Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Peter Morgan wrote on Jun. 17, 2014 @ 23:16 GMT
I take QT to be universal for a very elementary reason, that we can take the Hilbert space to be arbitrarily large when describing a finite amount of data. If a small-dimensional Hilbert space doesn't work, we introduce something larger that can (as we perhaps most notably do when we introduce QFT).
What is then difficult is to decide whether the simplest QT model is more or less parsimonious, natural in some pragmatic, human sense, tractable, or otherwise better or worse in whatever sense we think important on a given day than the simplest model we can construct in some equally universal theoretical landscape that might replace it (which, of course, we have to have in hand for us to be able to make a comparison).
This is an accommodation that I've thought through only to a limited extent, of which I would not make much claim, but I've decided to accept it as good enough so that I can work on other things without fussing at these particular shadows. Best wishes with your attempts to construct a more robust reason why QT is inevitable.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 18, 2014 @ 14:11 GMT
Peter M, if a 'robust' reason for the belief that (conventional) quantum theory is 'inevitable' turns out to be an infinite dimension Hilbert space, it predicts its own death -- because then the problem will have reverted to an analytical solution.
We can just as easily (actually more easily) assume the analytical solution in the first place. Especially since we have more physical reason to do so -- and more especially since we now have the tools to prescribe extradimensional limits to the physical space. We just need a convincing way to test them.
It seems erroneous to me, to look for the n-dimension finite Hilbert space solution which, if it exists, is compelled to assume that quantum theory will never be complete -- with the implication that our understanding of the universe will never completely map to how the universe actually works.
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu replied on Jun. 18, 2014 @ 20:42 GMT
Hi Peter, hope you remember me, I checked my emails and it was *only* 4 years ago when we last spoke. I finally did it, I have a proof of the necessity of QM and I am in the process of getting feedback on the draft for the archive. Hope to be able to upload it in about a month. I am extra cautious because this is a really big deal and I am triple checking everything.
Your argument: "I take QT to be universal for a very elementary reason, that we can take the Hilbert space to be arbitrarily large when describing a finite amount of data." does not work because classical mechanics can also be put in Hilbert space formalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koopman%E2%80%93von_Neumann_cl
assical_mechanics) and therefore the argument does not distinguish between classical and quantum mechanics.
Best,
Florin
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 27, 2014 @ 20:42 GMT
"Peter M, if a 'robust' reason for the belief that (conventional) quantum theory is 'inevitable' turns out to be an infinite dimension Hilbert space, it predicts its own death -- because then the problem will have reverted to an analytical solution." -Tom
I've said that I think that the best interpretation of quantum mechanics is that wave-functions really exist as a manifestation of spirit. If wave-functions can be higher dimensional objects inside of a Hilbert space than that means that wave-functions can be higher dimensional objects. That works for me. What's wrong with that?
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 29, 2014 @ 13:14 GMT
Jason, what one means by "function" is that operation which transforms a set from one value into another. So there is a set of coordinate points describing dimension -- like the 6 points of 3 dimension discrete space and the 10 non-redundant points of 4 dimension continuous spacetime -- making the 16 points of the Minkowski space matrix which includes the redundant set. A continuous wave...
view entire post
Jason, what one means by "function" is that operation which transforms a set from one value into another. So there is a set of coordinate points describing dimension -- like the 6 points of 3 dimension discrete space and the 10 non-redundant points of 4 dimension continuous spacetime -- making the 16 points of the Minkowski space matrix which includes the redundant set. A continuous wave function in 4 dimensions accounts for the discretely measured result in 3 dimensions, evolving in time.
As even Einstein averred, there is nothing to prevent the extension of physical reality to higher dimensions than 4, " ... so long as there are good physical reasons to do so." That's what quantum field theory and its extradimensional extension, supersymmetric string theory, is all about.
The wave function of conventional quantum theory is a mathematical, probabilistic, function. Not physically real.
The continuous functions of classical physics assume the 4 dimension limit, such that all measurement results are described within that matrix as physically real results (Einstein ~ "All physics is local."). The probabilistic function of quantum mechanics assumes the 3 dimension limit, in which the classical observation is dependent on at least one result orthogonal to the observer -- therefore, for every local physically real measure, there is a "nonlocal" result that isn't real, and continuous time evolution drops out of the equations in favor of the state vector evolution.
So it doesn't matter whether one chooses a continuous model or a probabilistic model, the wave function cannot be physically real if the upper limit of all measurement functions is 4 dimensions.
To ask whether the wave function is physically real in dimensions > 4, however, still begs the question of locality; i.e., because a local observer is always positioned at the origin, or singularity -- therefore, only if the measure space is
simply connected can we guarantee that all measurement results are local and the function is continuous. This is because the probabilistic functions of an
n-dimension Hilbert space are all discrete rolls of the dice that beg a nonlocal result for every roll regardless of the dimensionality of the space, and the wave function collapses -- converges on -- the local result. On the other hand, a continuous wave function in
any number of dimensions does not collapse, and so we get the quantum interpretation of Hugh Everett III -- wherein classical probability (event bifurcations) predicts an infinite set of "verses" independent of our own. This saves quantum theory from having to abandon the infinite-dimension Hilbert space formalism, in order to explain why all our results are local (classical) yet discontinuous with the classical measurement schema. It makes the quantum solution equal to the analytical solution; boundary conditions are randomly generated by event bifurcation, yet not continuous with the spacetime of our measure space.
If you want your ghosts to be both local and real, you should prefer the continuous functions of classical physics, in which all fields of the measure space affect, and are affected by, the states of all other fields -- continuously. This is what general relativity teaches us. Unfortunately, general relativity only applies "up to diffeomorphism," because boundary conditions for continuous physical functions have to be arbitrarily assigned. Therefore, one cannot be sure of a point of origin that satisfies locality because
every origin satisfies locality -- there is no privileged observer frame, no dependence on coordinate geometry.
A model of locally real ghostly phenomena, therefore, is not differentiable from any other physics, i.e., phenomena that we can measure and for which we can deterministically record a position and describe an effect. So "ghostly action at a distance" is ruled out, meaning that no field is discretely disconnected from the simply connected classical field influences.
Conventional quantum theory rules out any classically real -- that is, local -- effects from ghosts, meaning disembodied spirits with causal abilities. What the conventional theory does allow, though, is far more problematic than interfering spirits; "action at a distance" avers that disconnected fields assert causal influence on local phenomena in a much more mystical way than can be imagined by the existence of ghosts.
Best,
Tom
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jun. 29, 2014 @ 14:43 GMT
Tom, excellent post!
Perhaps your most concisely worded explanation with great clarity, thank-you.
Would you elaborate a bit on how the two extra non-redundant points are obtained in 4 dimensions, to create 10 rather than 8 points? Thanks again. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 29, 2014 @ 17:50 GMT
Tom,
Ghosts have been observed by multiple witnesses. They have attacked and made people sick, they have knocked people down, they have scratched and bitten people, they have appeared as an apparition, they have been caught on video, and they have proven there existence beyond explanations of "tricks of light". I don't think it's in our best interest to try to analytically understand ghosts until we have some data. If it were up to me, I would treat ghosts as a form of intelligence, and then build equipment that might attract ghosts. As silly as this sounds, I would build "ghost toys", toys that ghosts can play with. I want to treat ghosts as a virtual photon disturbance with an intelligence. If the ghosts exist as a virtual photon disturbance, then we should be able to build equipment that is sensitive to virtual photons. In other words, ghosts can create electric and magnetic fields. If they exist, then I want to invite them in and give them a chance to play with the equipment. The result will be that we will have evidence that the equipment is being acted upon by an invisible intelligence that can manifest electric and magnetic fields.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 30, 2014 @ 13:09 GMT
Thanks, John R. To briefly explain, just as there are 6 coordinate points that fix the location of the observer's origin in 3 dimension space (up, down, left, right, forward, backward) -- and symmetry assures us that only 3 are required for an observer to describe a vector from the origin -- a 4 dimension set (Minkowski spacetime) requires 16 coordinate points of which 6 are the redundant points...
view entire post
Thanks, John R. To briefly explain, just as there are 6 coordinate points that fix the location of the observer's origin in 3 dimension space (up, down, left, right, forward, backward) -- and symmetry assures us that only 3 are required for an observer to describe a vector from the origin -- a 4 dimension set (Minkowski spacetime) requires 16 coordinate points of which 6 are the redundant points of 3 dimension space, leaving 10 of which 2 are vectors of opposite sign. That leaves 8 coordinate points to fix the origin with one vector reversible to the origin.
Clear as mud?
As applied to physics, the Minkowski formulation is conceptually easy and operationally hard -- the vector algebras (Hamilton's quaternions and Clifford algebra, Cayley-Dickson octonions, Hestenes' spacetime algebra) are operationally easy and conceptually hard. I mean, the linear and complete vector formulation of a continuous spacetime is much easier to calculate with, than one built of partial differential equations.
What we gain in simplicity, however, we lose in the possibility of analytic continuation to higher dimension physics. Because time is vectorized in the linear model with symmetric reversibility, there is no true scalar value -- or rather, the scalar is identical to the sum of vectors. In my own research, I characterize this result: "The four dimension horizon is identical to the ten dimension limit." There is no calculable scalar value to account for the evolution of the time parameter beyond the horizon of observability.
Though we often speak of "vector analysis" as if it were truly analytical, it is not. Higher dimension theories beyond the Euclidean R^3 have the advantage of explaining in a mathematically complete way, how hidden variables affect results in the continuous function physics that we experience. Whether these hidden variables can be explained as nonlocal, as in conventional string theory (which is extended from quantum field theory), or local, as allowed by Joy Christian's measurement framework, is the next big question.
Best,
Tom
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 30, 2014 @ 13:13 GMT
Last was mine.
Jason,
I don't have the interest in ghosts that you do. I am only making the point that if such spirits exist, they require a continuous field model of physical reality. Evidence by itself doesn't mean anything to science, in the absence of a theory that incorporates it.
Best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jun. 30, 2014 @ 15:44 GMT
Thanks Tom,
I can follow the general idea, but I'm the muddy character here. Much food for thought, though I think it also illustrates why there is a growing appreciation for topology and its simple connectivity to make space algebraic. Not that I have yet gotten much of a handle on it, but it's fascinating in contemplating how given the finite ('astonishingly low' - Fitzgerald) velocity of physical communication possible, that space can be connected at all. I'm taking a little break at present. Somewhere I tripped on the Hopf Fibration and fell headlong into an impossible image of a one dimensional continuous line being turned inside out like a sweater sleeve that got caught on a cufflink. Wish me luck.
I'm not much for ghosts pushing fiancés down the stairs either, doesn't hold up in court. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 30, 2014 @ 16:32 GMT
Tom,
It's OK not to be interested in ghosts or experiments performed to detect ghosts. They don't really lend themselves to mathematical descriptions.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 30, 2014 @ 16:44 GMT
John Cox,
"I'm not much for ghosts pushing fiancés down the stairs either, doesn't hold up in court. jrc "
A court of law would consult a physicist; but physicists require a theory along with the evidence. Therefore the physicist would call it "pure buncomb" because they don't have a theory. Of course this has nothing to do with the fact that it actually happened.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew wrote on Jun. 18, 2014 @ 03:14 GMT
It is very interesting to me when quantum theory is called odd by a quantum theorist.
"Quantum theory is one of the most successful frameworks in science. But it is also decidedly odd. Physicists cannot use the theory to calculate the precise outcomes of quantum experiments before they have been performed, for instance; they can only work out the probabilities of getting a certain result."That statement naturally means that there is another reality that is not odd and where there are deterministic futures for all objects. In other words, the author has built in an implicit
strawman of gravity action as the normal, intuitive reality.
So why not face the demon of gravity down from the start...gravity action is the nemesis, not the second law. The second law is great. It is all about states. I like states. The question is, can the second law incorporate incompatible gravity states and quantum states, especially if gravity states are degenerate with quantum states.
Will your second law show us the way? By the way, I think that gravity action turns out to be more way more odd than quantum action...
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian wrote on Jun. 18, 2014 @ 08:41 GMT
The obsession with probabilities is misguided. It stems from the total lack of knowledge and training in branches of physics outside the little box of "quantum foundations." The result is that when an actual progress is made in the so-called "quantum foundations", it is not understood, because those who have cornered the subject to their political and financial advantage are not capable of understanding it.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 18, 2014 @ 13:40 GMT
Joy, I think 'little box' is an apt metaphor. Probability is without a doubt the least understood branch of mathematics -- and even less understood when applied to physical phenomena.
One has to be reminded that to calculate probability, what one puts into the box determines what one gets out of it. When actual physical results turn up more than the box can hold, one is compelled to assume that one created something (entanglement) that wasn't in the box before one made a measurement (nonlocality).
Take the calculation of the constant Pi by the Monte Carlo method:
It is only because we know that the value of Pi exists before we describe the statistics by which Pi is a solution to the condition we have set (pi = 4M/N) for a circle we have prescribed, that the method generates to any arbitrary accuracy the value we know to exist as the exact solution to the equation.
When we do the same thing with Bell-Aspect results, we are only getting confirmation of our assumption of entanglement and nonlocality. We specified the conditions and we got the solution we asked for.
Problem is that the universe doesn't live in a little box. There's no 'pi in the sky' as John Barrow put it. We can't impose our mind's conditions on nature's structure and say we have 'found' something that wasn't there.
(By the way, Peter, the foregoing illustrates exactly why your program doesn't work.)
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 18, 2014 @ 13:41 GMT
This log in problem is annoying. 'twas I.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 18, 2014 @ 18:11 GMT
Han Geurdes replied on Aug. 8, 2014 @ 11:20 GMT
Joy. Not only is 'probability' poorly understood, it is used with a certain blindness. In my paper Res. in Phys. 4, 81-82 (2014) one can read that it is wrong to use the phrase "impossible" as e.g. in: "it is impossible for LHV to violate CHSH" using probabilistic argumentation. Many important exceptions are overruled when statisticians act as though they can be certain about probabilistic claims.
You had exchanges with statisticians about your ideas. CHSH was used many times against your views. I hope that people now see that CHSH is not waterproof.
Btw did Gill or Gregor already appologize for some of their misconduct towards you? E.g. calling your papers ejaculations and more of that childish behavior?
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 8, 2014 @ 15:07 GMT
Han, thanks for drawing attention to
your paper that nicely shows the failing of statistically "impossible" results.
Statisticians often invoke the law of large numbers to substitute for quantum uncertainty, as if perfect information is magically conferred on particle ensembles the larger the group, or the greater the number of measurements.
Things are due to change course.
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 18, 2014 @ 10:47 GMT
Steve,
Is it NOT 'odd'!? Even to Bell it's "unprofessionally vague and ambiguous" he continued; "Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better." (beables.. p173) I think he was rightly concerned about the "intrinsic ambiguity in principle" and the "complacency" from familiarity with the ancient myths some now believe is all there can be. Joy is then correct.
The...
view entire post
Steve,
Is it NOT 'odd'!? Even to Bell it's "unprofessionally vague and ambiguous" he continued; "Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better." (beables.. p173) I think he was rightly concerned about the "intrinsic ambiguity in principle" and the "complacency" from familiarity with the ancient myths some now believe is all there can be. Joy is then correct.
The 'Problem of Interpretation of QM' has been encircled. And the solution, invisible from the front, may be seen from the back. ..The nonlinear Schrodinger equation seems to me to be the best hope for a precisely formulated theory.
The shocking thing to many may be that the paragraph above is also a direct quote from John Bell (p.194)where he also directs us to fermion number density! I found he was exactly right and demonstrated that a classical geometric derivation of so the called "probability distribution" is possible in my essay;
fqxi 2014; Do Bob and Alice have a future?.
Bohr ignored Galileo; "He who undertakes to deal with questions of natural sciences without the help of geometry is attempting the infeasible.
In '..unspeakable (p170) Bell described the current implicit acceptance of the bare 'probability' interpretation as; "sleepwalking". and lest those who believe otherwise about Bells views have any doubt;
"The founding fathers of quantum theory decided even that no concepts could possibly be found which could emit direct description of the quantum world. So the theory which they established aimed only to describe systematically the response of the apparatus. ...in my opinion the founding fathers were in fact wrong on this point. The quantum phenomena do not exclude a uniform description of micro and macro worlds...systems and apparatus."
So it seems we shouldn't be as terrified as some seem to be of finding that completed understanding. The common fear of having long held beliefs shown to require updating is selfish and invalid as an objection. Are perhaps complacency and arrogance not the main enemies of truth. It's well known in astrophysics that theory, like the universe, is in a state of continuous (relative) motions. The implications of the falsifiable and experimentally supported model in my essay are all positive, enlightening and unifying.
The full mathematics describing the complete 'two part' state transformation has also now been published, from Prof Soiguine this week and flagged up on my essay blog courtesy of Luca Valeri. Thank you kindly Luca. As I suggested; the 3D dynamic variables can't be validly combined into a single operator as assumed in the conventional maths, inc. CSHS etc.
Jon and Matt please do carefully review and comment.
Thank you. Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jun. 21, 2014 @ 00:21 GMT
Peter,
I agree. "the theory which they established aimed only to describe systematically the response of the apparatus".
Physicists could learn a lot about the nature of information and entropy, if they would study modern communication systems, starting with techniques such as Decision Feedback Equalization. Such techniques are the means by which modern communications systems remove "the response of the apparatus" as well as "interfering information, coming from sources of no interest", leaving behind only the information from the source of interest. This, and this alone, is what has made it possible to, for the first time in history, reliably recover information, at rates very near the Shannon Limit. One cannot get any better than that.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 21, 2014 @ 05:03 GMT
Rob,
DFE means: "the distortion on a current pulse that was caused by previous pulses is subtracted". I see a main problem of theorists like Tom and many physicists already in their lacking readiness to accept that the distinction between earlier and later is more fundamental than their trust in a mathematically constructed world. We EEs don't operate with undirected arrows between boxes that symbolize transfer functions while theorists like Wheeler admit the wheel of history rotating back.
That's why I question Minkowski's spacetime and the necessity to integrate over future time too when analyzing past data.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jun. 21, 2014 @ 14:44 GMT
Eckard,
You have hit one of the big nails, squarely on its head; "the necessity to integrate over future time too when analyzing past data."
I have pointed-out the problem with this previously, in the mathematical techniques at the foundation of QM, namely the use of Fourier Transforms, that integrate over all of time. How can one integrate over all of time, if one does not know the future?
Well, one can indeed know the future, for systems devoid of information, the very systems at the heart of classical physics. It is easy to predict the future of a conserved (constant) quantity, and it is easy to predict the future of a perfectly periodic function (idealized orbits). So, in those cases, one can indeed integrate over the future values, by integrating over the predictions.
Unfortunately, this does not work for unpredictable, high-information-content phenomenon, such as human observers. Unwittingly assuming that it does is THE problem. But this fact is not apparent in the Fourier transform formulation, and, consequently, has yet to be appreciated as a central problem in the mathematical formulation of QM, when it attempts to make claims about how observers behave and impact observable results..
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jun. 18, 2014 @ 19:18 GMT
The article avers, "Any theory worthy of replacing quantum mechanics would still need to assign probabilities to the outcome of experiments and so would be found in the landscape of generalised probability theories that Barrett and Leifer are investigating. Physicists should be able to instantly rule out a sub-section of the choices that violate the Second Law, due to their prediction that smashed mugs of coffee can surreptitiously reform."
Generalized probability theories, as I know Leifer to support from earlier writings, are based in Bayesian probability interpretations, which means that some measure of personal belief unavoidably begs the question of entanglement; the circular argument doesn't even provide a sound strategy toward an objective basis for a foundational quantum theory.
In fact, there do exist alternative frameworks, such as
complex systems science that retain the second law of thermodynamics at multiple scales; i.e., the variety of thermodynamic paths toward equilibrium ensure unitary results with probability 1.0.
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Jun. 18, 2014 @ 21:00 GMT
Clausius' famous principle "Entropy always increases" (which, according to A. Eddington, holds "the supreme position among the laws of Nature") was deduced in 1865 in the way presented by Jos Uffink on p. 37 in:
Jos Uffink, Bluff your Way in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, p. 37: "Hence we obtain: THE ENTROPY PRINCIPLE (Clausius' version) For every nicht umkehrbar [irreversible] process in an adiabatically isolated system which begins and ends in an equilibrium state, the entropy of the final state is greater than or equal to that of the initial state. For every umkehrbar [reversible] process in an adiabatical system, the entropy of the final state is equal to that of the initial state."
Clausius' deduction was based on three postulates:
Postulate 1: The entropy is a state function.
Postulate 2: Clausius' inequality (formula 10 on p. 33 in Uffink's paper) is correct.
Postulate 3: Any irreversible process can be closed by a reversible process to become a cycle.
All the three postulates remain unproven even nowadays; Postulate 3 is almost obviously false:
Jos Uffink, p.39: "A more important objection, it seems to me, is that Clausius bases his conclusion that the entropy increases in a nicht umkehrbar [irreversible] process on the assumption that such a process can be closed by an umkehrbar [reversible] process to become a cycle. This is essential for the definition of the entropy difference between the initial and final states. But the assumption is far from obvious for a system more complex than an ideal gas, or for states far from equilibrium, or for processes other than the simple exchange of heat and work. Thus, the generalisation to all transformations occurring in Nature is somewhat rash."
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Jun. 19, 2014 @ 02:51 GMT
As far as I'm concerned, you guys are mired in nonsense.
Firstly, I assert that there is no platonic realm; there is only this physical universe. So, what is the physical reality behind the numbers and complex numbers that seem to be necessary to explain reality? Numbers are symbols that represent something about physical reality; otherwise you must posit that they are entities that exist in their own right. Get the basics right first.
Secondly, you all have an unwarranted BELIEF, nothing but a BELIEF, that reality is necessarily 100% deterministic. It is not quantum theory that is odd; what is REALLY ODD is the mob mentality with its very tame, but unshakable, belief that the underlying reality will be found to be 100% deterministic.
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jun. 19, 2014 @ 06:58 GMT
Lorraine,
The underlying reality *IS* found to be 100% deterministic. It is only by politically suppressing
the evidence presented that the physics community is able to maintain the façade of inevitable indeterminism (cf. Tom's rhetorical question below).
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jun. 19, 2014 @ 09:41 GMT
Joy,
where is the experimental evidence for your belief that all individual physical outcomes are 100% deterministic i.e. the time and space "parameters" for every individual particle outcome is predictable/calculable beforehand?
Do you have anything to say about, or any ideas about, what it is that NUMBERS represent about the nature of physical reality, or are you a platonist?
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jun. 19, 2014 @ 10:03 GMT
Lorraine,
I have to admit that as yet I cannot support my claim with unambiguous experimental evidence. All I have so far is extensive theoretical evidence (in 15 papers, a book, and numerous computer simulations) to support my deterministic framework. But I have also proposed
an experiment to test this framework, which may someday prove me either right or at least partially wrong. If I am experimentally proven wrong about my framework, even partially, then I may reconsider my position about determinism (more precisely about Bell's no-go theorem).
Concerning your question about numbers, to me they are simply excellent tools for us to do mathematics and physics. I rather not speculate anything deeper about numbers than that.
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jun. 21, 2014 @ 00:30 GMT
Even if the laws of physics are 100% deterministic, that does not mean that reality is. Deterministic laws are a necessary, but not sufficient condition, for reality to be deterministic.
In order for reality to be deterministic, all the initial conditions (positions, momentums etc.) must also be deterministic (pseudo random, rather than random). There is no evidence that that is the case. Indeed, the existence of free-will provides a good piece of evidence that it is not the case.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jun. 19, 2014 @ 03:41 GMT
" ... unshakable, belief that the underlying reality will be found to be 100% deterministic."
And your belief that reality is probabilistic is objectively based on ... ?
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 19, 2014 @ 09:20 GMT
I never said "reality is probabilistic". Seemingly you must consider that there are only 2 possible options for the nature of reality: probabilistic or 100% deterministic.
I might as well ask you : "And your belief that reality is 100% deterministic is objectively based on" what experimental evidence?
Do you have anything to say about, or any ideas about, what it is that NUMBERS represent about the nature of physical reality, or are you a platonist?
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jun. 19, 2014 @ 09:21 GMT
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 19, 2014 @ 13:09 GMT
"I never said "reality is probabilistic". Seemingly you must consider that there are only 2 possible options for the nature of reality: probabilistic or 100% deterministic."
At its foundation, nature is one or the other, or your belief is logically inconsistent. The problem is one of cosmology; the initial condition either had 100% potential for every observed physical outcome, or a...
view entire post
"I never said "reality is probabilistic". Seemingly you must consider that there are only 2 possible options for the nature of reality: probabilistic or 100% deterministic."
At its foundation, nature is one or the other, or your belief is logically inconsistent. The problem is one of cosmology; the initial condition either had 100% potential for every observed physical outcome, or a probabilistic structure of which the slightest interference predicts 'no determinism.' Classical probability (binary outcomes) only answers the question of existence/nonexistence, and existence implies the continuous function of binary probabilities from the initial condition.
"I might as well ask you : 'And your belief that reality is 100% deterministic is objectively based on' what experimental evidence?"
An expanding universe. Self limiting chaotic phenomena. Strong quantum correlations (and if Joy Christian is right, strong quantum correlations at every scale). Want more?
"Do you have anything to say about, or any ideas about, what it is that NUMBERS represent about the nature of physical reality, or are you a platonist?"
I think you don't understand what a Platonist is. The best two modern examples are Kurt Godel and Roger Penrose. A Platonist avers that mathematical structures live objectively in a world of their own, even if they have no relation to the physical world.
My personal view is closer to Max Tegmark's -- that coherent mathematical structures always describe some physical phenomenon, even if we do not recognize the utility; there are numerous examples, the most dramatic of which is Einstein's adoption of Riemannian geometry for general relativity.
In the science of physics, mathematics is the language that compactly symbolizes the phenomenon it corresponds to. We may get the description wrong, just as we do in natural language, in a statement whose syntax is correct while its meaning is wrong. For example, we can say "The moon shines black" is syntactically correct though the phenomenon is not witnessed in physical reality. That doesn't imply that the alphabet and the rules for making sense of its combinations are not objective. Same with our mathematical tools -- meaning precedes construction, if the construction describes something physical. Meaning is the product of a coherent mathematical theory.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jun. 19, 2014 @ 16:53 GMT
You say "In the science of physics, mathematics is the language that compactly symbolizes the [physical] phenomenon it corresponds to.". But seemingly you have no idea what physical phenomenon might be compactly symbolized by a number in a physics mathematical equation. Numbers are a common everyday thing. If a view of reality is not able to explain numbers, then perhaps it is too superficial, or just plain wrong.
Re your belief that reality is 100% deterministic: even Joy Christian wouldn't claim he had evidence that the time and space parameters for every individual particle outcome are predictable beforehand.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 19, 2014 @ 20:39 GMT
" ... seemingly you have no idea what physical phenomenon might be compactly symbolized by a number in a physics mathematical equation."
E = mc^2
"Numbers are a common everyday thing. If a view of reality is not able to explain numbers, then perhaps it is too superficial, or just plain wrong."
You have a quite innocent view of mathematics, of which 'number' is but a semantic element. What do you mean by number? Counting numbers? Rational numbers? Transcendental numbers? Complex numbers? R, C, O, H?
"Re your belief that reality is 100% deterministic: even Joy Christian wouldn't claim he had evidence that the time and space parameters for every individual particle outcome are predictable beforehand."
He does, however, have the measurement framework for a theory with potential to explain all quantum correlations. Do you understand what that means?
