regions of the cosmos.

The cosmos may have a finite number of local universes or even an infinite number of them. In both the cases -- and in the latter case surely -- c may be replaced with C1, C2, etc. in other regional universes. That is, the highest possible velocity within a big bang local universe anywhere in the infinite-content cosmos can only be determined by the maximum density achieved at any one big bang of the given local universe, in a series of its oscillations between bangs and crunches. (I have treated this in my book of 2018 and in some discussions in RG, which will be given at the end of this reply.)

Nevertheless, miraculously clear and working precision is to be had in many scientific theories and experiments, both on earth and in the outer space, using this special theory of relativity! Even QM uses the Lorentz factor freely!

Should these successes mean that the Lorentz factor should be an eternally fixed proof for the so-called criterial limit-nature of c?

Now I believe we can think of a possible solution for the EPR problem! I have suggested one such in 3 of my works. I think, therefore, that what we need is a range of differently-valued c and the many relativity theories in terms of them.

I have discussed such questions in detail, including a detailed theoretical solution to the EPR problem, in three of my printed books (2014, 2015, and 2018).

I should salute you for your openness and genuineness of scientific spirit, which permit you to see many important points in the notion of theory formation in science and philosophy. Not merely of my ideas, but also of others ideas.

I am a mad man. I have dedicated my life to some such projects in the form of books. To avoid peer reviewers' ire is not easy. Hence, I may not get the most renowned publishers to publish my books. I should also forget about publishing articles in reputed peer-reviewed journals! This is my fate, and also my pleasure. I think some future acceptance (at least after a few years or decades of my death) is forthcoming.

And kindly take a look at the following discussion sessions. I think you will enjoy them. And thereafter I give a SET 2 of discussion links, which give the discussions on the cosmological problems suggested above.

SET 1:

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

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

SET 2:

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

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Source-Independent_Velocity_of_Pure_Energy_vs_Causality_vs_Superluminal_Velocities

https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_the_cosmos_is_1_finite-content_or_2_infinite-content_Is_there_finite_or_infinite_creation

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

Share

• 1 Recommendation

📷

Alessandro Rizzo added a reply

1 day ago

Dear Raphael Neelamkavil,

Your thoughtful and extensive response is deeply appreciated. The time and dedication you've devoted to these intricate concepts shine through, and your perspective brings a refreshing viewpoint to our discourse.

You assert that our statistical measures in physics are heavily influenced by the mathematical models we've formulated, a position that resonates with accuracy. These models, while approximated by nature, have served as the bedrock of our comprehension of quantum mechanics, enabling us to generate predictions from this understanding. However, as you astutely pointed out, this doesn't necessarily indicate that these models encapsulate the entire scope of quantum reality. Perhaps it's more accurate to state they represent our best tools available for interfacing with and comprehending the quantum world, given our current technological capabilities and conceptual understandings.

Your analogy of abstracting water droplets to points for mathematical precision provides an excellent illustration. Fundamentally, the models we employ in physics are simplifications of reality, designed to encapsulate the most pivotal aspects of the physical phenomena we investigate. But it's crucial to avoid mistaking these models for reality itself. They merely represent our best current methods of describing and predicting reality.

Your comments concerning the Lorentz factor and the speed of light are strikingly thought-provoking. Indeed, the assumption that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit in the universe is underpinned by empirical observations within our observable universe and within the framework of the theory of relativity. The concept of superluminal speeds would require us to radically revise our understanding of the universe.

Your courage and determination to challenge the established scientific framework are admirable. Authentic progress in science often originates from those brave enough to question the status quo and expand the boundaries of our understanding. I'm confident that your work will find the audience and appreciation it deserves, for the truth in science has a peculiar way of making itself known, irrespective of its immediate reception.

The possibilities you suggest, such as various relativities predicated on differing c values, are genuinely captivating. This kind of innovative thinking often ushers in paradigm shifts in scientific thought.

Your ongoing commitment to these questions is inspiring, and I anticipate with eagerness the exploration of the discussions you've linked. I hold firm in my belief that science thrives on open discourse and a diversity of perspectives. Hence, although we may not concur on all points, the value of dialogue is irrefutable.

Thank you for your participation in this intellectually stimulating conversation.

