So all cosmology is wrong? And the new telescope is supporting that?

Nobel soon?

LikeLike

]]>Well, to look at the other side of the coin, why not? There is a first for everything. On the face of it, your idea of Quantum interaction and limited range sound alluring. So does that interaction give rise to Einstein cosmological constant? How?

Another objection is that you are basically throwing away much of modern cosmology

LikeLike

]]>Patrice, I thank you for your instructive reply. Science is looking further and further back and, especially the James Webb telescope, is opening our minds to vast distances and extremes. (Well they are to my mind.) But I can still only minutely understand this! Such is life!

LikeLike

]]>Hi Paul, thanks for the comment. Sorry for the delay, I was incommunicado camping in the Sierra… I have graduate degrees in the… fields in question, so no recent merit sounding learned…

Well I wrote a lot on the subject, trying to demystify the Quantum… In the hope of understanding it better.. Officially, nobody understands it… The basic point is that everything “is” in some sense “waves”…

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/quantum-waves-are-real/

But not just waves of scalar fields as looking at waves in the ocean… waves of fields… (see my answer to Ian Miller)

SQPR is an attempt to guess what is really going on…

The “IT FROM BIT” Quantum Information approach is very important technologically, but doesn’t strike me as fundamental…

“The gravitational, electromagnetic and other quantum fields outside the black hole retain an imprint of whatever falls in.” seems to harbor little smart meaning. The point is this: an object the size of the Milky Way, with the density of air, would be a BLACK HOLE… HOWEVER, falling into it would have no effect to those who fall (that’s well-known), and I can’t see what imprint would be left (problem for those saying this sort of rabbit out of a hat “physics”).

Lots of people say whatever to sell their books, or reputations… Or then they can be subtle and contemptuous, see the following:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2019/12/08/aaronson-misleading-quantum-talk/

***

Today’s biggest picture physics depends upon hypotheses we have no proof of, and often in a cascade!

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2010/07/09/heuristic-subquantal-universe/

…

Comments, questions, criticism, welcome!

Hi Ian!

A field is a function from spacetime to some sort of vector space. The vector space could be one dimensional… That’s called a scalar field. It could be the differential of a one form field such as the electromagnetic potential A: F = dA (d is the exterior derivative)… And that’s a 2-form, in other words a rank 2 tensor…

So is the Riemann spacetime curvature tensor, aka the gravitational field…

In general modern math semantics, the fields are sections of an associated bundle E−→πEM over a manifold M with a structure group G…. for example SU(3) in the case of QCD.

The point I was trying to make is very simple: fields being function from spacetime are intrinsically nonlocal… Especially when they wave…. 😉

That trivial point means that nonlocality is intrinsic at the most basic level…

Grav field travels at finite speed was an idea of Laplace (or what is Lagrange…. Lala land…) Energy conservation requires (if I remember my own work correctly) to go at c. Otherwise there would be non conservation of energy difficulties…

LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>I really wish I had even a marginal understanding of quantum physics; is there a book or a website you can recommend?

LikeLike

]]>