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jun. 20, 2014 @ 18:03 GMT
Thomas,
There is clearly no evidence that reality is 100% deterministic/classical: there are only theories and proposals for experiments that might result in such evidence, and unquestionably these experiments must be performed. However I think that there will be no such evidence: "spooky action at a distance" and other seemingly strange quantum mechanical outcomes are the true nature of reality. I think that these outcomes will never be tamed, but they will eventually have a better explanation. In any case, I will be interested to see the results of Jon Barrett and Matt Leifer's work (and hopefully Joy Christian will someday test his theory via experiment).
Re numbers:
The numbers found when nature is measured are some sort of ratio relating to the "measuring sticks" used. There are seemingly no questions about that aspect of these numbers.
If reality is 100% deterministic, the above numbers are seemingly ultimately derived from laws-of-nature and initial conditions. Law-of-nature relationships are represented by equations which may contain numbers e.g. a form of the Einstein field equations contains the numbers 2 and 8, and also the non-algebraic number pi. Initial conditions are represented by a number assigned to each parameter/category in the equations.
If reality is not 100% deterministic, then one implementation of this might consist of windows of opportunity where new information is injected into the system (by subjects), representable as numbers assigned to parameters/categories of information. These numbers are not derived from any laws-of-nature, and they are like a resetting of an initial condition for that parameter.
So what is the physical reality behind these two types of "initial condition" numbers, and what is the physical reality behind numbers like pi?
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 20, 2014 @ 20:23 GMT
Hey, Lorraine, I'm all for you believing whatever you wish. I'm just trying to give you some facts to help inform your opinion.
You really need to know the difference between determinism and probabilism:
Determinism doesn't mean that every event can be predicted, and probabilism doesn't mean that no events can be predicted. This, however, has absolutely nothing to do with your idea of the role that numbers play, or don't play, in science.
You ask, "So what is the physical reality behind these two types of 'initial condition' numbers, and what is the physical reality behind numbers like pi?"
None. Numbers don't have physical reality. No pi in the sky.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jun. 21, 2014 @ 14:32 GMT
Thomas,
What on earth is up with you? It's very obvious that, because of complexity, "Determinism doesn't mean that every event can be predicted"!! However, with the physical outcomes of quantum events, the question is whether the probabilistic outcomes are due to determinism+complexity or whether something else is happening. For close to 100 years physics has been struggling with this issue, because presumably if "something else is happening", it might mean that a different nature of reality would have to be posited.
Re numbers: I'm surprised that you have never noticed that THERE REALLY IS an issue with numbers.
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jun. 19, 2014 @ 05:17 GMT
Quantum entanglement gives psychics and the paranormal something to work with. Grey aliens and UFO's could be some dark matter life form popping in for a visit. Ghosts and spirits could be some kind of quantum entanglement form of life. And with the millions and millions of people who have experienced these things, they make the whole subject matter respectable.
Now let me give you some examples of woo. Time travel. The MWI interpretation of quantum mechanics. Those things are so in conflict with what we know about physics, conservation of energy, causality, etc., that they are not only impossible, but they are not observed by anyone.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 19, 2014 @ 08:38 GMT
It was the Higgs field that toppled materialism as a philosophy that describes nature; basically, the idea that particles are just hard spheres is dead. If nature allows invisible fields to exist, like the Higgs field, and nature also allows invisible matter to exist, than it is clear that the laws of physics do not oppose the existence of ghosts. In contrast, time travel is going to create paradoxes which make it impossible.
If you treat a ghost like a quantum field, than it fits in very nicely with quantum mechanics. It goes a long way in explaining why so many people have had experiences with ghosts, shadow figures and other disembodied entities. Lot of people have seen the glowing red eyes of otherworldly entities. There is physical evidence of attacks by ghosts, which include scratching, biting, shoving. There are tons of poltergeist events.
Skeptics are free to disbelieve. But in my view, it makes more sense. If the nature of reality is made of particles and fields, then it suggests that life forms should be able to exist as fields as well as particles.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 19, 2014 @ 18:11 GMT
If there were grey aliens made of dark matter abducting humans for their research, or alternatively if there were lifeforms made of quantum fields that were occasionally terrifying humans, the scientific community would be totally unaware of it. Atheists-skeptics are the snobby unimaginative branch of science who play around with trivial things, but then express disdain for very real phenomena. None of you are in search of truth. You are all guilty of protecting your reputation by calling grey aliens, spirits, ghosts, and all these things woo, when it is really scientific theorism that is woo, devoid of imagination, and does not fit with either established physics or the observations of millions of intelligent and reliable human beings. There are more reliable witnesses to ghosts and grey aliens than there are to super-strings, time travel and many-world interpretations combined.
Come into the light of enlightenment.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jun. 19, 2014 @ 19:01 GMT
Who knows, you might have some fun if you try to reconcile UFO technology and ghosts with what we know about quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. Maybe there is a way to apply top down engineering to a quantum system, quantum field theory and quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement is a correlations between two or more particles. Maybe there is a way to reinforce the entanglement, and then remove the particles. If it worked, you would be left with an invisible mesh that could be used as a template to organize new particles that it comes into contact with.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Jun. 21, 2014 @ 21:52 GMT
Why quantum mechancs? We really do not know. As I have been studying this it appears that quantum mechanics is really a logical system of gates where there are certain topological properties to the lattice operations that deviate from Boolean logic. The two slit experiment is a sort of topological problem with loops that are not contractible to a point. There is homotopy associated with this. ...
view entire post
Why quantum mechancs? We really do not know. As I have been studying this it appears that quantum mechanics is really a logical system of gates where there are certain topological properties to the lattice operations that deviate from Boolean logic. The two slit experiment is a sort of topological problem with loops that are not contractible to a point. There is homotopy associated with this. Well then why this? Why could not the foundations be and L^4 measure space instead of L^2, or why could it not have been … , instead of this? The questions have no conceivable answer.
Quantum mechanics is completely deterministic as it is. Quantum mechanics predicts the evolution of probability amplitudes that sum into a wave function or state vector with complete determinism. That quantum mechanics is unitary is equivalent to saying it is deterministic. The probabilities emerge when one makes a measurement, for the modulus square of those amplitudes give the probability of a certain outcome. This is the bit that is not deterministic --- the measurement process. This forms the basis of the so called measurement problem.
I maintain that a quantum outcome is not objective, but is rather subjective. From the perspective of the Everett Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) a measurement outcome is a splitting of the world according to the amplitudes of the system. The reservoir of states in the measurement process form an eigenbasis corresponding to the entanglement with the system measured. This in a nutshell is the so called einselection mechanism, which is just a massive entanglement process. We can then tell how the outcomes emerge as classical-like probabilities. We can’t however determine which outcome actually obtains. In a subjective perspective the observer is carried off into the various split worlds, and our conscious world line simply takes along one outcome. Consciousness is an epiphenomenon that generates this illusion. The illusion is carried off along the other eigenbranches of the world, but our particular conscious narrative does not include them. These are included on other conscious narratives or world lines.
Why quantum mechanics exists is somehow tied into the question of what is the relationship between mathematics and physics. Tegmark has a very speculative conjecture about this, but I am rather skeptical. I am not sure how one can determine if mathematics is an ontological aspect of physics. There is no mathematical proof of it, nor is there a prospect for some empirical verification of it. The idea is permanently a metaphysical conjecture that is hopelessly outside of both science and mathematics. The same of course holds for the converse of this which is for a Platonic reality or mathematics as an objective system outside of physical reality. This matter is extended further if consciousness is included as something fundamental. No matter which take you have on this the question or proposed ideas are metaphysical. So far there does not exist a decision procedure system for metaphysics.
In the end we are left with Garrison Keillor’s take on this as “life’s persistent questions.” --- “ In a city that knows how to keep its secrets, at the 12th floor of the Atlas building one man searches for answers to life’s persistent questions; Guy Noir, private eye.”
LC
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 22, 2014 @ 09:14 GMT
Isn't it much simpler just to say that wave-functions are real things, and that they have energy states and momentum states? That way you don't have to split the universe into an infinite number of branches to represent the eigenstates. Isn't it easier just to say that wave-functions exist?
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 22, 2014 @ 09:27 GMT
As fun as a many world interpretation might be to some people, it would flagrantly violate conservation of energy if every universe in the branch is real and solid. For that reason, the MWI might be literally impossible.
In contrast, if wave-functions are assumed to be real things, then there could be this nebulous aether of wave-functions that is completely undetectable, unpredictable and mysterious. Physicists will hate it. But it being very subtle, it also want cause any big problems for physicists to have to explain.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B Crowell replied on Jun. 22, 2014 @ 23:59 GMT
Ray,
How can wave functions be real, when they are represented as complex valued functions. They are not even mathematically real.
The eigenvalues of QM are determined by Hermitean matrices or operators. These eigenvalues are then by definition real c-numbers that correspond to things measured.
In MWI the amount of mass-energy is constant. Each eigen-branched world is weighted by a probability and the Born rule permits a conservation of mass-energy. This is the case even though there is the appearance of being along only one world and not many.
LC
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jun. 23, 2014 @ 00:22 GMT
Lawrence,
Re "The two slit experiment" (Jun. 21, 2014 @ 21:52 GMT): As you say, "when one makes a measurement...the modulus square of those amplitudes give the PROBABILITY of a certain outcome". Quantum mechanics gives very definite PROBABILITIES for INDIVIDUAL outcomes for these particles. So what is definite about reality is its possibility/probability: possibility from the point of view of the particle/subject, probability from the point of view of the observer. So claiming that the situation is "completely deterministic" is to misrepresent things.
You actually admit to the possibilities inherent in reality when you resort to the "Everett Many Worlds Interpretation", completely ignoring the Ockham's Razor principle. So naturally, you conclude by taking a mysterian position on the nature of reality.
You are wrong about consciousness being an "epiphenomenon that generates this illusion". Subjective experience/consciousness is not separate from information about reality: I contend that at the level of a particle, this basic-level information is of mass, charge and law-of-nature relationship. This information is essential to the functioning of reality: consciousness is essential to the functioning of reality.
Rather than giving up and taking a mysterian position, surely, the solution is to free up a little: maybe nature is not quite the tame mechanism that you envisage.
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 23, 2014 @ 06:02 GMT
I still find the MWI interpretation of quantum mechanics to be impossible. You are asking me to believe that every time a new eigenstate appears, a new universe (which has an energy content of hundreds of billions of galaxies) just pops into existence. It does so without us even noticing it. It violates conservation of energy flagrantly. Not to mention that the information content of an entire universe has to be duplicated and moved away faster than light so that nobody notices. Physicists believe that, but are shocked and horrified at the idea that the wave-function is a real thing that is perhaps impossible to detect and is very mysterious. Why wouldn't that be the preferred interpretation?
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 23, 2014 @ 08:27 GMT
LC,
I would like to learn rather than claiming to be correct. While I understand that and why Hermitian matrices are real-valued, and I very much appreciate your view, I am not sure what you meant with real c-numbers. Did you mean the real parts of complex numbers?
Incidentally, iIrc, Gauss wrote that he regrets that imaginary numbers are called imaginary. He meant that they are quite normal numbers, and his attitude did perhaps influence the further development of mathematics as well as of physics. Gauss correctly argued that negative numbers are justified if there exists something exactly opposite that compensates a positive measure. Dedekind and Riemann were pupils of Gauss. Georg Cantor added naivety ans charisma to their detour from Euclid's and Galileo's rationality.
As a teacher of EE, I operated for more than four decades with imaginary items. However, I was always aware that they are just mathematical tools as to describe something real.
Already Leibniz called the infinites and the infinitesimals well-founded fictions with a fundamentum in re as also is i. I conclude: he did not yet understand that every number is something ideal.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Jun. 22, 2014 @ 05:06 GMT
Rob, LC,
I guess Eddington was correct when stating: "experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
Maybe, the recently claimed at Havard evidence for the BB was premature? Maybe, at least a few of the unwelcome argument I uttered aren't unfounded? My primary concern is to possibly reveal very basic mistakes affecting the relationship between mathematics and physics.
Yes Rob, application of Fourier transformation is to blame.
"How can one integrate over all of time, if one does not know the future?" Heaviside's analytical continuation cheats us: The mirrored past is similar to but essentially different from the open future. I beg for getting aware of what we are doing.
Yes LC, "That quantum mechanics is unitary is equivalent to saying it is deterministic". I see the property to be unitary closely related to the likewise unphysical ideal property to be infinite. While a point, a line, the number pi, etc. are strictly speaking just ideals they are nonetheless common prectice as to describe physical systems. Scruples a la Hjelmslev are unfounded. Moreover, history shows that even slightly dirty mathematics adopted from Leibniz, Cauchy, Dedekind, and Heaviside proved utterly useful. Quantum theories obviously led to valuable applications in contrast to SR which merely created paradoxes. Maybe, some oddities that occur with quantum theories will vanish when we accept that the real-valued cosine transformation may in principle fit better than the complex Fourier transformation.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox wrote on Jun. 22, 2014 @ 19:10 GMT
The second Law of Thermodynamics holds in a CLOSED system, which does not necessitate that universally spacetime is itself closed. Given the irrationality of pi, if we accept our mathematics to be true enough to reality, it is quite acceptable to conjecture that the only differernce between time and space to be that deficit of radial length resulting from the circumference of a sphere never quite being exactly proportional to any radii constructed to ascertain that a change in volume is physically uniform. If the elusive 'Quantum' realistically exists, it might be found in that relative difference. Energy could then be the creative result of such a physically coherent, yet distinct stress of spatial difference and the relative covariance would be the source of a continuous sustaining creation of energy. This is simply a matter of treating Energy rather than Time as emergent. It is a long way from the laboratory of Lavoisier in yesteryear, to the frontier of inflationary cosmology tomorrow. Bye, now. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jun. 22, 2014 @ 19:55 GMT
Please forgive me for saying the obvious, but some of these explanations of reality sound like a mathematical snowstorm that doesn't actually mean anything. The best explanation for everything that we observe, the quantum fields, the Higgs fields, the encounters with ghosts, is that the quantum vacuum is made of wave-functions that really do exist in some ethereal way, and that the ghosts that people witness are probably real things.
Wave functions are real things!!! That is the simplest and best explanation for quantum mechanics.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 22, 2014 @ 21:07 GMT
I'm not the only one who thinks that wave functions are real things.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/11/the-insanely-w
eird-quantum-wave-function-might-be-real-after-all/
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B Crowell replied on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 14:17 GMT
I am not going to engage in too much discussion on “reality” from a metaphysical perspective, where terms like reify and ontology and the like come into play. Wave functions though are not real in a strict sense of having real valued measurable properties. If one wants to engage in metaphysical conjectures about reality other than this rather operational one, then fine. I just tend not to take these that seriously.
LC
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 17:30 GMT
I think that attitude is blocking the physics community from exploring a whole area of theoretical physics that could describe parts of reality that you are all uncomfortable with. For instance, I can explain the physics of a ghost. Let me show you. Virtual photons make electric and magnetic fields work. If a ghost can get access to the virtual photons, if it has great skill it can create a potential energy V(r,t) without using charged particles. If, as I have stated, wave-functions are real things even if they're not measurable directly, then a wave-function will come into existence by virtue of the time dependent Schrodinger equation. This wave-function will have energy states and momentum states that the ghost has to fill with energy (by creating cold spots, siphoning from batteries or from people). Then it can use that energy to move objects, radiate photons that look like scary red eyes, shove people down stairs and do all the spooky poltergeist phenomena.
Can anyone tell me the specific reason for why this kind of a ghost would contradict known physics?
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox wrote on Jun. 22, 2014 @ 21:13 GMT
Jason,
"Wave functions are real things"
I tend to agree, energetically of course. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 23, 2014 @ 06:37 GMT
John, you're a radical! lol Watch out! The idea that wave-functions are real things is heresy as far as the physics community is concerned.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 23, 2014 @ 23:14 GMT
I can't help but think that if a ghost is going to produce some phenomena, it has to create an equivalent wave-function/quantum field. To do so, it has to generate the appropriate V(x,y,z,t) in order to get a psi-wave-function that can emit red photons from the eyes (for the glowing red eyes appearance), or appropriate momentum states so that the ghost can properly shove somebody. I'm just using an educated guess, but a spirit is something feels and experiences. To that end, maybe the ghost/spirit has to feel or experience the V(x,y,z,t) that it generates; maybe it feels it as pain or discomfort. But when it doe gnereate a wave-function with energy and momentum states, then it has to obtain energy from somewhere.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 17:54 GMT
By the way, I'm not too interested in philosophy either. I want to understand how observables relate to physics. If someone is claiming to see something that violates physics, I want to know "how" it violates known physics. Physicist "scoffing" at paranormal phenomena is shackling humanity to the dark ages.
report post as inappropriate
John R.Cox wrote on Jun. 23, 2014 @ 21:55 GMT
Eckard,
"I question Minkowski's spacetime and the necessity to integrate over future time too when analyzing past data."
Yes, I think I follow that argument. Really it goes back to the ambiguity of what r^2 is supposed to represent, and in reality at best only trigometrically. I have always found it as contrary to comprehension as the 'rubber sheet' illustration of GR, to look at an illustration of the universe 'timeline' that has the shape of a tall plastic cup that has been picked up from sitting on a hotplate.
Also, I seldom comment due to my lamentable lack of advanced math, but do often find help in understanding from many of your learned contributions. I do wish you and Tom could find common ground, though he is theoretical and engineers are more practical. My best wishes to all. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 06:03 GMT
jrc,
Integrating over future data in case of an analysis of past data is not the only indication of obvious nonsense. The first reason for me to wonder was the astonishing superiority of spectral analysis within the human ear as compared with the so called spectrogram. We must not attribute this superiority just to brain. Physiology contradicts to the interpretation of cochlea in terms of Fourier analysis. A major problem of the latter is the choice of width and position of an appropriate window of time. Theory of signals relies to an event-related time scale with arbitrarily assumed zero that is definitely not known to the ear. The position of the window on this scale is just valid for one also arbitrarily chosen moment. This requires awkward permanent relocation of the window. Moreover, the spectrogram exhibits non-causality, and the one-way rectification of the hair cell response would be impossible in case of a complex cochlear analysis while it is physiologically evident.
Why are experts reluctant to abandon complex models although cosine transformation has proven equivalent in practice of coding? They are not ready to question the necessity of Fourier analysis in the theory of signal processing, ict, and ih in quantum theory. Don't get me wrong. I still enjoy using complex calculus as a tool but not as a gospel. A drunk person may consider himself and her mirror picture as two persons.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 16:13 GMT
Eckard
"cosine transformation has proven equivalent in practice of coding"
I think both Peter Jackson and Robert McEachern are in general agreement with you as to Fourier Analysis, though with their own qualifications from different perspectives. The question as to Why Quantum? is still open. I am in agreement with Tom Ray to the extent that Classical Mechanics CAN evolve to Quantum...
view entire post
Eckard
"cosine transformation has proven equivalent in practice of coding"
I think both Peter Jackson and Robert McEachern are in general agreement with you as to Fourier Analysis, though with their own qualifications from different perspectives. The question as to Why Quantum? is still open. I am in agreement with Tom Ray to the extent that Classical Mechanics CAN evolve to Quantum Mechanics, but I don't go so far as to say it always does so. It seems to me that there is in reality, something by itself that gives rise to probabilities in any assemblage of great numbers of discrete events, and in that the Wave Function is not what we would commonly call a physically real 'thing'. Rather something that CAN become a real physical event. If that is ever found, then quantum computing would become feasible where now it is really only mathelogical data compactification which is what the NASDAQ will bank on after Moore's Law peters out (soon).
You condense quite a lot in the brief paragraph content on auditory interpretation, that has piqued my interest. The arbitrary 'time window' is a bit similar to current thinking about Deja Vu where our perception of passage of time is not chronological in the strict sense, and here I think Peter's DFM theory which employs cosine transform is in some way illustrative. While he argues that the helical model can produce results equivalent to QM correlations, I do not see where there is a mechanical apparatus which differentiates where one wave event stops and another wavelength begins, which is not an arbitrary assignment of observer position. (Here we go!)
Minkowski, blocktime, light-cones and stepping stones all have a place not a privileged position, I agree. r^2 resolves to a two dimensional surface of time dependent correlations, whether quantum or classical. Useful for some purposes but not something that evokes in my mind any full conception of reality.
I've now waded in a deep as I dare and still draw air, so let me go back to my beach towel and watch and learn. It's a pleasure. jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 18:06 GMT
jcr,
In order to avoid that our discussion peters out, I just clarify that Peter J. didn't at all deal with cosine transformation. Did Robert McEachern already utter himself to the question CT vs. FT?
You are right, my suspicion that, in contrast to Pauli's opinion, the complex representations are redundant not just in classical physics but also in quantum physics does not yet answer the question why quantum but possibly the question why Schroedinger introduced a complex wave function. He revealed his thoughts in his fourth communication in 1924. I see Heisenberg's equivalent musing based on the same fallacy.
Hegel denied the existence of atoms. Mach and Ostwald considered atoms for quite a while as mere imaginations without reality. I would like to cautiously answer the question why quantum by pointing to those few experimental results that don't rely on possibly questionable methods like careless application of Fourier transformation.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 19:44 GMT
Eckard,
I'll not speak for Pete, but in earlier discussions Robert made the point that Fourier Transforms as commonly applied cannot extend naturally from the Bohr model Quantum Leap. I would encourage him to reiterate here from his own expertise in FT. To sum-up, his argument is that they are applied from an arbitrary start condition and only condense the observed variation of phase into a modulated waveform that doesn't extend as a continuous transformation from conditions inherent to the emission source, nor give any information as to what those conditions might be. I very much agree.
In case I'm anonymous (anon) some mass merchandiser bot tracking my usage (to better serve me) logs me out before I can submit a post. I have to log in to my IP and to FQXi ... and do it all over again. My guess is my purchase of a cheap Lenovo is tracked by Best Buy, NSA, and the Chinese People's Army. Hi Spooks! jrc
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 22:37 GMT
jrc,
Robert is right: Application of FT requires an arbitrarily chosen “starting” point t=0 of reference to which phase refers too. This is the primary deviation from reality. While time spans between two points, between an event-related starting point (1), and an observer-related current endpoint (2), the direction of view for FT is opposite to that for an observer. FT refers to (1) and looks from there ahead toward (2). The ear is the observer and obeys causality. Therefore it refers to point (2) of observation and looks from this current moment, the now, backward to what already happened, i.e. to point (1).
This logically compelling in common sense physiology is not agreeable with the idea that all time, i.e. the entity of all events, a priori exists and extends bilaterally between infinitely far past and infinitely far future.
In order to restrict the analysis to already existing data, avoid the necessity to arbitrarily choose a reference point, and therewith create unnecessary redundancy, FT can equivalently be replaced by the CT, which unilaterally extends to the endpoint (2), the now. Robert might not yet trust in this implication because it is not yet generally accepted, not even among the experts of signal processing. Of course, CT does not allow phase shift, and it fails in the unrealistic case of a sin function.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 23:45 GMT
Eckard
Yes, the start-point vs end-point measurement is what makes the seemingly paradoxical nature of SR so frustrating. My answer has been to postulate that energy density varies in direct proportion to true velocity across the wave length as an acceleration/deceleration event. I don't want to abuse the forum in self-promotion, but would argue that the constancy of light velocity is properly measured relative to the waveform itself rather that in relation only from the start or end point of observation. Then SR is both demystified and generally co-variant in terms of energy density. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jun. 26, 2014 @ 06:32 GMT
jcr,
If something happens at a moment (1) then a belonging signal arrives at an observer at a later moment (2). (1) and (2) are not points in space but points of time. Moment (2), the now, is the natural zero of always positive elapsed time. You wrote “true velocity across the wavelength”. Perhaps you referred to the propagation of light in empty space. Michelson’s 1881/87 experiments led to the unexpected result that light does not propagate like sound relative to the wavelength along a medium. In case point (P1) of emission is moving relative to point (P2) of arrival, (P2-P1 at 1) differs from (P2-P1 at 2). The velocity of light relates then to the distance (P2 at 2) – (P1 at 1). This easily explains Michelson’s null result without invoking mystical length contraction and also without SR.
Please don’t shy back from convincingly offering something else. Your hint to energy density worries me. Doesn’t it decrease with growing radius in case of a radiating sphere? Also, I wonder if SR needs considering acceleration/deceleration.
The question "why quantum" sound to me a bit like an unnecessary attempt to resolve the discrepancy between Einstein’s relativity and quantum theory by questioning the latter. That’s why I dislike your just “seemingly paradoxical nature of SR“.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 26, 2014 @ 14:57 GMT
Eckard
Thank-you for your willingness to discuss alternative ideas. While I am in general agreement with you as to the time parameter, what I stress is that the single wavelength can be described as a closed system with a start point and end point in space. It creates a finite volume which is constant for any wavelength but which is protracted as a partition of the Planck Quantum between an...
view entire post
Eckard
Thank-you for your willingness to discuss alternative ideas. While I am in general agreement with you as to the time parameter, what I stress is that the single wavelength can be described as a closed system with a start point and end point in space. It creates a finite volume which is constant for any wavelength but which is protracted as a partition of the Planck Quantum between an electrodynamic charge coupled with an accelerating charge which propels the rest moment quantity to peak periodic velocity at mid point of wavelength. The model I developed needs further refinement but results in a spectrum of continuous transform from a prolate spheroid to oblate spheroid of energy volume. Where the Second Law is violated in this closed quantum system is in the collapse of the volume in the second half of the wavelength, recovering the accelerating charge at end point of wavelength. Again, I don't want to get on my own soapbox and shout, but the volumetric transformation is rigorously precise and the rationalization of the volume of the rest moment electrodynamic charge at peak velocity expands laterally and contracts longitudinally which together with a reduction of density in that peak velocity cylindrical disc by a value of 1 magnitude of light velocity is consistent with the difference of electric field strength and magnetic field strength. This computed out as consistent with the observed upper and lower bounds of the EM spectrum based on a qualitative property of density which assigns requisite densities to produce response as kinetic (inelastic), electrostatic (elastic), magnetic (fluid), and gravitational (ethereal) physical properties of energy.
This is admittedly a naïve model, but the point to be made is that ANY model that provides the mechanics which allows velocity to be measured from the waveform itself rather than an observer position can explain the constancy of light velocity and the null result of Michelson-Morely.
By the way, I'm from Ohio. The collaboration of Michelson and Morely led to the consoldation of Case University and Western Reserve into the esteemed Case Western Reserve University of today. The CRC Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms was originally a publication of the Cleveland Rubber Company. These days we have the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Not that in not an old Rolling Stones fan, it's just a bit of a come-down. jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 30, 2014 @ 00:50 GMT
jrc,
Does your model contribute to FT in QM? As long as you didn't provide a paper with illustrations and equations, I cannot grasp your idea.
While off-topic, I would like to ask you what you meant with "... the point to be made is that ANY model that provides the mechanics which allows velocity to be measured from the waveform itself rather than an observer position can explain the constancy of light velocity and the null result of Michelson-Morely."
Incidentally, you are certainly aware that Michelson's 1881 Potsdam experiment was merely improved together with Morley in 1887 after essential but misleading criticism in Paris and by Lorentz. Weren't Michelson's discussions with Thomson more stimulating than Morley's technical support?
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 30, 2014 @ 16:46 GMT
Eckard,
Despite any criticisms of Michelson's methodology, it was Maxwell and the refined apparatus results by Michelson and Morely that are pre-eminent is proving that light velocity is constant in ideally empty space. Any arguments to the contrary are just that, contrary to all physical chemistry and electronics.
My naïve model is purely classical so I doubt it would be applicable to Fourier Transformations applied to the purely mathematical probability wave function in QM. I only mentioned it because it incorporates a classical continuous function that resolves to a discrete particle, and as such contributes to why we have a universe that follows Quantum rules. If I were to publish I'd want some modern electronic media technical help, this computer world slays me.
