Einstein once proposed that everything that exists, that we have any evidence of, is the workings out of space-time fields governed by general relativity. I may well be the only person on earth who agrees with that, AFTER understanding all the basic principles of the kind of quantum field theory needed to fit the experimental e4vidence from modern electronics and photonics.
A week ago, I sent an email to the one other person (retired) giving a very direct, substantive explanation for how I could believe such a thing:
===========================================================
... I remember how your belief in reality in physics, in the spirit of Ayn Rand, was ever so important in your seminal contributions to lithography...
My outrageous summary: Classical Field Theory as defined in the book by Moshe Carmeli is powerful enough that I have found ways to overcome all the objections which seemed insuperable to the hypothesis that everything in our universe (and everything we can observe in any way) can be fit as the emergent outcome of his kind of nonlinear PDE, which are quasilinear except for the link to general relativity (which is spelled out in his book, https://archive.org/details/classicalfieldsg0000carm).
This has many, many implications which I hope we THREE can all discuss, in time, but for now, this hypothesis deserves absolute full attention. [GETTING this foundation straight is crucial to integrating all of our empirical knowledge, from quantum electrodynamics to new technologies to dark matter to mathematical understanding of consciousness form Freud to Jung.]
=========================================================================
You and I both read Atlas Shrugged Long ago. We should discuss that too, but first comes my outrageous claim.
You undoubtedly know that Einstein himself often argued that the antirealistic claims of Heisenberg could be overcome by demonstrating how probability distributions for classical fields could be mapped into wave functions, such that wave functions could be interpreted as statistical descriptions, and Schrodinger equations as emergent statistical dynamics.
Wiener tried very hard to fulfill that. There is a classic paper
https://www.phys.lsu.edu/faculty/oconnell/PDFfiles.nov92005/137.%20Distribution%20Functions%20in%20Physics%3B%20Fundamentals.pdf
by OConnell, Wigner, Scully et al which was perhaps the closest anyone ever achieved to do that. But it did not work.
(By the way, at NSF I did fund O'Connell at LSU for very important follow-on work, but few of us know how to slash the damage done by aging.)
In the 1970's, I exchanged many letters with DeBroglie, to discuss the problem of explaining the spectrum of helium, which we both regarded as the most
serious problem. (By the way, I still have some of those letters both in hard copy and scans.)
Nothing seemed to work.
HOWEVER ... thanks to Howard Brandt of QISCOG, I learned that Walls and Milburn explained basic physics far beyond anything I had learned from Schwinger at Harvard. The obvious way forward to fulfill Einstein's program is to map PR(states) to probability DENSITY operators, leading for example to entropy functions like the classic generalized Boltzmann distribution in Chaikin's text and many others. I published several papers (admittedly in obscure journals) and in arxiv, describing an "extended Glauber-Sudarshan" mapping from Pr(states) to bosonic quantum field theories.
The map to mixed Fermi/Bose results simply by assuming fermions are solitons of finite radius, and taking the limit as the radius goes to zero.
This does not tell us WHAT the Lagrangian of the universe might be, but it is enough to get rid of the "impossibility" result (when combined with the results on measurement which I DID publish in a well-known journal https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10773-008-9719-9.pdf).
==============
After that... you would naturally expect that I would want to go further and publish a proposed Lagrangian for the universe.
For years, I looked very deeply into that issue. I did publish a few candidates which met SOME of the requirements, but not all.
When I finally found a family of candidates which seemed credible... in tune with conversations I had with Schwinger AFTER I spoke to him at NSF... they led to a very serious difficulty. They immediately pointed to technology options to violate baryon number conservation, which, according to Manton's work, has been actively pursued in Russian nuclear centers (one of which granted my wife one of her PhDs) with technology implications we might want to handle very, very carefully.
IF we do something for the first stage, and for new work in quantum computing (for which we could add you and ... as coinventors and co-owners if you are interested), then there are comfortable places here in this area (Arlington, Virginia) where we could get into the nuclear stuff, and discuss what to do with the new Lagrangian and what it might lead to.
Best regards,
No comments:
Post a Comment