Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Anonymous: on 4/28/17 at 15:44pm UTC, wrote From the perspective of field theory, the only difference that arises...

James Putnam: on 3/25/17 at 1:24am UTC, wrote My questions about a highly rated essay are left unanswered so, I submit my...

Steven Andresen: on 3/24/17 at 2:00am UTC, wrote I am aware of an everyday phenomenon that is comparable to the quantum...

Jonathan Dickau: on 3/14/17 at 15:39pm UTC, wrote Hi John, Actually that should be the Transactional Interpretation of QM,...

Hodge: on 3/12/17 at 0:50am UTC, wrote Very little is needed to rescue reality from the clutches of quantum...

George Simpson: on 2/18/17 at 19:32pm UTC, wrote Hi Matt, I am impressed you breadth and imaginativeness. I think you will...

jim hughes: on 2/13/17 at 14:58pm UTC, wrote Certainly, "Rescuing Reality" is a fair description of the task now facing...

Anonymous: on 2/7/17 at 13:35pm UTC, wrote Speaking of retrocausality, maybe someone good with Fourier Transformations...



FQXi FORUM
August 20, 2017

ARTICLE: Rescuing Reality [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Robert H McEachern wrote on Oct. 5, 2016 @ 19:09 GMT
"One of the most devastating blows against reality comes from "quantum entanglement," when the properties of two particles become linked together, no matter how far they are separated."

It has now been demonstrated that such entanglements are actually a classical phenomenon

Rob mceachern

report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Oct. 5, 2016 @ 20:34 GMT
Quite correct, Rob. Retrocausality is not such a cockamemeh idea; entanglement surely is.

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Oct. 6, 2016 @ 13:53 GMT
Tom,

In regards to retrocausality, As Laplace remarked in another context, "I have no need of that hypothesis.", in order to rescue reality.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 6, 2016 @ 14:14 GMT
Good response, Rob. With past entropy identical to future entropy, the issue is indeed moot.

report post as inappropriate

austin fearnley replied on Jan. 16, 2017 @ 17:31 GMT
I have a recent paper on vixra: Correlation of – Cos θ Between Measurements in a Bell’s Inequality Experiment Simulation Calculated Using Local Hidden Variables

http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0327

In the paper I take Susskind's example of how QM breaks a Bell's Inequality and make a computer simulation using local hidden variables of artificial particles. I obtain exactly (by the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Oct. 6, 2016 @ 02:21 GMT
A couple of thoughts;

"you cannot say anything about the state of particles before you observe them, and that the only hard facts in the world are the results spit out of quantum experiments."

What are "hard facts?" Say you take a human body and ask yourself; What is "hard?" The answer would be the skeleton. While that might be the structure of the body, it's not its basis, which...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 6, 2016 @ 03:43 GMT
Sounds like 4 or 5 thoughts to me John..

But I guess it would be the same number, backwards as forwards. Not that it means much; I'm only saying...

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Oct. 6, 2016 @ 13:43 GMT
John,

Reality is not in need of being rescued. As noted in my FQXI essay four years ago, Quantum Physics is in need of being rescued, from Physicists' persistent Misinterpretation of Reality, resulting from their lack of understanding of the nature of "information".

The reason "you cannot say anything about the state of particles before you observe them", is simply because the properties being observed, are not even properties of the things being observed (the particles do not contain, and thus cannot convey, the information being extracted from the observations). They are properties of the relationship BETWEEN those things and the observer (such as a phase angle, or a relative position), that is not even defined, until AFTER the observer specifies exactly which relationship is to be observed. And then, to make matters worse, when the actual property of the thing (such as an ability to convey only a single bit of information) is confused for something else, as a result of the observer's intense desire to have it convey more information that its properties enable, all sorts of supposed "weird" phenomenon manifest themselves, in the minds of those observers. That has been the sad reality now, of all the so-called interpretations of QM, for nearly a century.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Oct. 6, 2016 @ 17:04 GMT
Jonathan,

My math is fuzzy. Goes without saying.

Robert,

The question is how to get them to push the reset button. As anyone following it at all realizes, it will probably take them another ten years to just beat string theory back far enough to even think about looking at the bigger picture. So while I have a fairly good idea where you are coming from, on a basic sociological level, you are beating your head against the wall, trying to overcome the bureaucratic inertia. Like politics, the ones with the power to affect the situation are the ones most beholden to the current models and assumptions.

When it does break open, then change will be as likely radical, as incremental. So the Molotov cocktails I like to toss are not really intended to convince, so much as to stretch the bounds of possibilities as much as possible.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 6, 2016 @ 15:12 GMT
Dear Becker,

Observable reality is not debatable. The real observable Universe must be constructed in the simplest physical fashion allowable. Only one unified visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light eternally exists.

You do not have to think about it, or explain it, or analyze it, or compare it, or compute it. All you have to do to convince yourself that I am being truthful is to open your eyes. No matter in which direction you look, you will only be able to see surface. If you open your eyes in a scientific laboratory, you will see surface. If you open your eyes in the rear storage room of a dilapidated Cairo brothel, you will see surface. You can always amuse yourself by adapting your behavior to the surface you happen to be looking at.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


jim h wrote on Oct. 7, 2016 @ 02:50 GMT
Isn't free will completely lost in a model like this? A high price to pay for "rescuing reality".

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Oct. 8, 2016 @ 15:15 GMT
Dear Jim,

No part of visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light could ever have been affected by any imaginary person’s abstract invisible will.