Recommended

Share

• 1 Recommendation

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

19 hours ago

Alessandro Rizzo, I have revised my previous reply and detailed it further, also extending its cosmological implications. In fact, I had written the earlier version of the response in a hurry, in about 15 to 20 minutes. Hence the revision of the same.

Please see also the SET 2 list of RG discussions, given at the end of the revised response. These are the cosmological ones. Thanks.

Share

📷

Alessandro Rizzo added a reply

15 hours ago

Dear Raphael,

Embracing your insights, the light cast by statistical measures in our understanding of quantum mechanics is impressive. They serve as a beacon in the labyrinth of quantum phenomena, born from the marriage of algorithms and instrumentalization.

The water drop signaling system, as you've painted, is a vivid illustration of mathematical approximations at work. Science walks a tightrope between reality and approximation, juggling precision with pragmatic simplicity. The certainty of mathematics may not always mirror the uncertainties of reality, and vice versa.

The discussion of various levels of physical activity and the evolution of our tools to meet these levels holds significant weight. As we continue to broaden our understanding, we must also adapt and refine our toolkit. A set of tools apt for one scenario might not apply to another.

In addressing the interpretations of quantum reality, you are pushing the envelope, provoking us to reevaluate our grasp of the universe. Though we navigate the quantum realm with the compass of statistics and models, we must stay mindful that these are but the footprints of reality - giving us direction, but also concealing a sea of unknowns.

Your exploration of the Lorentz factor and the hypothesis of superluminal velocities are mind-stretching. The cosmos, in its vast expanse, may hide surprises that challenge our ingrained theories.

Your proposition of different relativities based on maximum velocities is intriguing, urging us to step outside our comfort zone. Your suggestion hints at the reality that the map we hold is not the territory, and our comprehension of this territory is in a state of perpetual evolution.

Closing my response, I am reminded of the sentiment that the tranquility between our scientific theories and the universe's phenomena is born from understanding. Our quest is to deepen this understanding, and your insightful contributions are a cornerstone of this journey.

Eager to continue this enlightening exchange,

Alessandro

Recommend

Share

📷

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply

15 hours ago

Thanks, Alessandro. Giusto adesso ho visto che sei italiano! Just 2 days ago I finished a work in English and in Italian: Cosmic Causality Code and Artificial Intelligence: Analytic Philosophy of Physics, Mind, and Virtual Worlds, circa 200 pp., and its self-made Italian version (corrected by native speakers): Il Codice di Causalità Cosmica e l’Intelligenza Artificiale: Filosofia Analitica di Fisica, Mente, e Mondi Virtuali, circa 220 pp.

Source of Major Flaws in Cosmological Theories: Mathematics-to-Physics Application Discrepency

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Source_of_Major_Flaws_in_Cosmological_Theories_Mathematics-to-Physics_Application_Discrepency

Rana Hamza Shakil

Refutation of Foundations of Quantum Mechanics

Even though QM constitutes the main pillar of Modern Physics, foundational problems regarding the physical basis and weird outcomes of Quantum Phenomena are still being actively debated. De Broglie's hypothesis of matter waves implied that the dynamic characteristics of a micro particle in motion, can be ascribed to the wave characteristics of the wavelet accompanying the particle. The Schrödinger equation models the matter-wave interactions through wavefunction ψ and effectively serves as the foundation of QM. It is implied that the kinetic energy of the moving particle may be existing as field energy of the associated ψ wave field. We can generally say that any change in the motion of a particle will induce a corresponding change in the overall ψ wave field of that particle and vice versa.

However, the Schrödinger equation is founded on a conceptual mistake. The Coulomb potential energy of the proton electron pair in Hydrogen atom which is inversely proportional to their instantaneous separation distance, has not been correctly modeled in the Schrödinger equation. The current solutions of Schrödinger’s equation for different energy states of electron in Hydrogen atom appear to describe only the time averaged charge density distributions around nucleus and not the trajectories of electrons. That is because the potential energy term V in the equation has been assumed as time invariant and not dependent on the instantaneous position coordinates of the electron. Since the position coordinates of the electron have been inadvertently omitted in the input to the equation, naturally the exact position of the electron is lost in the final solution. This has created all the weirdness in subsequent interpretations of QM. This was a wrong turn of fundamental physics which diverted our focus from physical reality to the mathematical formulations that are supposed to describe physical reality.