My point about measuring from the waveform is simply this; ideally, empty space does not contain an observer, nor a position for an observer. If we accept M&M, we should look to the wavelength of light in empty space as the only location available to find a benchmark from which to measure its velocity. I hypothesized density varying directly with velocity. Another approach might be found in the rectified length of curvature in the sinusoidal curve in relation to Planck's Constant, or in relation to the proper time span of that wavelength. This is an admittedly empirical approach because we would firstly accept a priori that the velocity of light is constant in our arbitrary system of unit measures. And Einstein didn't establish that constancy, he worked from it. jrc
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jun. 30, 2014 @ 20:08 GMT
Eckard,
I should have added that I agree with you about the interpretation of Lorentz which in any which I have read, requires Lorentz invariance to mean that any acceleration to light velocity results in 'infinite mass'. I have long thought that an absurdity. My argument about energy density varying in direct proportion to velocity is that as density diminishes, greater applied energy would be necessary to maintain continued acceleration. Also, Lorentz can be treated as an exponential function within the limits of the mass-energy equivalence. With your practical knowledge in mathematics, is that defensible? I do not mean to question your arguments as to SR being unnecessary, I think you have a good point. I'm just looking at a rationale for Lorentz covariance rather than invariance. Thanks, jrc
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 1, 2014 @ 17:25 GMT
jrc,
Yesterday Peter Jackson challenged me to watch even without sound a video by Teufel. IIrc, when he explained the theory of guiding waves, Teufel argued that velocities can be derived from positions. An Italian co-worker referred in her dissertation to Albers (?) who considered this view incomplete. Common sense tells me that the velocity of light equals to the increment from the position of emitter AT THE MOMENT OF EMISSION to the position of receiver AT THE MOMENT OF ARRIVAL divided by the time of flight. Doesn’t this easily explain the experiments in Potsdam by Michelson 1881 and in Cleveland together with Morley 1887, on condition one abandons Maxwell’s idea of a light-carrying medium?
In an earlier essay I dealt with an acoustic Michelson experiment by Norbert Feist who was shocked by my explanation. The prediction outlined by Michelson and Morley in 1887 was not quite correct. They admitted this, and there is anyway no need for a correction; the null-result is plausible unless one is not ready to abandon the idea of a light-carrying medium. Lorentz defended such medium by his hypothesis of length contraction according to so called Lorentz transformation.
You described the history a bit different. I agree that Morley was an important scientist too. However, it seems to me that the basic method concerning a light-carrying medium was created by Michelson. Also, it seems to me you are confusing the effect of increased mass which was already found by Thomson with its later attribution to Lorentz transformation.
Why do you deny the possibility that a receiver/observer of light from an emitter may be located within an otherwise ideally empty space? I agree that the wavelength of light does not change there.
What about Fourier transformation between position representation and momentum representation I maintain that cosine transformation might be sufficient and even more appropriate.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 1, 2014 @ 20:59 GMT
Eckard,
Please understand that I am acutely aware that my own lack of education might lead you and others into some ambarrassment attempting discourse with me, and I can only apologize. Until about two years ago I was in a poverty/political trap that constrained any mobility. Where I'm coming from I could carry all the hard science and math books from the new modern public library under one...
view entire post
Eckard,
Please understand that I am acutely aware that my own lack of education might lead you and others into some ambarrassment attempting discourse with me, and I can only apologize. Until about two years ago I was in a poverty/political trap that constrained any mobility. Where I'm coming from I could carry all the hard science and math books from the new modern public library under one arm, the reactionary right-wing politics threatening European stability at present has always been pervasive where I have lived. Now I have a computer and can begin to find some intelligent reading. (And I still have two of my upper teeth in more or less one piece!) And I've relocated to a small liberal arts college town.
So... I am not familiar with Michelson's discussions with Thompson but not surprised they would have been engaged. I am aware that at the time when Maxwell conducted his exhaustive analysis of Faraday's results, the 'aether'
medium in Newtonian space was the prevailing thinking. What I find important of Maxwell's discovery of the 'c' proportional difference of electric and magnetic difference of intensity between point charges, is not only that it means light is only one segment of the spectrum, but all physical chemistry is dependent on that proportion being constant. Perhaps that it why Morely, a chemist, was interested in Michelson's efforts. I understood it is Michelson that attempted to prove the aether existence, which failed in the null result. It is an interesting footnote that some aether based caculations had determined that the physical property of the aether would have had to have a rigidity equivalent to steel for the wave form to transmit an energetic response across space (I think I read that in an Asimov book). I have wondered however if gathering evidence by the time of Michelson's first interferometer had not called the aether hypothesis into enough question that it was simply politically expedient to present the experiment in terms of 'confirming the aether wind'. It seems many concepts that become the prevailing wisdom at any time, such as we now understand the Electromagnetic Spectrum to be independent of any medium, have had a lengthy incubation period. Relativistic ideas go back to Galleo and beyond.
Actually, Eckard, though I have striven to understand both SR and GR at least conceptually, I am quite comfortable with your own 'good old notion of ubiquitous time' and also find the theoretical climate to be more productive of a 'snowstorm of mathematics' than real progress. I like the tried and true method of experimentation on a controlled workbench, and if truth were admitted the much hyped success of QM is in reality the product of engineers who having tested the theoretical predictions to no avail, have gone back to the reliable technique of 'poke it with a stick and see what it does'! And if an arbitrary scalar increment of time is acceptable in QM such that it 'zeroes out', then it's as good a methodology in classical physics of 'tick, tick, tick' to explain the null result of Michelson. I think you summed it correctly that 'all numbers are ideal', it's our science and we choose what method we restrict our inquires to, and how we want to devise our reference frames. The only final criteria is that in following any inquiry we do not violate any of our own axioms along the way.
I won't digress about mass increase with velocity, other than to propose that there might be a 'break even' point where a quantity of energy at rest will prescribe a proportional density that constitutes matter and which will behave under acceleration as a mass increase, while a smaller quantity will prescribe a proportional density which will behave as an electrodynamic charge and behave as a decreased density under acceleration with applied energy. And if Lorentz and Poincaire don't like the speed I'm going now, they sure as hell won't like the other one.
Seriously on topic of Why Quantum, first we have to resolve the 'zero point particle' absurdity. Singularity is a mathematical property not a physical property. And for more than a century science has said 'E=mc^2' and the EM spectrum is a wave and the EM spectrum is a particle. Those who write checks on a black budget (government industrial academia) want a damned particle! Put some energy in one spot and make one that will last long enough to put a dent in something else! Then and only then will science save itself from itself and the public will again think of it as was commonplace in the era of Newtonian application to industrialized progress. There has to be discrete somethings made manifest to argue about quantum probabilities in the first place. And until we do that, the public and politicos will consider science just a pissing contest among prima donnas.
I'm not versed if Fourier Analysis, but would think the direct connectivity geometrically in cosines would be readily adaptable in continuous transformation of wave characteristics.
What is the acronym, IIrc? Pardon the length of this, jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Anonymous wrote on Jun. 24, 2014 @ 19:40 GMT
If there is a choice, then causation is fundamental to the construction of physics. If the foundation of physics is causal, then entropy is an indication of moving from one causal system to another, not characterized completely by energy. Entropy is an indication of the dis-coordinate relationship between time and space.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 00:50 GMT
The wave function is considered to be unreal for a number of reasons. The first reason is that it is complex valued. So we might then say wave functions are not real, but they are complex. However, there is a bit more than this. It has a lot to do with the nonlocality of quantum waves and states. This is a fundamental departure from classical physics.
The theorems of Bell on nonlocality and the contextuality theorem of Kochen-Specker and other related results are inescapable. Now of course this is the case in this entire world except for here at FQXi, where the blog site has succeeded in doing what Feynman told us to do if we did not like QM:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sAfUpGmnm4
Go somewhere else. So the FQXi blog site is a little bubble that we might say has escaped the universe --- or some have this delusion.
If you want to say that in some metaphysical sense the wave function is real then go ahead. I suppose most physicists at times do this any ways. It is just that this ontology is of a different nature than our standard idea of what reality or “ontic” means. The wave function is better thought of as epistemological, and it gives the set of probability amplitudes corresponding to measurement in qubits or quNits (a set with N amplitudes).
As Richard Feynman says, if you don’t like this, go somewhere else.
LC
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 01:19 GMT
If wave-functions are not real objects, admittedly with strange properties, then how does one interpret the nature of quantum mechanics. I believe Feynman told us not to try to interpret it, just keep calculating. Beyond Feynman's suggestion, there remains the MWI interpretation, which is too unruly by creating universes at the point of the eigenvalues and ushering them off to oblivion in some magical way.
But the beauty of wave-functions is that, if they do exist, they are subtle, unpresuming, and easy to see. The infinite potential energy well generates a wave-function of something as simple as
A college professor could point to that and say, "we think that is something that actually exists." Everyone would breath a sigh of relief that quantum mechanics actually matches the physical universe.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B Crowell replied on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 02:01 GMT
There is with quantum mechanics what I call an incompressible fluid of confusion. The fluid can be squashed flat or drawn into a thin tube and so forth, but the volume remains the same. We have gotten very good at manipulating this blob of fluid, and in doing so we illuminate some things, but we do not know the answer to questions such as how eigenvalues obtain in measurements or how nonlocality...
view entire post
There is with quantum mechanics what I call an incompressible fluid of confusion. The fluid can be squashed flat or drawn into a thin tube and so forth, but the volume remains the same. We have gotten very good at manipulating this blob of fluid, and in doing so we illuminate some things, but we do not know the answer to questions such as how eigenvalues obtain in measurements or how nonlocality results in a completely local outcome. This stuff is bizarre, and I frankly doubt we will ever understand answers to these questions. I think these questions are not answerable; they are not relevant questions. The confusion comes in part because we have these classical brains, brains that know the world in a classical sort of way, and we have trouble processing these things. These questions are unanswerable because we want classical answers to questions about something that can’t possibly give such answers.
The human brain has circuits meant to find order in things. People become compulsive gamblers because they get hooked on a mind trip of trying to figure the game out. When we listen to music our brains make order out of it, and when order is hard to find we feel uncomfortable. Remember that Stravinsky’s “Rite of Spring” caused a riot in its 1913 premier in Paris, and people’s brains were literally rebelling against this music they did not understand. We have in science similar rebellions. Of course the rebellion against evolution is still underway, even though this is 19th century science historically at about the same time as Maxwell’s equations, and we have rebellions against quantum mechanics and there is an oddball on this blog who insists Einstein was all washed up.
Attempting to find answers to these quantum questions is I think a bit like the compulsive gambler who thinks they will figure out how to beat the house. These things are not going to work, for quantum mechanics is not going to offer up the classical world view such ideas about “real wave functions” and hidden variable theories and the like are attempting. People will continue to do this, and it is a bit of a trend in line with people trying to build perpetual motion machines and the like. Wise is the person who knows when a challenge is an illusion and can not be beaten; the wise man knows the limits of the world and themselves. The fool pushes relentlessly onwards on their steed Rocinante.
LC
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 02:42 GMT
Re "This is the way nature works! - Richard Feynman" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sAfUpGmnm4 ):
"I'm forcing upon you a lecture on the things that we think we know something about" (0:12)..."the students do not understand it either , and that's because the professor doesn't understand it" (1:40) ... "Nature is strange as it can be...the RULES...are so screwy you can't believe 'em! " (2:17) ... "if you don't like it, go somewhere else to another universe where the rules are simpler" (4:52) ... "nobody understands it" (6:27)
Lawrence, I believe that you and others are too content with surface appearances. What is the physical reality behind these law-of-nature "rules" which generalize/represent individual physical outcomes? What is the physical reality behind the numbers we use to represent physical outcomes, including the unpredictable individual physical outcomes from quantum processes? What is the physical reality behind the necessity to use complex numbers and pi? Forget about complexity of "the wave function" - there are far more basic issues than that!
Do you take law-of-nature rules and numbers for granted; do you take them as given inputs to the system; i.e. are you a platonist?
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 03:11 GMT
I know someone who was shoved down the stairs by an angry ghost. There is video evidence of people being scratched and bitten by ghosts. Now I don't know how to get a ghost to do tricks for the physics community. All I can tell you is that from the cozy perspective of a university physics department or a cushy job in a laboratory, you're probably not witnessing the physical activity of ghosts. If you're not witnessing their activity, then you might think it's all neurochemistry.
But I'm must looking at ghosts from the point of view of: how much more physics would be necessary to support their existence? As near as I can tell, a ghost has to be able to generate a potential energy V(r,y) without using electrical charges. It would do so by manipulating virtual photons. If it could do that, then a wave-function would spring into existence that represents the V(r,t). That wave-function would have energy and momentum states available, and the ghost could use it to flash those evil red eyes, move stuff.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 03:17 GMT
I can't think of any reason why physicists would think that the laws of physics are complete. They are not complete. Therefore there is new physics that we haven't discovered. The only phenomena that scientists haven't really studied is the activity of ghosts. It's because ghosts are very subtle. But why shouldn't they be subtle? If wave-functions exist, then wave-functions are also subtle. But is there a better explanation of quantum mechanics other than the proposition that wave-functions are real things? Very subtle, real things.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 12:29 GMT
I am not commenting on ghosts; I think that definitely gets into supernaturalism.
We have no clear understanding of the relationship between physics and mathematics. There are some people who claim that mathematics is physics, but I fail to see how this can either be proven mathematically or demonstrated experimentally. If you think that mathematics precedes physics there is then a sort of mysteriousness of how pure mathematical structures become reified. If you think that physics precedes mathematics then one is left with the unknowable “stuff” which composes reality. Asking what is the relationship between mathematics and physics heaps another unknown or unknowable onto the picture.
I think the most reasonable way of thinking about how quantum outcomes of measurements occur is to think of consciousness as a sort of illusion. Consciousness is probably some form of epiphenomenon, similar to virtual images in optics, that occurs with neural activity. The occurrence of a quantum outcome is then a sort of illusion generated by this illusion. In that way we have an illusion of being taken along one particular MWI world branch or eigen-branching of the world.
I don’t have time to go into this, but I think this is connected to our perception of another illusion called time.
LC
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 17:24 GMT
I'm going to assume that wave-functions are real things. It is a much more defensible position, more so than MWI. It's better than "I have no idea." As for epiphenomena having illusions creating consciousness, it all sounds pretty vague. It is more likely that ghosts and spirits do exist, but that the evidence is getting mixed in with other stuff.
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu replied on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 18:59 GMT
If the wavefunction is ontological, which wavefunction is the real thing? The complex number wavefunction, or the quaternionic wavefunction? Both complex quantum mechanics and quanternionic quantum mechanics give the same predictions for the hydrogen atom. A pure state in complex quantum mechanics is defined up to a phase (a unit complex number) and a pure state in quaternionic quantum mechanics is defined up to a unit quaternion and so the two wavefunctions assign different values at the same space-time point. How can the wavefunction be ontological under this circumstance?
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 19:25 GMT
That is a very smart question, and the answer is: I don't know. I am a spiritualist, and so I am more comfortable with the existence of an aether if I can throw out the Michelson-Morley experiment, and replace it with some kind of wave-function aether filled with the Higgs field, virtual photon E&M field, etc. I think this interpretation of quantum mechanics makes more sense that the MWI interpretation, or just saying, "I don't know". If the aether is made out of ontological wave-functions, then how is that so different from quantum mechanics, quantum field theory and the Higgs field?
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 19:50 GMT
18% of Americans have seen ghosts.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/30/18-of-americ
ans-say-theyve-seen-a-ghost/
If 18% of Americans are delusional, then why is our country so productive? So wealthy? So well off? Can someone explain that?
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 20:04 GMT
Florin,
It is nice to hear from you. It has unfortunately been a while since I went to your website. I had to reinstall browser and lost the bookmark.
The example with quaternionic QM is interesting. This is the quaternion Dirac equation and the model of the H-atom is a Euclidean form of gravitation. The complex wave function for a system is equivalent up to a phase, and for quaternions they are equivalent up to multiplication by any quaternion, not just the unit quaternion --- at least as I recall. We could write the quaternion wave function as
Ψ = c_1i + c_2j + c_3k + c_41
Expanded in the quaternion basis i, j, k, 1. This is equivalent under multiplication by a quaternion, just as the wave function gives equivalent physics when multiplied by a c-number or phase. So for simplicity multiply this by the quaternion i to get
iΨ = c_1i*i + c_2i*j + c_3i*k + c_4i
= -c_11 + c_2k – c_3j + c_4i
which is just an SO(4) rotation in the basis of elements. Of course QM and physics is invariant under changes of coordinates.
In point of fact the Dirac operator and the quaternion function are both the same thing --- quaternions. The action of the Dirac operator on the quantum field quaternion is equivalent to the cohomology condition ψψ = 0. This is known as the Pauli exclusion principle.
The statement that the wave function is real does have this odd implication that all complex numbers are equal to a quaternion. Mathematically this is strange, and even without quaternions the wave function being real means complex numbers are all real. Physically the nonlocal properties of QM simply can’t be reduced to a classical realization. We might even go so far as to say that classical physics is an illusion. We know it is an illusion because it is falsified outside of certain domains of applicability, such as atomic physics.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu replied on Jun. 26, 2014 @ 14:01 GMT
Lawrence, the address is: http://fmoldove.blogspot.com/. I am doing a series on differential and algebraic geometry to introduce the tools needed to discuss gauge theory and the standard model. It's all very good stuff explained intuitively: homotopy, homology, cohomology, de Rham, Hodge. Then I want to explain fiber bundels, Yang-Mills and the relationship with general relativity. Last I'll explain non-commutative geometry.
By the way, I did obtained QM from physical principles. I have a preprint in alpha release and by the end of next month will be in beta release (the archive). I am searching now for a suitable journal (Reviews in Mathematical Physics, Advances in Mathematical Physics, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, Journal of Mathematical Physics). I have to decide before the archive upload because they all have different styles you need to follow. Here is the abstract:
"Quantum and classical mechanics are derived using four natural physical principles: (1) the laws of nature are invariant under time evolution, (2) the laws of nature are invariant under tensor composition, (3) the laws
of nature are relational, and (4) positivity (the ability to define a physical state). Quantum mechanics is singled out by a fifth experimentally justified postulate: nature violates Bell’s inequalities."
I derive the Poisson algebra for classical mechanics and the phase and Hilbert space formulation for QM all in a constructive fashion.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 26, 2014 @ 14:46 GMT
Lawrence,
I think you're getting the idea of number confused with the idea of function. It cannot be true that "... the wave function being real means complex numbers are all real." Complex numbers have no preference for the real line; only when the imaginary part is zero, do complex numbers behave as real numbers. Therefore, it also does not follow that "Physically the nonlocal properties of QM simply can't be reduced to a classical realization."
Nonlocality is a necessary
assumption of applying the n-dimension Hilbert space formalism to quantum mechanical phenomena; it is not a result.
Only were the wave function equal to zero, and therefore not continuous, would it be both necessary and sufficient to frame physics in a completely probabilistic measure schema. Every physical result would have a definite probability -- a quantum number -- on the closed interval [0,1]. However, because we know that the wave function evolves deterministically, we also know that this is not true. Numerical discreteness does not determine a continuous function; it's the other way around.
Attached is a piece I am working on at the moment, to help frame the problem of continuous functions vs. quantum numbers.
Best,
Tom
attachments:
The_CHSH_result_is_free_of_context.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B Crowell replied on Jul. 1, 2014 @ 12:22 GMT
Your presentations are interesting. I have done some presentations, live and in front of people, of related material. I focused on homotopy theory. The double slit experiment is a form of homotopy, where there are two sets of trajectories that are distinct by a topological obstruction. The measurement of which slit the particle passes through transfers the superposition into an entanglement with a needle state. Entanglements can then be a case of topology or homotopy. I am particularly interested in the case of where a quantum system entangles with a black hole.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 11, 2014 @ 21:35 GMT
Lawrence,
I owe an apology both to you and to myself. I was preparing for a vacation at the time you posted this, and regretted that I was not able to engage your interesting and important argument. I made a promise to myself to get back to it, and forgot.
It's exactly the case that homotopically continuous functions require two distinct operations that prevents the analytical continuation from the initial condition, of a single function over the simply connected manifold of a unitary space.
Your comparison of the two-slit experiment to a homotopy-equivalent topology of genus 2 reduced to a torus of genus 1 is absolutely brilliant, in my opinion. I had never heard it expressed that way before. It's pinpoint accurate.
For continuous function physics on a topology of genus 0, analysis on the simply connected 3-sphere continues from every point to any other set of points, because all points are homotopy equivalent.
I would love to discuss the black hole case with you.
All best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 20:25 GMT
Jason,
The Higgs field is a quantum field, and it fits very well within the quantum paradigm of physics. The Higgs field though has a quartic potential which makes it different from a scalar field with just quadratic potential. For the quadratic potential the potential function has a single minimum point, which means that to get a particle orbiting around it requires the input of energy. The quantization of the field means these orbits come in discrete steps. For the quartic function there is a circle as the minimum of the potential, what might be thought of as the trough of the Mexican hat. This means under tiny amounts of energy you can set up an orbit. There is then a vast degeneracy of quantum states here that fill up a condensate. This condensate can couple in with certain particles, such as the W and Z particles of the weak interactions. This coupling might be thought of as the Whiggs and the Zhiggs (sounds like the British party of old and the Zh has a Russian sound). This gives the Z and W its mass.
Something happens when this happens. Gauge fields with a massless gauge boson have transverse degrees of freedom, two degrees per particle. A massive particle has a longitudinal degree of freedom. The coupling with the Higgs field gives the W and Z particles this extra degree of freedom.
This was proposed because a quantum field with mass has this longitudinal degree of freeom, and at very high energy this field effect has anomalous propagations --- it propagates faster than light. So Higgs, Englert, Kibble and others proposed this mechanism so that massive bosons of the weak interaction could be massless at high energy. This prevents the quantum field theory from becoming sick.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 26, 2014 @ 01:30 GMT
Lawrence,
I think that both our world views are pretty fixed. You're an atheist down the core who doesn't believe in an afterlife. I am a Spiritualist who believes in the existence of spirits, an afterlife, and God. Neither of our world views are going to change. For my part, one of the problems I have with atheism is that it is so entrenched in cynisism. I don't even think that atheists believe that there exists physics beyond GR and QM, other than some quantum gravity theory. Some of the things I liked about Spiritualism was their positivity, their sense of hope, as well as the countless uncanny evidences from psychic readings, and the entities that I've personally witnessed, and my fiance who was assaulted by a ghost (shoved down the stairs), and this nagging feeling that wave-functions mathematics is describing an all pervasive spirit.
Now, I agree with you that there are people who claim paranormal phenomena who are just painful to watch. They take pictures of dust particles and bugs and call them spaceships. So I totally agree with you that there is a lot of crap in the paranormal literature. But on the other hand, there are a few really good jewels in there as well. It warms my heart when a skeptic is confronted by a ghost, an entity, grey aliens, or some psychic who is so talented that they make it look like something impossible is going on. I've listened to cold readers and they sound like crap; they sound all intellectual, like their guessing, it sounds forced, it doesn't flow. My break is over, but I just wanted you to know that my philosophical beliefs are based in impressive evidence, not junk, not hooey.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B Crowell replied on Jun. 26, 2014 @ 12:45 GMT
I did not indicate anything about what I believe with regards to metaphysical ideas and so forth. I do though think one needs to keep ideas about spiritualism independent of scientific thought. The idea that the Higgs field is somehow related to ghosts or spirits running around is pure buncomb.
LC
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 26, 2014 @ 19:13 GMT
Hi Lawrence,
Why would anomalous faster than light propagations make QM sick? Wouldn't FTL be a threat to GR? Not QM?
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 27, 2014 @ 08:12 GMT
Jason, I asked you question about ghosts on Jun. 26, 2014 @ 13:33 GMT.
1. Does time flow for ghosts OR do they have different ages?
2. Are there female and male ghosts, and if there are can they copulate to give birth to more ghosts?
Thanks,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 27, 2014 @ 08:46 GMT
Hi Akinbo,
I extrapolated from the Higgs field that there is a range between particles and fields; I expect there to be more fields that we haven't discovered, with bosons that are even harder to detect (if not impossible). So in my view, reality is made out of particles and fields.
Now as far as ghosts are concerned, and the fact that nobody really knows for sure, I decided that...
view entire post
Hi Akinbo,
I extrapolated from the Higgs field that there is a range between particles and fields; I expect there to be more fields that we haven't discovered, with bosons that are even harder to detect (if not impossible). So in my view, reality is made out of particles and fields.
Now as far as ghosts are concerned, and the fact that nobody really knows for sure, I decided that the great cosmic answer should look like this. There is only one observer, one infinite observer, and that infinite observer is God. God creates universes and then wants to experience them by subdividing his consciousness into something that can incarnate (or reincarnate) into bodies, called souls. So you have a soul, you reincarnate, and you are part of this Infinite consciousness that we call God.
When a soul incarnates into a biological body, that soul takes on additional layers, like interfaces; think of a Russian doll. When we die, we're supposed to shed our astral body and go into the light. A ghost forgoes going into the light which results in not shedding the astral body (which experiences entropy). Ghosts will wander the lower astral plane in pursuit of whatever motivates that ghost. Sometimes they get stuck in old insane asylums, prisons, hospitals and often the residences where they lived when they were alive. Ghosts can sleep for decades until disturbed by the living. Ghosts can be male, female, human or other. Ghosts do not make babies because a ghost is just a soul that has not shed its astral body after death of the physical body. The soul evolves and grows by having experiences in the physical body; while biological evolution is driven by environmental pressures (survival, etc), the soul evolves by experiencing life.
The existence of a spirit world would suggest a second timeline. The first timeline is from the physical space-time continuum. When a soul passes into spirit, there would have to be another timeline for that, but details are sketchy at this time.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 27, 2014 @ 17:38 GMT
Thanks Jason for being forthright and honest in saying, "Now as far as ghosts are concerned, and the fact that nobody really knows for sure...". I believe in establishing truth with old method of reductio ad absurdum so I have more questions for you to enlighten my soul (I am happy to have one) and to prove and establish the existence of ghosts, spirits, etc.
"There is only one observer, one infinite observer, and that infinite observer is God. God creates universes and then wants to experience them"What was God doing before creating the universe, and for how long was he doing that? Where was he living? Is there a place called heaven and is it in this universe or another one?
"Ghosts can sleep for decades until disturbed by the living. Ghosts can be male, female, human or other"Do cockroaches, ants, bacteria have souls and ghosts? What of viruses and plants? I ask because I want to know whether they share in the sub-divisions of God's consciousness you mentioned since they are living things.
"and the entities that I've personally witnessed, and my fiance who was assaulted by a ghost (shoved down the stairs)"Please convey my sympathy and hope no serious injuries? For a ghost to shove her, firstly it must be wicked and so capable of thinking and it must be able to exert force, and to do this from Newton's second and third laws, ghosts must have Mass. And what has mass must be matter. What sort of matter could this be, dark matter?
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jun. 27, 2014 @ 20:05 GMT
One of the reasons why I like the ghost-spirit hypothesis is because it's the halfway point between "gross matter" and nothing at all. Spirit is like a nothingness that is too subtle to notice, yet it does something. An Infinite Consciousness might be able to imprint upon this nothingness a set of rules, release it, and watch what happens. As these creations become more complex, it might become...
view entire post
One of the reasons why I like the ghost-spirit hypothesis is because it's the halfway point between "gross matter" and nothing at all. Spirit is like a nothingness that is too subtle to notice, yet it does something. An Infinite Consciousness might be able to imprint upon this nothingness a set of rules, release it, and watch what happens. As these creations become more complex, it might become harder to see what happens.