My 500 word essay. ONLY INFINITE SURFACE MATTERS has been accepted by the female Peer Review Manager of the CHAOS Journal of the American Physics Institute. I expect it to be rejected by the white male editor on Monday without it being sent out for Peer Revue. I happened to have called the editor a codswallop peddling mindless imbecile a couple of years ago, and my guess is that he has not forgotten about that,

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 9, 2016 @ 12:00 GMT
FQXi promotes pseudoscience more vigorously than other institutions. Here is my comment on Matt Leifer's 'WTF' project:

Not-even-wrongness as money-spinner in Einstein schizophrenic world

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Oct. 10, 2016 @ 15:01 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

Reality is not scientific. Although FQXi.org only pays Grants to the proponents of the finite invisible atoms swirling finitely about in finite invisible space unrealistic point of view, FQXi.org has published my contention that although I am eighty-one years old, I am convinced that the real Universe must be constructed in the simplest fashion permissible. All I am asking anyone to do is to notice that no matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed varied colored surfaces. One cannot see invisible empty space no matter how carefully one looks for it, even by peering through the Hubble Space Telescope. There must only be one unified visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. When one uses the word “is,” one implies a finite state arising from a previous finite state of was. The word “am” is truly descriptive of a state of infinity.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Oct. 9, 2016 @ 16:16 GMT
Reality does not need to be rescued from entanglement and quantum bonds are what hold matter together and quantum entanglement is what holds the universe together as well. Charge is an exchange of single photons and gravity is an exchange of biphotons. While source and observer do not commute for the single photon exchange of charge, source and observer do commute for the biphoton exchange of gravity.

This means that charge bonds are subject to the uncertainty principle while gravity bonds are not subject to the limits of uncertainty because of the symmetry of the biphoton exchange. Gravity is the simultaneous excitation and exchange between source and observer as a biphoton while charge is a single photon exchange.

While gravity does not change when source and observer switch, charge does change when source and observer switch. Far from being unreal, entanglement of amplitude and phase is what makes the universe the way that it is and not the GR geodesics of causal gravity. Causal GR gravity is simply a special case that works for much but not all of the universe.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 9, 2016 @ 20:24 GMT
"Causal GR gravity is simply a special case that works for much but not all of the universe."

That would violate the principle of uniformity.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Oct. 10, 2016 @ 15:09 GMT
Dear Steve Agnew, and Thomas,

Reality is not entangled. Reality is not scientific. Although FQXi.org only pays Grants to the proponents of the finite invisible atoms swirling finitely about in finite invisible space unrealistic point of view, FQXi.org has published my contention that although I am eighty-one years old, I am convinced that the real Universe must be constructed in the simplest fashion permissible. All I am asking anyone to do is to notice that no matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed varied colored surfaces. One cannot see invisible empty space no matter how carefully one looks for it, even by peering through the Hubble Space Telescope. There must only be one unified visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. When one uses the word “is,” one implies a finite state arising from a previous finite state of was. The word “am” is truly descriptive of a state of infinity.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 11, 2016 @ 01:41 GMT
Tom,

Attraction as well as repulsion are mutual phenomena. That's why I cannot imagine unilateral propagation of them like propagation of light. Steve A's biphotonic argument sounds appealing to me.

Elsewhere I found an other possibly good idea of him concerning decay.

Did you deal with it? Did you deal with Rob's opinion concerning entanglement?

Admittedly I didn't read all postings, and I am still suspecting that phase in QM might be elated to a mathematical artifact of complex representation. Nature hardly exhibits perfect mirror symmetries.

Elsewhere I am waiting for your reply concerning my Fig. 1. While the ordinary time scale is best suited for ubiquitous not yet local comparison, the scale of elapsed time is the natural one for local description.

++++



++++

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Oct. 12, 2016 @ 15:11 GMT
As expected, even though the Peer Review manager found my essay acceptable, as soon as the female Peer Review Manager of the CHAOS Journal showed my brilliant 500 word essay, ONLY INFINITE SURFACE MATTERS to the white male editor to make sure it was sent out to the right knowledgeable Peer Reviewers, he decided to reject it without sending it out for Peer Review. The ignorant jackass only publishes codswallop about invisible quantum particles entanglements taking place in invisible space.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Oct. 13, 2016 @ 14:33 GMT
The problem with theoretical physics is that the theorist are trying to devise a finite system containing invisible strings of impulses, or even more bizarre, writing endless codswallop tracts about invisible multiverses. Only visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light am.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Ronald Racicot wrote on Oct. 14, 2016 @ 18:32 GMT
“Comments on Kate Becker’s article “Rescuing Reality” discussing Matt Leifer’s FQXi grant:

I found the subject matter of Matt Leifer’s FQXi grant very interesting since I’ve been studying the question of quantum theory and reality for the past 10 years or so. As most everyone knows, the current orthodox “physicist” model of a quantum particle really does challenge if...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Ronald Racicot wrote on Oct. 14, 2016 @ 18:35 GMT
“Comments on Kate Becker’s article “Rescuing Reality” discussing Matt Leifer’s FQXi grant:

I found the subject matter of Matt Leifer’s FQXi grant very interesting since I’ve been studying the question of quantum theory and reality for the past 10 years or so. As most everyone knows, the current orthodox “physicist” model of a quantum particle really does challenge if...

view entire post


attachments: MechanicistLookAtQuantumTheory.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Oct. 15, 2016 @ 12:28 GMT
Dear Ronald,

Complex quantum theory has absolutely nothing to do with simple reality. The real visible Universe must be constructed of the simplest means allowable and the simplest physical construct is visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Paul Hayes wrote on Oct. 16, 2016 @ 15:49 GMT
"The founders of quantum theory maintained that objective reality is an illusion, that you cannot say anything about the state of particles before you observe them, and that the only hard facts in the world are the results spit out of quantum experiments."

The trouble I have with what some of the founders said, and people still say of course, and with looking for [retrocausal] resolutions to it, is that it just doesn't follow from the fact that quantum theory doesn't describe an objective reality that an objective reality doesn't exist.

In my view there is no problem - no offence against common sense - in quantum mechanics in the first place. On the contrary, it's just the necessarily subjective and necessarily noncommutative probabilistic theory which results when you dispense with the offences against common sense which classical mechanics is founded on (perfect, universal knowledge, effectless/non-interactive measurement).