Article Wrong Potential Energy Term in Schrödinger’s Equation for Hy...

Intrinsic Electric Field

Consider one electron located at an isolated point P in space - far removed from all other charges. This isolated electron will produce an (intrinsic) electric field around point P that spreads everywhere in surrounding space. This intrinsic electric field or the electrostatic field of an electron is an integral part of the electron charge and does not depend upon the presence or absence of any other charge in its vicinity - not even any test charge. In Maxwell's terminology of 'deformations of aether' we might call it 'strain field' or 'strain wave field' around the electron and consider it as an integral part of the electron structure - whatever it be.

Coulomb Field

However, for practical applications we quantify this electric field of the electron by measuring its interaction with a positive test charge positioned at a certain point Q at distance r from point P. The force on second charge or test charge is caused by the mutual interaction between the electric fields of the two charges and is governed by Coulomb's Law of electrostatics. The intrinsic electric field of an electron when quantified with a test charge, using Coulomb's law, may now be termed as Coulomb electric field of the electron. This Coulomb field of the electron will map the force acting on test charge located at Q as well as map the interaction energy released due to the mutual interaction of the superposed intrinsic electric fields of the electron at P and test charge located at Q.

Ambiguity

Mapping of the forces and energies for different locations Q of the test charge through the Coulomb field has introduced a major ambiguity in the notion of Electric Field of the electron. Ambiguity is in the lack of distinction between the Intrinsic electric fields of isolated electron and isolated test charge and the Coulomb electric field of their interaction forces and energies. Moreover, this mapping of interaction forces and energies cannot represent a physical field since the forces and energies mapped at different field locations Q1, Q2, Q3 etc. do not physically exist when the test charge is physically located at Q. Unfortunately, in Modern Physics the Coulomb electric field is de-facto treated as the Intrinsic electric field of the electron.

As such the Schrödinger equation for Hydrogen atom, where potential energy of the electron is treated as time-independent, instead of treating it as a time-dependent function of instantaneous position coordinates of the electron, - is fundamentally wrong and misleading.

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu, this is very good. Thanks.

In this context, kindly read this article that appeared in my mobile just now and give your opinions:

Physicists Conduct The Most Massive Test Ever of The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox

https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-conduct-the-most-massive-test-ever-of-the-einstein-podolsky-rosen-paradox

Do electromagnetic and gravitational wavicles exist? Before using them in physics, it must be determined whether they exist, for them to exert causally real physical effects. Existents cannot be vacua, and hence, they must exist, and hence they are

(1) in Extension (each having a finite number of finite-content parts), because if not extended, EM quanta would be non-existent, and

(2) in Change (existents, which are always with parts, possessing parts which always exert finite impacts on a finite number of others, inclusive of exertion of finite impacts on some parts within), because anything that has no change is not in existence.

An existent without own parts and own exertion of impacts will be imaginable as existent. Anything that is not in Extension-Change is non-existent – a physical-ontological fact at the foundations of physics, which most physicists (and other scientists) forget while performing their statistical and other related miracles!

This much for an introduction. Now, what are the implications of such existence in the case of EM wavicles and gravitons?

ELECTROMAGNETIC AND GRAVITATIONAL QUANTA

If electromagnetic and gravitational wavicles are EXISTENT, then they possess also EXTENSION and CHANGE. They are not absolutely geometric particles, instead, they are elongated at various dimensions.

Let us assume the following as a general principle in physics: Anything physical issues gravitons, which are the basic attractive forces within physical existents.

If an existent energy wavicle is thus a matter wavicle with extension, it must also issue gravitons! In that case, the only stuff in the cosmos that cannot themselves issue further gravitons from within are gravitons themselves. What can this work to in physics and cosmology? I believe that we need a revolution from this viewpoint. This is a proposal that waits being tested by future physics and astrophysics.

Gravitons too are extended and changing wavicles. But they are themselves the wavicles possessing also their parts that attract each other, and are long-range in nature. If they issue sub-gravitons, they will naturally be kept attracted within the issuing sources, because the parts from which they are supposed to be issued are themselves attractive by nature and other matter and energy particles attract each other basically by means of issuing gravitons.

