What Role Does Simultaneity Serve in Physics?

Einstein starts out his 1905 Special Theory of Relativity SR by an analysis of simultaneity similar to that presented in 1898 by the mathematician Poincaré, showing that different human observers may have different conceptions of simultaneity.

It is natural to ask what role simultaneity may serve in a World without human observers with possibly different conceptions. Let us then in the foot steps of Leibniz connect space to co-existence connecting to simultaneity, and then connect time to change. 

The basic case concerns two point-like particles A and B which meet/collide at a specific point in space and time and then part. At collision A and B share simultaneity and coexistence, since collision requires both A and B to be at the same place and time. 

Is it then necessary for A and B to keep track of position in space and time, in order to prepare for collision? Like when docking into the space station for a rocket? Of course not, the collision takes place at some position in space and time which A and B happen to share which automatically satisfies simultaneity. Collision involves both particles as a simultaneous event. If you come too late to the party, you will miss it.

More generally, simultaneity is not an issue in physics, since all interaction ultimately is established by contact/collision. For an extended body co-existence as extended simultaneity is established by contact. For a very large body delay effects may arise.

We conclude that simultaneity is only an issue for human observers seeking to synchronise clocks in order to set up a system of global time for communication, travel and business/stock exchange, and for GPS. The moon does not need a clock or GPS to find its path around the Earth. 

In Einstein's SR, simultaneity is essential, while in physics it is not essential. This means that SR is not a theory about physics, only about human observers in SR equipped with old meter sticks and mechanical clocks. Unfortunately, this is not understood by modern physicists trained to view SR as a theory about physics, which is behind the present crisis of modern physics.

Many-Minds Relativity offers an alternative to SR as a theory about conceptions of human observers. 

Making Sense of Quantum Mechanics??

Jean Bricmont starts his new book Making Sense of Quantum Mechanics with:

• This book is both apparently ambitious and modest in its aims. Ambitious, as it attempts to achieve something that has been declared impossible by some of the greatest physicists since the 1920s: making sense of what quantum mechanics really means. 
• But modest, because that goal was actually already attained many years ago in the work of Louis de Broglie, David Bohm, and John Bell. I will simply try to explain what they achieved.
• It would seem that, given all the claims to the effect that such a theory is impossible, its mere existence should be a subject of considerable interest, but this is not the case. Although interest in the de Broglie–Bohm theory is probably increasing, it is still widely ignored or misrepresented, even by experts on foundations of quantum mechanics.
• This book is written especially for all those students who feel that they have not understood the subject of quantum mechanics, not because they fail to master the mathematics or because they cannot do the exercises, but because they do not see what the theory means.

The message is that still 100 years after its conception quantum mechanics is not understood, neither by the greatest physicists nor by students. Any theory about physics with these qualities should have been dismissed long ago, but this is not the case and Bricmont gives us the reason:  

• Since its beginnings in 1900, the quantum theory has led to the most spectacularly well confirmed predictions ever made in science (some experimental results agree with the theoretical predictions up to one part in a billion), and it underpins all modern electronics and telecommunications. 
• It explains the stability of atoms and of stars, and lies at the foundation of the whole of particle physics, but also solid state physics, chemistry, and thus, in principle, biology. 
• It is truly our most fundamental theory of the world. Yet, to quote the famous American physicist Richard Feynman that “nobody understands quantum mechanics”.

We read that no human being understands quantum theory, but nevertheless it is the most successful theory ever giving predictions which fit incredibly well with experiments.

We understand that this can only mean that quantum theory somehow has been given to humanity as  ready-made, not to understand but to use to make predictions for human needs, like a clock of a construction which cannot be understood given to us from Heaven, but yet always giving the exact time for our needs. The difference between religion and science is supposed to be that science can be understood by all educated or at least by some expert scientists, whereas religion is hidden to understanding for all people. The conclusion can only be that the quantum theory which Bricmont speaks about, is not science.

To get out of this hopeless mess from scientific point of view, because science means to understand, it is necessary to go to the root of the trouble, which is to insist that quantum mechanics as atom physics must be based on a (i) linear (ii) multi-dimensional wave equation named Schrödinger's equation. This is an equation which by (i) allows unphysical superposition of states and which by (ii) cannot be solved for many electrons/atoms and thus can make real predictions only in very simple cases. 

  

But there may be a way out of the hopeless mess, and that is to start from a different form of Schrödinger's equation without (i) and (ii). This is explored in Many-Minds Quantum Mechanics.