It doesn't need fixing: it is the fix.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Oct. 17, 2016 @ 14:24 GMT
Dear Paul,

Infinite surface is always visible. Complex quantum theory has absolutely nothing to do with simple reality. The real visible Universe must be constructed of the simplest means allowable and the simplest physical construct is visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Oct. 18, 2016 @ 14:30 GMT
Tried to submit ONLY INFINITE SURFACE MATTERS to The New Physics Institute, but failed to do so because of lack of membership in any scientific society. Emailed a copy to the editor instead. Submitted THE SIMPLEST UNIVERSE to the CHAOS Journal of the American Physics Institute.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Oct. 21, 2016 @ 14:13 GMT
Although my brilliant essay, THE SIMPLEST UNIVERSE was rejected by the Journal of the New Physics Institute, and the CHAOS Journal of the American Physics Institute, Editor Ben Sheard, and Editor Kurths, gave written affirmations that my essay could be submitted to the likes of the Foundation of Physics.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 26, 2016 @ 16:10 GMT
Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics

These are the second law of thermodynamics and Einstein's 1905 second (constant-speed-of-light) postulate.

The first falsehood: Misled by the would-be version of the second law of thermodynamics "Entropy always increases" (which has nothing to do with the Kelvin-Planck version if logic is obeyed), scientists believe that violations can only occur...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Oct. 27, 2016 @ 15:45 GMT
Dear Pencho,

Physics has not been killed for all physicists still only believe in finite mathematical complexity. They refuse to believe that one real Universe must be organized in the simplest manner possible. The simplest Universal construct must consist of unified, visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 28, 2016 @ 16:30 GMT
Experiments have unequivocally shown that the speed of light is not a constant:

"Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. [...] In The Optical Society's journal for high impact research, Optica, the researchers report that twisted...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Oct. 29, 2016 @ 16:19 GMT
Dear Pencho,

Universal physical conformity abides. Only real surface can move. Real light cannot move because real light does not have a real surface. You can prove this by observing a real light. Starlight never moves from the surface of a real star. Electric light never moves away from the surface of a real electric light bulb. Real reflected light never moves from the real surface of the real moon. Please stop repeating complex abstract physics codswallop. Think simple.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


teenu john wrote on Nov. 1, 2016 @ 09:56 GMT
Physics,Einstein all are the favorite one for me.Thanks for remembering Einstein one of the legend in world. Just think the world without his invention it is unbelievable.Online essay writing service review submitted an article about Einstein and his works.

online essay writing service review

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Nov. 1, 2016 @ 15:28 GMT
Dear Teenu,

Einstein was not an inventor, he was an incredibly inept theoretical physicist. His complex equations concerning abstract amounts of invisible mass and finite light constantly speeding through an invisible vacuum tube have absolutely nothing to do with the simplicity of the real observed Universe. Infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light must be empowered by manifest infinite energy.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Nov. 3, 2016 @ 15:00 GMT
Fede Benedictus, the managing editor of The Foundation Of Physics Journal has rejected my splendid essay. THE SIMPLEST UNIVERSE on the grounds that I did not apparently produce any reliable research statistics. It is truly pathetic. I am rewriting my essay in order to submit it in an essay contest being ran by the Creative Nonfiction organization.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 4, 2016 @ 00:44 GMT
Hi Joe, it sounds like a suitable place where you might get published if you present 'your true story' well and in the right way. I see that they are currently looking for new (general) submissions, perhaps you could write about the difficulty of being taken seriously as an independent thinker and the growing collection of rejections. I did notice that in the "The dialogue between science and religion" submission information it says- "Please note that while our interests are broad and inclusive, narratives should focus strongly on science and religion. We discourage submissions that focus on secondary issues such as bioethics; ecology, the environment, and sustainability; and pseudoscience." It looks like with that 'venue', unless you use the right tack, you might find you are still barred under the pseudoscience category.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Nov. 5, 2016 @ 17:14 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I have a pretty fair vocabulary. I do not have any words in my vocabulary to clearly express my gratitude to you for your sublimely gracious comment. I hope you will submit your own essay into the Creative Nonfiction contest.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Nov. 6, 2016 @ 14:59 GMT
So far this year, Leicester City has won the English Premier League title after 132 years. The Irish Rugby Union team has beaten the New Zealand All Blacks Rugby Union team for the first time in 111 years, and of course, the Chicago Cubs won its first World Series in 108 years. Perhaps my sublime essay, THE SIMPLEST OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE will get published in a valid scientific journal, and its refutation of Einstein will cause the Theory of Relativity: Special and General to be abandoned after 107 years. I hope so.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Jack Sarfatti wrote on Nov. 7, 2016 @ 01:00 GMT
Yes, this is also my view of how quantum theory is best understood without any conflict with Einstein's two theories of relativity SR and GR and without the need for a global preferred frame of reference and without even the need for configuration space when particles are entangled as shown by Roderick Sutherland.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 8, 2016 @ 16:02 GMT
Jack,

I tend to agree with your trusted expert opinion, though I struggle with Sutherland's definition of "realism". He says:

"My research is concerned with the interpretation of quantum theory and such issues as Bell's non-locality, the quantum measurement problem and the nature of interference. In particular, I am interested in mathematical extensions to both quantum mechanics and quantum field theory that reinstate realism explicitly.