"What was God doing before creating the universe, and for how long was he doing that? Where was he living? Is there a place called heaven and is it in this universe or another one?"
I liked Dr Ebon Alexander's explanation (the neuroscientist who had the NDE experience), Dr. Ebon had experienced that God has created many universes, like grapes on a vine. I like that representation. If you were an Infinite Being, Creator of universes, wouldn't you create a heaven, a paradise for souls who love you and want to be with you? I think that God can manifest a heaven on earth, I think of legendary places like Shamballa and the book: Life and Teachings of the Masters of the Far East. It's very magical. Everlasting life is possible. As for time scales, I'm not sure how to estimate time beyond the space-time continuum.
"Do cockroaches, ants, bacteria have souls and ghosts? What of viruses and plants? I ask because I want to know whether they share in the sub-divisions of God's consciousness you mentioned since they are living things."
I've heard of the idea of a group soul where hives, ant hills, and other clusters of insects share a single soul; and that soul evolves over a long time, across many species and eventually incarnates as a human. But one must be careful about thinking about such things because you will have realizations that are troubling. I guess God wanted an adventure, and guess what! You're it. lol
"Please convey my sympathy and hope no serious injuries? For a ghost to shove her, firstly it must be wicked and so capable of thinking and it must be able to exert force, and to do this from Newton's second and third laws, ghosts must have Mass. And what has mass must be matter. What sort of matter could this be, dark matter?"
Apparently, she was able to made peace with this spirit until she eventually moved out. The way I understand it, a ghost can store energy in the energy eigenstates of a wave-function (created by the spirit). How much energy does it take to push someone off balance? 10 Newton-meters maybe? That energy can come from the victim, from cold spots, from batteries, from other sources. Just a passing thought, a ghost might be able to absorb a tiny amount of momentum from it's victim over a long time (a few hours maybe) and then give it back all at once. It's just an idea. Could dark matter be at play? I don't know. I had imagined a scenario where the grey aliens are dark matter lifeforms who are aware of us, but we're not aware of them. So they occasionally abduct us just to check us out, or perform bizarre science experiments on us. There are possibilities that are freakish that could actually be true. In fact, if they know about us, but we don't know about them (other than the crazies who say they've been abducted) that gives the grey aliens a significant advantage over us as play-things.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 27, 2014 @ 20:17 GMT
Akinbo,
By the way, given all of the unknowns that still cannot be resolved by physics/philosophy, I think that we should entertain ideas of God, ghosts and grey aliens because, first, it's fun. Second, there could be some truth to it, and third, it might lead to some interesting new ways of looking at the physics.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Jun. 25, 2014 @ 20:53 GMT
Jason,
I think to be honest the United State of America would not have become the dominant world power without World War II. I honestly think this country would have become a somewhat better off English speaking form of a nation similar to those seen in Latin America in the 20th century. WWII caused many scientists to leave Germany and Europe to the United States of America, and remember Enrico Fermi got the first sustained chain reaction. Also the war demolished the economies of every developed nation except the United States. Highly advanced nations, in particular Germany, but also France, Italy and others were economically ruined with the war. Even Britain remained on war rations for almost 10 years after the war. The Soviet Union was brutally ruined, and barely made it through the midpoint of the war. The US economy surged forwards with no competition.
Since the reconstruction of Europe and East Asia, ending around 1970 or so, the US has been declining consistently, and with virtually all metrics from educational levels, to productivity per capita to internet connectivity relative to the rest of the world. The following little clip from the program "The Newsroom" sort of captures the nature of the problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zqOYBabXmA
Americans are behind on metrics such as education and we are a people that have traditionally been low on the educational and intellectual scale. There is a long tradition of know-nothingness in this nation, and this has been hobbling the country. Of late this stuff has been politically popular. We also have trends of xenophobia, and now the right winged panic-mongerers are screaming about a wave of immigrants --- who happen to be children. They are kids for ^&%*#$@ sake, not terrorists! There are these sick trends in this country, they have been with us for quite a while and are now very rampant, similar to the early 1950s with greater durability.
Are we really that great?
LC
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jun. 30, 2014 @ 18:16 GMT
Yes we are that great.
1. America provides an amazingly good life for the ordinary guy.
2. America offers more opportunity and social mobility than any other
country, including the countries of Europe.
3. Work and trade are respectable in America, which is not true
elsewhere.
4. America has achieved greater social equality than any other society.
5. People live longer, fuller lives in America.
6. In America, the destiny of the young is not given to them but is
created by them.
7. America has gone further than any other society in establishing
equality of rights.
8. America has found a solution to the problem of religious and ethnic
conflict that continues to divide and terrorize much of the world.
9. America has the kindest, gentlest foreign policy of any great power in
world history.
10. America, the freest nation on earth, is also the most virtuous nation
on earth.
http://www.phillytalkradioonline.com/comment/10-great-
things.html
But more to the point, America guarantees my right to free speech and freedom of religion, freedom of press. Also, without us, neutral nations Europe would be gobbled up by Muslim countries and other predatory nations.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B Crowell replied on Jul. 1, 2014 @ 17:54 GMT
There are a number of counter arguments to these. These statements are typical propaganda slogans, which have or had maybe some element of truth. However, there are a number of things that can be raised to at least raise questions. The United States has since its origin been in a fairly major war every 20 years. Recently we left Iraq after causing directly or indirectly the deaths of over a million Iraquis. With Vietnam we killed over 3 million, and Korea was similar. I am not here to get into the geo-political reasons for these wars, but we do have a serious history of bombing and attacking nations. As for equality and related matters that might have been the case up to the 1980-90 time period. There are a lot of metrics which challenge these agit prop type of statements.
On the whole the halcyon statements about this country had more truth to them in the past, or from the 1950-1960 to 1980-1990 time period. Since then we have been backsliding.
LC
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jun. 26, 2014 @ 03:03 GMT
I don't see any evidence that the physics community is able to detect ghosts. There could be shadow figures flying around people's living rooms or evil entities with glowing red eyes haunting families and physically attacking peopple, and the physics community would have no ability to confirm this. All these ghosts really need is some ability to manipulate virtual photons to create potential energies.
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 26, 2014 @ 13:33 GMT
Jason, being so knowledgeable about ghosts, I would like to know:
1. Does time flow for ghosts OR do they have different ages?
2. Are there female and male ghosts, and if there are can they copulate to give birth to more ghosts?
Thanks,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 30, 2014 @ 18:46 GMT
New Physics! And strong support for the causal QM of my essay, well timed!
Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?The only thing that
doesn't really do, and the key to everything, is show how 'non locality' can be produced classically. I recently lodged a short (2 page) 'summary' resume of the fuller derivation in my essay, consistent with the above, here;
Classical reproduction of quantum correlations.Paradigm changes can't be instant but my original 2020 estimate now looks more realistic;
2020 Vision. A model of Discretion in Space' http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803The same electron (Compton/Raman) scattering mechanism at c in the electron C of M rest frame ('discrete field dynamics' or DFM) appears able to coherently rationalise both SR and QM without paradox to allow convergence (see the other 3 essays). If anybody can spot any apparent flaws do please flag them up. Thanks.
Could this be a red letter day for fqxi? Hmmm.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 1, 2014 @ 17:23 GMT
Lawrence,
Nonlocality could now be produced classically as shown in the links above. You suggested;
"Physically the nonlocal properties of QM simply can't be reduced to a classical realization."
That has certainly become the established viewpoint, but is it just a 'cop out'? John Bell was unhappy with it calling it 'sleepwalking' and saying;
"in my opinion the founding fathers were in fact wrong on this point. The quantum phenomena do not exclude a uniform description of micro and macro worlds...systems and apparatus." (Speakable..p171)
In fact he went further; "It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal."
And in 'Beables..'; "I think that conventional formulations of quantum theory, and of quantum field theory in particular, are unprofessionally vague and ambiguous. Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better."
I tend to agree, and think the implications of the links I posted above may prove very important. Views?
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B Crowell replied on Jul. 1, 2014 @ 20:00 GMT
The deBroglie-Bohm theory of QM is perfectly acceptable. It has no particular flaw, unless one takes this as a theory of local hidden variables. The problem with that is that the pilot wave must adjust to a quantum outcome. The problem is that identically prepared quantum systems would have the same quantum pilot wave. As this approaches the pilot wave must “decide” which configuration to assume. It must either go left or right, and this is a nonlocal connection. I take a picture from this article and change it slightly to illustrate a quantum OR condition. The pilot wave as it approaches the double slit must adjust to either situation, and this is even if the particle or “beable” is heading directly towards the midpoint between the two. This is a nonlocal property, and it is reflect in how the quantum AND logical condition does not distribute across the OR condition.
The nonlocal property of the pilot wave means that this particular “picture” of the pilot wave is a special condition, or analogous to a gauge. The pilot wave is in fact in an infinite number of configurations. All one has to do is perform a symplectic (canonical) transformation of the classical variables to get another configuration for the beable and pilot wave. Each of these configurations is related to the others by no locality, and they form a congruency that is a form of path integral.
These results are interesting, but I suspect that if the statistics were carefully analyzed that they would be found to obey the Bell inequalities. I would be genuinely surprised if these turn out to produce the inequality violations.
LC
attachments:
double-slit-quantum-or.jpg
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 1, 2014 @ 23:13 GMT
I interpreted the two slit experiment to mean that the electron somehow became un-manifested in such a way that it when through the two slits as wave. The pilot theory says that the waves are real, but that the electron is always manifested like a hard sphere. I disagree with the pilot wave interpretation. I believe that the particle somehow becomes un-manifested, as if melting back into the wave, until something directly measures it's properties, at which time the electron fully manifests again.
Can anyone dispute or point out an error in my interpretation that the electron becomes UN-manifested at the two slits?
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 2, 2014 @ 09:34 GMT
By suggesting that the electron becomes "un" manifested by the 2 slit diffraction, have I violated a major law of physics? Or created a paradox?
The good news is that once we figure this out, it will most likely lead to new physics. Maybe we'll find out that we have grey alien neighbors.
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 2, 2014 @ 10:59 GMT
Lawrence, Jason. The 'delayed choice' simply resolves on choosing different starting assumptions. Yes, Jason, as in QED's sum over paths and Huygens construction (foundational to quantum and laser optics and photonics) there can be no 'photon' or path' until the combined Schrodinger sphere surfaces (NLS equation) are forced to interact with matter (a 'detector') where only ONE position has...
view entire post
Lawrence, Jason. The 'delayed choice' simply resolves on choosing different starting assumptions. Yes, Jason, as in QED's sum over paths and Huygens construction (foundational to quantum and laser optics and photonics) there can be no 'photon' or path' until the combined Schrodinger sphere surfaces (NLS equation) are forced to interact with matter (a 'detector') where only ONE position has adequate constructive interference to quantize the new particle (at different 'ranges' the 'positions' also differ).
'Non-locality' then emerges from particle 'reversibility', which 'weak (statistical) measurement' can't discern. I invoke electron 'spin flip', which in fact Bell also did, relating measurement to direction of DETECTOR field electron spin - which REVERSES with EM field orientation (setting angle)! Bell also admitted his (Bohr) assumption; Bertlmann's sock always differ. A sphere has BOTH spins (poles) and a sock can be randomly worn inside out (pink becomes green). OAM of a sphere is conserved through x any y axis rotation. 'Direction' is NOT conserved!!!!! That's the DFM derivation of 'non-locality'.
To explain in terms of Wheelers view and (i.e. Jacques) delayed choice;
The focussed waves follow BOTH 'paths' from splitter 1, so each detector has a 50:50 chance of clicking.
Introducing a second splitter COMBINES them, so phase can be tuned so EITHER detector can have 100% constructive interference, leaving the other 0%.
As Wheeler said;
"No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered (observed) phenomenon". It is wrong to speak of the "route" of the photon in the experiment of the beam splitter. It is wrong to attribute a tangibility to the photon in all its travel from the point of entry to its last instant of flight."Timed pair experiments then CAN access data which gives A,B aa or bb if just one detector dial is reversed. My previous essay identifies that 99.999% of Aspects data confirmed this, but couldn't theoretically rationalise it so discarded it. Wieghs (et al inc. Zeilinger) found the same so just 'corrected' for it! Perfect examples of 'theory bias' in experimentation.
My short summary completes the work in the link above by classically explaining non-locality as well as entanglement.
Classical reproduction of quantum correlations. But we seem now permanently trapped by 'theory bias'. Can you now see the solution Lawrence? Most surely won't.
Jason
"The good news is that once we figure this out, it will most likely lead to new physics. Maybe we'll find out that we have grey alien neighbors." The figuring out was the simple bit. It's done. The real job seems to be is to overcome our human failings to make it visible!.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 2, 2014 @ 14:00 GMT
Peter J,
The linked article, Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?, is a gem. I have to read it again later and comment further. I think the strongly mathematical among us like Tom and Joy should read and also give their views too, for or against.
You seem to have been missing in action for a while... perhaps occupied by the Brazil show.
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 2, 2014 @ 16:03 GMT
Pete,
My thanks too, for the link on pilot wave theory. It really is time for physicists to let Schrodinger's cat out of the bag. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 2, 2014 @ 16:41 GMT
Akinbo,
Yes, repulsing attacks by troglodyte hordes. They say the gem is false, flawed or trivial. They would. It's true it's not 'complete' as Bohmian mechanics can't derive 'quantum non-locality' or explain the 'delayed choice' experiment. But that's exactly the final touch the DFM provides. Did you read and understand the 2 page summary too? Dr Bertlmann's doesn't have 'left and 'right' socks. As in nature's OAM, they're reversible. but indoctrination may be so entrenched no 'evidence' will now save us.
I've also been busy as my little boat's now re-launched! It's a similar story there.
Icom Assassin Invincible. Nobody was interested in the DFM's fluid (aero & hydro) dynamic implications so I designed a boat to demonstrate it. It beat them all - but to no effect! They still ignored the conclusive evidence. Being known as a modest chap they all insisted it wasn't the boat but my own sailing genius that beat them! Yes. Yet another bunch of plonkers. No wonder I have little hair left! Ces't la vie.
If anyone can see any flaw in the 2 page summary please do say so!
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 2, 2014 @ 16:55 GMT
Peter J,
How did you design your boat as to demonstrate "the DFM's fluid (aero & hydro) dynamic implications"? I guess, it cannot flip its direction.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 2, 2014 @ 18:35 GMT
Pete,
Did you know (?) the 'Bluenose' long on the obverse of the Canadian dime coin, was A Herreshoff design schooner of racing fame and it's legendary speed was attributed to a warp that had developed in the keel. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 2, 2014 @ 20:20 GMT
John,
That's mind blowing. I didn't know. One thing I included was a slight 'twist' in the keel strut (The 'lift foil' supporting the 4 tonne lead bulb). That seemed bizarre to most but it allowed fast 'footing off' on port tack and extra 'pointing' ability on starboard. Experience and thought will reveal the advantages. I wonder if 'Bluenose' had the same by accident!?
I'll now see...
view entire post
John,
That's mind blowing. I didn't know. One thing I included was a slight 'twist' in the keel strut (The 'lift foil' supporting the 4 tonne lead bulb). That seemed bizarre to most but it allowed fast 'footing off' on port tack and extra 'pointing' ability on starboard. Experience and thought will reveal the advantages. I wonder if 'Bluenose' had the same by accident!?
I'll now see 'heads' and 'tails' in a new asymmetric light! I wonder if we can say that one side of a warp is identical to the other? Food for thought!
Eckard,
The boat had a number of innovations, including a navigation station that always put the navigators body weight on the windward side. Established designers called it impossible and couldn't work out how to do it till it was built. That one HAS now been copied! Like all new physics; first it's lampooned, derided and laughed at, then 'proved impossible', then raised anger, then called irrelevant and trivial, then it's self apparent anyway.
But most of the differences are in hull shape, rig etc. Are you at all familiar with prismatic co-efficients and the dynamics of wavemaking? Descriptions can be highly r technical and precise or pedagogical. In the latter case there's less form resistance and wave impact resistance and an exchange of 'heeled symmetry' for c of bouyancy for instance. There's also much not properly understood about water and waves in mainstream (lol). And don't even get me on to wind shear with altitude! (the mast is 20m). Materials are also interesting. The mast is 100% carbon fibre, the hull part, with epoxy. A unique innovation was coherent 'load path' design to acheive exceptionally high forestay loads.
Sorry. You did ask! The relevance of the DFM surfaces throughout. It seems that once the fundamentals coherently line up all else comes pouring out. I know few others can 'see' it yet, but I'm not wasting my time in the interim! I seriously had to buy a new ceiling height trophy cabinet!
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 2, 2014 @ 22:28 GMT
Hi Peter,
It really bugs me that I can't find any atheists to defend their beliefs. The arguments I've been making on other websites are like ambushes. It's kind of fun to point out that the best interpretation of wave-functions is that they exist. Pilot theory is better than the MWI interpretation (which is a funky idea); but the pilot theory would still allow you to know which slit the electron was going through. It gives me great satisfaction that atheist-skeptics who called ghosts woo, are now called upon to eat their words. After all, what is more ghostly than a Higgs field. All of the NDE experiences support the original idea that the soul is leaving the body, but then is yanked back in (Sorry my child, but it is not your time).
Then there is this idea of time travel that has been popular in the physics community for decades. How that was popular with it's paradoxes is beyond my understanding.
So please, if there is anyone here who still thinks that ghosts are a dumb idea, I am so willing to defend my strong position.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 3, 2014 @ 03:34 GMT
Peter,
While my dictionary has only buoyancy, not bouyancy, perhaps I correctly understood that there is no convincing connection between your boat and your DFM. Nonetheless your hint to proponents of the pilot wave idea challenged me to deal with some questions that I consider foundational.
Thanks, Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jul. 3, 2014 @ 13:23 GMT
Eckard,
If you want some obvious simplistic 'direct connection' there are of course none, yet each innovations used is the ultimate consequence of the understanding of nature suggested by discrete field dynamics and it's implications. Many are asymmetries, some complex. I'll pick one; rig asymmetric 'twistability', connected to proper understanding of the M&M finding however...
view entire post
Eckard,
If you want some obvious simplistic 'direct connection' there are of course none, yet each innovations used is the ultimate consequence of the understanding of nature suggested by discrete field dynamics and it's implications. Many are asymmetries, some complex. I'll pick one; rig asymmetric 'twistability', connected to proper understanding of the M&M finding however distantly.
The finding wasn't 'nul' it was small. The DFM's progressive 'extinction' of light's old vector through the atmosphere (consistent with J.D Jackson) clearly predicts that the atmospheric scintillation and birefringence found (aberrations) would increase with altitude. The 2012 'Much ado..' essay explains how this is a 'rotation' of the optical axis away from the wavefront normal. All evidence supports this revolutionary hypothesis!
The implication is that as height increased towards the HST to apparent position of stars changes, moving 'back' wrt Earth's orbital path. That finally derives 'Stellar Aberration' free of conserved 'ballistic' photons! Dayton Miller found the 'anomalous' change at various heights up Mount Wilson, never explained, but exactly as the DFM now predicts. Note the SPEED as well as direction changes due to the increasing effect of medium refractive index 'n' (more interactions).
Now imagine a tower with sensors top and bottom. The angle at the top is different to that at the bottom. There will then be an apparent 'twist' with altitude. Now also add DF Dynamics; If the tower is in a different inertial rest frame (it's moving laterally). There will than be an ADDITIONAL 'twist' of vector due to the relative v of the systems. That effect works both with moving towers and moving media (called 'wind' in the ground rest frame). That gives a complex tortional dynamic with a number of additive variables (i.e. the tower relative v and direction).
Now that complex tortional dynamic is directly applicable to the relationship between the air itself and the tower, with additional elements of non vertical 'wind' components and air density changes with both altitude and temperature. Now substitute a 60ft yacht mast for the tower and solve for any relative vector. Clearly that's complex (though much helped by the sensitive masthead instruments race yachts carry - Google B&G) so I'll skip to the bottom line;
A set of sails has a natural 'twist', equal on each tack (min ~35 degrees each side of the wind direction). For optimum setting and boatspeed this needs to be significantly DIFFERENT on each tack, and vary with six other variables. The basic finding has been confirmed empirically and is well known by top yachtsmen, but is poorly understood, and only allowed for by guesswork, looking at little woollen 'tell tales' on the sail! and changing sheet tensions and other setting on EACH tack ('trimming') which all takes time. Understanding the dynamics allowed the 'standing' rig to be set up in such a way as to do most of the job automatically not only makes the boat faster but allows the trimmer to focus on his job, which is faster still in getting back up to speed after each tack.
That belies current assumptions and is dismissed by the 'establishment', yet it can average a ~1/4 boatlength difference on every tack. With say 100 tacks that 25 lengths is often alone the difference between 1st and off the podium.
Well you did ask! And you still often lack trust so make false assumptions if not spelt out. Just ask if anything needs clarifying. (I did also do a paper on the multiple inertial frames involved if you'd like a link).
Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 3, 2014 @ 15:23 GMT
Pete,
Implication; by definition is not a direct correlation. And while citing numerous possible implications of applicability might serve to increase interest in any body of work, it can also confuse the reader's comprehension of the central premise. It is not a matter of trust but rather one of presentation.
A friend made a gift to me of Peter Galison's "Empires of Time - Einstein's Clocks, Poincare's Maps" 2001 W.W.Norton & Co.,Inc. which is a well researched historical treatment of the developing thinking that lead to the theories of Relativity, and which demonstrates how firmly rooted that philosophical movement was in the very practical industrial age. Far from being a bored patent clerk with his head in the clouds, Einstein was very much in his element at the Patent Office, and his miracle year papers are markedly influenced by the practicalities of patent qualification. In such, reference to implication to other work is a disqualification, and Einstein's success in presenting his theoretical works is arguably due in part to his restricting his arguments to only that which was unique. Keep in mind, everyone with enough knowledge to digest your DFM theory will already have the baggage of their own preferred methodology and reference systematics, they will draw their own implications if your central premise is concisely presented to stand on it's own. I would recommend Galison's history lesson to any aspiring author of scientific papers.
- 30 - ed
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 3, 2014 @ 16:50 GMT
Lawrence,
"I would be genuinely surprised if these turn out to produce the inequality violations."
Inequality Violations produced Classicaly.Did you read this as well as the article? How's your geometry? The model completes the missing link Bell identifies on p.146, by using the actual experimental data not that modified to match the theoretical expectation.
Was it a genuine surprise if you did read it? or can you falsify any of it it?
Thanks Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 3, 2014 @ 21:35 GMT
Peter,
Don’t you run us a rig? The topic has been: Why quantum? Your answer to all foundational questions is always DFM. If I recall correctly (IIrc) you introduced D for digital, M for modulation, and F for frequency or for field (?). FM in the sense of frequency modulation is familiar to me. It encodes a signal by varying the instantaneous frequency of a carrier wave. DF in the sense of digital field would remind me of finite element methods (FEM). In all, your lack of modesty reminds me of Archimedes Plutonium.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 10:46 GMT
Eckard,
It seems in nature things 'are what they are'. The discrete and helical nature of field dynamics has proved a universal truth. I can't see it's 'immodest' to identify truths or applications. The helical dynamic applies to the case of a yacht rig and recognising that has made the boat detectably faster.
I have proved that experimentally beyond any doubt, demonstrating that...
view entire post
Eckard,
It seems in nature things 'are what they are'. The discrete and helical nature of field dynamics has proved a universal truth. I can't see it's 'immodest' to identify truths or applications. The helical dynamic applies to the case of a yacht rig and recognising that has made the boat detectably faster.
I have proved that experimentally beyond any doubt, demonstrating that those who dismiss the theory as nonsense are wrong. Now you have joined them. Somehow my surprise at mankind's analytical limitations reduces all the time. The troglodytes insist it's my "genius as a yachtsman" that makes it always win. it's me insisting it is NOT, which is surely the diametric opposite to 'immodesty!!' Are you now joining them? or can you see the validity of the dynamic.
The 'velocity gradient' of wind is well understood, as due to surface drag. The relative 'apparent wind' vector effect, different on each tack, is also well known, but less well understood. Discrete field dynamics directly rationalises the effect; The wind at each altitude is in a slightly different 'inertial frame' so from a single observer rest frame (the mast) the direction 'measured' is 'rotated' with altitude. Do you suggest that doesn't make sense??
Have you yet checked out Dayton Millers Mount Wilson findings? (ins 1933 paper) (see also quotes below) Do you challenge them? Or have another explanation?
Best wishes
Peter
"the indicated effect was not zero; the sensitivity of the apparatus was such that the conclusion, published in 1887, stated that the observed relative motion of the earth and aether did not exceed one-fourth of the Earth's orbital velocity. This is quite different from a null effect now so frequently imputed to this experiment by the writers on Relativity.
Miller showed that there is a systematic effect in the original M-M data indicating a speed of the Earth relative to the Aether of 8.8 km/s for the noon observations and 8.0 km/s for the evening observations. He believed that the aether was entrained ("dragged along") by the earth.' (yet he couldn't explain the altitude deviations).
After years of careful experimentation, Miller indeed found a systematic deviation from the null result predicted by special relativity, which greatly embarrassed Einstein and his followers. Einstein tried to explain it away as an artifact of temperature variation, but Miller had taken great care to avoid precisely that kind of error. Miller told the Cleveland Plain Dealer on January 27, 1926,
"The trouble with Professor Einstein is that he knows nothing about my results. ... He ought to give me credit for knowing that temperature differences would affect the results. He wrote to me in November suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no allowance for temperature."
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 11:35 GMT
Peter,
There are abbreviations like MRT for something undoubtedly convincing: magnet resonance tomography. Engineers can easily imagine an (allegedly entangled) pair of helical waves/particles having the same sign of polarization if considered along x but opposite signs relative to r. In so far our ideas might be close to each other. However, I criticize your abbreviation DFM for several reasons. Google and Yahoo indicate: It is not even known among scientists except for a very few here at FQXi. You used it abundantly and always in connection with claims that are not compellingly formulated. Your argumentation sees allies everywhere while those who don’t understand you are troglodytes.
I did not yet deal with the measurements by Dayton Miller for two reasons: The null result was confirmed with numerous more accurate measurements, and I found out that it was to be expected if ideally empty space is understood not as a medium but as distances.
I also maintain that there might be a basic flaw to be found in all interpretations of experiments from which the paradoxical aspects of QM were derived. Why are you not interested in the logical flaws concerning infinite numbers, ict, and ih?
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 17:42 GMT
Eckard,
"..there might be a basic flaw to be found in all interpretations of experiments from which the paradoxical aspects of QM were derived."
I agree. The flaw is what I've identified. It's known that modulator magnetic field orientation is rotated with 'setting'. What is NOT accepted is that the field electron orientation modulates the 'photon' orientation. The problem is that as...
view entire post
Eckard,
"..there might be a basic flaw to be found in all interpretations of experiments from which the paradoxical aspects of QM were derived."
I agree. The flaw is what I've identified. It's known that modulator magnetic field orientation is rotated with 'setting'. What is NOT accepted is that the field electron orientation modulates the 'photon' orientation. The problem is that as the 'up'/'down' is random, reversing a whole set would NOT change any statistical results!
If we accept the particles ARE rotated, then all the spooky nonsense goes away. Bell actually found that himself (p.146) but couldn't work out how the 'intermediate' distributions could be found so declared; "No. It cannot be done." The orbital velocity distribution with latitude in my essay now shows it CAN be done. But the problem seems to be more about 'indoctrination'. The geometry was a simpler task.
I know I'll get, and expect, no credit. If I'm mentioned at all it'd be as the guy who couldn't explain the obvious workings of nature to all but a few! I have to plead guilty in advance. And I don't at all mind spelling out 'discrete field model' each time for you if you prefer Eckard. I'll otherwise try to use convention.