But naturally, gravitons too must be existent, and hence possess parts. What would be the sort of parts that gravitons can possess? Repulsons or Gravitons? Sub-repulsons or sub-gravitons? I think that they cannot themselves be repulsons and sub-repulsons, because repulsons and sub-repulsons without coherence will not stick together as parts of gravitons. Gravitons cannot issue gravitons themselves, since this is self-creation. But they can possess sub-gravitons as parts, but these need not be of the same power as their totality that each graviton is.

In any case, one thing should be accepted: BOTH ELECTROMAGNETIC AND GRAVITATIONAL QUANTA MUST ISSUE THEIR OWN WAVICLES OF ATTRACTION. IN THE CASE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC QUANTA, THE ISSE IS THAT OF GRAVITONS (and whatever other sub-wavicles that might be there for them to give rise to). IN THE CASE OF GRAVITONS, THE PARTS WILL HAVE TO BE SUB-GRAVITONS (plus whatever other sub-wavicles that might be there for them to give rise to).

Let me show another aspect. In any given world or part of the world there must be a highest velocity. I think this will be determined by the matter-energy density achieved at the broadest (all-inclusive) condensation phase available in that part of the cosmos. Let's call it a world. In this world, it is possible to measure all motion in terms of the highest c of that world. In a broader world that includes this world, or in another world, we should a c-2, elsewere c-3, etc. Thus we have a spectrum of STRs and GTRs. Then the problem of measurement will be more complex.

Challenging the Universality of the Speed of Light as a Constant

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

I have been revising this short discussion paper of mine in RG. It is an attempt to correct some basic attitudes in physics. Just now I have written an introduction to it. Please read it here. In a few days I shall upload the whole lead-text of this discussion for your reading and comments. Here please find only the introduction:

FOUNDATIONS OF AXIOMATIC PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE

1. INTRODUCTION

I get surprised each time when some physicists tell me that either the electromagnetic (EM) or the gravitational (G) or both the forms of energy do not exist, but are to be treated or expressed as waves or particles propagated from material objects that of course exist. Some of them put in all their energies to show that both EM and G are mere mathematical fields, and not physically existent fields of energy propagations from bodies.

This is similar in effect to Newton and his followers thinking honestly and religiously that gravitation and other energies are just miraculously non-bodily actions at a distance without any propagation particles / wavicles.

Even in the 21stcentury, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity and its various versions have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists – miracles such as the mere spacetime curvature being the meaning of gravitation and all other sorts of fields.

A similar veil has been installed on the minds of many physicists by quantum physics too. We do not discuss it here. Hence, I have constructed in four published books a systemic manner of understanding these problems. I do not claim perfection in any of my attempts. Hence, I keep perfecting my efforts in the course of years. The following is a very short attempt to summarize in this effort one important point in physics and in the philosophy of physics.

I BELIEVE THAT THE TRADITION OF LAPPING UP WHATEVER THEY SAY BASED ON THEIR MANNER OF USING MATHEMATICS SHOULD STOP FOREVER. PHYSICISTS ARE NOT TO BEHAVE LIKE MAGICIANS, AND THEIR READERS SHOULD NOT PRACTICE RELIGIOUS FAITHFULNESS TO THEM.

Questioning the Foundations of Physical Constants, Properties, and Qualities

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

Symmetry: A Subset of Universal Causality. The Difference between Cause and Reason

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

This discussion-text is just 2.5 pages, but intense. Meant for those who are interested in a clear presentation of what symmetry and symmetry breaking are, and of how physicists and mathematicians tend to misunderstand and/or misuse these concepts.

The Universally Causal context of the concept of symmetry is explained in terms of a solidly founded system of differentiation between cause and reason.