"By realism here I mean the assumption that an underlying physical reality exists in the absence of measurement. Surprisingly, maintaining this assumption in conjunction with quantum mechanics leads (via Bell's theorem plus certain reasonable assumptions) to either a clash with special relativity or to the existence of backwards-in-time effects. Since the experimental success of relativity and the theory's attractiveness in my eyes make me wary of abandoning it too hastily (even at a 'hidden' level), my research is focused on possible models involving backwards causation. In particular, I have constructed a time-symmetric formalism in which events are determined by both initial and final boundary conditions. A second model of this type is presently being formulated." http://sydney.edu.au/time/people/sutherland.htm

I don't think an "underlying physical reality" is necessary to assure local realism. I agree with Sutherland's time-symmetric determinism, with the proviso that the entropy generated by past and future events is identical. Entropy hides its origin (information from the future is as likely as information from the past), so entropy is a good candidate for the ‘hidden variable’. Initial and final boundary conditions then have a common source, eliminating the boundary between classical and quantum physics.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 8, 2016 @ 18:02 GMT
Doc is still in you Tom :)you are going to really invent it one day this machine.and the formalisation of broken laws appear like the FTL with baryons.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 8, 2016 @ 18:17 GMT
The holism and Bohm is in you Mr Sarfatti, apparently you like his works and his interprétations of our quantum mechanics.

:) Let's dialog so and let's unify consciousness;matter and energy ....:)and let's fight the psychological sadeness due to social comportments ...

report post as inappropriate


Stan Klein wrote on Nov. 7, 2016 @ 02:27 GMT
Could someone please explain why they like a backwards in time influence rather than the older faster than light collapse (influence) of the entangled state that was preferred by von Neumann and many others.

report post as inappropriate


Jack Sarfatti wrote on Nov. 7, 2016 @ 02:47 GMT
Extremely simple. I am surprised Stan that still puzzles you since Huw Price, Ken Wharton, Rod Sutherland explain why clearly.

FTL violates relativity.

Back From The Future does not.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 8, 2016 @ 17:47 GMT
Hello Mr Sarfatti,I see that you are on LinkedIn also,If it is with baryonic bosonic photonic thermodynamical particles, FTL is not possible.The special relativity if it is broken must be with particles which are not relativistic, nor baryonic.We cannot travel in time and we cannot pass c with baryons.Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Nov. 11, 2016 @ 00:23 GMT
Jack Sarfatti said:

"FTL violates relativity.

Back From The Future does not."

Steve Dufourny said:

"We cannot travel in time ... "

Steve can speak for himself, but, my understanding of his meaning is that we cannot travel back to the past or jump forward into the future and he is, of course, correct.

Jack Sarfatti's claim that we can go from the future to the past is empirically unsupportable. Time has never been included as a unique fundamental property in physics equations. The 't' in physics equations represents a count of cyclic object activity. Objects may be able to cycle in reverse, but even theorists can't travel back in time.

report post as inappropriate


Jack Sarfatti wrote on Nov. 7, 2016 @ 02:53 GMT
PS FTL does not explain why the quantum correlations do not depend on the spacetime separations between the final strong measurements of the entangled particles. The local retrocausal Costa-de Beauregard zig-zag does explain it easily. In other words the spacetime separation need not be spacelike. It can be timelike. Therefore, FTL influence is not a satisfactory explanation.

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Nov. 7, 2016 @ 04:10 GMT
Jack Sarfatti,

Hi jack,

"In other words the spacetime separation need not be spacelike. It can be timelike."

What is your idea about what time is? Is it a measure of object activity that can be reversed. Or, is it a unique fundamental property that exists independently of object activity? If so, what empirical evidence do you know of that shows that unique fundamental, independent of object activity, time suffers effects? Is there a controlled specimen of this unique fundamental time held in a laboratory that you know of? Which kind of time is involved in your view of 'timelike'? In case there is any uncertainty about what I mean by 'unique fundamental time', it is not a measure of object activity. The unit of second does not measure it. The unit of second is a measure of object activity. It is defined as such. My reason for asking this question is that I find physicists' claims that a measure of object activity is the property of time, empirically unsupportable. The empirical evidence for object activity contains an indefinable property of time as part of its basis. What time is your time?

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 7, 2016 @ 08:12 GMT
Hello James,Mr Sarfatti,

Indeed could you develop please? In all case, time is irreversible it seems to me.Regards

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 7, 2016 @ 09:57 GMT
If we take the CPT symmetry.And that we extrapolate with groups for the spinal groups, we can even extrapolate with geometrical algeberas of Lie and Clifford and insert all what we want.We have always a time irreversible.We arrive so at how we interpret the Tools and their mathematical propoerties.If we utilise the anti matter for example and the mirrors ,so indeed how can we really interpret the associativities, commutativities,....the vectors an operators, the series finite or infinite,.....

and what about the invariances of Lorentz and the meric of Minkowski?Energy E and impulsion p and their newtonian proportions alwars are respected in all referentials.The same logic is for the photon of mass considered like near 0.The Mirror properties and the reversibilities must be always relative if I can say.At my knowledge the CPT symmetry is a postulate, a foundamental.

Regards

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Nov. 7, 2016 @ 15:54 GMT
The real observable Universe must be constructed in the simplest fashion naturally allowable. There must only be one unified, visible, infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. When one uses the word “is,” one implies a finite state of being arising from a previous identifiable finite state best described by the word “was”. The word “am” is truly descriptive of a state of infinity. (simple) Reality need not be rescued. (complex) theoretical physics as published in this silly article needs to be suppressed.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 8, 2016 @ 00:03 GMT
That special preparation of the particles that gives an 'entangled' pair means that any same first tests will give same outcomes because of the (imparted during preparation) similarity of the particles properties. Not because they are carrying the outcomes or are in communication with each other.The second particle of the pair does not instantly have the same (outcome) property, upon measurement of the first, because interaction with the apparatus is needed to produce it. The second particle does not require communication from the first but same treatment as the first.The outcome can be known because of the knowledge that the particle pair have had special preparation that will cause the particles to respond in the same way to the same first test.

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Nov. 8, 2016 @ 00:28 GMT
The problem arises, when one does different tests on each member of the entangled pair, rather than the same test.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 8, 2016 @ 07:00 GMT
There isn't a problem The results are correlated only of the same tests are done as that preserves the realtionship formed at their production as a pair. The second particle isn't instantly becoming the corresponding output when the first is measured but the second particle responds to the provocation of the test it is given. There is no correlation between the different orientations of spin so knowing the spin of the first particle will not predict the spin of the second for a different orientation.

