Talk:Stochastic electrodynamics

electric gravity

Some comments sound as if SED contains a theory of electric gravity. Is this actually what the proponents are saying? If so, how do they explain how gravity seems to couple only to mass and energy density and not to the electromagnetic variables? 198.228.228.150 (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Collin237

Yes, well asking questions about 'electric gravity' is exactly why this article remains in a sorry state User:Linas (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:A pilot-wave walker in a circular corral.png

File:A pilot-wave walker in a circular corral.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Opening Description

I have several objections to the closing paragraph in the opening description.

“Given the posited emergent nature of quantum laws in SED, it has been argued that they form a kind of 'quantum equilibrium' that has an analogous status to that of thermal equilibrium in classical dynamics. In principle therefore, SED allows other 'quantum non-equilibrium' distributions, for which the statistical predictions of quantum theory are violated. It is controversially argued that quantum theory is merely a special case of a much wider nonlinear physics, a physics in which non-local (superluminal) signalling is possible, and in which the uncertainty principle can be violated.[13][14]”

This is phrased in a misleading manner. The first sentence argues, correctly, that the stochastic background field is in an equilibrium state analogous to thermal equilibrium – this post-inflationary condition is essential to all of the successful SED descriptions of quantum mechanical phenomena. Then the next sentence states “in principle therefore, SED allows for 'quantum non-equilibrium' distributions," leading the reader to believe that SED violates well-established QM predictions in the post-inflation universe, which is false, and the third sentence amplifies this mistake.

The non-equilibrium condition permitted within SED is limited to an infinitesimal moment at the beginning of the Big Bang, which lasted only 10^-22 to 10^-18 sec. Subsequently, the equilibrium condition is permanently reached, making superluminal signaling and violations of the uncertainty principle impossible. But the fleeting instant of quantum non-equilibrium in the early universe presents an opportunity to detect a faint signal in the CMB which may confirm SED.

Those statements can all be clarified by adding qualifying remarks. But the last line has to go:

“The reported results are subject to considerable argument. with accusations it leads to the possibility of anti-gravity, reactionless drives or free energy.”

I’m working my way through all of the academic literature on SED and I’ve found no citations to support any of those "accusations," which may be why none have been offered here. But even if credible supporting citations could be found, similar arguments can be made against general relativity, since general relativity permits negative energy conditions that allow for anti-gravity, wormholes, reactionless drives, closed timelike curves, and free energy. Strangely, those "accusations" against general relativity are absent from the opening description on Wikipedia.

Note: citation 14 is a guest blog post written by Antony Valentini, with an introductory statement by George Mussi. I’m also confused about the prevalence of pop science articles in these citations, rather than the many published academic papers available on this subject. Shouldn't academic papers be cited wherever possible, rather than citing articles from magazines?

[1] “Timescales for dynamical relaxation to the Born rule,” M.D. Towler, N.J. Russell and A. Valentini, Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 2012

Informedskeptic (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Great to hear you are working through SED!

I agree it is practically impossible to violate QM in SED, but there is a world of difference between practically impossible and theoretically impossible. The most import thing is that you can find a source to clarify the remark?

I rather like the approach of SED, but unfortunately the mud slinging from naysayers does exist, I have added a source to the accusations.

As for pop science articles - they serve the very important purpose of making sure an article uses academic papers and authors that are reliable and cited. Also helps explain in layman terms to people what the technical details are about.--Sparkyscience (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Sparkyscience; it’s nice to run across someone else with an interest in this subject. Unfortunately, the citation that you’ve provided is a non-peer-reviewed overview published in the STAIF conference proceedings, by the Haisch, Puthoff and Rueda et al. group the CalPhysics Institute, which appears to have done more damage to the credibility of this topic than any other group in history. None of the credible peer-reviewed papers I’ve read by Valentini, Marshall, de la Peña, Cetto, Claverie, Santos, etc. support any of these claims about free energy, antigravity or reactionless drives.

By citing the wildest claims of the CalPhysics Institute group, which appear nowhere in the credible academic literature on this subject, in the opening description, you’re effectively discrediting the entire field of published academic research which makes none of these claims. People are even citing your words as a reason to disregard this entire field on inquiry:

https://www.quora.com/Can-anybody-elaborate-on-Stochastic-electrodynamics-theory-and-why-research-on-it-was-discontinued?share=1

The paper I cited above by Valentini explains that the quantum equilibrium condition reached by 10^-18 sec after the Big Bang makes SED fully compatible with QM permanently:

“2. Once in quantum equilibrium a system will remain in equilibrium thereafter, as was originally noted by de Broglie [6] (this property is sometimes referred to as ‘equivariance’)”

So unless we can find a credible citation within the peer-reviewed academic literature that raises free energy or antigravity or reactionless drives as a real consequence of SED in the post-inflationary universe, then I think we should delete that last line as an unwarranted criticism of an otherwise intriguing and legitimate field of theoretical research.

Informedskeptic (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

"Classical background field" section unreferenced and unclear.

The current "Classical background field" looks like it dropped in for a visit unannounced ;-). I propose to delete the section as unreferenced. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I replaced the section with a description of the article topic model. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)