The Fallacies of Space, Time, and Spacetime in Physics

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

Physical and Exact Sciences and Axiomatic Philosophy: Introducing Grounding (long text)

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

Causality and Statistics: Their Levels of Effect and of Explanation

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

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox and Non-Locality: Is Einstein a Monist?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_Paradox_and_Non-Locality_Is_Einstein_a_Monist

Spacetime Curvatures, Gravitational Waves, Gravitons, and Anti-Gravitons: Do They All Exist?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Spacetime_Curvatures_Gravitational_Waves_Gravitons_and_Anti-Gravitons_Do_They_All_Exist

The Fate of “Source-Independence” in Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Monopoles

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fate_of_Source-Independence_in_Electromagnetism_Gravitation_and_Monopoles

Can what are termed "mathematically consistent" natural laws necessarily be physically consistent? If they can be, then mathematics becomes physics (and for that matter it becomes any other mathematical science). But if math is different from all these sciences, the adequacy and applicability of math to physics and other sciences cannot be 100%. If that is the case, it is very important that physics (and other sciences) be helped constantly to choose the most suitable math. This help can come from the same science/s only in a partially realizable manner. Nor can math take up this task fully well. Hence, a generic science beyond all these including math and logic must take charge of improving the remaining portions of inadequacy and inapplicability of math to physics and the sciences. Which could that science be? I hold that this most general science need not contain all that philosophy has so far understood itself to be. But something of the philosophy of these sciences combined with the philosophy of math, logic, etc. would be an ideal option.

No problem here. Physics does not have to be that exact. You dont have to prove things necesarily.

QM is that kind of area in physics. The SE for example is not proved.

You cannot think it is all like rational mecanics. It needs an empiric input.

Measurements are not exact, there is alwas error bars. You need physical units.

QM, SE, Empirical Input, Measurement, Physical Units, etc.: Can these be the foundations of physics? If there can be foundational notions in physics, they are the foundations.

If many kinds of math can be constructed, then there is no uniqueness in math. Within the foundations of each branch, each is to be consistent, that is all. Now,, if such math is used in physics? There should be ways of choosing the suitable math. And the question was whether physics alone can do the choosing.

To make a rectangle a bit larger

A physicist calculates

(X+dX)(Y+dY)minus XY

For d(XY)

THIS HAS A d(X)d(Y)

The mathematician throws away

So, what is the conclusion you want to make?

Physics is about the real

The real can be (1) physically processual existents (e.g., direct observables like the earth, galaxies, etc., and indirect observables termed unobservables like atoms, neutrinos, etc.) and (2) realities that pertain to them but do not exist as physical processes (qualities / generalities, properties that are conglomerations of qualities / generalities, etc.).

And how to connect the mathematical expressions that you gave with these two kinds of realities? What would be the essential foundations upon which these may be connected in reason? In fact, this dilemma is the basic problem in the rationalization of quantum physics.

Watch this video (streamed today, 23 July 2023) from after the 9th minute: A suggestion that the constant velocity of light, Planck’s constant, and Gravitational constant may be found to have covariance when the whole cosmos is considered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPCoqJqSbGY

Im affraid that my examples wont ilumiinate much of what you pretend. I will at most touch

Classical Phsics and some mathematical analyst...deep infinitesimal problems.

Who today disputes Leibniz identity? People like Bishop Berkley tried to tell them.

Again, Physics remains more distant to math, especially that of this century, than many

think. Math and Physics remained close in the centuries 17 and 18. What they do now is to

just adorn the same stuff with ever fancier math...they think Physics is just a branch of that.

What I think is that Calculus in some not too distant future will have a completly different basis.

In rings, not fields.

Essential Reason in Physicists’ Use of Logic: And in Other Sciences Too!

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

I think a lot of people base the assumption such as in your question that a GUT would need to refute quantum physics as stated. And as for other theories and their relation to GUTs and TOEs, I believe the binary thought process which seems to be the current attitude in science that ONE singular theory will be proclaimed the equivalent successor of Einstein's theory of relativity is erroneous. I believe Einstein set a precedent which was unrivaled and will more likely than not remain so, mainly due to his unique thought process and the current state of knowledge and physics in his time. This precedent has had scientists since then essentially expecting a repeat with a TOE. But as with the Beatles, there were a variety of factors based on social influences and the current attitudes of the time which fostered not only the unique theories of Einstein but also the ability to give rise to this theory so that it may be widely well known and utilized. And also as with The Beatles, it is likely an unrepeatable phenomenon in that way. As such, in this time which is very different we have vastly more scientific reference points than in einsteins time. The approach will likely be viewed as piecemeal from extant sources such as Loop Quantum Gravity, String Theory, ect. For these reasons. We have adequate models that ever piece is likely already represented. Humans thinking binary in the way of "it will be one theory" or "which theory" would and will continue to be an extremly limiting factor in relation to TOE. I believe any such prominent theories will bo non-singular, with a range of usefulness and similar repeated themes which anchor the mathematical and physical consistency, and I believe those themes and principles will be the champions, not any one theory itself. When one begins to look at prominent scientific theories that may be at odds, again LGQ, string theory ect. They should then seek to find what principles actually fully constitute a TOE, within those that may be compatible with other theories. From this one could find elements of truth within prominent theories in this realm which may be compatible as well. I don't believe it's an "all or nothing" type thing.