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Nov. 8, 2016 @ 13:09 GMT
It is an observed fact, that the Correlation Results differ, at different detector angles.

See my link at the top of this page, for the explanation why this happens.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate


jim hughes wrote on Nov. 8, 2016 @ 21:51 GMT
More highly creative hoop-jumping to preserve that "underlying physical reality". Is anyone willing to go out on a limb and state what they think "physical" means? If not, why fight to maintain an empty concept?

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Nov. 9, 2016 @ 01:52 GMT
The physical is "that which is" (whatever that may be), as opposed to that which is not, or that which is only thought to be. However, the only real issue (not an empty concept), which has been an issue for over 2000 years, is the distinction between a physical model and a computational model. For example: An orrery is a computational model of the solar system, but regardless of how accurately it might predict planetary motions, no one seriously believes that it provides a physical model of the system - driven by a bunch of gears, cranked by the hand of god. The "shut-up and compute" school, view QM as only a computational model - precisely because they view all the standard interpretations of QM as being wildly implausible physical models.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

jim hughes replied on Nov. 9, 2016 @ 15:04 GMT
So the physical is "what exists". And what exists is whatever is "physical".

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Nov. 9, 2016 @ 17:19 GMT
You got it. People, especially mathematical physicists and philosophers (Aristotle in particular), want math to be something other than what it is. Math is nothing more than a symbolic language for describing relationships. In physics, it can be used to describe how things behave. But it can never reveal the cause for why they behave as they do, which is what so many really want to know, and want math and deductive logic to provide. The reason for this is simple: math identities cannot be physical identities. a(b+c) = ab+ac only describes the final outcome, not the mechanism/algorithm/"physical reality" (one multiplier versus two) that caused the outcome. To say that a math identity even exists, is to say that there does not exist a unique mechanism for obtaining any given value - the two sides of the identity are not in fact "physically" identical - only their "values" are identical. It is ultimately no different than saying that five pennies do not make a nickel, physically, but do add up to one mathematically. Hence, entirely different, often wildly different, physical interpretations (underlying mechanisms) can be assigned to the same math equation, because math identities enable one to rearrange the equation into a different form, thereby implying a different physical mechanism for evaluating the equation. Which form did Mother Nature chose to use? The math cannot answer that question. Only an actual observation, of Mother Nature's chosen form, in operation, can answer the question.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate


jim hughes wrote on Nov. 10, 2016 @ 02:14 GMT
What "exists, independently of our own thought" is, most obviously, the set of rules governing those experiences. There's an independent framework to our reality in terms of what can and can't happen. There is consciousness, there is experience, there are laws governing that experience. I don't recall making those laws or specifying the initial conditions, so I regard them as existing independently.

But to me the word "physical" adds nothing to the discussion, it's an empty concept, it's just sounds in the air. What exists between observations is apparently wave function, a probability distribution of what those observations might turn out to be. It makes little sense to debate whether it's "physical"; we might as well say it's "divine". Physicists would find the latter claim meaningless and unscientific, but they don't apply the same skepticism to the former.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 10, 2016 @ 04:53 GMT
Hi Jim ,

you mention thought, experience, consciousness but you don't mention the thinker or any other material thing,the necessary "Beables". There cannot just be the measurement information without the measuring apparatus and its actual settings. There cannot be a thinking, experiencing, conscious observer providing that (output)information without the beable apparatus that perpetuates him/her/it's function/ viability (I mean a working body). Physical is perhaps too broad as it refers to both existing and seen things. But it seems to me to distinguish between the theoretical and the actual. Beable is a good word though it applies not just to material objects but also things like the settings of apparatus. Not the measurable but still an important, not irrelevant part of an experiment.

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Nov. 10, 2016 @ 12:15 GMT
Jim,

The debate is only indirectly about if something "physical" exists. A physical cause for the observed behavior exists, by assumption (it is assumed there is no divine intervention etc.) The debate is about what "causes" the observed behavior. Is a wave-function causing it, or, by using math-identities, can the wave-function be totally rearranged, so as to completely disappear from the equation, thus leading one to reinterpret the equations as having a completely different, cause. I vote for the latter: it has already been done - the reinterpreted equation has no wave-function in it at all - it describes a histogram, which is why the whole process results in a probability distribution. Consequently, there is no reason to suppose that wave-functions are any more physical than unicorns - they exist - but only as conceptions within our thoughts. Being based on a math-identity, the wave-functions necessarily yield the identical result as the histogram - but provide only an absurd interpretation of the cause.

In this sense, "wave-function" is a term that is no different than "dark matter"; it is merely the name for an unknown cause, for a known behavior - the probabilistic behavior of a histogram process/operation.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

jim hughes replied on Nov. 10, 2016 @ 20:41 GMT
I wasn't trying to present my inventory of what exists. Clearly I exist, my perceptions and observations exist, some framework of law, possibility and initial conditions exists. These things make up reality.

My intent was to try and separate the words "exist" and "physical"; one has meaning, the other does not. It's true that definitions of both are circular, but "exist" has intuitive meaning on which we all must to some extent agree. "Physical", in my opinion, no longer does.

To be fair, the word "physical" doesn't appear in this article, but it does present these ideas as a way to restore "realism". And I think in this context, realism implies "physicality" which I'm asserting is just a redundant word, not a meaningful concept.

report post as inappropriate


jim hughes wrote on Nov. 10, 2016 @ 22:13 GMT
Robert,

If I were to continue in this vein I'd feel like I was hijacking the discussion thread and moving too far away from the original article. From this point forward we'd really be discussing idealism vs. materialism and my point of view is basically that of George Berkeley. In my dreams, I'm his disciple and interpreter for the 21st century.

