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

tomsom william: on 8/12/17 at 10:12am UTC, wrote Third party Support Number 1-844-653-8777 for Hp Laptop customer service...

Joe Fisher: on 8/4/17 at 13:34pm UTC, wrote Dear Amrit, You were quite wrong for expressing inaccurate finite...

amrit: on 8/4/17 at 12:16pm UTC, wrote The observer is CONSCIOUSNESS IN ACTION.

Joe Fisher: on 7/4/17 at 15:26pm UTC, wrote Dear Karl and Gary, I wish you would accept the irrefutable truth that...

Gary Simpson: on 7/4/17 at 5:14am UTC, wrote Karl, ROFL:-) Maybe a tribal challenge? Anyone who does not have a...

Karl Coryat: on 7/4/17 at 2:51am UTC, wrote I wish FQXi offered a way to vote certain people off the island.

Joe Fisher: on 6/30/17 at 15:18pm UTC, wrote Dear Steve, Perhaps this might be a good time for you to invest in taking...

Steve Agnew: on 6/30/17 at 2:58am UTC, wrote The advantage to believing in infinity is that it explains an infinite...



FQXi FORUM
August 20, 2017

ARTICLE: Watching the Observers [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jun. 14, 2017 @ 06:02 GMT
Hi Mr Foster,

It is a very relevant project and work.We search this quantum weakest force,and we shall find and prove it one day. Thanks for sharing.

Congratulations to Mrs Fuentes ,

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jun. 14, 2017 @ 08:57 GMT
Accepting that the two versions of observer are not necessarily incompatible and also that they are clearly not the same at the different scales of physics, what does it mean to "make the ways of observing agree"? That is not a rhetorical question but asking about what the word "agree" is meant to denote in this context.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 14, 2017 @ 09:58 GMT
An observer can be taken to be that which makes a representation from the received information, so the same for both scales. However at the quantum scale there is interaction with what is observed - At the quantum scale there is provocation or a trial of some kind whereby the system is made to respond and that response is what is detected and made into the representation. There is no interaction with astronomical objects when they are observed via the processing of received em information. At that large scale the state of motion affects what em information is received to be formed into the representation that is produced. It is a one way relationship of information receipt leading to the product.

What would agreement of observation at the different scales entail, how does that word apply?

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 14, 2017 @ 20:29 GMT
Quote,""Quantum theory can tell us at the end what we can say and what we cannot about the universe," says Mancini." I don't know why that authority should be given specifically to quantum theory. It seems that it is indicating a flaw in the reductionist ideal-that the closer we look the nearer we get to the truth of the matter. Whereas the closer we look the harder it is not to disturb what we are looking at, and incorporating that into a model. It does show that our models are built from information and that information is not immutable. The quantum experiment is about producing information that can be detected whereas the astronomical observation is about receiving information long after production by nature.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 14, 2017 @ 22:42 GMT
By not immutable I meant what information is brought into existence depends upon what is done in the quantum experiment; and for macroscopic observation the existing information is subject to what happens to it between emission and receipt.

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 14, 2017 @ 15:16 GMT
Dear Dr. Foster,

Although it might appear to be far-fetched to all of you, I am convinced that all of the Popes who have ever lived have been wrong about their complex contention that the universe was created piecemeal by an invisible God. I know it must appear absurd to all of you, but I can prove that all of the physicists presently alive are completely wrong about their incomprehensible assertion that according to a space dot com article published online: “Due to a random fluctuation in a completely empty void, a universe exploded into existence. Something the size of a subatomic particle inflated to unimaginably huge size in a fraction of a second, driven apart by negative-pressure vacuum energy. Scientists called this (complicated) theory for the origin of the universe the Big Bang.”

Physicists, only Nature could produce the simplest reality. The real visible Universe must consist only of a unified infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Jun. 16, 2017 @ 02:42 GMT
Thank goodness for small favors...we are finally freed from the tyranny of Sabine...

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 16, 2017 @ 07:58 GMT
tyranny?

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Jun. 16, 2017 @ 14:51 GMT
Notions of time are indeed quite different between classical gravity and quantum charge and it is great to see such work funded. Unfortunately, classical observers use the single time dimension of an atomic clock in their time measurements while quantum observers use two time dimensions in their time measurements; both atomic time as well as phase decay time.