I note with interest your reference to; 'confirmed null results', which are new to me. I'm only familiar with the very many non 'null' ones (including M&M) or the few clearly inapplicable or wrongly interpreted. I'm surprised but very interested in studying them. Do please post links. Millers results have been well confirmed (but his spat with Einstein led to neglect) and all astronomical analysis including the barycentric ecliptic plane transition supports them.
Atmospheric refraction is now well established and quantified precisely at all declinations. The refraction process doesn't need any 'ether' to work. Certainly there is real; 'distance' but clearly the state of motion of scattering particles in the solar system relates to the suns rest frame, yet those around Earth relate to Earth's. (We also know from probes that beyond the ionosphere signal speed is c in the Sun's frame, not ours). Are you suggesting otherwise?!
I agree about numbers, discussing what I found as the critical cases in my 2013 essay. Bell predicted that 'solving' his theorem/QM wasn't possible from the front but may be 'from the back'. That falls in with the 'picture' I see of the crowd trying to enter the great 'vault' of natures secrets. I went round the back and found a loose panel. The contents I can reach are entirely paradox free, clear and beautiful. But no amount of calling to those at the front will distract each from his own beliefs long enough to come around and look properly.
I'm now relaxed about it, and still suggest; 'perhaps by 2020'. I don't call all "those who don't understand" troglodytes (I do my best to help) but I do those who refuse to try as they're too steeped in the "decades of indoctrination" referred by Goldstein, or solely on their own views. We must each follow our path, but many seem to go that way!
Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 19:48 GMT
Pete,
"What is NOT accepted is that the field electron orientation modulates the photon orientation."
As Tom and I had touched on some while back, this lack of correlation is a result of the ad hoc nature of Bohr's 'quantum leap' that theoretically occurs across the orbitals instantaneously, which not only violates the 'c' postulate accepted in all else in QM, but isolates artificially the emission source from the photonic emission wave characteristics. And that isolation then extends mathematically to emission from any free electron. This, I think, is the original flaw in Quantum Mechanics.
While I follow your arguments to some extent, I question your reliance on all interactions being exclusively 'absorption : re-emission' events rather than there being a quantum probability that some will be that, while others will be 'near-miss' field effect events. And I would imagine as an electrical engineer, this confuses Eckard from delving too deeply into your other arguments. It is a stumbling block if one accepts the hypothesis that the reason we have Quantum Probabilities is because a free rest mass IS a Unified Field for which science has yet to devise an accepted, mathematically complete theoretical description. Personally, I think Einstein missed the boat in not giving GR it's own legs and going back to treating gravity as a force in determining what portion of energy in a unified field will exhibit only gravitational characteristics. There is no known causal relationship for the Gravitational Constant, and any use of differential calculus introduces infinitesimals, so it perhaps is not surprising that singularities and Big Bangs result from GR without an ad hoc Cosmological Constant.
Live long and progress, jrc
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 20:27 GMT
John C,
Maybe gravity isn't its own force, but a loss of volume/increasing density of the field, due to a spectrum of other relations and forces? A simple observation that light/radiation expands, while mass contracts. Do we look for the force causing light to expand out? Not really. It's just the consequence of released energy. As with the structure of mass, there are a range of processes going on, from magnetism to structural ordering, which condense it to a smaller volume. Could it be that gravity is not simply just a composite of these effects, but all of them working together in an overall relation?
So then the effective way to model it is as the space itself shrinking.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 20:36 GMT
Which also goes to a point I was making below; Does light really travel as a photon, or is that an affect of its absorption and thus an initial stage of this contraction process?
Regards,
JM
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 21:04 GMT
J.C.
J.M asked the right question; "Does light really travel as a photon".
Does Eckard really think it does? If it did then we wouldn't just have "near misses", at EPR ranges it's be like hitting a speck of dust with a scatter gun at half a mile!
The signal expands as a wavefront, as the nonlinear Schrodinger (NLS) equation and as we know from coherent forward scattering (CFS) and Huygens Construction, the staples of optics and photonics etc. well proven experimentally.
That explains why there are so many reliable hits, even at long range. We COULD say there are mainly 'near misses' because most of the wavefront misses the electrons of course! But the wavefront can't get past without part being absorbed.
That all also goes back to JD Jackson, the bible of electrodynamics, and 'extinction distances' dependent on medium density. It's s tricky to envisage a wavefront having spin, but it actually has a whole recursive SET of spins! at all scales. It seems that each electron in the detector field will absorb some of the (harmonic scale) spin and conserve the quanta (spin) while rotating it's axis.
The diffuse wavefron energy explains why the EM field electron is the massively dominant partner in propagation of EM energy, which completes the full DFM unification dynamic as each one re-emits at c in it's OWN rest frame, so implementing local CSL. (SR) One very simple mechanism to unify all physics!
(Ooops, forgot GR; The condensate has a local paucity of energy while the particle exists, so a 'density gradient', to obey conservation law).
Does any of that sound too speculative or silly? Nice to have somebody else to peek into the back of the vault with. Do you reckon we could get that panel off and share the contents all around a bit? That WOULD be progress!
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 23:16 GMT
Pete & John M.
"it's like hitting a speck of dust with a scatter gun"
Thanks, your model is taking more shape in my understanding now. I would agree that 'part' of the expanding wavefront interacts with the field in a near miss and that the scenario is similar to nuclear cross section. Sometimes it hits spot on!
But what is the 'photon'? Well, I would say it definitely is not...
view entire post
Pete & John M.
"it's like hitting a speck of dust with a scatter gun"
Thanks, your model is taking more shape in my understanding now. I would agree that 'part' of the expanding wavefront interacts with the field in a near miss and that the scenario is similar to nuclear cross section. Sometimes it hits spot on!
But what is the 'photon'? Well, I would say it definitely is not a spherical wave. And the terminology must be qualified lest we confuse one second worth of emission as the single 'photon'. It really is not difficult to envisage physical rotation in the expanding wavefront if we look at a helical model of OAM being the constancy of magnetic influence that would be detectable by instruments. Electrostatic influence is a 'c' proportion greater in the same point charge as determined by Maxwell. So right or left hand twist is as you say, observer dependent, but in relation to one another polarity would be dependent on the direction of rotation but arbitrarily assigned as Franklin had done. Following this line of reason would mean that the inertial volume of a quanta of emission is a linear phenomenon and the particle form observed in the photo electric effect is the greatest electrostatic influence while the wavefront in the helical linear projection is an expansion from the electrostatic to the minimum detectable magnetic influence that would describe the real physical cross section of the helix. It is simply that an emission source might radiate photonic helical emissions omnidirectionally which would then register as a single spherical wave.
The question then becomes; how does the linear quanta projection evolve in a physical volume configuration from an excited electron mass? Wouldn't wavelength be dependent on the real time it takes for a CONTINUOUS flow of energy to emerge from the electron?
And of course, if E=mc^2, what part of that energy exists at a density which could be said to be the 'hard' core of a free rest mass?
I subscribe to a notion that the behavior of energy in a discrete mass quantity will transmit primary force effects such that a greater density will exhibit all those effects of lesser densities but not vice-versa.
Do we agree that Quantum probabilities are dependent on there being discrete fields that may assume either an EM physical configuration self limiting to the Planck Quanta per wavelength, or a relative rest mass configuration limited to an upper bound that may not exceed that of the largest observed isotopic mass?
And... onward through the fog! jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 5, 2014 @ 09:26 GMT
Peter J,
Engineers like me know that any standing wave can be interpreted as two superimposed waves that propagate in opposite direction, and vice versa. Obviously, there are no strictly speaking standing waves in reality but an average over many cycles rather than infinitely much of cycles.
Also, a linear polarized transverse wave can be interpreted as superposition of a clockwise and an anti-clockwise spinning wave, and vice versa, cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_polarization
Can polarization be attributed to particles? If so, why wasn’t spinning explained accordingly? Is this question at the hearth of your objection?
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 5, 2014 @ 10:16 GMT
Peter, John C, Eckard,
Isn't light as a wave essentially holographic and the quantization more a function of the reception, so that the issues of entanglement/non-locality are essentially the same properties which allow two people in different directions to observe the same event? A function of the information being carried.
Then gravity as a measure of this collapsing wave, such that why gravity waves can't be detected is because they are the information being carried by light and its reception as a contraction of the energy?
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 5, 2014 @ 12:18 GMT
John,
"Wouldn't wavelength be dependent on the real time it takes for a CONTINUOUS flow of energy to emerge from the electron?"
Yes, or rather a 'cycle', which the propagates at c wrt each electrons centre of mass rest frame.
The physical analogy of the NLS equation (which has a 'spread function') is perhaps spherical but the emission energy is highly FOCUSSED on the same axis as the charge (plasma doesn't refract except 'kinetically' if moving sideways during the process, which explains 'kinetic reverse refraction' and 'stellar aberration'.
Many of these are propagating from many electrons. The 'energy is only requantised at constructive interference 'peaks' or where impacting matter (another electron, which may be at a 'refractive plane').
The above is really as old as the hills, certainly the Huygens/Fresnel principle (HFP) and Huygens Construction, but QED also has a valid description of the distribution via sum-over-paths. In answer to your other questions and descriptions, I don't know.
I recognised a few snippets but I'm not sure if what they describe is close enough to the perception I uses. Certainly the Planck limit plays it's roles in defining min wavelength gamma and so the LT. I really don't like speculating so only wish to go so far as what's both needed and consistent with a coherent bigger picture.
We need to shine some more light on it. Got a torch?
lol
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 5, 2014 @ 12:45 GMT
JBM,
"..the quantization more a function of the reception". I agree that, but; "entanglement/non-locality" need to do far more. By current convention on current assumptions; If Alice changes her detector switch Bob's finding a light year away must instantly CHANGE! What discrete field dynamics (DFM) now shows is which precise parts of which 'hidden' assumptions are wrong and how the effect found are produced if changed.
In a nutshell(ish!) the new DFM assumptions include;
1. 'Particle' spin propagates on the spin axis (causal wavefront 'normal') at c.
2. Electron filter/modulator field direction modulates the 'particle' spin.
3. The spin direction found is then RELATIVE to the detector spin direction.
4. Orbital angular momentum (OAM) changes with 'latitude' by the cosine of the angle from the equatorial plane to that latitude.
5. 'Measurement' is exchange of OAM on physical interaction at any (tangent) point on that 'line of latitude'.
6. As BOTH parties(cles) are spinning, the relative angles of BOTH are compared and the cosine squared to produce the quantum correlation, which is then also Malus's Law.
That works (Bell was frustratingly close on p146) but only deals with one quantum 'gauge', so at higher orders (the smaller spin helix of the 'twine' making up the 'string') uncertainty ('probabilism') remains so it does not prove nature is ultimately deterministic. However the very same o process modulates emission speed to local c, so the STR can use 'absolute' time and so be unified with QM. (inertial systems are give spatial constraints. (Much of the rest I've been able to reach so far is in the essays).
A lot to follow I know. Do please, all, let me know if you can make coherent sense of it, or which bits not.
Many Thanks. Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 5, 2014 @ 13:07 GMT
Eckard,
"Can polarization be attributed to particles? If so, why wasn’t spinning explained accordingly? Is this question at the hearth of your objection?"
Yes. At the heart to.. 'Spin' wasn't explainable as OAM due too 'spin 1/2' and '2' etc. which took half or two revolutions to return to the start point. That's why my Fig 1 is so critical; it shows that spin can be simply different 'scales' of orbital angular momentum (OAM). Follow the reference I give and you'll see the quite conclusive support from optics etc. A ships rope is a good model; there is twist within twist within twist, then you can wrap it round a spar, then spin the ship on a planet, etc.
A point or dipole on a 'linear polarized transverse wave' may be considered as describing the rope, with opposite 'spin' when observed from each end (all OAM is 'non-mirror symmetric'). Once we can describe QM's 'Q'AM as OAM we can get rid of all the spooky nonsense and derive 'entanglement' (simply the conserved opposing spin axis) and 'non-locality' (Alice doe NOT need to affect Bob's finding to explain the results found because detector field electron direction MODULATES polarity!!
Now just go through the short list I just posted to John to put the whole jigsaw puzzle together and solve the EPR paradox. Both QM
and SR have to be re-interpreted slightly to converge. Each inertial system is real, based on matter, and has a physical 'DISTANCE' limit, not the 'infinity' implied now.
Does that open up a better insight? (There's lots more in there, all connected).
best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 5, 2014 @ 14:55 GMT
Peter,
"Do please, all, let me know if you can make coherent sense of it, or which bits not. "
{link:http://nautil.us/issue/15/turbulence/the-scientific-pr
oblem-that-must-be-experienced]Hah. I have some sense of my own limits. Basically it does seem like you are taking turbulence down to the quantum level and while I certainly applaud the order you have managed to derive, I...
view entire post
Peter,
"Do please, all, let me know if you can make coherent sense of it, or which bits not. "
{link:http://nautil.us/issue/15/turbulence/the-scientific-pr
oblem-that-must-be-experienced]Hah. I have some sense of my own limits. Basically it does seem like you are taking turbulence down to the quantum level and while I certainly applaud the order you have managed to derive, I have the sense to stand on the seashore and simply marvel.
As I keep trying to argue, sometimes the details really are beyond any but the most specialized needs and then we should step back and try to see if there are not larger patterns, that while fuzzy in the details, can still be informative.
One of the arguments I keep making about complexity theory, is that it is not so much the line between order and chaos, but between order/information and energy. These systems are otherwise known as thermodynamics/convection. Keeping in mind that order is inherently static, while energy is inherently dynamic, thus creating a tension which manifests at all levels, as thermodynamics.
As I keep trying to argue, galaxies can be explained by this process, as energy expands and mass contracts. Now when you get down to the level of the spin of individual particles and systems, the main problem is trying to isolate any part of it from the contextual dynamic. Which can only really be done for specific purposes, with specific caveats. The problem is when we turn around and try to extrapolate those models back onto describing the whole system, rather than just the part we distilled it from. Then we end up with ideas like blocktime and black holes, which are approximately linear derivatives of cyclical realities and then wonder what happens if we 'sail off the end of the world,' as our model tells us we will, because the 'physics breaks down.' Yet the order/information derived, being static, must be more real than any fuzzy, chaotic energy. (Even a moving car doesn't have an exact location, or it wouldn't be moving. Dynamic versus static.)
As it is, my head spins enough. I like the little blocks of order that come along on occasion.
Regards,
John M
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 5, 2014 @ 14:57 GMT
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 5, 2014 @ 16:33 GMT
JBM, Eckard, Pete,
We are all at least asking the same questions, however differently stated. I like to think that is progress.
The picture of OAM is predicated on a sphere, or spheroid by extrapolation, and so provides a rationale for the cyclical nature of the typical sinusoidal signature of EM. I'm a bit fuzzy how that works in Pete's DFM. Do we look at the linear projection of EM as successive bursts of quanta each with it's inherent OAM? I am currently in favor of the quanta per wavelength being determined by some mechanism that is consistent with the near field evolution as a difeomorphism from a continuous flow of energy from an excited (energized) electron seeking to maintain an optimal volume:energy configuration. That is quite distinct from the behavior of an electron as constituent of an atomic mass. The wave function of probability as to where and when an electron is measured in an atomic volume is not necessarily 'unreal' if an electron rest mass is physically an optimal balance of energy quantity prescribing a finite volume. The predominance of electrons as discrete particulate matter, the uniformity of its rest mass and charge, and it's stability which defies calculable half-life; all suggest it is an optimum volume:energy entity. As such, it may well be that its propensity to evolve from a nondifferentiated energy 'soup' in the atomic volume gives rise to the purely mathematical probability of the wave function. Bell's 'beable'. jrc
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 5, 2014 @ 20:55 GMT
John C,
Physics give rise to the math and the math defines the physics. Energy creates information/information defines energy. Bottom up and top down.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 6, 2014 @ 13:04 GMT
Peter, congrats on your yachting success and the "unbelievable number of wins". Must be great fun. Your 2-page summary is inaccessible online at http://https//www.academia.edu/6525547/Classical_reproductio
n_of_quantum_correlations_popular_summary_A_. Perhaps, the link has been changed. Please check. I want to repay the favour of reading my paper which has now been accepted for publication...
view entire post
Peter, congrats on your yachting success and the "unbelievable number of wins". Must be great fun. Your 2-page summary is inaccessible online at http://https//www.academia.edu/6525547/Classical_reproductio
n_of_quantum_correlations_popular_summary_A_. Perhaps, the link has been changed. Please check. I want to repay the favour of reading my paper which has now been accepted for publication after peer-review.
Again, God bless you for the
"Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?" page linked. I suffer confirmation bias so I cherry-pick and make some comments on what I took away from reading the page and the very useful links therein, including David Bohm's
1952 paper, A suggested interpretation of quantum theory in terms of 'hidden variables' and the experiment of Yves Couder and Emmanuel Fort, Single-Particle Diffraction and Interference at a Macroscopic Scale, published in
Phys. Rev. Lett., with the abstract: A droplet bouncing on a vertically vibrated bath can become coupled to the surface wave it generates. It thus becomes a "walker" moving at constant velocity on the interface. Here the motion of these walkers is investigated when they pass through one or two slits limiting the transverse extent of their wave. In both cases a given single walker seems randomly scattered. However, diffraction or interference patterns are recovered in the histogram of the deviations of many successive walkers. The similarities and differences of these results with those obtained with single particles at the quantum scale are discussed.
My cherries picked:
"
This new body of research reveals that oil droplets, when guided by pilot waves, also exhibit these quantum-like features".
"
To some researchers, the experiments suggest that quantum objects are as definite as droplets, and that they too are guided by pilot waves — in this case, fluid-like undulations in space and time."
"
But de Broglie urged his colleagues to use two equations: one describing a real, physical wave, and another tying the trajectory of an actual, concrete particle to the variables in that wave equation, as if the particle interacts with and is propelled by the wave rather than being defined by it."
"
Later, the Northern Irish physicist John Stewart Bell went on to prove a seminal theorem that many physicists today misinterpret as rendering hidden variables impossible. But Bell supported pilot-wave theory. He was the one who pointed out the flaws in von Neumann’s original proof. And in 1986 he wrote that pilot-wave theory “seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored."
"
Many of the fluid dynamicists involved in or familiar with the new research have become convinced that there is a classical, fluid explanation of quantum mechanics. “I think it’s all too much of a coincidence,”"
"
The possibility exists that we can look for a unified theory of the Standard Model and gravity in terms of an underlying, superfluid substrate of reality,".
Biased inferences that can be drawn from the cherries.
1. From the bouncing drop experiments and the 'pilot wave' deductions therefrom, the medium, here the oil bath is an active participant in the phenomena of motion observed. The droplet disturbs the fluid bath and the fluid bath disturbs and guides the motion of the droplet. An action-reaction principle obtains, that is, that which can react can also be acted upon, and that which can be acted upon can also react.
2. If space can undergo undulations, that is, if space can move, then it is a substance, and can be the superfluid substrate of reality. As Newton says in different places in his De Gravitatione,"…it is clear that they (philosophers) would cheerfully allow extension (space) to be substance, just as body is, if only extension could move and act as body can";"…space is capable of having some substantial reality. Indeed, if its parts could move…, and this mobility was an ingredient in the idea of vacuum, then there would be no question about it - parts of space would be corporeal substance";"And my account throws a satisfactory light on the difference between body and extension (i.e. between a body and a region of space). The raw materials of each are the same in their properties and nature, and differ only in how God created them…".
3. How can space move? If space can move, can there be more than one place in a place? If the latter is not possible, then the only motion or undulation space can undergo is between, "nowhere" and "somewhere". The universe itself moves this way, from 'nowhere' to 'somewhere' and from 'somewhere' to 'nowhere'. Big bang from nothing (nowhere), expansion (somewhere) and collapse to nothing in Big crunch. With this type of motion, Zeno's Arrow need not move and leave its place its place. Space is a participant in motion and the distance or 'extension', as Newton likes to call it between Zeno's arrow and its destination moves from "somewhere" to "nowhere" and that between the arrow and its origin moves from "nowhere" to "somewhere", the arrow therefore hits its target without actually leaving its own somewhere or place. Such infinitesimal undulations in extension, dx occur in time, dt and so time varies as well, making dx/dt workable in dynamics. Space is therefore an active and full participant in all motion, both classical and at quantum scale. When Peter therefore moves in his yacht from one end of a 10 metre room to another, you are destroying space in the direction of your motion, while creating it in the opposite direction. The 10m is however conserved, so that as you destroy 7m in the direction of your motion and move 3m closer to your destination, you have created 7m behind you from nothing since it never existed. You are therefore a creator, with small c.
Regards,
Akinbo
*Send me that 2-page summary, although I have challenges with electricity and internet connectivity.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 7, 2014 @ 10:33 GMT
Akinbo,
Could it all be
turbulence at the subatomic scale? Basically that's how Peter's boat and the experiment you describe effectively relate it.
Regards,
JohnM
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 7, 2014 @ 13:18 GMT
Thanks John M. Concerning, "Could it all be turbulence at the subatomic scale?", I will like to ask whether what is smooth, that is, not made of parts, can be turbulent?
The linked write-up dwelt a lot on fluid turbulence. Can water be turbulent if it was not made of numerous molecules of H
20? Can a single H
20 molecule display turbulence or does turbulence require a multitude?
Is it still justified today that Space is excluded from Quantum mechanics and its Copenhagen interpretation just because Space despite its omnipresence is silent, uncomplaining, doesn't make a loud noise, transparent and cannot be seen thus appearing
"hidden", when General relativity claims Space can be vibrated and be made
"variable", which vibrations are propagated as gravitational
waves?
What is your take on the 'pilot wave', 'hidden variable' theories?
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 7, 2014 @ 16:26 GMT
John,
I approached it 'top down', so the big picture came first then the falsification; I understand what you're saying, but it looks quite different that way. The 'big picture' model I found simple and coherent said that QM should be derivable classically down to some far smaller limit. That's what my recent work shows.
If you recall that SR is resolve in the DFM by simple electron scattering to c in the ELECTRON rest frame, not some other, then you can see how the QM solution resolves with exactly the same simple coherent model. The electrons impose their will (speed and spin direction) on each tiny bit of EM wavefront that meets them.
Coming back up from the bottom I now seem to have it surrounded! But the real problem is it's entirely self consistent, which is so different to entrenched doctrine I can't see it ever being adopted! None the less I'll continue to try to find simpler explanations.
Which bits still sound incoherent to you? if any?
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 7, 2014 @ 16:47 GMT
John C.
It works all ways; wave, particle, wavefront, torus, or spheroid, photon or electron and actually IS 'all ways' subject to viewpoint and scale!!
Perhaps best think of a 'speck' photon of energy on the surface of a causal Schrodinger sphere wavefront propagating on a helical path while also 'spinning'.
It comes across this big powerful electron, as do it's mates each side, as well as those on the waves in front and behind. The electron may be spinning on ANY axis (so also either more cw OR ccw.)
The speck of energy retains it's existence and axis (slightly 'rotated if the electron is moving sideways = KRR & aberration) but it's modulated to the ELECTRONS spin direction (cw/ccw) and speed subject to the 'latitude' (so spin speed/OAM) of the impact tangent point on the surface. So when it hits the photodetectors it trips only one, and with a 'probability rate' subject to energy.
And that's it! It can be reversed, and it's energy varies by the cosine of the angle of the electron! Shockingly that's all that's needed to reproduce QM's predictions!
Now I could run through a similar description with 'all particles' or 'all waves' to the same effect. The point is that the 'spin' is at many recursive size 'scales', and we've decoded the one at the 'scale of interest'. (that allows the 'noise in Shannon's channel to be decoded. as my previous IQbit essay).
I'm sure we are progressing, but everyone in the world has a different picture! Does that description make better sense?
best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 7, 2014 @ 17:01 GMT
Akinbo,
Thanks. The NEW rev.B 2 page summary paper is now lodged ans should be accessible here;
Classical reproduction of quantum correlations. Do let me know how easy it was to make sense of, or which bits you stumbled over. Thanks, and heartiest congratulations on your paper's acceptance for publication. Do post a link.
(Pilot wave theory emerges coherently there as just one typical 'scale' relationship of a whole sequence of fractal scales, applicable to that scale).
Best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 7, 2014 @ 18:34 GMT
Pete,
Thanks, actually the 'speck' analogy makes more sense of your quantum/causal correlation in that it does become more mathematical than what I'd been looking for, which was more of a '3D+t' visual form. I do not think that being self consistent is a drawback, that is what is often referred to as 'bootstrapped' and lends itself to presentation as background independent or 'co-ordinate free', being that the co-ordinates can then be built within the framework of the model rather than placing the model inside a co-ordinate framework. That seemed to me to be implied in the first place. I'm becoming a bit overwhelmed again in the myriad complexity that evolves in an attempt to look inside the standard model, and even if a dynamic visual form were made theoretically possible we would probably have to track a multitude of trajectories of material points to have a 'snapshot' of inter-reactive fields. Break time, jrc
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 8, 2014 @ 00:50 GMT
Peter,
I'm perfectly willing to go along with what you are saying, but I'm lost on a lot of it. We simply come from different situations and have different desires and goals in this quest. I spend my life dealing with large animals. They are both very conscious and very physical. That is my starting point and area of focus. They don't have religions and their politics are very elementary.
I get so I can physically read their minds, by pretty much turning mine off. They are much more thermal, ie, non-linear, than temporal/rationally linear. You just can't get too far away from the basics of energy and form.
Yet there is an incredible amount of nuance to everything about them and so trying to deal with detail is not possible. It is about surfing the wave, riding the wind and all the combinations thereof, not to mention that the wind you are riding really does have a mind of its own.
While I've been doing this for 50 years now, I'm not a big detail person. Having started out around bossy people and usually finding myself in their company and working for them, I don't stress over all the details, as my talent is just being able to stay upright and stay on. I am not reaching for the stars, simply because there is way too much happening down here on the ground and since most people seem to have their heads up in the stars, or clouds, anyway, it gives me quite a bit of room to function. I'm happy in my ignorance.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 8, 2014 @ 11:28 GMT
Peter. The NEW rev.B 2 page summary paper is still not accessible in this universe.
Eckard, can you still find the story you posted about tailor sewing ill fitting cloth for his customer?
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 8, 2014 @ 14:01 GMT
Akinbo,
Just paste this into Google etc. and click on the Popular Summary B paper;
" Academia Classical reproduction of quantum correlations "
I suspect whoever's tending the quantum world has spotted it and barred the link from fqXi as it's too near the mark (lol). It works fine from anywhere else!
John,
I do understand. I've always had close affinity with dog's. But from where I'm looking your own descriptions are complex beyond comprehension and doesn't seem to fit or emerge from so many findings the simplest most intuitive answer all comes from condensed electron modulation to the electrons own c and spin direction.
Gravity is simply the paucity of 'dark energy' surrounding it as a 'density depression' all the time it exists as a particle. The moment it's annihilated ('evaporated') the gravity also disappears. That seems to fit all and is also how moisture droplets in the air work (the local air is 'dryer' once the droplet condenses). What's complicated?
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew wrote on Jul. 1, 2014 @ 03:44 GMT
It is simply impossible to say with certainty that a wavefunction exists or does not exist because of the very nature of language. Existence is a question of the nature of matter in either of the two realities of gravity and quantum universes. Without a complete and self consistent set of axioms for the universe that we have, you cannot state with certainty what existence really means and...
view entire post
It is simply impossible to say with certainty that a wavefunction exists or does not exist because of the very nature of language. Existence is a question of the nature of matter in either of the two realities of gravity and quantum universes. Without a complete and self consistent set of axioms for the universe that we have, you cannot state with certainty what existence really means and therefore whether a wavefunction exists or not. In other words, the patchwork of gravity and quantum action within mainstream science means that there are at least these two somewhat inconsistent meanings for existence of matter.