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Nov. 11, 2016 @ 13:08 GMT
I think Berkeley's ideas on perception were interesting in their time. But he overlooked the same minimalist case being overlooked by today's physicists: if there is only a single bit of information present, to ever be perceived within something, do you really think you can form multiple, independent perceptions of it? Such a minimal perception only requires a minimal mind (no mind at all) in order to perceive it - simply behaving as if it even exists (exhibiting any behavior at all, even just being deflected by its presence), is all that it takes. If you cannot detect that a substance even exists, then phenomenon like "quantum tunneling" right through it, is not only possible, but inevitable.

By the way, are you familiar with the Closer To Truth website? There are a lot of interesting philosophical interviews, in addition to scientific ones.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

jim hughes replied on Nov. 11, 2016 @ 18:42 GMT
Yes I've seen the Closer To The Truth site. My initial impression was one of yet another attempt to sell the public on the view that science and traditional (i.e. Christian) religion are somehow on an equal basis and that some sort of amalgam is the way forward. I don't agree.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 11, 2016 @ 01:34 GMT
I have unified gravity AND electromagnetism.

Inertial resistance is proportional to gravitational force/energy.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 11, 2016 @ 01:53 GMT
Why ignore the world's leading theoretical physicist ?

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 11, 2016 @ 02:06 GMT
The space that we experience involves a balance of gravity/acceleration and inertia/inertial resistance, as this balances and unifies gravity AND electromagnetism.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 11, 2016 @ 02:28 GMT
Acceleration is proportional to inertial resistance for the same reason that gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance. "Mass" is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy, as inertia/inertial resistance is proportional to gravitational force/energy; as this balances and unifies gravity AND electromagnetism; AND this explains F=ma AND E=mc2. (c is inertial resistance, and c2 is a balanced/relative acceleration.)

report post as inappropriate


Gavin William Rowland wrote on Nov. 13, 2016 @ 03:17 GMT
Forgive me if I am missing something subtle here but it seems as if this article is presenting Leifer's idea thus:



Quantum entanglement violates local realism, as it appears to require faster-than-light messaging. Rather than accept the non locality required (and mathematically verified by Bell's theorem), let us rescue local realism by invoking backwards in time messaging. The obvious problem is that backwards in time messaging is also prohibited in a local (material) framework. Photons, or any other kind of material medium, do not travel backwards in time. So a quantum experiment in which the result is achieved via backwards in time is just as nonlocal as one achieved by FTL messaging.

Seems like yet another attempt to sidestep quantum non locality, and not a very sophisticated one at that.

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Nov. 13, 2016 @ 12:22 GMT
Lots of people have missed something rather subtle. Einstein was correct - "Subtle is the Lord." Bell's Theorem is based on a well-known assumption. That assumption has now been demonstrated to be false - and demonstrated the old-fashioned way - by actually constructing a simple, classical system that produces the same correlations as the so-called Quantum Correlations. See the link at the top of this page.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Nov. 13, 2016 @ 15:45 GMT
This is a very subtle point indeed. The mistake is in the presumption of instantaneous time, which is a useful but ultimately limited approximation. Time only emerges from action, not the other way around, and so time really does not exist independent of the matter and action from which it emerges. Since actions are finite, moments are also finite.

Action is what transmits information and action is limited to something that science calls the speed of light in space. However, quantum phase is also a part of action as well and so entanglement or phase correlation is a part of quantum but not classical action. It is therefore the emergences of both time and space from the actions of matter that is what orders the universe and limits information transfer. Although photon transmission through space is a very useful approximation of reality, it is just an approximation.

Thus it is the very words that science uses like quantum jump or simultaneous or local that are the very impediments for understanding the way the universe works.

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Nov. 13, 2016 @ 17:38 GMT
The mistake has nothing to do with time, or even physics - it resides within the mathematical description of the observations. In the best, general description of Bell's theorem that I have ever come across ("The Quantum Theory and Reality", Bernard d'Espagnat", Scientific American, Nov. 1979) d'Espagnat identifies the "subtle" assumption: "These conclusions require a subtle but important extension of the meaning assigned to a notation such as A+. Whereas previously A+ was merely one possible outcome of a measurement made on a particle, it is converted by this argument into an attribute of the particle itself."

In other words, the simply act of making multiple measurements (of supposed, multiple spin or polarization components) has been "converted" into the belief that multiple components actually exist, as "attributes of the particle itself." The problem is, that single bits of information do not and cannot have multiple components. Hence, any system that has the "attribute" of possessing only a single bit of information, will render the "subtle but important extension" totally false. The paper linked to above, constructs just such a system, and then demonstrates that it also exhibits the so-called "quantum correlations", despite the fact that most physicists have deemed that to be impossible, for any classical system.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate


jim hughes wrote on Nov. 13, 2016 @ 17:24 GMT
Gavin William Rowland,

That's sure what I got out of the article. I'm not a mathematician or a physicist, so I'm simply left wondering: what could backwards in time "messaging" even mean, when the concepts of "sending a message" or "affecting" imply causality, an interval of time, a now-and-then sequence? If you simply gut the meaning of those words and can only show me a page of incomprehensible math, I will not feel that realism is being restored. To be fair, I'd like to hear what the people working on this concept might try to offer in the way of a natural-language explanation.

report post as inappropriate

Gavin William Rowland replied on Nov. 14, 2016 @ 02:49 GMT
Yes agreed Jim. I'm not a mathematician or physicist either, but i find it hard to see how backwards causation can help rescue local realism. Either there is some kind of deep explanation, as Steve and Robert suggest, or local realism is violated. But as far as I understand it is violated whether you go for instantaneous action at a distance OR backwards causation.