Why not take a look, if you like Feynman and everybody else, do not understand quantum mechanics.

The key step is to replace an uncomputable linear multi-dimensional unphysical form of Schrödinger's equation with a computable system in 3d physical space, and in this way eliminate the unfortunate unphysical aspects which has driven modern physics into meaningless scholastics of mystery and fantasy.  

    

A Three-dimensional Multi-Electron Wave Function

Consider a wavefunction $\psi$  for an atom with $N$ electrons as a sum of $N$ functions $\psi_1(x)$,…,$\psi_N(x)$, all depending on a common three-dimensional space coordinate $x$ (plus time):

• $\psi (x)=\psi_1(x)+\psi_2(x)+…+\psi_N(x)$,

with associated energy as the sum of kinetic energy, attractive kernel potential energy and repulsive interelectron energy:

• $E(\psi )= \frac{1}{2}\int\vert\nabla\psi\vert^2dx - \int\frac{N\psi^2}{\vert x\vert}dx+\sum_{j\neq k}\int\int\frac{\psi_j^2(x)\psi_k^2(y)}{2\vert x-y\vert}dxdy$,

under the normalization

• $\int\psi_j^2dx =1$ for $j=1,...,N$,

where $\psi_j(x)$ represents the distribution of electron $j$.

The ground state is determined as the state of minimal energy determined as the solution of a non-linear system of equations in three space dimensions expressing minimality.  We see that minimization favors atomistic wavefunctions $\psi (x)=\sum_j\psi_j(x)$ built from electronic wave functions $\psi_j$ with disjoint supports, which makes the interelectronic repulsion energy small without cost of kinetic energy.

The ground state of Helium thus will have its two electrons separated into two half-spheres with corresponding wave functions $\psi_1(x)$ and $\psi_2(x)$ meeting smoothly at a common separation surface. It is possible that this is the origin of the Zweideutigkeit or two-valuedness expressed in Pauli's exclusion principle, which Pauli did not like because it was ad hoc without rationale.

The  sequence of posts on Quantum Contradictions explores atomic ground states based on the above wave function with surprisingly good correspondence with observations, see also Many-Minds Quantum Mechanics.

We compare with standard quantum mechanics with multi-dimensional wave functions $\psi (x_1,…,x_N)$ depending on $N$ three-dimensional space coordinates $x_1$,…,$x_N$, typically in the form of a Slater determinant as a linear combination of products of $N$ functions $\psi_1$,…,$\psi_N$, each function separately depending on three space coordinates,  thus based on wavefunctions depending on altogether $3N$ space coordinates. Such multi-dimensional wave functions defy direct physical interpretation and are also impossible to compute for atoms with several electrons and thus do not belong to science. Yet they are supposed to be fundamental to atomistic physics.

The standard view is that macroscopic and microscopic (atomistic) physics are fundamentally different,  because microscopic physics demands a multi-dimensional wave function, while macroscopic physics is described by systems of three-dimensional functions. If also microscopic physics can be described by systems of three-dimensional functions, as indictated above, then there will be no fundamental difference between macroscopic and microscopic physics and a major obstacle for progress can be eliminated.

Computations based on wavefunctions of the above form are under way and will presented when available.  For simple hand calculations see here and here.

PS1 For Helium with two electrons at distance $\frac{1}{2}$ from the kernel and mutual distance $1$ as an approximate ground state configuration energy in the above model, we get $E = -3$, to be compared with the observed $-2.903$.

For Lithium with two electrons at distance $\frac{1}{3}$ from the kernel and mutual distance $\frac{2}{3}$ together with a third electron at distance 1 from an effective kernel of charge +1, we get $E = -8$, to be compared with the observed $-7.5$. The ground state energy of three electrons at distance $\frac{1}{3}$ from the kernel and mutual distance $\frac{1}{2}$, we get $E = -7.5$ indicating that the configuration with two electrons in an inner shell and one in an outer shell has smaller energy and thus is the actual ground state configuration for Lithium, thus obtained without reference to Pauli's exclusion principle.