Does matter exist? Certainly. Does matter exist with both amplitude and phase? Once again, I say yes. Does a wavefunction represent the existence of such a matter wave? Most certainly.
You say that since there is no measure of a wavefunction, a wavefunction does not exist. But science infers that a great many things exist from just indirect evidence. There is no direct measure of a quark, but quarks exist and we cannot directly measure a Higg’s boson but science still argues that it exists. And of course there is by definition no measure of a black hole, and yet science presumes black holes exist from much indirect evidence. Since we also have much indirect evidence for the existence of matter waves, it therefore seems useful to suppose that wavefunctions also exist and represent those matter waves.
In fact, it is very useful to use the concept of matter waves to represent the stuff that makes up objects. This is because matter waves not only make up atoms and molecules, the exchange of matter waves is the glue that bonds those matter particles together. Quantum electrodynamics associates vacuum oscillators with the propagation of light through space by exchange of photons. Light is a matter wave and that is self evident and light’s movement occurs by a particle exchange that excites and deexcites those vacuum oscillators in space.
Correspondingly, matter waves evolve by a similar process of matter exchange with the same boson matter that is the basis of the entire universe. When a particle gains velocity, it gains mass and when a particle loses velocity, it loses mass. If a particle accelerates due to a force, the particle’s mass evolves continuously. In fact, a particle’s mass is then due to its absolute velocity, which is the speed of light and is the rate that the universe shrinks. Since the universe shrinks at the speed of light, light itself is stationary in the frame of reference of our shrinking universe of matter.
In other words, all motion of a particle is equivalent to a change in its mass. Everywhere in the universe is subject to acceleration due to gravity force, so it is therefore convenient to associate a boson matter exchange with a change in mass to describe both gravity and charge forces. The vector potential of Maxwell’s equations becomes a matter acceleration and now is the unification that drives both gravity and charge forces.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 1, 2014 @ 05:10 GMT
If wave-functions do exist as real things, then I think we should consider that the speed of light/permitivity/permeability is a property of the wave-function, not a property of just empty space. The reasoning would be as follows: the best way to explain the invariance of the speed of light for all matter and all energy is to say that it's because all matter and all energy have a wave-function associated with it. All interactions have a wavefunction that span between interacting elements. Wave-functions are the invisible "existent" thing that imposes the invariance of c. Maybe in a thousand years, we will know how to disconnect a spaceship from the wave-functions of the rest of space-time, which will disconnect the space-ship from the speed of light restriction. This would allow us to travel outside of space-time.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 3, 2014 @ 04:49 GMT
The best way to explain all things is the best way to explain all things...We should not presuppose what mother nature has in for us. Rather we should simply ask what she has to say and then follow her lead.
If wavefunctions have some strange reality, then so be it. But let mother nature reveal to us the nature of reality and not guess what is her way.
You may want spaceships to travel faster than the speed of light, but do not force that result, rather let nature reveal her true self and accept what she says. Clearly there are some actions that are impossible, but there are other actions that may still be possible although unlikely. Let our mother be the judge and let us find out her true reality.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jul. 3, 2014 @ 02:48 GMT
I think one very basic idea to consider is how reality is fundamentally dichotomous and yet our function of perception is necessarily linear.
For example, think in terms of a production line and the product it produces;
The product, lets call it the 'object,' goes from initiation to completion. Meanwhile the production is consuming raw material and expelling finished product. So...
view entire post
I think one very basic idea to consider is how reality is fundamentally dichotomous and yet our function of perception is necessarily linear.
For example, think in terms of a production line and the product it produces;
The product, lets call it the 'object,' goes from initiation to completion. Meanwhile the production is consuming raw material and expelling finished product. So effectively their arrows point in opposite directions. Now just about any 'object,' be it a cup of coffee, or an individual being, goes from start to finish. Meanwhile the processes going on around it and within it, are constantly throwing up and then dissolving these forms. You might say the individual goes from birth to death, while the species moves toward the new, ie. birth and sheds the old, away from death.
We could then look at galaxies in terms of this relationship, as mass forms and falls inward, getting ever more dense, while the constituent, dynamic energy is constantly expanding, either being absorbed by and growing prior forms, or breaking away from and radiating out across space. It should be noted that photons, light as a particle, are an effect of its absorption by prior form. Otherwise it would seem to just expand out as a holographic wave.
Now when we consider this process of constructing the 'object,' be it a widget in a factory, or mass falling into a galaxy, enormous amounts of energy go into the process, ie. entropy. Yet while the energy is lost to the closed process of constructing the object, it is still conserved and radiated away to be used in other processes.
So what then is this thing called a quantum? Yes, it does 'collapse" out of some larger field and is more dense than that field, much as mass is more dense than light. The wave is like that process, but when we measure it, we collapse that object out of it. Much as a widget coalesces out of a production line.
The problem seems to be one of the process of perception. A baby is every bit as aware as an adult, but hasn't developed that cognitive process of creating memories. Much like a factory creates widgets, or a galaxy creating mass, by accumulating and condensing energy and the information it contains. So as cognitive adults, we are very intellectually biased toward that process of creating that nugget of conception, called a thought, meanwhile the process of creating it seems nebulous and not distinct, like a new born consciousness. So we go around in these discussions and everyone has their particular nuggets of insight, which clarify particular aspects of the larger whole, yet seem somehow distinct from the larger processes going on around it. Much like a flashlight will illuminate one spot, but blind you to what is next to it.
Not that I'm questioning anyones particular points of view, hypotheses, theories, observations, etc, but suggesting that rather than trying to condense them into ever more precise descriptions, to step back instead and just let them get a little fuzzy(horrors!) and see if that fuzziness doesn't lead to some networking from which your particular nodes emerged. Sometimes when I let go of a thought, it floats/fly off in my vision, like some spot or rippling wave, or shadow being lifted. After years of this, I sort of just let the thoughts run along by themselves. Horrible for the memory though, but very useful in dealing with animals.
Just a passing thought...
Probably been signed out.
Regards,
John Merryman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew wrote on Jul. 3, 2014 @ 14:57 GMT
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 2, 2014 @ 22:28 GMT
"It really bugs me that I can't find any atheists to defend their beliefs. The arguments I've been making on other websites are like ambushes. It's kind of fun to point out that the best interpretation of wave-functions is that they exist."Do Ghosts Exist?Science begins its universe with a set of supernatural...
view entire post
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 2, 2014 @ 22:28 GMT
"It really bugs me that I can't find any atheists to defend their beliefs. The arguments I've been making on other websites are like ambushes. It's kind of fun to point out that the best interpretation of wave-functions is that they exist."Do Ghosts Exist?Science begins its universe with a set of supernatural axioms just like religion begins its universe and so science and religion do have the common basic need for belief. Science begins with simple beliefs called axioms that describe the universe as the way that it is while religion feels it necessary to further embellish those beliefs with ever more elaborate beliefs in supernatural agents like ghosts.
Science addresses questions without answers by calling them axioms. Why is the universe the way that it it? Why is matter the way that it is? Why is time the way that it is? Why is action the way that it is?
Religion invariably assigns any number of supernatural agents to answer questions that are fundamentally unanswerable. Since there are no unique answers to questions about supernatural agents, supernatural agents are not very useful for science. Axioms, however, are a very necessary starting point for any universe.
People report seeing or otherwise sensing supernatural agents all of the time and people dream about supernatural agents and places as well. The dreams that people have when they are unconscious and near death have been especially told and retold as some kind of evidence of supernatural agents. Fine.
Our senses are subject to a large variety of illusions, delusions, hallucinations, dreams, trances, and so on. We have a variety of ways of checking our reality, but there is a fundamental dualism between what we imagine the world to be in our minds and what the world actually is that contacts our senses. Science helps many of us to discover the world as it is while religion dreams up supernatural agents who are then who determine why the world is as it is.
Personally I do like to personify matter and time as mother nature and father time and so really do not count myself as an atheist. Belief in supernatural axioms is just as important in science as it is for all of our reality.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 3, 2014 @ 16:20 GMT
Physicists like Hawkings can figure out the laws of nature, but they can't create laws of nature, they can't create physics constants or change them. Based on this were supposed to believe that God does not exist? Not a very convincing argument.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 3, 2014 @ 18:28 GMT
It is not an argument, it is a belief. You can believe in a universe that is the way that it is, or you can believe in mother nature and father time like I do, or you can believe in whatever supernatural agents you want to believe in. Belief is just the starting point for any universe including that of science.
Apologists like Augustine of Hippo can create elaborate doctrines of belief like the trinity, but a trimal of supernatural agents is not a convincing argument for science. However, when science creates a trimal belief composed of two quarks and a gluon, we get true magic. From this belief, the standard model follows.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 3, 2014 @ 20:31 GMT
Physicists don't know how to change the laws of physics. That is a fact.
Physicists don't know how to change the physics constants. That is a fact.
Physicists don't know how to create consciousness. That is a fact.
Physicists cannot figure which interpretation of quantum mechanics makes the most sense. That is a fact.
The down side of my interpretation, that Wave-functions exist, is that it suggest that spirits can exist.
But the upside of a "wave-functions exist" interpretation is that it tells us that the laws of physics and the physics constants are being implemented by something that we can't see.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 3, 2014 @ 20:52 GMT
Physicists believe in the laws of physics. That is a fact.
Physicists believe in the physics constants. That is a fact.
Physicists believe in consciousness. That is a fact.
Physicists argue about lots of issues including which interpretation of quantum mechanics makes the most sense. That is a fact.
Some physicists do believe in supernatural agents and call them multiverses and black holes. You evidently believe in supernatural agents as well but call them spirits instead.
There are many, many things in this universe that we cannot see or sense. Neutrinos, for example, can only be indirectly measured just as quarks and higg's bosons and dark matter and dark energy and black holes...the list of stuff that we cannot see goes way beyond wavefunctions.
If I were you, I would pick on consciousness more than wavefunctions for a supernatural agent of some sort. Until science figures out consciousness, which they will eventually, consciousness is an open game. A safer bet would be multiverses, though. You can easily define any supernatural agent as an alternate universe of some sort. Then again, black holes are the outlaws of our universe where literally anything goes, so a black hole can easily be a supernatural agent as well.
You see, you can believe just about anything that you want to believe and still survive as long as you don't walk into traffic or jump off of cliffs, that is.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 3, 2014 @ 22:18 GMT
Anyway, here is a video of a ghost.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ncI4zBG0nc
Now can you show me a video of another universe?
I still think that consciousness comes from Infinite Consciousness, also called God. God creates universes and then experiences them through souls. This whole atheistic idea of trying to get rid of God is misguided. Obviously there are souls. Obviously there is an afterlife because consciousness comes from God, not some stupid multi-world interpretation garbage with universes coming out of everyone's back side when they decide to fart. Honestly, I think that scientism and atheism are so incredibly misguided.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 02:23 GMT
Is this your best shot? Videos of ghosts? How many videos of multiverses do you want to see?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qt-eGKa34M
https://www.y
outube.com/watch?v=bATyoYzlObY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=2Ds47ozzSrU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39qmbl7mpJQ
...
L
ook, I can appreciate that you have a big thing about supernatural agents. Many people do and they do just fine in their lives. It just does not have much to do with science or with wavefunctions or neutrinos or quarks or black holes or whatever.
Atually I believe very strongly in mother earth and father time, and in the matter time universe. Matter time is a very refreshing alternative to existing religion or mainstream science. Matter time seems so much nicer than the elaborate ancient stories about supernatural agents that many people suppose.
And honestly, I could have done a much better ghost video than the one you pointed to. If you go frame to frame, you will see my point.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 02:51 GMT
Jason,
The problem with the premise of God is that it proposes an ideal, in this case, moral, intellectual and judgmental, as an absolute. The absolute would be a universal state, necessarily lacking distinguishing features, while intelligence and its various qualifications and qualities, are very much about distinctions.
A spiritual absolute would logically be the essence of...
view entire post
Jason,
The problem with the premise of God is that it proposes an ideal, in this case, moral, intellectual and judgmental, as an absolute. The absolute would be a universal state, necessarily lacking distinguishing features, while intelligence and its various qualifications and qualities, are very much about distinctions.
A spiritual absolute would logically be the essence of awareness from which life rises, not an ideal form from which it fell. We like to think there is some father figure out there, but we are the apex of that manifestation of the spirit. Quite literally, the point of the spear. The tightest of the feedback loop.
Yes, science is nowhere close to explaining consciousness and usually what it does with properties it can't explain, is to declare them an axiom and move on. There are those of a reductionistic and materialistic bent who believe consciousness is emergent from a pre-conscious biology, but they really can't prove all biology doesn't possess some elemental sense of awareness and we are simply a complex feedback loop of that primal state.
Personally I've had enough weird things happen to me, but if I was to describe my religious inclinations, it would be more pantheistic, than monotheistic. As I described in the above post, Jul. 3, 02:48, I think we, especially in the west, are way too object oriented and a singular God is mostly a consequence of that.
Steve made a comment about the trinity, but if you consider the process by which it came to be and why the Greeks used it as a replacement for the year king, it really is an analogy for past, present and future. One of the really big problems with monotheism and which Jesus attempted to do, is that it doesn't have a natural reset button. There is no real way for the old God to die and a new one to be born and consequently way too much bad code builds up in the traditions. Just look at the three main branches of monotheism and tell me they don't have problems with not being able to loosen up a little bit.
Steve,
I would just like to point out black holes are nonsense as well. It's a vortex. What energy doesn't get radiated away, as it spins ever tighter, gets shot out the poles!! As usual, they are only looking at half the equation, obviously the condensing/reductionistic side. What is at the center is just the eye of the storm. That's why the 'physics breaks down.'
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 03:51 GMT
Hi John,
I actually think that spirits are behind some of the phenomena behind religions. A poltergeist here, some ghostly knowledge there, and suddenly it looks like God is helping you.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 03:53 GMT
Hi Steve,
I'll tell you what. When I leave this world, I will personally haunt the physics community as a poltergeist.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 08:25 GMT
Jason,
We live in an animate world, it's just that humanity tries to sterilize it. The most animate part is our own imagination.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 08:35 GMT
Jason,
And by this, I don't mean we are all just making up everything which can't be explained in terms of physical objects bouncing off one another, When my wife died, it was a serious rip in the fabric of Karma, as the people involved would admit, but that has to do with the fact we are all part of some larger psyche and the actions of it create and define what we are. Whirlpools and waves and eddies and other such thermodynamic processes function at that level as well.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 09:23 GMT
John,
"We live in an animate world, it's just that humanity tries to sterilize it. The most animate part is our own imagination. "
Amen. I'm sorry to hear about your wife. It does rip a hole in ones heart.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 10:37 GMT
Jason,
She was very much the center of her own community.
She was hit while getting the mail. Then as we are all around her house(we were separated, but shared raising the daughter), two cars collided out front and knocked a pole over and there were wires all over the place. I always called her "Hurricane Frances" and then it happened that Hurricane Sandy came through and delayed the funeral for two days, as well as made the weather quite interesting. My phone decided to die and so I had to use hers for a few days, which created some consternation for those seeing her name on caller id. I had to take over her house and riding business for a few months, to get things straight. There was very much the sense that she was not pleased.
It was just one of those things.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 6, 2014 @ 02:49 GMT
There is a sadness that comes into each of our lives with the passing of one for whom we care, and that shows us that we cannot ever know all of the world. There are things that will be forever beyond our knowledge, and for the losses that we share, there will forever be questions.
Why now and not some other time? Why here and not some other place? Why me and not other person?
My sympathies and hope for a desirable future for those that survive, because survival is the key. A strength that we all share is survival from those whose lives have past and yet provided us their strength and their wisdom.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 6, 2014 @ 10:34 GMT
Thanks Steve.
As I see it, the price we pay for being able to feel in the first place, is that a lot of it is pain.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew wrote on Jul. 3, 2014 @ 15:31 GMT
Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 18, 2014 @ 10:47 GMT"Is it NOT 'odd'!? Even to Bell it's "unprofessionally vague and ambiguous" he continued; "Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better." (beables.. p173) I think he was rightly concerned about the "intrinsic ambiguity in principle" and the "complacency" from familiarity with the ancient myths some now believe...
view entire post
Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 18, 2014 @ 10:47 GMT"Is it NOT 'odd'!? Even to Bell it's "unprofessionally vague and ambiguous" he continued; "Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better." (beables.. p173) I think he was rightly concerned about the "intrinsic ambiguity in principle" and the "complacency" from familiarity with the ancient myths some now believe is all there can be."in reply to
Steve Agnew wrote on Jun. 18, 2014 @ 03:14 GMT"It is very interesting to me when quantum theory is called odd by a quantum theorist.
•COLIN STUART • Jun 17, 2014• "Quantum theory is one of the most successful frameworks in science. But it is also decidedly odd. Physicists cannot use the theory to calculate the precise outcomes of quantum experiments before they have been performed, for instance; they can only work out the probabilities of getting a certain result."
That statement naturally means that there is another reality that is not odd and where there are deterministic futures for all objects. In other words, the author has built in an implicit strawman of gravity action as the normal, intuitive reality."Gravity action is very odd.
While we accept gravity action as the common and intuitive basis for our deterministic and macroscopic reality, it is the probabilities of quantum action and its coherence and exchange that allow us to calculate quantum action throughout the universe. Quantum action works quite well everywhere except in the various gravitational oddities.
That is, quantum action works well until we get to the very odd nature of gravity action. There is so much odd about gravity action that it is hard to know where to begin. First of all, gravity is a continuum force and so results in singularities at the center of every particle of matter. Science normally just ignores gravity action at these places.
When matter accretions grow large enough, the singularity is called a black hole. The nature of matter in a black hole is beyond knowing. There is no time in a black hole and so there is no quantum action. Even though there is spatial dimension to a black hole, we cannot apply quantum action without time. This is very odd.
One of the fundamental characteristics of quantum action is in the exchange of identical particles, and exchange force stabilizes particles beyond charge and allows particles to coexist in space and time. Yet gravity action does not seem to have any exchange forces and gravity action does not allow identical particles to coexist in space and time.
While the beamsplitter is a fundamental quantum device that prepares coherent states of both light and matter, there is no such thing as a gravitational beamsplitter and therefore no way to prepare coherent gravitational matter. All matter shows the properties of amplitude and phase and yet gravity action does not seem to show quantum coherence. And then there are the oddities of all this dark matter and dark energy, the big bang oddities, and so on.
Thus, gravity action is very odd.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 16:29 GMT
Happy Birthday America! I am so glad I live here and not some atheist-Communist crap hole.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 17:44 GMT
Free for All;
The peace in belief
in God when awake
is believing
you do while asleep.
In this the Quants
are right.
It's not that God
never throws dice,
he's down on one knee
every night,
he just always loads
the die.
jrc
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 5, 2014 @ 17:40 GMT
Sometimes God loads the dice. Those are called miracles.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 5, 2014 @ 18:15 GMT
Jason,
So the creationist answer to 'Why Quantum?' is that it's a miracle?! jrc
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 5, 2014 @ 20:00 GMT
Random eigenstates are the ultimate back door into God's creation. Occasionally those same random eigenstate back doors are used by ... other things.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew wrote on Jul. 6, 2014 @ 17:51 GMT
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 03:53 GMT"I'll tell you what. When I leave this world, I will personally haunt the physics community as a poltergeist."Well, I certainly wouldn't want you to bother with haunting in your afterlife as you will likely be much more occupied by other important things.
Wondering if there is life after death really comes down to a question of how well science understands the quantum binding between a mind and consciousness into reality.To understand any kind of consciousness after death, that consciousness would still need to be a part of this universe and not a part of some other universe or dimension, i.e., supernatural agents or ghosts are by definition not part of the universe and are therefore just beliefs that people must simply have.
Science understands some of this quantum binding of the mind with other objects including other minds very well but most of that binding remains a mystery. Moreover, it is likely that science will never understand some portion of the binding of a mind and the world and science will need to simply accept this portion as axiomatic.
Science will eventually learn how to read long-term memory from brain matter and science will learn how to measure the connections of the brain that define feeling as well. Finally, science will learn how to sustain the aware matter algorithm of neural recursion that we call thought.
So you may be right after all in that if your memories and feelings get downloaded into an aware matter computer upon your death, your afterlife could very well end up haunting the physics community.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 6, 2014 @ 23:15 GMT
Steve Agnew: "Wondering if there is life after death really comes down to a question of how well science understands the quantum binding between a mind and consciousness into reality.To understand any kind of consciousness after death, that consciousness would still need to be a part of this universe and not a part of some other universe or dimension, i.e., supernatural agents or ghosts are by definition not part of the universe and are therefore just beliefs that people must simply have. "
To say that supernatural agents and ghosts are not part of the universe is unknown at this time. But then to jump to the conclusion that "ghosts are only a belief" is itself a belief. You skeptic atheists keep forgetting that big bangs coming from nothing is sleight of hand. We all know this. It is much more rational to assume that the big bang was an even that occurred in some larger existence that is undetectable at this time. You could say that the big bang was an event that occurred in the ethers, or you could just as easily say that Infinite Consciousness, aka God, created this universe in order to have something to explore, and that God created souls as extensions of His Consciousness. Ghosts are just souls that do not return to heaven (go into the light).
You can be ask skeptical as you wish. You can even ignore a good solid haunting by a hard working ghost if you wish. Most of the scientific community is already doing this.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 7, 2014 @ 00:37 GMT
Believing in supernatural agents or not believing in them are indeed both beliefs. The big bang is also a belief in the supernatural and so is the belief in an agent that created the big bang.
Since I believe in the supernatural agents of mother earth and father time, that means that I am not an atheist. My agents go back to the dawn of humanity and so predate all of the later agents that come from ancient stories. My supernaturalisms are consistent with the matter and time that are both within this universe so I just like you do not have to invent any others.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 7, 2014 @ 03:04 GMT
Hardcore atheist-skeptic converts to belief in life after death. His name is John S. Weiss.
http://www.johnsweiss.com/intriguing-quotes.html
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 7, 2014 @ 03:06 GMT
Article by skeptic and former atheist John S. Weiss.
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/column.php?id=239
489
Steve, you can believe whatever you wish. But I think the most likely explanation is that we survive death of the physical body.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 8, 2014 @ 05:05 GMT
We both can believe whatever we wish because belief is very flexible and yet very necessary. Most likely is a different metric that has to do with probabilities and so is consistent with quantum action. It is very nice that you seem to follow the notion of probabilistic quantum action in the survival of the physical body.
You will indeed make a great physics ghost.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 8, 2014 @ 06:31 GMT
"You will indeed make a great physics ghost. " -- Steve Agnew.
Lol. Maybe I'll use quantum entanglements to move things around in the kitchen. Actually, if given the chance in the afterlife, what I really want to do is move objects around on some atheist professors desk.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jul. 6, 2014 @ 17:55 GMT
Peter J wrote: “Spin' wasn't explainable as [orbital angular momentum] due [to] 'spin 1/2' and '2' etc. which took half or two revolutions to return to the start point. … my Fig 1 … shows that spin can be simply different 'scales' of orbital angular momentum”.
As well known, squaring a sinusoidal or exponential function doubles the value of its argument: 2[cos(wt)]^2=1+cos(2wt) and [exp(iwt)]^2=exp(2iwt), respectively. How carefully did those like Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Dirac introduce QM? The latter wrote what perhaps all other ones also assumed: Frequency (and therefore power too) is always positive. Up to now, the Hamiltonian is considered positive. They ignored that function of time corresponds via Fourier transformation with a complex function of both a positive and a negative frequency. Alternatively, a seemingly physically correct positive and real-valued function of frequency would correspond to positive and negative functions of time in complex domain. Schroedinger admitted in his 4th communications his heuristic way of thinking. To me it seems obvious that they altogether tacitly changed their perspective from a wave function of time to a function of frequency/power without being aware of all consequences. Because power equals to a squared function of time, the scales have periods that differ by the factor of two. Who can either confirm or refute my reasoning? Why were the experiments interpreted in terms of half integer periods? Let me add that Heisenberg (?) originally operated not with the complex wave function but in the sense of an inverse transformation eventually with its real part but they suddenly dropped that step back into real domain without explaining this trifle.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 7, 2014 @ 10:36 GMT
Stern-Gerlach 1922 gave rise to Heisenberg's infinite Hermitian matrices and Schroedinger's equivalent representation as a complex wave function. Schroedinger managed to derive a non-relativistic explanation of the hydrogen spectrum. Then Max Born suggested to interpret the square of wave function as probability distribution of the position of a point-like object.
Is this correct? I am not aware of a paper by Born that justified his detour from the musts of Fourier transformation.
Peter,
I decided to leave the overly long thread and focus on basic QM matters. Nonetheless, I am ready to deal with your other arguments too.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 7, 2014 @ 17:33 GMT
Eckard,
I agree, using 'frequency' was metaphysics as time is not an entity. The scalar wavelength was the tie to reality. The 'ground state' is then the wave
median, so negative values are implicit. I think a new thread's a good idea. I'm happy to discuss sensible physics anywhere. I'll put down a
**MARKER HERE WITH SOME BOLD CAP'S SO IT'S EASIER TO LOCATE IN THE COMING WEEKS!!**I think the 'probabilistic' description is a quite valid secondary one. But the failure to find a logical PRIMARY derivation of QM from classical mechanics left it as the ONLY one. I agree with Bell, "professional physicists ought to be able to do better." As I show in my IQbit essay, the Born Rule should simply allow a wave validity in 3D, which is a helix. Again missing this simple reality allowed physics deeper into the 'Wonderland' Dodgson created for Alice.
But I think we should consider all that as 'water under the bridge'. I suggest the correct solution is before us so the sooner the old nonsense is retired to history and forgotten the better. I've now condensed more into the 2 page summary, including my new finding that John Bell agreed almost the EXACT solution I've proposed, but was tripped up by just ONE wrong assumption, and missed one dynamic cosine geometry (OAM distribution with spherical latitude).
The assumption he made was that photons propagated as particles and not just their spin but their AXIS was random. That caused the problem. If the spin axis is also the propagation axis then the axis (and equatorial spin plane) are the 'entanglement', so the (Wigner'd'Espangnat) inequality he hit doesn't apply!
I hope you'll give the short summary a very careful read and rigorous criticism.
Classical reproduction of quantum correlations. Summary; B. Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 8, 2014 @ 09:14 GMT
Dear Peter,
Stern-Gerlach dealt with atoms. For all those who interpreted their experiment it was quite natural that particles (fermions) don't have a preferred orientation in space. It is seemingly more natural that photons (bosons) have a natural axis of spin, their direction of motion. As usual, the most naturally seeming assumptions were not questioned. Isn't same true for the principle of relativity?
In other words, it might not be the particles that are spinning but positive or negative spin can be attributed to the direction of quanta of energy transfer. I would like to replace the question "why quantum?" by "why quantum nonsense?", why did a seemingly natural assumption imply nonsensical and mystical theories up to Jason's ghosts?
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 8, 2014 @ 09:44 GMT
"I would like to replace the question "why quantum?" by "why quantum nonsense?", why did a seemingly natural assumption imply nonsensical and mystical theories up to Jason's ghosts?" -Eckard Blumschein
Because of all of the encounters with ghosts by very believable people. Because we have to ask if ghosts are somehow compatible with quantum mechanics because people keep seeing them. Because "consciousness" is not reducible to standard model particles, not even in principle.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 8, 2014 @ 09:57 GMT
By the way, to say that quantum mechanics is deterministic is deceptive. While the mathematics might be deterministic, the actual measurements are random. Honestly, that should tell you folks that something fishy is going on with quantum mechanics.
In fact, I would even go so far as to say that consciousness has free will because QM is random.