As you say it would be interesting to hear what Leifer has to say about his proposal. Personally I think quantum non locality is mediated by, or occurs within, the nonmaterial dark energy which is supposed to be everywhere. I guess everyone comes up with their own explanation, which is why we have so many interpretations of QM's.

report post as inappropriate


jim hughes wrote on Nov. 13, 2016 @ 18:26 GMT
If you say the future "affects" the past, my reaction is that you're just misusing a word. In a static 4 dimensional block universe, I would agree that one could say adjacent points on a time-like line somehow constrain each other, but that amounts to geometry. The 4 corners of a square constrain each other's locations, but they're not messaging or "affecting" each other, at least in the agreed-upon meanings of those words, because there's no action involved. Now rotate that square so it aligns with your time axis, with 2 corners in the future and 2 in the past...

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Nov. 14, 2016 @ 06:19 GMT
I realize that this is difficult for civilians because it is difficult for a technical audience as well.

Time and space are very useful notions, but time and space simply do not represent all of the action in the universe. The universe is full of matter and that matter is in all kinds of action.

All can agree on this.

Actions follow a natural order that science calls time, but quantum actions also show the property of phase coherence. Phase coherence makes it seem like an action in one part of the universe determines an effect in a very different part of the universe instantaneously. Therefore in time, phase coherence can make it seem like an action precedes its cause and so backwards messaging is born. Note that people very much smarter than I spend many pages of discourse over this simple proposition.

Science does not measure events from the future because there are no certain quantum futures and measurements only take place in the present moment. It is classical logic that suggests that the future might affect the past. The singularities of classical logic allow any number of odd results.

Quantum logic says the future is largely but not completely predictable and so no quantum action precedes its quantum effect.

report post as inappropriate

jim hughes replied on Nov. 14, 2016 @ 22:48 GMT
It seems that every attempt to 'restore realism' end up asking me to conceive of action without, or outside of, time. And I can't. All I see are circular arguments and words stripped of their definitions.

There have been many variations of "something happens, causing time to flow". Objections are dismissed as mere "philosophy" because, well, here it is in the math...

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Nov. 15, 2016 @ 03:18 GMT
If you mean by realism that there is no meaning for quantum phase, good luck with that universe.

If you mean by realism to include quantum phase, then all you need is matter and action to form a universe. Time and space simply emerge from matter and action. Space emerges from the action of the electron charge radius and time emerges by counting electron spin periods. So both time and space emerge from the discrete action of discrete matter in a finite universe.

Action, you see, has an implicit dimension of either time or space or both, but it is action that defines what we call time.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 16, 2016 @ 09:43 GMT
Hello Mr Agnew, I like your generality.That said I don't understand why you insist on this luminiferous aether.I can understand that like all you imrpove your works and it is difficult to change the line of reasoning.But you could extrapolate with the gravitational aether, it is more logic simply and more general.You can do it Jedi of the Sphere :)

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Nov. 17, 2016 @ 04:24 GMT
There was a neural impulse that told me the universe was an impulse of matter and the Fourier transform of a impulse of matter is a matter spectrum that shows the amounts of matter as a function of mass as kg. The universe matter spectrum has electrons, protons, neutrons, photons, people, planets, stars, galaxies, and so on, but is absolutely dominated by a very large number, 1.2e125 of very small particles, 8.7e-69 kg, called aether. I also call this particle gaekron as a tribute to matter and time, but really to honor Newton and Einstein and all of the old guys, aether is a more appropriate term.

The ancients almost always have had some kind of an aether; the Chinese dao called it qi and still does call it qi; the Japanese alchemy, kami, is the spirit of all objects; the jinn of the middle east is spirit; and the western term aether became distinct from spirit about the time of Newton. Modern science disdains the term aether as too mystical, but aether has snuck back into science as vacuum oscillators and quantum foam and Higg’s field.

It is about time...or is it about action?...that science restores the discrete aether to its rightful place as one of the two founding principles and axioms. Discrete aether along with quantum action come together to make the universe.

report post as inappropriate


Koenraad M.L.L. Van Spaendonck wrote on Dec. 11, 2016 @ 12:12 GMT
To the author,

I don't think it is interesting path of investigation to assume that nature behaves in absurd ways. We just haven't got all the necessary information about nature yet, to understand the extreme logic behind its functionalities. It only justifies absurd explanations,but brings no new insights to the table. It's basically a case of human self-overestimation. Experimental evidence comes with human interpretation and the latter has limitations.

Summarized : " In the reference frame of the unknown, everything is logical. "

report post as inappropriate


Marshall Barnes wrote on Dec. 15, 2016 @ 01:21 GMT
Reality doesn't need to be rescued...just properly understood and experimented with.

report post as inappropriate


John Hodge wrote on Dec. 17, 2016 @ 01:24 GMT
T. van Flandern calculated the speed of a gravity wave in a continuous medium (an aether) > 10^6 c . If so, the entanglement and double slit/diffraction experiment can be explained using photons (particles). The affronts to intuition are unnecessary.

Photon Diffraction

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k )summarizes several development papers and an experiment that rejects wave models of light. Yet, the model is based on Newtonian world observations which result in intuitive models.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 17, 2016 @ 15:06 GMT
Hello,

It is interesting, could you tell us more please Mr Hodge?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 17, 2016 @ 15:15 GMT
In all case, I did not know This thinker Mr Van Flandern,I see on wiki and others that he was very relevant.I beleive the same about this gravitation and particles correlated.I see that he is dead in 2009,unfortunately.He was general and very relevant,of course like all there are hypothesis also in the works of people,researchers.I don't agree of course with his speculation for example about the picture on mars from extraterrestrial intelligence.But he was a dreamer and an imaginative generalist.His soul travels Inside the sphere, he is like my parents dead on an other planet :) we are after all jedis of the sphere :)

ps I am curious to see his method of calculation to find this 10^6 c ? Do you know more Mr Hodge please?

Regards

report post as inappropriate

John C Hodge replied on Dec. 18, 2016 @ 02:36 GMT
Steve:

Thanks for your query.