PS2 Recall that the standard quantum mechanics is formulated in terms of a multi-dimensional wave function $\psi (x_1,x_2,…,x_N)$ depending on $N$ three-dimensional space coordinates $x_1$,…$x_N$, altogheter on $3N$ space coordinates, which is devastating because both physical interpretation and computational determination is impossible. To reduce the dimensionality typically an Ansatz is made as Slater determinants of three-dimensional wave functions $\psi_i$ as linear combinations of products of the form (subject to permutations of the coordinates):

• $\psi (x_1,…,x_N)=\psi_1(x_1)\psi_2(x_2)….\psi_N(x_N)$,

leading to a set of one-electron wave equations coupled by complex exchange-correlation terms which are very difficult to determine. The above Ansatz with a sum instead of products of three-dimensional wave functions may offer more computationally managable and thus more useful models.

PS3 For Beryllium with 4 electrons, we get $E=-14$ from 2 electrons at distance $\frac{1}{4}$ from the kernel with mutual distance $\frac{1}{2}$, together with $E = -\frac{2}{3}$ from 2 electrons of width $\frac{1}{2}$ at distance $\frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{2}$ from an effective charge of +2, which gives altogether $E = -14.667 which is exactly what is observed!!

PS4 For N electrons distributed over one shell at distance $\frac{1}{N}$ to the kernel assuming the average distance between any pair of electrons is $\frac{1}{N}$, we get $E = -\frac{N^2}{2}$, which is much larger than the observed $E \approx - N^2$ and thus is not the ground state configuration.  A multi-shell distribution in the model gives better agreement with observations and so the model may capture the real shell structure (without resort to any Pauli exclusion principle).

PS5 Note that the above model allows discontinuous electron distributions (joining smoothy) without cost of kinetic energy which favors electron separation. We compare with Hartree models as systems of one-electron models with continuous electron distributions for which separation requires kinetic energy cost and a resort to Pauli's exclusion principle is necessary to prevent more than two electron distributions to overlay.

PS6 To find the ground state, we can use time-stepping of the parabolic system

• $\frac{\partial\psi_j(x,t)}{\partial t} = \Delta\psi (x,t) + \frac{N\psi (x,t)}{\vert x\vert}-\sum_{k\neq j}\int\frac{\psi_k^2(y,t)}{2\vert x-y\vert}dy\,\psi_j(t,x)$ for $t > 0$, $j=1,…,N$,

with successive normalization to $\int\psi_j^2(x,t)\, dx=1$ after each time step and $\psi =\sum_{k=1}^N\psi_k$.  Further

• $V_k\equiv\int\frac{\psi_k^2(y,t)}{2\vert x-y\vert}dy$,

can be computed by solving $-\Delta V_k = 2\pi\psi_k^2$.

      

Schrödinger's Equation: Smoothed Particle Dynamics

Eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian for the Hydrogen atom with eigenvalues representing the sum of kinetic and potential energies, with Schrödinger's equation as a smoothed version of the particle dynamics of a harmonic oscillator.  

This is continuation of the previous post How to Make Schrödinger's Equation Physically Meaningful + Computable. Consider the basic case of the Hydrogen atom with one electron (normalized to unit mass and charge):

• $ih\dot\psi + H\psi =0$,
• $H\psi =\frac{h^2}{2}\Delta\psi +\frac{1}{\vert x\vert}\psi$,

where $\psi (x,t)$ the complex-valued wave function depending on coordinates of space $x$ and time $t$ with the dot denoting differentiation with respect to time, $H$ is the Hamiltonian operator and $h$ Planck's constant.

In terms of the real part $\phi$ and imaginary part $\chi$ of $\psi =\phi +i\chi$, Schrödinger's equation takes the system form

1. $h\dot\phi +H\chi =0$,
2. $h\dot\chi - H\phi =0$.

If $\phi_E(x)$ is an eigenfunction of the Hamiltonian satisfying $H\phi_E =E\phi_E$ with $E$ the corresponding eigenvalue, then the solution can be represented as

• $\phi (x,t)=\cos(\omega t)\phi_E(x)$,     $\chi (x,t)=\sin(\omega t)\phi_E(x)$, 

with $h\omega =E$, which expresses a periodic exchange between the two real-valued wave functions $\phi$ and $\chi$ mediated by the Hamiltonian $H$.

We can see 1- 2 as an analog of the equation for a harmonic oscillator $\ddot u+\omega^2u=0$ written in system form (with $h=1$)

• $\dot\phi  + \omega\chi =0$
• $\dot\chi  - \omega \phi = 0$,

where $\phi =\dot u$ and $\chi =\omega u$, with solution

• $\phi (x,t)=\cos(\omega t)$,     $\chi (x,t)=\sin(\omega t)$.  