I think QM must only be improved in its interpretations, especially causal, non-causal, etc. And of course, some quantum physicists should stop thinking that theirs is the ultimate solution for all physical problems.

Similarly, if you read relevant portions of my STR- and GTR-related posts and papers (especially my 5 published books), you will see that I hold only that GTR based on a criterial velocity of light needs to be only one of a spectrum of GTRs.

Thus, a single TOE is impossible in my opinion. But it is in the nature of physics (just like any other science, and of philosophy too), that there will be persons trying to create all-inclusive theories. This is due to the nature of the ideal of knowledge that humans are naturally directed to. In the final analysis, this will only prove that there is progress in science, philosophy, literature, etc.

Let me mention one thing that I noticed in the present post by you: It is very clear. The construction of sentences here above shows that you have done the formulation carefully. Very good. Like to read your comments. Even when you are critical, or even when there appear some mistakes in the formulation, there is an elegance about it. Note: I too commit many formulation mistakes, even grammatical! And when I re-read it, I feel ashamed of my English! Natural...!

Juan Weisz, I shall pretend to be unable to think of anything.

QM is on far solid foundations than GR. Of course you should aim to improve it, not shoot it down.

Its amazing power is in Quantum chemistry, spectroscopy, and a wide range of other areas.

Its 90% very short atomic range. GR is cosmic reach. One does not affect the other, except perhaps

in some very special topic like Hawking radiation near a black hole.

Did you feel that I was trying to shoot down QM? Please do not feel so. I did not contest its power and effectiveness in quantum chemistry, spectroscopy, etc.

Like to get a clarification: What did you mean by "Its 90% very short atomic range"?

That the effective length for any quantum influence is limited.

Even in cases where it is touted as ilimited, the noisy effects in space or the environment

will limit the effects considerably, because you need energy conservation. Coherence length.

Raphael Neelamkavil I'm unsure if that was directed at me, but if it was, thank you a million times over. My past work with philosophy and reading of Shulgin has greatly influenced my writing and presentation style. Absolutely wonderful compliment to wake up to. I hope you know your questions and conversations are equally competent and enlightening. I appreciate your time following any of my work and will continue to follow your thought provoking discussions. Sorry if this is non-sequitir due to me being late to the party. I was unprepared because physicists don't usually get invited to parties.

I am typing an answer on QM but am basically a half-asleep zombie. Will engage in QM conversation soon.

Alex Wolf III,

Sure, my words of appreciation in the post to you a few days ago was really for you. Your reflections are thought-provoking.

Im just amazed how people go back to things like TOE, its mostly people unprepared, but not always.

The reality of a unification of all forces , interactions, is nowhere to be seen.

Its all still in mainly four sections or areas.

gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak. Just as Isaac Asimov would explain, perhaps a decade ago.

One can still read with much profit, and learn to write.

Preprint ESSENTIAL REASON IN PHYSICISTS' USE OF LOGIC: IN OTHER SCIENCES TOO

Nature is not necesarily logical

Empirics not logic

Im probably lining up with

English philosophers over the

Continental ones

With almost no exception, for most of the English philosophers, nature is logical. Most of them today have the empiricist and pragmatic tendencies. A big number of them are linguistic analytic philosophers. For them, the empirical activity is fully to be submerged in logic as we know it!

In general you just cannot make logical a priori about facts of nature.dont see the

Point.

I am not saying that nature is logical. I said: for most English language philosophers, nature is logical. I say this because a big majority of English language philosophers are linguistic analysts. Do you see this point?

Sorry i cannot see the conection.

Perhaps im having a bad day or

Something.

Is that present day philosophers?