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 8, 2014 @ 11:36 GMT
Eckard,
"...the most naturally seeming assumptions were not questioned. Isn't same true for the principle of relativity?"
I agree, although "naturally seeming" for some may be different for others, and assuming entirely random orientation of axis but with a with motion vector and in a magnetic field is now known as simply wrong!
Bell assumed entirely random, I invoke axial propagation but random polar 'direction' (clockwise/ anticlockwise). Only Bells assumption runs into the inequality limits!! The common axis IS then 'entanglement', and relates the relative setting angles to give the cosine distribution geometrically from a vector relationship and surface OAM distribution with latitude on a spinning Bloch sphere.
How's your geometry? Do you understand the derivation and massive implication?
The exact same mechanism is what renders SR consistent, the electrons scatter to the LOCAL 'c' OF THE ELECTRON REST FRAME. 'c' is universal LOCALLY, wherever light propagates and is measured' not 'universally'. That mechanism allows full unification with QM, using absolute time, but plus 'relative' speeds +/- v where propagating 'elsewhere'. Make sense now?
Peter
I see there's still an issue with the link. Try just pasting into Google search;
independent.academia.edu/JacksonPeter and; clicking; Classical reproduction of quantum correlations B.
Jason,
Did someone suggest QM is deterministic!!?? I think you may have that wrong! Where did you see it?
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 8, 2014 @ 13:44 GMT
Peter,
The summary was quite helpful when I was able to link it at last. Before discussing I must confess that I am not very interested in how QM is currently described. Using mathematical tools to create all kinds of ghostly effects like a particle being in two places at once. I am however with your efforts to explain the ghostly activities in a more classical fashion. All the best in your...
view entire post
Peter,
The summary was quite helpful when I was able to link it at last. Before discussing I must confess that I am not very interested in how QM is currently described. Using mathematical tools to create all kinds of ghostly effects like a particle being in two places at once. I am however with your efforts to explain the ghostly activities in a more classical fashion. All the best in your efforts. I have no criticism to make as such, only to ask for some education. I will seize on the paragraph:
"
Bohm's Gedanken experiment described a pair of particles, one spin 'up', one 'down'. On reaching distant separated Stern-Gerlach magnets if 'A' deflects up, 'B' goes down, … If magnet A is rotated; the particle deflects down. The particle at B then MUST go up. Therein is the problem. If magnet A is reversed at the the last moment, how can B know without "spooky action at a distance"?
- Is what is spin 'up' in Australia (down under, e.g. south pole), also spin 'up' in North America (e.g. North pole)? It appears some convention or agreement on what is up and what is down is needed ab-initio before sending the particles out to distant places.
- A Stern-Gerlach magnet sitting on a laboratory desk at the North Pole is already rotated relative to the same equipment on a desk at the South Pole. So the question of reversal at the last moment is still secondary to defining unambiguously what is meant by 'up' and what is 'down'.
- I believe that if 'up' and 'down' are unambiguously defined, reversal of magnet A at the last moment will make the spin of both particles A and B to be the same! That is both 'up' or both 'down'.
Using mathematics and statistical experimental results to prove this so-called entanglement will have to be more rigorous to convince me, even if the establishment have agreed to live with the mystical Copenhagen interpretation. I will like to know more about this so educate me if I am wrong, but with less technical terms and abbreviations.
Regards,
Akinbo
*I am posting here because the other thread getting long.
*I also smell Newton's Absolute space in defining unequivocally what universally accepted to be Up or Down.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 8, 2014 @ 15:44 GMT
Akinbo,
Spin 'up' and 'down' are both well defined and poorly explained. Consider the photon case where they may be simple polarity. All rotating entities have BOTH; i.e. Australia spins clockwise (cw) and Norway counter clockwise (ccw).
However EPR considered a constant background or deep space. Fact is, when a particle was split and sent off opposite ways, if one was found cw,...
view entire post
Akinbo,
Spin 'up' and 'down' are both well defined and poorly explained. Consider the photon case where they may be simple polarity. All rotating entities have BOTH; i.e. Australia spins clockwise (cw) and Norway counter clockwise (ccw).
However EPR considered a constant background or deep space. Fact is, when a particle was split and sent off opposite ways, if one was found cw, the other would be found ccw (the opposite photomultiplyer clicked).
That was no problem. But THEN they found that if one detector field was reversed, the FINDING reversed!! (so naturally the other finding a light year away must also instantly reverse!) What's more; the 'probability' of the reversal depended on the RELATIVE settings of A and B, even though out of communications range!! Now that DID defy all possible logic. Bell's proof was absolutely irrefutable.
They checked for all possible wrong assumptions and found none, so 'gave up'. What I now show is that there WAS a hidden false assumption, so the finding DIDN'T defy "all possible logic". Bell's a case was simply invalid. (NO quantum Physicist will accept that invalidity as they're all stuck inside that box. - you should see some of the names I've been called!) Statesticians won't accept it either as it shows their methods too imprecise.
Copenhagen is only equivalent to the detector electrons (think eye lens coating) modulating the EM signal on absorption and re-emission (atomic scattering). (The observer is PART OF the system and influences the finding). It was only the 'interpretation' that was mystical, just like the 'interpretation' of SR's postulates.
That one little gem then solves the paradoxes of both QM AND SR, unifying physics; Light is always found at c (a lens/antenna makes it so, and allows an 'absolute' as well as 'apparent' rates of time) and the classical mechanism produces the QM prediction (down to the next fractal quantum scale of uncertainty).
Thanks for the response. I hope you're getting your head round it a bit more now. Did the above make sense? Anything missing?
Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 8, 2014 @ 17:31 GMT
Yes Peter,
I too see serious implications with our reinterpretation of Stern-Gerlach. Hopefully we will get soon rid of distracting ghosts and up-down issues. Let me just further exemplify what I meant with seemingly natural:
Dedekind's cut - without any chance of a proof.
Einstein's principle of relativity. Read my last essay.
The female genetic fingerprint of NSU.
Cold fusion
Quantum computing
SUSY
Time-invariance of the laws of physics.
Use of complex quantities as if they were real.
Treating ict as a dimension like length
Interpretation of bicep as evidence for BB
In all such cases there was or at least can be a seemingly natural but possibly "hidden false assumption".
I agree: "axial motion but random" either clockwise or anticlockwise direction of spinning. I imagine the axis belonging to the direction of motion. This implies: Without motion there is no possibility to measure a spin.
I just don't understand why you don't accept that there might be an ideal empty space (just instantaneous distances) without any natural point of reference in which c can globally be equal to c.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 8, 2014 @ 18:34 GMT
Eckard,
I would agree there is a natural empty space, but that would make it infinite and absolute, ie. lacking any frame. While physics doesn't like what can't be measured, the alternative, an expanding universe/inflationary cosmology, is looking ever more absurd.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 8, 2014 @ 19:03 GMT
Hi Peter,
"Jason,Did someone suggest QM is deterministic!!?? I think you may have that wrong! Where did you see it? " -Peter
Lawrence Krauss said this in a podcast interview with Rational Skepticism. But it's true. For any potential energy V(r,t), the wave-function is deterministic. From the wave-function you can calculate all of the eigenstates. What is not deterministic, what is random or is beyond the control of the experimenter is which eigenstate is measured. here is an analogy. Think of a potential energy V(r,t) as a multi-layer parking garage. The cars and pedestrians are free to be anywhere in the garage, but not inside of the concrete walls, not inside of the concrete floors. Beyond that, the cars are free to park anywhere they want.
Therefore you're hero Lawrence Krauss has fooled you all. There is plenty of freewill in spite of the limitations of walls. There is free will all over the place.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 8, 2014 @ 19:41 GMT
John M. & Eckard,
Yes indeed, there is such a non-thing as ideally empty space which defies even abstraction of the infinite. But then we are only human, and it would not be a very successful species that had a survival instinct that was not hard-wired to ignore, absolutely, any notion of not being. We can only abstract such an idea, and wonder and perhaps believe that there is some higher order of consciousness that alludes our temporal mortal sense of self.
Back to topic relevant to the article; Entropy is one of those pieces of petrified 'would' enshrined by Applied Physics which Theoretical Physics is not supposed to touch or examine without setting off alarm bells and the Security Staff taking you into a room. But if it were not also recursive in proper time how can mass-energy be physically equivalent, how could energy be matter and anything be a discrete quantity for quantum probability to have an empirical basis? Where I come from you can't go fishing without a can of worms. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 8, 2014 @ 19:47 GMT
John M,
If Peter J and I am correct then this will hopefully make QM less absurd. Is the idea of infinite space as a mere plurality of relative distances absurd? No, I see it rather a most reasonable hypothesis.
While something infinite evades measurement, this does not hinder us to logically operate with incommensurables and the limit of an infinite sum. I am only aware of a very few indispensable basic assumptions. Without causality, our reasoning and our actions didn't make sense. Whether you believe or not in eternal life, God, ghosts, or BB does not matter. Dealing with such, just shared with others beliefs is fruitless.
Space and elapsed as well as anticipated time are useful notions at least so far. QM based theories are said to be utterly successful. This is for me no reason to unconditionally believe in their correct basics. I prefer questioning of the foundations of anything that looks absurd. Can you please deal in detail with what Peter and I are claiming?
Eckard
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 8, 2014 @ 20:15 GMT
Eckard,
I used to believe in the absolute nature of causality. No, time travel is still impossible and is delusion. However, if an event is occurring periodically in time, then it could look like the effect happened before the cause. Because of the mysterious nature of QM, it would be hard to justify an absolute rule of causality. Nevertheless, causality is a very very useful rule. Like I said, time travel is still fundamentally impossible.
"Whether you believe or not in eternal life, God, ghosts, or BB does not matter. Dealing with such, just shared with others beliefs is fruitless. " -Eckard
You have to dismiss 18% of Americans who have witnessed ghosts in order to ignore the possibility. You have to believe in a mistake made by Michelson-Morley in order to ignore the existence of an aether. You have to ignore the existence of the quantum vacuum, the Casimir effect and the Higgs field in order to convince yourself there is not an aether.
You have to believe the *cough* truth of Lawrence Krauss who says there is no free will. I dare anyone to debate this with me. There *is* free will. I double-dog dare anyone to debate this with me.
You have to believe that consciousness is an epiphenomena of panpsychism. You have to lie to your own conscience to avoid what the evidence is telling you.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 8, 2014 @ 21:05 GMT
Jason,
Respectfully, people have politely accepted your introducing yourself to this forum as being a religious minded individual, and have gone off topic and out of their (our) ways to acknowledge your right to personal beliefs, and you have made statements which indicate a level of understanding if not formal education on topics of theoretical issues of physical phenomenon. Please do not divert discussion to metaphysical issues, lest respondents to the forum begin reporting your posts as inappropriate. There are theological websites people can go to for that sort of discussion. We all welcome discussion in which we limit ourselves, regardless of all other persuasions, to matters of concepts and methodologies towards formulating measurable physical processes, and try to be personable without too much digression. We'd like to hear what you have to say about Physics. Welcome.
John R. Cox (jrc)
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 8, 2014 @ 22:29 GMT
Eckard,
What Peter is saying certainly seems reasonable to me. The problem is that I don't have enough knowledge to vet it completely and I know knowledge is a reductionistic process and we have to be careful what gets edited out, as the situation with Bell typifies, so I try to avoid stepping in areas where I'm not entirely confident. If that excludes me from the conversation, so be it.
Personally it seems to me the idea of non-locality and entanglement are issues of how much information can be carried and what are the mechanisms of reception, all very complex issues and then distilled through the fog of human communication. I will stand back and watch.
John C,
The energy radiates out for 10+ billion lightyears, while mass accumulates across only 10+ millions of lightyears. So the energy is conserved, just not in the same box as mass and entropy is about the closed/structured frame. Fortunately light coming from everything within a radius of 10+ billions of lightyears makes up for that loss. That lost to infinity, is correspondingly made up by an infinity that is not otherwise empty.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 9, 2014 @ 01:06 GMT
John (Cox),
Then I have one more thing to say about (quantum) physics. Quantum wave-functions are indeed determinent. There is always a right answer for a given V(r,t). But the conclusion that the universe is determined, that there is no free will, is wrong. I don't know why scientists arrive at this false conclusion. From wave-functions you can calculate eigenstates. The eigenstates are detected at random!
That fact alone destroys all arguments that there is no free will. Why would anyone still believe that we have no free will?
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 9, 2014 @ 01:08 GMT
John M.
I just hunted for a quote Eckard had included some time ago as to how Liebnitz characterized infinity, but really all such metaphysical abstractions that go to a practical application of finding measurement are in the realm of process not mere speculation. Despite your own math aversion your observations are generally coherent to me in trying to define the reality, and don't feel alone in lack of technical accume.
We may be equipped to only abstract ideas of infinity but we can at least do that much. So Pete and Eckard putting their heads together to treat infinity as merely a plurality of relative distances seems like a practical springboard, it does allow distance to be theoretically constructed. Suppose at some arbitrary distance beyond 10+ Byears, light continues to propagate linearly as its own coherent finite volumetric waveform of ,say, 1 sec. by its own clock. It would be a photonic wavetrain 3^10 cm long whether it had passed into a void or a region beyond our observation. I really don't see how that is any different than here in our neighborhood where discrete field volumes of subluminal particles and photonic wavetrains are overlapping and interacting. The scalar increments of time and space in and of the wavetrain would remain the same. In 'crowded' space the wavetrain would be subjected to interactive effects that could be expected to contort the physical length of its period but that would be reciprocated in contortion of its volumetric shape. Its inherent scale of time and space would not necessarily be altered.
So, yes, modeled that way it does make QM more sensible. But it also calls into question whether spactime exists at all, or as a quantum state. But one nice thing about modeling is that you get to choose your own glue. Cheerio, jrc
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 9, 2014 @ 01:54 GMT
Jason,
I don't know either, to me determination is will power and determinism is a physical phenomenon which is not monolithic. Perhaps its a matter of scale, and without a theory unifying gravity and electromagnetism we can't estimate the range of gravitational influence of such a minute quantity as the Planck Quanta in the photo-electric effect, just its energy transfer. I subscribe to a notion that the gravitational field of a EM emission subsumes the electric and magnetic field effects but is not observable because the gravitational field gets 'stretched out' in the direction of propagation, I haven't attempted to formulate a model however. Does that notion of a longitudinal projection of gravitational field effect in an EM emission fit with any of your ideas explaining entanglement? Break time for this Bozo, jrc
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 9, 2014 @ 03:09 GMT
Hi John,
I am so glad that we can agree that determination is an example of free will; and for those who get lots of negative feedback coming from their brain, it demonstrates that feelings, thoughts and neural signals create the illusion that is to be experienced by an observer. But what is there available in the standard model to make an observer out of? For the same reason that transistors on an IC chip cannot experience or a observe anything, the observer is beyond the scope of physics, at least known physics.
In answer to your question, I do think of the space-time continuum as some kind of quantum entanglement mesh such that the entanglements are permenant. I also see gravity as a negative potential energy phenomena created by the entanglements. Positive energy manifests as mass and energy. But that energy is balanced by the space-time continuum. There is equal and opposite energy (that cancel to zero), but the space-time continuum manifests it differently, manifests it as gravity.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 9, 2014 @ 03:14 GMT
John C,
There is a certain conundrum to logic that I keep trying to point out. That the more focused it becomes, the correspondingly limited it becomes.
Now obviously we need to develop ever better understanding of the details, but we do need to keep in mind the conceptual blinkers this imposes. Like a flashlight will greatly enhance your vision in the dark, it also seriously reduces your night vision. Not only scientists and other academics should keep this in mind, but if they began to seriously consider its consequences in a public fashion, possibly some consideration might be given to how it affects other areas, such as politics, which is being dominated by ever more focused, narrow interest groups, to the detriment of the larger public. General and specialization may be opposite sides of the coin, but it is still the same coin.
I know this is slightly off topic to the issue of infinity, but if ever there was a topic which required both a broad and specialized view to appreciate, it would the infinite. It is certainly not fully explicable in narrow terms, such as a number line extending to infinity, but all sorts of continuous functions, volumes, etc, that sometimes just a simple 'out there' is the easy answer.
Then there is the issue of space itself. One point I keep making is that three dimensions are really just a set of coordinates and unless you specify the actual coordinates, it really is another multiple of zero. Yet if you do specify the actual coordinates, then another set of coordinates could be used to describe the same space. Opposing sides in conflicts effectively do this all the time and use different narratives/timelines to support their claims. Which also is another way which physics overlaps with politics.
This then means space is effectively infinitely dimensional.
I think the best argument for infinite space will be the increasingly contorted efforts to describe a space which is not infinite.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 9, 2014 @ 07:46 GMT
Jason,
You managed to distract from what Peter and I are claiming: QM is based on a seemingly natural assumption which might be responsible for absurd interpretations.
Being not interested in quarreling with you about ghosts I clarify instead:
You wrote: "You have to believe in a mistake made by Michelson-Morley in order to ignore the existence of an aether."
Michelson 1881/87 didn't make a mistake. He failed to confirm Maxwell's guess, and concluded correctly that there is no motion between earth and Maxwell's aether. Neither Michelson, who by the way was an agnostic, nor I have anything to believe.
What about the notions infinite and infinity, I criticize mystifying them too.
Being infinite is simply the ideal property of having no end. Expressions like "go to infinity" or "at infinity" are somewhat misleading shortcuts that combine quite different points of view, the mentioned property on one hand and the logical opposite of it on the other hand.
jrc did not just misspell Leibniz as Liebnitz, he did certainly not understand his three degrees of infinity.
You wrote: "Because of the mysterious nature of QM, it would be hard to justify an absolute rule of causality."
Nobody needs to immediately understand everything in detail. Let's nonetheless always trust in causality and declare mysteries perhaps irrelevant. Peter and I are trying to reveal hidden wrong assumptions behind mysteries. Factual criticism would be welcome.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 9, 2014 @ 08:21 GMT
Eckard,
"Peter and I are trying to reveal hidden wrong assumptions behind mysteries. Factual criticism would be welcome. " - Eckard.
The big wrong assumption is that the universe is deterministic. Calculations of wave-functions might be deterministic, but the availability of all of those eigenstates is equivalent to attaching a die roll (as in dice) to every quantum system. The next time anybody says that the universe is deterministic, we should all laugh loudly at them.
You may not agree with me, that is fine. But I believe that consciousness itself can be tracked back to ghosts, spirits and souls. Such entities can "feel" the eigenstates and then exert their will upon them. Very strong spirits can force quantum systems into a particular state or states, which looks like poltergeist activity. At least that is my opinion. My point is that the spirits ability to choose a particular set of eigenstates is equivalent to free will.
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 9, 2014 @ 12:55 GMT
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 8, 2014 @ 15:44 GMT.
Peter,
"
(NO quantum Physicist will accept that invalidity as they're all stuck inside that box. - you should see some of the names I've been called!)"
I can imagine, but forge ahead but be willing to reverse yourself when there is need to no matter how far down the road you have gone.
"
But THEN they found that if one detector field was reversed, the FINDING reversed!! (so naturally the other finding a light year away must also instantly reverse!)"
- Says who? Firstly, who are the they, and how trustworthy?
- if one detector field was reversed (say at A), the finding reversed, OKAY... so naturally the other finding a light year away (say at B) must also instantly reverse, NO IT WONT REVERSE unless the detector field measuring it is also reversed at its location B.
"
Anything missing?"
A whole lot is missing. To avoid distracting from the conversation, I will open another thread for what I ignorantly think is missing.
Regards,
Akinbo
*To avoid arguments about where 'up' and 'down' point to, the two Stern-Gerlach magnets can be in the same room.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 9, 2014 @ 14:31 GMT
Jason,
Let me just smile if someone says the universe is or isn't deterministic or he says there is free will or is no free will. I am trying to reveal hidden wrong assumptions behind mysteries. Sorry, I don't see your statement "The big wrong assumption is that the universe is deterministic" a hidden key that can explain why QM is weird.
With factual contribution I meant in particular hints that may shed light into possibly unfounded assumptions by virtually all physicists of the 1920 decade when the mathematics of QM was formed. I already mentioned Gerlach and Stern, Heisenberg and Born, Schroedinger and Dirac. I should add Hilbert, von Neumann, Kramers, Weyl, Sommerfeld, Pauli, Uhlenbeck, Goudsmit, Rabi, and others.
Even if the suspicion by Peter and me may be wrong, I see any honest effort justified to find plausible explanations to the absurdities around QM and SR.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 9, 2014 @ 15:20 GMT
May I clarify my conclusions using the only logic NOT ending in paradox; hierarchical 'truth function logic' (TFL). Lets a start assuming we're all a bit dim. I find that always works. Truth is just a little beyond our brains, so let's try looking there.
Consider each hierarchy is a different 'fractal' scale or 'layer' of reality. The universe is too BIG to understand. Particles are too...
view entire post
May I clarify my conclusions using the only logic NOT ending in paradox; hierarchical 'truth function logic' (TFL). Lets a start assuming we're all a bit dim. I find that always works. Truth is just a little beyond our brains, so let's try looking there.
Consider each hierarchy is a different 'fractal' scale or 'layer' of reality. The universe is too BIG to understand. Particles are too SMALL. We see a few layers between but muddle them up so get confused. Causality must then be considered separately at each scale. I've shown how 'non-locality' can be causally derived with geometry at ONE (EPR case) scale, but that is NOT valid at smaller scales. 'Free will' needs better defining, but ultimately emerges from the smallest incalculable scale, so we can't know. Even randomness obeys SOME rules! What I see as important is logical resolution at the scales we have EVIDENCE for. (Jason; Please do read my summary to make sense of QM).
I agree with Eckard on hidden assumptions, but go much deeper (2012 essay) following Popper. Rebuilding carefully from more solid foundations exposed others, like the very adequacy of Cartesian systems for modelling motion! The very way that the ontological model fits coherently together without paradox or anomaly is a proof if it's veracity. I've had to drop many of my own beliefs/assumptions as different ones are a far better fit. All mankind would need to do the same! SR and QM, re-interpreted are a perfect fit. But not familiar! An example of the hierarchy; An electron re-emits at c (= "emission theory"!), but as electrons are everywhere it's NOT emission theory when viewed from the classical scale! (and electron clouds MOVE with respect to the electron clouds of 'future observers'), EM propagation speed is then only c locally. It all works, but isn't at first familiar must be studied to understand.
'EMPTY SPACE'. If we can only think of 'matter', then yes of course there may be spaces without quanta. But thinking 'that's it' seems a bit dim witted again. For those without heads in the sand there is clearly more to the universe (80+% in fact) than just condensed matter. All we can do is consider what it 'DOES' which is mainly just 'condense matter' when disturbed! (conjugate fermion pair production - or more lately, the Unruh effect and Higgs process). It is NOT the old 'ether', which "modulated speed" as well as just fluctuated. The fermions do the modulating as we well know experimentally. So THAT Eckard needs to extend your 'ideal empty space' to make it consistent. It then doesn't NEED to be 'more' empty as ALL the paradoxes are resolved!! (c is constantly localised, the evidence being the wavelength Doppler shift). Distance is real and absolute, time is just some 'rate' but also absolute. What we call time 'signals' can be Doppler shifted after emission so it looks to us dimwits like 'time' itself changes!, until we think more carefully.
M&M. I'm sorry it doesn't fit you purposes Eckard but we must face reality; M&M's result was not quite 'null'. Michelson's bigger better experiment (MGP 1926) concluded 'ether', and Millers even better ones found the altitude variations. I disagree the old 'ether' assumption as what they found was the birefringence from progressive atmospheric refraction which we now understand and quantify precisely in the field of Stellar Aberration predictions, and is BIG at
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 9, 2014 @ 15:55 GMT
Akinbo,
"But THEN they found that if one detector field was reversed, the FINDING reversed!! (so naturally the other finding a light year away must also instantly reverse!)"
"- Says who? Firstly, who are the they, and how trustworthy?"
Compton, Thompson, Bohr, Heisenberg Born etc, Shimony, Zeilinger, Aspect, even Bell. As trustworthy as any. Finding 'A' DID reverse, and as the TOTAL findings were still 50:50 'B' MUST have also done so! Mustn't it?... Aspect and other experiments then 'proved' the prediction with 'time resolved pair experiments.
What went wrong was not the finding but, as usual, the 'interpretation'. Then there was also the unique cosine curve 'probability distribution'. Bell proved conclusively that on the basis set out it could NOT be produced with any 'hidden variables' or stochastic randomness without 'non-locality' (entanglement, FTL communication etc.) Einstein Podolski and Rosen objected but even they couldn't find a causal explanation!
A whole lot IS missing! Many thousands of books written!! What I've now done is unearth the wrong assumption Bell inherited, correct it (spin axis is on the propagation axis) and show how the cosine distribution then emerges from dynamic geometry.
The 'same room' is a problem due to small range harmonic resonance 'wave lock' effects well known in tomography etc. and propagated at
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 10, 2014 @ 04:34 GMT
Peter,
What Thompson do you refer to?
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 10, 2014 @ 10:17 GMT
Eckard.
J.J. Discoverer of electrons and their deflection including as 'cathode rays' (and the first mass spectroscopy) Not culpable for QM as such, but his analysis was also flawed (unless you like plum pudding).
Bohr's view was mainly responsible, though somewhat reasonable at the time in accepting our ignorance, it was misapplied and misinterpreted as the most brilliant viewpoint possible! (Bell strongly disagreed by the way).
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 10, 2014 @ 18:18 GMT
Peter,
I suspected that you meant JJ Thomson, the father of GP.
However, you wrote Thompson.
Following Akinbo's suggestion my biopsy did not yet find possible Gleason values of logical cancer in quantum mathematics of the 1914 experiment by Franck and G. Hertz that already discovered what is still most valuable: quantum energy levels.
The experiment by Stern and Gerlach 1921/22 related already to questionable theories by Larmor and by Sommerfeld, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-experiment/app5.ht
ml
Since I am mainly interested in the question whether or not a complex description is absolutely necessary, the experiments by Davisson and Germer in 1923/27 and by Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit in 1925 were perhaps not decisive in this respect.
Can you further clarify?
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 11, 2014 @ 15:24 GMT
Eckard,
Simple things are complex to all who don't yet understand them. I find no complex description necessary.
Polarity of opposing signals shares one axis but is random in terms of clockwise and anticlockwise. The DFM identifies that an assumption that axes were also random in orientation was the error.
Uhlenbeck and Goudsmits 1925 finding of electron spin flip was critical and should have been applied to the case. Nobody did. Doing so is the 'holy grail' (pt.1) as it revises both QM and SR's interpretations to allow unification;
QM's because reversed DETECTOR electrons reverse the spin 'finding' (Bell agreed).
SR's because the re-emission is at c in each electrons frame. Simply apply all over.
And there is the simple foundational 'discrete field' dynamics model (DFM) which seems to house zero paradoxes and anomalies. Unfortunately pt.2 of the holy grain entails human minds steeped in different assumptions and interpretations studying and understanding the dynamics. That part seems rather more difficult any may still take some years. To me the assimilation rate has been surprisingly low. But there's plenty of time for falsification and to find the best description. Do give your view.