Here the velocity $\phi =\dot u$ connects to kinetic energy $\phi^2 =\dot u^2$ and $\chi =\omega u$ to potential energy $\chi^2 =\omega^2u^2$ and the dynamics of the harmonic oscillation consists of periodic transfer back and forth between kinetic and potential energy with their sum being constant.

Returning now to the Hydrogen atom, we obtain multiplying 1 by $\phi$ and 2 by $\chi$ and integrating in space the following the energy balance

• $h\frac{d}{2dt}\int\phi^2\, dx + \int \phi H\chi \, dx =0$
• $h\frac{d}{2dt}\int\chi^2\, dx - \int \chi H\phi\, dx =0$,    

where 

• $ \int \phi H\chi \, dx = \int \chi H\phi\, dx =\frac{h^2}{2}\int\nabla\phi\cdot\nabla\chi\, dx +\int\frac{\phi\chi}{\vert x\vert}\, dx$,

which shows upon summation (by the symmetry of $H$) that

• $\frac{d}{2dt}\int\phi^2\, dx =\frac{d}{2dt}\int\chi^2\, dx =0$, 

which allows normalization to  

• $\int\phi^2\, dx = \int\chi^2\, dx = \frac{1}{2}$,
• $\int\vert\psi\vert^2\, dx = 1$, for all time. 

Further, multiplying 1 by $\dot\chi$ and 2 by $\dot\phi$ and subtracting the resulting equations shows that

• $\int (\phi H\phi + \chi H\chi)\, dx$ is constant in time. 

We can now summarize as follows:

A. We see that the solution pair $(\phi ,\chi )$ of 1 - 2 as the real and imaginary part of Schrödinger's wave function $\phi$, represents a periodic exchange mediated by the Hamiltonian $H$ with balancing associated total energies 

• $\int \phi H\phi (x,t)\, dx = \frac{h^2}{2}\int\vert\nabla\phi (x,t)\vert^2dx +\int\frac{\phi^2(x,t)}{\vert x\vert}\, dx$,
• $\int \chi H\chi (x,t)\, dx = \frac{h^2}{2}\int\vert\nabla\chi (x,t)\vert^2dx +\int\frac{\chi^2(x,t)}{\vert x\vert}\, dx$    

as the sum of kinetic and potential energies.

B. We see that Schrödinger's equation for the Hydrogen atom can be viewed as a smoothed version of a harmonic oscillator with the smoothing effectuated by the Laplacian and with $h$ acting as a smoothing parameter.

C. We see that the system form 1- 2 combines the spatial eigenfunction $\phi_E$ with a periodic time dependence without introducing energy beyond the kinetic and potential energies defined by the Hamiltonian, thus associating these energies to frequency as the essence of quantum mechanics.

D. We see that quantum mechanics and Schrödinger's equation can be given an interpretation which closely connects to classical mechanics, as smoothed particle mechanics, which avoids the common mystifications of particle-wave duality, complementarity, wave function collapse and statistics forced by insistence to use a multidimensional wave function defying a direct physical meaning.

Extension to several electrons can be naturally be made following the idea of smoothed particle dynamics. For details see Many-Minds Quantum Mechanics.

What Science is Ready for Retirement?

The Edge web site hosts a collection of 173 articles on the theme What Science is Ready for Retirement? including the following highlights in my view:

• Anton Zeilinger: There is No Reality in the Quantum World
• Alan Gut: The Universe Began In A State Of Extraodinarily Low Entropy
• Kai Krause: The Uncertainty Principle
• Bruce Parker: Entropy
• Frank Tipler: String Theory
• David Deutsch: Quantum Jumps
• Andrew Lih: Calculus
• Matt Ridley: Malthusianism
• Lee Smolin: The Big Bang was the First Moment of Time
• Freean Dyson: The Collapse of the Wave Function
• Haim Hariri: The Discovery of the Higgs particle Closes a Chapter in Particle Physics
• Max Tegmark: Infinity
• Frank Wilczek: Mind versus Matter

What I could add is for example

• relativity theory
• multidimensional linear Schrödinger equation
• statistical mechanics
• statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics
• Kutta-Zhukovsky lift theory for flight
• Prandtl boundary layer theory for drag.

See also the upcoming 2nd Rational Physics Conference, Salzburg, April 5-6:

• Contemporary physics has lost contact with physical reality. Mysticism and fancy has resulted in quite irrational notions being proposed to account for the physical Universe. This conference is a return to rational physics in terms that are comprehensible to any educated person, not just a small group of specialists.

