Tom did undergrad physics and math at the University of Toronto in the 80s, then went into a masters for the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory at Laurentian University and a PhD (physics) at University of Guelph.

Tom was a co-winner of the Breakthrough Prize in Physics in 2016 for his work with the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory collaboration.

Since his PhD, Tom has spent time on his undergrad ignited passion in physics – quantum foundations. He has attended and took part in quantum foundation conferences over the past years, where he has focused on the interaction between gravity and quantum systems in a Bohmian model.

Quantum statistics in Bohmian trajectory gravity  https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1275/1/012038

List of publications:


He has also founded nSCIr.ca ( https://nscir.ca ) and under it created the Cosmic Ray Observatory, which is an iOS program and web service that captures cosmic ray (and other) radiation events on iPhones. https://cosmicrayobserver.com . He is also part of the CREDO collaboration. https://credo.science

Thesis: General Relativity has enough freedom, bandwidth and flexibility to build and host quantum mechanics and perhaps electromagnetism.

What is the nature of reality? Is it really 11 or more dimensions of string theory, which has had millions of hours poured into it with no results? The cutting room floor of the physics department is littered with the contenders.

On the other hand, we also have the notion that every theory is both inaccurate in a percentage sense and completely wrong in a conceptual sense. Newton’s theory of gravity is so good that it predicts the motions of the solar system to within a hair’s breadth. Yet even Newton could see problems with the instantaneous transmission of effect that his gravity predicted.

For some reason that I can’t figure out, quantum mechanics seems to hold some sort of cherished position in physics today – many physicists believe that whatever theory is postulated, it must agree with QM to succeed. What it really means of course is that to be taken seriously, every theory must agree with QM. These are two very different things, and is at the heart of the reason why everyone is trying to quantize General Relativity, rather than the reverse (which is what the proposals on this site try to accomplish).

This race for a quantum theory of gravity has been full of rewards and surprises, but real major breakthroughs have not been forthcoming, despite the decades of work in this field.

The recent developments in pilot wave physics, the surge in interest in emergent quantum mechanics and the continuing failure of the current direction to provide any meaningful progress indicate to me that my 25 year quest for the explanation of quantum effects via general relativity may not be in vain.

Tom Andersen

One response to About


    I clicked on your link on the thread at Not Even Wrong. As a complete outsider, I thought I would run an idea past you.
    We think of time as a sequence of events and physics assumes this by mostly treating it as a measure of interval, but is this “dimensional” assumption foundational, or an effect. For example, does the earth travel/exist along this fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, or does tomorrow become yesterday because the earth rotates?
    Temporal sequence is foundational to thought, from narrative, to cause and effect, so it would be natural to make it foundational to how we view reality, but then we do still see the sun move across the sky from east to west, even though we know it is due to the earth rotating west to east. Could we be making a similar error with time?
    To me, it explains alot. Why clocks run at variable rates.(It’s a measure of change and change happens at variable rates.), Why reality doesn’t branch out into the various probabilities.( It’s the collapse of probability that makes reality.), etc. Duration is not a vector that transcends the point of the present, but is the state of the present between events.
    This would make time similar to temperature, like frequency and amplitude are different aspects of waves.
    The problem is that this doesn’t just go back a few steps for the field of math based physics, but upturns the whole applecart. When we view reality as that ordered sequence of events, it seems nice and statically structured, such that what we perceive as reality emerges from that structured order. On the other hand, when we view the order as emerging from the dynamic of change, it is not physics emerging from the underlaying math, but the math emerging from the underlaying physics. I find this makes people very, very irate.
    Just putting the idea out there. I’m quite used to being deleted, so it won’t hurt my feelings, if you do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s