Linguistic philosophy (also called analytic philosophy) is the most important school of philosophy in the English speaking world. Also philosophy departments in other nations have been accepting it so much that today the western world's 60 to 70 % of philosophy departments have been dominated by this tendency. For them, logic is the logic of nature. They might admit in personal conversations that nature is beyond our logic. But the way in which they do philosophy, philosophy of science, linguistics, etc. is such that they accept logic as the very way of being of the world. Moreover, for them our terms and language reflect the world in its processes, in the best manner possible. The only thing they insist on is the clarification of concepts and language.

For further discussions, kindly see these:

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

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Linguistic-Analytic_Philosophy_is_more_than_130_years_old_How_to_improve_this_school_of_thought

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

How Does Physics Know? The Epistemology Presupposed by Physics and Other Sciences

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

If the only interest is language

We are in a different ball game

Áltogether

Why do you think that I am discussing language because the interest is only in language? I spoke of linguistic philosophy. It was all just some information for you.

Preprint MATHEMATICAL SOURCE OF FLAWS IN COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES: MATHE...

Preprint THE EPISTEMOLOGY PRESUPPOSED BY PHYSICS AND OTHER SCIENCES R...

PHYSICAL-PROCESSUAL REPRESENTATION OF IRRATIONAL NUMBERS

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical-Processual_Representation_of_Irrational_Numbers

THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS

3.1. Traditional Physical Categories

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

Far too philosophical for my taste.

Juan Weisz,

I understand you. But for some physicists it is too tough, and to some it is too speculative.

I try to explain it all as much as possible. I cannot now explain in the mathematical language, but in English. This explanation is perhaps what makes you say that it is too philosophical....

Banesh Hoffman or Asimov do very

Good jobs with that.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Grounded_Physical-Ontological_Categories_behind_Physics

Grounded (New) Physical-Ontological Categories behind Physics

Preprint THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS: CRITIQUE OF TRADITIONAL PHYSICA...

A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS: Beyond the Two Millennia

https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_SIMPLE_GAME-CHANGER_CAUSALITY_FOR_PHYSICS_Beyond_the_Two_Millennia

https://www.researchgate.net/post/DEFINITION_OF_THE_ONTOLOGY_BEHIND_PHYSICS_5_Paragraphs

DEFINITION OF THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS (5 Paragraphs)

THE ANOMALY IN MATHEMATICAL / THEORETICAL PHYSICS (Short Text)

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

Here a serious and somewhat complex matter to discuss:

NON-FOUNDATIONS OF ‘WAVICLES’ IN EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX: Bases for Quantum Physics to Evolve (Maybe a physical-ontological Breakthrough)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/NON-FOUNDATIONS_OF_WAVICLES_IN_EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN_PARADOX_Bases_for_Quantum_Physics_to_Evolve_Maybe_a_physical-ontological_Breakthrough

Preprint A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS Beyond the Two Millennia

AGAINST COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION, etc.: A Critique of Identity, Simultaneity, Cosmic Repetition / Recycling, etc.

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

Preprint ESSENTIAL LOGIC, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS, ...

WHAT IS THE MYSTERIOUS STUFF OF INFORMATION? A Short but Clear Definition

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

Preprint COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION:...

THE PLANCK ERA / QUANTUM ERA and “DISAPPEARANCE” OF PHYSICAL CAUSALITY: “OMNIPOTENCE” OF MATHEMATICS

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

Preprint PLANCK ERA or QUANTUM ERA,and ”DISAPPEARANCE” OF CAUSALITY. ...

Preprint IS THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT SACROSANCT?

Preprint CAUSAL HORIZONAL RESEARCH: A METHODOLOGY IN PHYSICS Raphael ...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_INFORMATION_WHAT_IS_ITS_CAUSAL_OR_NON-CAUSAL_CORE_A_Discussion

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

Preprint LINGUISTIC HERESY OF DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM: PHYSICAL-BIOLOGI...

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

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHY_EXACTLY_THE_WAVE-PARTICLE_DUALITY_Phenomenal_Ontological_Commitment_POC_as_the_Solution

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

Preprint WHY EXACTLY WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY? Phenomenal Ontological Co...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/DO_PHYSICAL_QUANTA_EXIST_Why_Should_CONSCIOUSNESS_Be_Treated_Quantum-Biologically