Now the universe mass is subject to action and that action has both time dimensions. Thus far, science has ignored phase decay time for gravity since quantum phase decay and the second time dimension play no roles in relativity.

Two identical high precision single atom clocks started in phase eventually dephase from each other due to quantum phase noise. That dephasing rate can be due to many complicated factors...but there is an intrinsic dephasing rate of 0.26 ppb/yr for a single atom clock. This dephasing rate shows up in the decay of millisecond pulsars, the decay of earth's rotation, and the decay of the IPK mass standard.

This new work will be successful if it uses real measurements to define phase decay as the very important second time dimension. Mainstream science does not yet recognize an intrinsic phase decay time for the universe that is actually different from atomic time even though science measures quantum phase decay.

An absolute quantum phase decay time is the key to quantum gravity...

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 16, 2017 @ 15:32 GMT
Dear Steve,

The simplest natural construction of infinite surface requires no silly notions about finite time, or any unnatural flawed human speculation about finite mathematics either.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Jun. 19, 2017 @ 04:36 GMT
Actually the simplest natural construction of reality requires no silly notions of space and time or any unnatural flawed human speculation about finite math either. The only requirement is for matter and action...

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 20, 2017 @ 15:23 GMT
You almost have it Steve. But please remember it am infinite surface, not finite “matter.”

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jun. 17, 2017 @ 00:20 GMT
1. Free Will

Quantum “random” outcomes are random or indeterminate from the point of view of an observer [1]: but are they random from the point of view of the observed thing [1]?

I contend that outcomes are not random from the point of view of the observed thing: the outcomes are only random from the point of view of the observer of the thing:

Clearly the observed thing is not 100% subject to the laws-of-nature [2], because not all variable numeric values representing the outcomes are 100% deterministically predictable by law-of-nature equations. But if the observed thing is subject to “random” numeric values, then the outcome will look random to both the observer and the observed.

Only if the observed thing has itself created new information, which changes what we would represent as variable numeric values representing the outcome, will the outcome appear to be not random from the point of view of the observed thing.

2. Consciousness/ Subjective Experience

What is an “observer”?

If the “observer” is one of several fundamental aspects of reality, then all of reality derived from the fundamentals will be understandable in terms of the fundamental aspects, but the “observer” and the other fundamental aspects will not be understandable in terms of its derivative reality.

I contend that the “observer” is one of the fundamental aspects of reality.

1. Multicellular living things including people, single cell living things, molecules, atoms, particles.

2. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_nature , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science .

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 17, 2017 @ 14:32 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

All humanly contrived complex, abstract concepts, such as the ones concerning “free-will, and the meaning of meaning are nothing more than pretentiously provided codswallop. Nature has freely constructed the simplest of visible physical appearance Only infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light has ever eternally existed.

Joe Fisher, Realist.

report post as inappropriate


Karl H Coryat wrote on Jul. 4, 2017 @ 02:51 GMT
I wish FQXi offered a way to vote certain people off the island.

report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jul. 4, 2017 @ 05:14 GMT
Karl,

ROFL:-)

Maybe a tribal challenge? Anyone who does not have a testable hypothesis is fed to the sharks ..... Oops ... letting my own prejudices slip in there ...

Keep up the good thinking.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jul. 4, 2017 @ 15:26 GMT
Dear Karl and Gary,

I wish you would accept the irrefutable truth that only Nature could possibly devise the simplest physical construct obtainable. The real Universe must consists only of one singular unified visible surface occurring in one singular infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. The Sahara Desert and the Pacific Ocean and every one of the craters on the moon are naturally formed and they all have one visible thing in common. They all have a surface. The Empire State building and the Golden Gate Bridge and the Sky-Lab space station are all man-made artifacts and they all have one visual thing in common. They all have a surface.

Do you want to suppress my truth? You are discomforted by simplicity?

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 4, 2017 @ 12:16 GMT
The observer is CONSCIOUSNESS IN ACTION.

attachments: Advanced_Relativity_1.pdf, Advanced_Relativity_2.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 4, 2017 @ 13:34 GMT
Dear Amrit,

You were quite wrong for expressing inaccurate finite information about invisible abstract observers when you informed us that: “The observer is CONSCIOUSNESS IN ACTION” Fortunately, every real person does know that Nature must have provided us with the simplest visible physical reality obtainable. The real Universe consists only of one single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

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.