My You Tube video referenced above provides references for my Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE).

T. van Flanderin use to publish "Meta Research Bulitin" which I think is no longer available. You may have to purchse his paper Van Flandern, T (1998). "The speed of gravity ? What the experiments say". Physics Letters A. 250 (1–3): 1. Bibcode:1998PhLA..250....1V. doi:10.1016/S0375-9601(98)00650-1 . or https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/tom-van-flandern-
the-speed-of-gravity-what-the-experiments-say/ .

discusses some measurements most that say speed of gravity ~ c have flaws. http://milesmathis.com/fland.pdf discusses some measurements most that say speed of gravity ~ c have flaws.

This YouTube video is helpful https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NMozwMcN58 by searchin for Dr. Tom van Flandern.

The STOE suggests the particles are limited to c , Gravity is the divergence of a non-matter substance l like an aether that I call the plenum. Van Flanders's video discusses some of the problems of the rubber sheet view of gravity including the ability of he medium of gravity to transfer energy.

He also discusses the need for an intuitive concept which is in line with the present topic. I think to have a gravity wave, the plenum must have an inertia but no gravitational mass like particles.

I like the sun light vs sun gravity .

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 7, 2017 @ 13:35 GMT
Speaking of retrocausality, maybe someone good with Fourier Transformations could discover if the authorization of the travel ban executive order is on the signature of Donald Trump or a Fourier Transform of GOP polygraphs.

report post as inappropriate

jim hughes replied on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 14:58 GMT
Certainly, "Rescuing Reality" is a fair description of the task now facing the Republicans in Congress.

report post as inappropriate


George Simpson wrote on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 19:32 GMT
Hi Matt,

I am impressed you breadth and imaginativeness.

I think you will be interested in "Reality Re-Envisaged", which also looks at how future possibilities affect present events, through the agency of minds.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2754

best regards, ...george...

attachments: Reality_ReEnvisaged_G_Simpson_12_Feb_2017.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Hodge wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 00:50 GMT
Very little is needed to rescue reality from the clutches of quantum weirdness. T. van Flandern (Physics Letters A,250, 1 (1998) measured gravity speed much greater than the speed of light. This gives entanglement if matter has a characteristic frequency distribution. The gravity wave travel to matter with similar characteristic and resonate.

If photons cause waves in the space (gravitational aether) and these waves reflect off atoms, we get photon diffraction and a predicted experiment that rejects the Huygens wave model. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k )

Further, Bohm's Interpretation has a source for its pilot wave. The Transcriptional Interpretation (\Psi*) is the reflected wave that is how matter reacts ("senses") to objects (masks, etc) before the matter gets here. This explains the quantum eraser.

All the quantum hocus-pocus (weirdness) become classical.

Hodge

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 15:39 GMT
Hi John,

Actually that should be the Transactional Interpretation of QM, you are speaking about in your final paragraph. I also like the Bohmian approach, though I think maybe DeBroglie had some things right that didn't end up in Bohm's model. While the whole implicate/explicate thing is what got me interested; I now agree with Sarfatti that Bohm went off the rails with dependency on that topic. Decoherence theory also insists on dealing with both advanced and retarded components of the wavefunction, so is similar.

I am familiar with the dual speed limit concept and its champion. But while I didn't agree on every point he presented; I knew Tom van Flanderen, for a brief while before his passing, and I admired his independent thinking. I even have a copy of his "Dark Matter, Missing Planets.." book on my shelf, though it has seldom been cracked open. There was a debate about the relevance of speed of light vs speed of gravity measurements at CCC-2.

It is not broadly accepted. But this sort of thing also arises in some bimetric and braneworld formulations of gravity, where the speed of light varies according to scale. One can talk about propagations along vs across the brane moving at different speeds. More recent measurements would constrain some of van Flanderen's claims, but the idea that light and gravity propagate differently is not yet decisively disproved. On the other hand, it is not proved yet either.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 02:00 GMT
I am aware of an everyday phenomenon that is comparable to the quantum probability curve. It is something anybody can test for themselves with no effort whats so ever.

Are people aware that the weight transition of a pole in a gravitational field, beginning from a zero weight while balanced on its end at 90 degrees to the ground, then incremental increases in weight as the pole is laid over...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 01:24 GMT
My questions about a highly rated essay are left unanswered so, I submit my own answers: For interested readers, Darwin did not explain how species were improved. He assumed that variety of change would include changes that were improvements. Change is the whole game! That is where all the 'magic' resides. He did not acknowledge the existence of purpose in the evolution of life. However, he presented evidence that could be revealing evidence of purpose. He did not acknowledge purpose and referred to those examples as being only "curious". They were certainly 'curious'!! More importantly for this forum, theoretical physics does not predict nor explain the existence of intelligence. Darwin, to his great credit, was careful to not say anything about the evolution of intelligence. [Darwin's Origin of Species and Descent of Man.]

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 28, 2017 @ 15:44 GMT
From the perspective of field theory, the only difference that arises between time and space is the tensor of energy continuously 'becoming' as a result of the tension between a straight line and a curved line containing a unitary field in a spherical boundary when that energy would have a propensity towards filling out into perfectly flat space existing at light velocity. Along any vector that tension would be an evolution from a nil rest state, progressing up to a light velocity state, and suggests that a leap-frog type of condition would obtain in any junction of what could be described as either a time or space component of the tensor.

In a block interpretation universe everything happens at once. But in a Quantum interpretation universe of unitary fields, the arrow of time is measurable as a compendium of many unitary times composing a chosen observable locality. So PERHAPS the retrocausality hypothesis is not so far fetched if at some ratio of length of curve and length of straight line; the time component parameter would leap-frog towards extinction rather than progressing toward light velocity which would allow in measured real time of observability, a very brief but physically real moment of time reversal inherent to that unitary extinction event in the greater compendium of uni-directional 'Time'.

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.