See further Kritische Stimmen zur Relativitätstheori where some of my own critical work is presented. 

Einsteinian Contradictions 1

To get perspective on the state of physics today it is instructive to recall the beginning of modern physics marked by the special theory of relativity presented by the young Einstein in 1905 as a revolution away from the absolute space and time of Newtonian mechanics shared by all observers, into relativistic mechanics with each observer carrying his own space-time under an assumption of a common constant speed of light.

Many-Minds Relativity argues that special relativity is a formal mathematical theory without physical interpretation defined by the Lorentz transformation connecting measurements of space and time by different observers in motion, as opposed to the Galilean transformation of Newtonian mechanics.

The argument is that the Lorentz transformation has no physical realization, as pointed out by Lorentz and Born among others, while the Galilean transformation describes real physics. The fact that special relativity is a non-physical theory comes out as contradictions such as the twin paradox and the ladder paradox.

In Newtonian mechanics based on Galilean transformation different observers share a common perception of space and time (absolute space and time), but have different perceptions depending on motion (e.g. Doppler effect). Newtonian mechanics is thus relativistic as a many-minds theory on a shared basis of absolute space and time, with the possibility of using different coordinate systems connected by Galilean transformation.

• Newtonian mechanics is like a democratic society with citizens sharing common values while being allowed to have different opinions.

In Einsteinian mechanics based on Lorentz transformation different observers are demanded to measure the same speed of light and have perceptions of space and time depending on motion postulated by the Lorentz transformation. Einsteinian mechanics is thus absolute in the sense of  requiring all observers to observe according to the Lorentz transformation while measuring the same speed of light.

• Relativistic Einsteinian mechanics is like a dictatorship with citizens sharing nothing while being required to have opinions dictated by the dictator.  

More Einsteinian contradictions in upcoming posts and in Dr Faustus of Modern Physics.

From Modern to Post-Modern Physics

Physics has the top position in the hierarchy of sciences because physics is the science where a Principle of Objectivity (PO) comes to its fullest expression.

Modern physics was born in the beginning of the 19th century when the PO of classical physics of Newton's absolute space and time was confronted with the null-result of the Michelson-Morley experiment indicating that the speed of Earth through an aether of absolute space was zero, as if the Earth was dragging the aether of absolute space along on its path around the Sun. This was in direct conflict with the PO of the Copernican principle stating that the Earth is not the center of the Universe as the anchor of absolute space.

Einstein solved the dilemma by simply declaring that there is no aether whatsoever and then developed his special theory of relativity as an ultimate expression of a PO declaring that physical laws must look the same in all reference/coordinate systems. A physical law which takes different forms in different coordinate systems, would then not be a true fundamental physical law because it would violate PO.

Einstein thus managed to keep physics at its top position by initiating a modern form of physics in accordance with PO, based on the following fundamental expressions of objectivity:

• no-aether special theory of relativity
• universal wave function of quantum mechanics
• Cosmological Principle (CP): the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

Modern physics thus kept the top position in the hierarchy of sciences by claiming superior full objectivity, but the price of maintaining PO has shown to be very high and has led modern physics into a free fall diverging from reality into string theory on small scales beyond rationale and cosmology on large scales beyond comprehension, topped with a new completely unknown form of dark energy as a result of CP.

From this crisis new forms of physics as post-modern physics, are now emerging where special reference systems are again allowed as in classical physics and the PO is no longer worshipped in extreme. This makes physics more like other sciences, more human and more useful. In fact, Einstein re-introduced in his general theory of relativity the aether he had eliminated in his special theory of relativity. Einstein was very clever.

I describe possible forms of post-modern physics as many-minds physics in the upcoming books:

• Many-Minds Relativity
• Many-Minds Quantum Mechanics

and the collapse of modern physics is recorded in:

• Dr Faustus of Modern Physics.

Many-Minds Cosmology and Jante Law

In Many-Minds Relativity and Many-Minds Quantum Mechanics I explore an idea which can also be applied to cosmology, as discussed in previous posts. This idea has developed as an alternative to the following two views on the choice of reference or coordinate system for description of phenomena in space and time dominating physics:

1. There is a unique preferred reference system (Newton's absolute space and time).
2. There is no preferred reference system (Einstein's relativity theory).

We know that 2 came out as a reaction to the fruitless attempts to identify Newton's absolute space in the form a luminoferous aether medium carrying electromagnetic waves in the Michelson-Morley experiments.

2 is a generalization of Galileo's departure from geocentrism into heliocentrism relating to the Cosmological Principle (CP) or (generalized) Copernican Principle:

• If the Earth is not the center of the Universe, then there is no center of the Universe at all.

Einstein formulated 2 as

• If my aether cannot be everybody's aether, then there is no aether at all.

2 connects to the first rule of the Jante Law identified by the Danish-Norwegian author Aksel Sandemose in his novel A fugitive crosses his tracks, as a characteristic of Scandinavian mentality:

• Don't think you're anything special,

which expresses a form of CP:

• If I am not special, then nobody else is special.

But we are not forced to conclude 2, if we agree that 1 is not true, since it is also possible that

• There are many preferred reference systems.
• There are many aethers.
• There are many centers of the Universe.
• There are many special people.

This is is the idea of Many-Minds physics, which offers to take physics out of a paralyzing grip of 2 including

• paradoxes of Einstein's special relativity
• difficulties of interpretation of the wave function of quantum mechanics
• CP of an isotropic and homogeneous universe requiring dark energy
• Swedish trauma of lacking self-esteem.

The question is if Many-Minds physics can attract the minds of many, or if is to remain the special idea of a special person?

Note that the basic idea of Einstein's (unique) special theory of relativity is that there is no special reference system. A contradiction?

Recall that the temptation to put forward 2 is very strong, since it gives physics the special top position in the hierarchy, as the objective science with arts, literature, political and social sciences ranking much lower as deploringly subjective. But 2 has brought physics into a

dead end of objective dark energy, string theory and statistics.

So what will then be best, to stick to 2 and be the best but have nothing to offer, or to subdue to reality, give up the special position and step forward?

Of course, Many-Minds connects to a pluralistic society, while One-Mind or No-Mind connects to an autocratic society.

One Mind vs Many Minds in Physics

Elimination of the One Mind of Louis XVI witnessed by Many Minds: Birth of modernity.

In Dr Faustus of Modern Physics I describe how modern physics was born in the early 20th century from a deal with the Devil replacing the fundamental principles of classical physics of

• objective reality of space and time
• cause-effect: determinism: causality
• logical consistency

by the new fundamental principles of modern physics of

• relativity: subjective reality of space and time under universal invariance
• statistics: atomistic games of roulette
• duality: both wave and particle at the same time.

The deal was motivated by the following problems which appeared impossible to solve using classical continuum physics and asked for solution to maintain scientific credibility:

• 2nd law of thermodynamics (irreversibility in formally reversible systems)
• observer independent speed of light (Michelson-Morley experiment)
• blackbody radiation (ultraviolet catastrophy)
• photoelectric effect (inexplicable frequency dependence).

In Dr Faustus of Modern Physics I open a door to different resolutions of these pressing problems with less severe side effects than the relativity-statistics-duality of modern physics. I describe this new approach as

• many-minds physics: many actors/observers: many gods: no master,

as opposed to

• one-mind physics: one universal actor/observer: one God: one master,

which is the current paradigm of modern physics as a combination of

• Einstein's relativity theory based on universal invariance
• quantum mechanics based on Schrödinger's multidimensional wave equation.

I present many-minds physics in the books

• Many-Minds Relativity
• Many-Minds Quantum Mechanics.

The basic difference between many-minds and one-mind physics can be understood as the difference between bottom-up and top-down control of a system, in political terms as the difference between democracy and autocracy/dictatorship, or between market economy and

socialistic economy.

In many-minds relativity each observer is tied to his coordinate system and the pertinent question concerns what agreement of observations by different observers is possible, without asking for universal agreement.

In many-minds quantum mechanics each electron/particle solves its own version of the Schrödinger equation and the multidimensional wave function asking for universal agreement does not appear.

In Computational Thermodynamics and Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation I show that finite precision computation can replace atomistic games of roulette as explanation of irreversibility in formally reversible systems and the 2nd law with its direction of time.

Altogether I propose different resolutions of the problems which once troubled physics, resolutions which do not require basic principles of rationality and enlightenment to be abandoned. In many-minds physics, each actor/observer uses an individual classical perspective without any need of universality, like individual actors in a market economy.

PS Any similarity in the above picture with KTH-gate, is purely coincidental.