The latest optics work is exposing more consistencies, including the hierarchical and 'hyperfine' spin modes, Raman scattering, Schrödinger wavelets and the critical difference between the near far field terms (Maxwell's TZ), all referred to in the latest review of matter wave diffraction here;
http://online.qmags.com/PST0514?pg=33&mode=2#pg33&mode2
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 11, 2014 @ 16:14 GMT
Akinbo & Pete,
What might be an impossibly brief span of time to human experience could be a walking pace to an electron dephasing to a different energy level. Steve's description of superposition of two states makes classical sense when you think (as both you agree) that there is no preferred reference point in space, and there is some of that in an atomic volume. Given that scenario QM might be realism if we dispose of the instantaneous assumption in the Bohr 'quantum leap'. In location A @ energy level a, the electron knows which orientation its own axis of rotation has assumed in relation to the angular momentum of the atomic mass. But during the leap moment, it can't decide what orientation its spin direction relates to other than another axial of itself. The motion of the energy condensing as its mass becomes decoherent during that phase instead of being dragged into alignment analogous to laminar flow by a differentiated axial of rotation. Once in location B @ energy level b, its rotational orientation is again reasserted by relation to the angular momentum of the atomic mass. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 11, 2014 @ 17:28 GMT
JR,
Sorry but I can make little sense of that. There's a far FAR simpler solution (DFM). I'd thought you'd grasped it.
If the 'photons' share the same (opposite) propagation/spin axis, then the angles of the detector settings
can be related for each pairing. (that is effective 'entanglement'). Bell's inequality' doesn't apply as the axis isn't random. Only the 'clockwise/anticlockwise' polarity is random.
Non time-resolved pair analysis can't distinguish the individual pairings so is 'blind', and statistical analysis simply uses the wrong assumption. A result up/up IS perfectly possible as the findings are independent. Caroline Thompson confirmed my prediction of the error in the Aspect experiment.
If you didn't grasp it please do read it again and let me know if any parts aren't comprehendable;
Classical reproduction of quantum correlations.Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 11, 2014 @ 22:52 GMT
Pete,
What no one understands is what your self promotion has to do with any topic of every blog you advertise in. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 12, 2014 @ 03:22 GMT
Peter J,
Already Caroline Thompson wrote: "the „hidden variable“ lambda is simply the polarization detection". Unfortunately, your mixed this reasonable at least to me argument with your advertising for DFM and a deterring arrogant and imprecise style of representation. I hope, many of those who rated your essays high ignored the latter because they understood the decisive argument and intended supporting it.
Akinbo,
Your suggestion of an autopsy inspired me to suggest a biopsy because I see EPR's argument a superficial one. I am still looking for details in the logic of possible mistakes. The excellent and fertile 1914 experiment by Franck and G. Hertz gave rise to switch from time domain to the Hamiltonian i.e. frequency domain, and this led to improper use of Heaviside's trick by Kramers, Born, Heisenberg, and by Schroedinger, Weyl.
Apropos Hermitian matrices, they combine two half matrices. The upper one contains the same information as the lower one: the past and the mirrored past replacing the undecided future. The diagonal "state" is the simultaneously exploded and not exploded, dead and alive cat.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 12, 2014 @ 12:31 GMT
John, Eckard,
It's very disappointing that efforts to expose hidden truths discovered underlying the confusion in present physics, solely for the good of mankind, and by earnestly trying to explaining the science, can be ignored and wrongly viewed as 'self promotion' or 'advertising'.
The reasons for explaining the dynamics in relevant cases are; 1) To recruit help in rigorous...
view entire post
John, Eckard,
It's very disappointing that efforts to expose hidden truths discovered underlying the confusion in present physics, solely for the good of mankind, and by earnestly trying to explaining the science, can be ignored and wrongly viewed as 'self promotion' or 'advertising'.
The reasons for explaining the dynamics in relevant cases are; 1) To recruit help in rigorous falsification, finding flaws and improvement, and 2) To try to find a way of better explaining the 'new' rational physics, particularly to those steeped in doctrine or focussed on other ideas.
I'm also of course producing papers, the odd one of which even actually gets published! (-if I keep descriptions close enough to old physics). I've asked this before, but if you have any ideas or suggestions how I could better achieve the above goals please help me by advising.
In terms of my personal aims NOTHING could be further from the truth that the concepts "self promotion" or "arrogance", indeed finding the coherent ontology has imposed an unwanted burden, so is more a heavy and humbling cross to bear. If anyone want's to take it on and carry it forward do please let me know. I'd rather be sailing!
But what I'm most disappointed about is your ability to completely ignore my great time and effort spent on trying to present the science, resorting to misguided personal attacks instead. That's exasperating. Science is all one. The dynamics I present are unifying, so widely valid. John - please identify any area I've discussed where you think it's NOT valid! I'm very happy to elucidate why I suggest it is and we can try to falsify the case together. Your vague accusation is not only unfair but I can show you is also wrong.
Eckard; I've lauded Caroline's excellent work for two year and been ignored. But she never found the actual solution (if you think your comment 'explains' non-locality you'd better explain how!! - as it doesn't!)
But ultimately I'm to blame for perhaps letting a little exasperation creep in, and for expecting to discuss science. That too is a disappointment, but if anyone IS interested in the science and exposing truth it appears I need all the help I can get.
Or. I ask again; should I just give up and abrogate any responsibility? I won't pretend it's not a tempting thought!
So is anybody here actually genuinely interested in improving fundamental physics? or more properly; our understanding of nature?
Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 12, 2014 @ 12:47 GMT
Peter J,
From many indications you support many of the fundamental assumptions of QM, which is why you are trying too hard to explain this inexplicable. Apologies for using the word 'invented' in my conversation but it is for lack of another term to describe the various seemingly forced and ad hoc mechanisms and explanations of observation, most, if not all of which are absent and are not...
view entire post
Peter J,
From many indications you support many of the fundamental assumptions of QM, which is why you are trying too hard to explain this inexplicable. Apologies for using the word 'invented' in my conversation but it is for lack of another term to describe the various seemingly forced and ad hoc mechanisms and explanations of observation, most, if not all of which are absent and are not required for the wave picture of light.
Some of my queries are to stimulate further refinement of your DFM argument. For example, what is an electron's frame, when you say, "…re-emission is at c in each electrons frame". How does the electron know its frame so as to adjust the value of c accordingly? How can there be more entanglement when things are further apart rather than when they are nearer to each other as Copenhagen interpretation believes, but which Caroline Thompson rightly disputes (in my opinion). Sorry, if my questions betray ignorance.
Finally, you are valued around here. Recall, it was my reading your 2-page summary that made me dabble in this Quantum entanglements and arguments because I focused on the ?second paragraph in that summary. From that I discerned an absurdity in my opinion and from this I find myself planning to read Caroline Thompson's papers as she seems to be a like-mind.
JRC, Steve, Eckard, Tom,
I have lost count of the mechanisms used to explain the inexplicable, from electron dephasing, superposition of two states, motion of the energy condensing as its mass becomes decoherent, electron spin flip, hierarchical and 'hyperfine' spin modes, Raman scattering, Schrödinger wavelets and the critical difference between the near far field terms, probability distribution', 'hidden variables', stochastic randomness without 'non-locality', spin axis is on the propagation axis, wave lock' effects well known in tomography, entanglement, FTL communication, hierarchical 'truth function logic' (TFL), conjugate fermion pair production, Apropos Hermitian matrices, Tomography, optical 'screwdrivers', 'tractor beams', re-emitted 'spherelets', the (single) signal takes both 'paths' and is recombined, etc, etc
Why must we follow the hard route of photon indivisibility postulate of QM, when the wave route is available and we would not need all of these named effects? Why must we be forced to take analgesic (paracetamol, tylenol, aspirin) when we do not have headache? When a light wave hits a half-silvered mirror, half of it passes through and half is reflected since waves can be divided. No need for any of the above mechanisms. Similarly, light can be partially transmitted through a polarization filter as a wave, and the transmitted wave can be blocked by a second filter to identify its direction of polarization. Measuring the direction of one polarized wave can be used to know the direction of polarization of a second in the same room! No need of waiting for them to travel light years apart.
Even the photo-electric effect that we are told necessitated prescription of all these mechanisms is being studied and a member of this community, ?Eric Reiter has carried out an experiment and proposed a loading theory so that photon existence and indivisibility may be a myth.
Regards,
Akinbo
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 12, 2014 @ 15:25 GMT
Akinbo.
I made a confusing typo, it should have had a comma, "The motion of the energy condensing as its mass, (!) becomes decoherent..." but I was trying for brevity. There was nothing in what I stated that was inconsistent with classical and quantum thinking in Condensed Matter Physics of which Wave Structure of Matter is incorporated and in common application in experimental physics and technology. You might find www.spaceandmotion.com of some interest.
Pete,
Since you ask, your DFM is consistent and applicable but runs into the conundrum of momentum being associated with mass which cannot achieve light velocity. It suffers from an apparent lack of any physical property in the helical structure necessary to transmit the angular momentum of 'the photon'.
It becomes perplexing, an angular moment in time orbiting a line. Where is the photon? to have momentum? What's not spooky about that kind of action across a distance?
Later, jrc
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 12, 2014 @ 17:13 GMT
Akinbo,
Eric Reiter just reiterated the loading theory by Max Planck 1911. In unquantum.net he explains: "Light is emitted in a photon’s worth of energy hv, but thereafter the narrow cone of light spreads classically. There are no photons!" Reiter's experiment with gamma rays did convincingly confirm Planck's loading theory. Constantinos Ragazas also advocated for it. I will check whether my worry about an unrealistically looking result by Gompf with single photon measurement can be explained by this theory too.
Peter,
You criticized Caroline Thompson for not yet providing the solution. I have to admit that I never delved into the loopholes of overly theory-based experimental confirmation of theories that contradict to simple reasoning and give rise to invoke ghosts, consciousness, and the like. Can you please specify Thompson's failure?
Did you deal with my argument that the velocity of light in vacuum is not at all related to a frame of reference but to the distance between the emitter at the moment of emission and the receiver at the moment it just arrived there?
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 12, 2014 @ 22:21 GMT
Akinbo,
Thank you kindly. On; "trying too hard to explain this inexplicable" you misunderstand. I tried to explain how ridiculous QM's rationale is despite it's predictions working with perfect precision! I invoke no unproven science, bring in nothing irrelevant and 'force' nothing! but you must adopt the axioms and follow the ontological construction that uses them if you wish to...
view entire post
Akinbo,
Thank you kindly. On; "trying too hard to explain this inexplicable" you misunderstand. I tried to explain how ridiculous QM's rationale is despite it's predictions working with perfect precision! I invoke no unproven science, bring in nothing irrelevant and 'force' nothing! but you must adopt the axioms and follow the ontological construction that uses them if you wish to understand the solution they lead to. That's how axiomatic theories work! You don't have to 'swallow' anything along the way, just understand it. The 'assessment' can only come at the end, on assimilating the results.
I'm confused by your question re electron frames. It seems you have some quite different conception of rest frames All bodies and particles have their own 'centre of mass' rest frame, but only ONE! A particle can know NO OTHER FRAME! A frame is simply defined here a 'state of motion'. Did you have some other conception?
"How can there be more entanglement when things are further apart rather than when they are nearer to each other as Copenhagen interpretation believes, but which Caroline Thompson rightly disputes (in my opinion)."
There can't. Perhaps re-read what I wrote. There is an ADDITIONAL 'entanglement' effect at short range, well know in tomography etc. More homework!! Most assume the effects are the same, thus the confusion. I identify the difference (if and when you get there!) I agree with Caroline's brilliant work pretty well 100% (and have never 'criticised' it!) but she well knew it wasn't 'complete'. She also does NOT dispute the interpretation I described.
However while brilliantly identifying almost all the flaws she was frustrated in not being able to derive the actual classical description of the key effects; entanglement and non-locality or the intermediate cosine distribution. her 'random sphere' idea was similar to Joy's, but with the same limitations. (Joy agrees that his own more sophisticated description still does no extend to an actual theory).
Did you understand from the summary what the effect termed 'non-locality' actually is and how it emerges? (It needed careful reading). I'm working on improved figures, and descriptions if you need them.
Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 13, 2014 @ 17:14 GMT
JC,
"your DFM is consistent and applicable but runs into the conundrum of momentum being associated with mass which cannot achieve light velocity. It suffers from an apparent lack of any physical property in the helical structure necessary to transmit the angular momentum of 'the photon'.
It becomes perplexing, an angular moment in time orbiting a line. Where is the photon? to have...
view entire post
JC,
"your DFM is consistent and applicable but runs into the conundrum of momentum being associated with mass which cannot achieve light velocity. It suffers from an apparent lack of any physical property in the helical structure necessary to transmit the angular momentum of 'the photon'.
It becomes perplexing, an angular moment in time orbiting a line. Where is the photon? to have momentum? What's not spooky about that kind of action across a distance?"
A 'photon' was only ever cited as a 'quanta of energy', manifesting as an 'entity' on interaction. Like many I disagree with ballistic theory. I don't pretend to answer 'what is waving', nobody can (unless you'll accept "Ground Comprathene"!) so just consider motion itself as energy. A 'dipole' is then a positive and negative charge, each spinning, orbiting each other so describing a double helix path through space when propagating, each path consisting of a smaller 'helical path' described by each charge. That is the 'hyperfine spin' of the 'spin orbit' relation found and used in optics. It may be considered as a higher order (smaller) 'dimension' or fractal.
There are more helices at greater scales, i.e. the light may propagate on a planet which itself spins so describes a helical path round the sun, then has a greater helical path through the galaxy, etc. Like rope, the 'amplituhedron', or perhaps even string theory, the pattern repeats. But we're just considering two.
But the photon can ONLY propagate at c (and can be considered as a 'speck' on an expanding Shrodinger sphere surface 'wave') An electron on the other hand has OAM 'intantaneously' as the spin is 'bound', so can be seen as an 'entity' with a rest frame and lower translational speed limit. I like the toroidal model (paired vortices) but considering as a sphere works just fine.
Now when an orbiting dipole meets and electron where is the problem with the (small) dipole OAM being added the electron spin then 'spat out' again on the same axis (subject to KRR) but now with the ELECTRON'S spin 'direction'? That's what atomic scattering (coupling) 'is'! Would it not be far harder to imagine a 'cannonball' doing anything like that!?
There is then NO 'action at a distance' required. The assumption that if Alice changes setting to find "up" then Bob's finding has to magically change to be "down" is no longer needed. Each of them can find 50:50 'up' and 'down' entirely independently.
The nature of randomness means that we can reverse ALL Alice's findings, but STILL find she get's a 50:50 result! That last little gem simply hasn't been understood in 'statistical analysis', which could make either assumption but makes the wrong one (that you can't get two 'up's' together).
The problem seems to be, as Bell identified, that Quantum physicists are 'sleepwalking', so don't believe there even IS any rational solution, so perhaps little wonder they'll just deny and ignore any that emerge.
That was helpful, thanks. Did the explanation help allay your reservations at all? Do identify where if not.
Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 13, 2014 @ 18:18 GMT
Eckard,
Finding QM's logic was an aim I shared with Caroline. But as my previous essay identified QM started as a falsification of the DFM which predicted something apparently 'ridiculous'; that Aspect's finding should have been very different to that reported. It was frankly a relief (I could go sailing) but I checked anyway. I found his (French language paper only!) data WAS as...
view entire post
Eckard,
Finding QM's logic was an aim I shared with Caroline. But as my previous essay identified QM started as a falsification of the DFM which predicted something apparently 'ridiculous'; that Aspect's finding should have been very different to that reported. It was frankly a relief (I could go sailing) but I checked anyway. I found his (French language paper only!) data WAS as predicted, but was 'corrected' (most omitted) to match the theory! That was shocking, but how could I challenge such a 'well reputed experimentalist!' (lol!).
If it weren't for then finding Caroline's work I'd have probably given up there and then. She didn't find the actual classical solution or theory but did brilliantly analyse and identify all the faults and shortcomings of quantum theory and Aspects experiments. I was devastated to find she'd died, but her work was an inspiration and gave me the confidence to believe I was on the right lines. I'd never criticise it!
I'd have loved to have just passed the predicted solution over to Caroline to present properly (no doubt with reams of maths) and use to slap the faces of all the peer reviewers that rejected her papers. So again I was left without the expert help needed.
The actual assumptive flaw Bell adopted and mechanism which Caroline didn't identify, reproducing QM's predictions, involved the 'extent' of randomness and the consequences of using a different assumption.
To understand this in DFM terms lets consider a planet. Take Earth. We spin it up and fire it through space on it's axis, either North or South pole first. We do this with 1,000 planets, randomly 50% north first and 50% south.
We may then split it in half on the equator and send the other half the other way, so the OPPOSITE pole will always then lead the way, still 50:50.
Now if one half of each pair hits a strong magnetic field and is turned around, they will then be led by the OPPOSITE poles. i.e. the SAME poles as led the other way. If they arrive at Bob and Alice who note down the poles for each pair they will then find the SAME pole in each case! But STILL 50:50 north/south.
Think carefully about this as it's very easy to misunderstand or forget. It means that we can REVERSE ALL the findings of either Bob or Alice but NOBODY CAN TELL unless each individual pair is timed and matched. The 'statistical' approach of most experiments assumes we can't have A,S and B,S, but can't tell if we did or not!
Now as the 'axis' is common to both halves of the planet, if Bob and Alice measure at different 'angles' the angles CAN THEN BE RELATED (solving the most important part of the conundrum). The common axis then preform the role of "entanglement."
What nobody previously noticed is that Bell assumed the axes of the two halves of Earth would ALSO be entirely randomly orientated (p146). It is only THAT assumption which means that the Wigner-d'Espagnet (and 'Bell') inequality limit applies. If we consider a photon as propagating as part of a Schrodinger sphere surface then it seems reasonable to assume that the spin axis may be normal to the surface plane.
Bells other problem was deriving the cosine curve. The solution simply emerges from the DFM dynamic; Between each line of latitude on Earth the orbital velocity varies by the cosine of the angle to that latitude from the centre of the Earth and equatorial plane for Momentum, and inversely from the polar axis for spin 'direction' (at the equator there is no clockwise or anticlockwise).
Nobody should assume absolute causality emerges. It doesn't. But 'non-locality' (apparent action at a distance) is explained rationally, free of any spookyness. Of course it does also seem to fulfil it's original task, so allow convergence of classical and quantum physics (a hierarchy of LOCAL 'preferred frames').
That dynamic geometrical ontological construction is what the paper lodged on Academia describes, developing the essay. Has that made it clearer? Do you still perceive any 'shortcomings' It's complex at first but entirely consistent with Caroline's conclusions, and owes much to her that it might eventually just manage to 'emerge' one day for the benefit of mankind. Or are we now beyond paradigm changes?
Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 13, 2014 @ 18:32 GMT
Yes,Pete,
that is a good clarification and goes to entropy occurring in the absorption and emission 'frames', for want of a full understanding of what is physically occurring and the pursuit of which is what your efforts are all about. Eckard's referral to Planck's loading hypothesis has long been assumed in my own modeling and I wonder how close the math involved might compare to that of a Zenner diode which builds to a threshold and instead of sending a pulse back in the loading circuit, but at threshold the resistance collapses and allows the collective potential to pass across the junction. There must be some time element for that event in draining the loaded potential while also being a drain on the resistance level, rebuilding the threshold. I learned a little about that, refurbing a little garden tractor mower which was powered by an old B&S with a flywheel alternator charging circuit that used a Zenner in the regulator instead of rectification through a Whetstone Bridge.
My question about Barrett & leifer protocols is how are they going to apply the 'entropy' parameter in rejecting theories they don't like. Entropy is not an inherent element in the maths Einstein built onto each other to construct the GR model, it emerges in application. Is there entropy inherent to SR? What razor of Ockham's are they going to strop? jrc
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 14, 2014 @ 07:12 GMT
Peter,
I share Steven’s opinion that addressing basic questions is not an excuse for wild guesses up to mysticism. Also I share his opinion that closed systems are always something ideal rather than real. Concerning the cat I already reduced Akinbo’s autopsy to Buridan’s naïve donkey even if this insight does not yet reveal any really basic flaw in QM.
Because the link to your Academia paper didn’t work for me, I tried to understand from your last posting; why do you believe that “she didn't find the actual classical solution”? Before I read her paper I looked at their figures and got aware that Fig. 1 was obviously wrong. In [14] she explained that she was well aware of that error. Bell 1964 and Aspect were thinking in terms of QM, and d’Espagnat revealed the naivety of his argumentation already in his figure on p. 160 of http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/197911_0158.pdf by including separability into the premises of local realistic theories instead of questioning some basics of QM.
Actio = reactio. I question Markov models. Nothing imaginable to me is separated from its history.
Peter, I think you mistook Thompson. She did already reveal the conserved common axis of polarization for propagating in opposite directions half pairs of particle-like wavelets.
Of course, Planck’s, Reiter’s, and Thompson’s thoughts are utterly unwelcome in mainstream FQXi.
I attribute individual frames of reference to anything that propagates including light. It doesn’t matter whether we are imagining it as waves or particles, light obviously propagates in empty space regardless of velocities of emitter as well as of receiver. Empty space merely constitutes instantaneous distances without any naturally preferred location to refer to.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 14, 2014 @ 09:23 GMT
Peter,
I agree with JRC. That analogy (To understand this in DFM terms lets consider a planet….) makes your line of thought very much clearer. Points of disagreement is now narrowed to whether or not there was any encounter with an orientation changing mechanism like a magnetic field. And must the probability always be 50:50? Can the system not be started as 70:30 and measured when separated to see if experiment shows this?
I also agree with you Caroline did not proffer any solution (at least from what I have read so far). But her identification of the gaping loop holes and falsehood in the Quantum theory assumptions appear impeccable, and remain uncontroverted.
I googled, 'Ground Comprathene', the term is attributed to you, which means you 'invented' it?
When you say, "
Like many I disagree with ballistic theory. I don't pretend to answer 'what is waving',…"
Have you not heard in Einsteiniana that space (or space-time) can vibrate? Have you not heard that this vibration also travels at same speed, c as light? If so, why can't gravitational waves and light waves be same but occupying different parts of the spectrum? Pentcho also posted a link to some of Einstein's thoughts on the possible discrete nature of space
here. What is discrete can 'wave' or don't you think?
Eckard,
The Buridan's ass story may have implication in physics. I also saw this quote, "
...a man, being just as hungry as thirsty, and placed in between food and drink, must necessarily remain where he is and starve to death" — Aristotle, On the Heavens, ca.350 BCE
JRC and Steve,
You are right. Much has not been said on the relationship between entropy and quantum theory. I hope to make some comments later on this.
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 14, 2014 @ 10:18 GMT
No, Akinbo and Peter,
Thompson wrote at NPA 2000:"I shall attempt to explain what the debate is all about, and how the real experiments can be modelled without any need to invoke quantum weirdness." Finding QM's logic was NOT her aim. She concluded:
"The scientific community seems to have gone off on the wrong track" and
"8. Theorists realise that quantum theory itself is at risk. Regardless of all the “conceptual difficulties”, it is too “successful” to abandon without good
experimental evidence.
9. “Quantum computing” etc depends on quantum theory being right 28, and the
computing industry is currently an important source of funds. (It has so far
tolerated the fact that nothing spectacular has been achieved. Hopefully the
research will produce useful results – advances in optical computers, for
example – even if the original idea is totally misguided.)
The claimed success of QM rather relates to the discoveries by Franck and G. Hertz and by Stern and Gerlach than to the mathematical guesswork of the 1920 decade which I revealed as improper use of Heaviside's trick.
Akinbo, thank you for the reference to Aristotle. It was already known to me that Buridan's donkey considerable predates Buridan.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 14, 2014 @ 12:41 GMT
Eckard,
Like Akinbo I found no falsifiable solution emergent from Caroline's excellent demolition job. Do identify the reference to common axis so we can track down any implications derived.
You persistently cite 'empty' space, which is a misnomer. 'No space is free of field' (AE, and as now found). Media are simply more or less diffuse. Much of space is very VERY diffuse, but very...
view entire post
Eckard,
Like Akinbo I found no falsifiable solution emergent from Caroline's excellent demolition job. Do identify the reference to common axis so we can track down any implications derived.
You persistently cite 'empty' space, which is a misnomer. 'No space is free of field' (AE, and as now found). Media are simply more or less diffuse. Much of space is very VERY diffuse, but very very BIG to balance that! A galactic halo lenses light exactly as the lens in you glasses as it has the same number of particles. If you treat yourself to a subscription to MNRAS, AJ or ApJ and read a few papers it'd soon become clear why space as 'nothing' is a non starter. It needs to and does do far more.
I agree re 'frames'. As a galaxy complete with it's halo 'propagates' through the local group (at known velocity) it also defines such a discrete inertial system. But where you still seem to struggle is in recognising that light IN the galaxy is shifted to c wrt the galaxy rest frame. Similarly light INSIDE the heliospheric shock propagates at c wrt the sun's rest frame. Only THEN can we make rational sense of findings, AND in line with SR's postulates! But the current SR 'interpretation' only gives anomalies and paradox.
Nobody has ever shown that free electrons and protons scatter at anything other than c wrt their OWN rest frame. Most are confused because they fail to distinguish between bulk media relative v and relative refractive index n.
On QM, I look at it a little differently to Caroline. She suggests "it's wrong", where in fact in reality it's predictions are of course precisely confirmed, just not 'classically' explained. So yes, the 'explanation' (weirdness) it adopts is wholly wrong, but it's finding are correct. The big error is then (as Bell agreed) is in 'giving up' and 'accepting' that it's not POSSIBLE to explain classically.
Caroline agreed Aspects ACTUAL findings didn't need 'correcting' to match the false theoretical assumption, however from what I've seen she never managed to derive the CORRECT classical mechanism ('theory') reproducing QM's predictions; both non-locality and the cos^2 distribution. Or do correct me if you find it.
Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 14, 2014 @ 13:11 GMT
Akinbo;
"..narrowed to whether or not there was any encounter with an orientation changing mechanism like a magnetic field. And must the probability always be 50:50? Can the system not be started as 70:30 and measured when separated to see if experiment shows this?"
Of course. If we start with coins 70% heads that works fine, (or some planets with two north poles! It's nature that...
view entire post
Akinbo;
"..narrowed to whether or not there was any encounter with an orientation changing mechanism like a magnetic field. And must the probability always be 50:50? Can the system not be started as 70:30 and measured when separated to see if experiment shows this?"
Of course. If we start with coins 70% heads that works fine, (or some planets with two north poles! It's nature that insists on 50:50 not me!
To initially prove your 1st bit is even simpler; The modulator (filer/ analyser/ polariser/ magnets/ whatever we call it) IS an EM field! That's what's being rotated. Weihs et al (inc. Zeilinger) even used an 'electro-optic' one, and specifically reported it's rotational effects. We also know from circularly polarised coherent light that application of a strong field can reverse it's polarity. Wade into arXiv and you'll find it all there.
The problem with physics is that we do it 'incrementally', isolated from other parts. All are studying parts of trees in detail but none can see the forest. That's why my studies have been multi disciplinary, and why say we need 'joined-up-physics'. We just need to consistently apply each part to construct the coherent ontology. Might that approach be possible by 2020?
My point about 'Ground Comprathene' is that we ONLY know ANYTHING by it's
properties. We can can call anything any name we wish, it's meaningless, just a 'tag' to hep communication. Sure the dark energy/condensate of whatever is 'something; but it's not 'matter'. So we don't have any clue of way of describing it except from it's properties and their effects. If you look closely you'll see that the DFM ontology is the only model fully consistent with those properties and
effects. But what is 'IS' (the name tag) is completely meaningless!
The model suggests there are no 'gravity waves', only effects which will vary with a bodies proximity, and the at the BICEP finding will be found repeated at a smaller scale in collimated quasar jet emissions.
Also entropy is an irrelevant and confusing misnomer as the only consistent long term cosmology is cyclic. Random a matter accreted to an AGN 'self organises' into two counter rotating helical paths ('helicoil') as in a fusion tokamak. So much for 'entropy'!
Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 14, 2014 @ 14:10 GMT
Pete,
What I hear from Eckard's use of 'empty space' is the practical theorist taking an item out of complexity and examining it on the classic workbench of 'background independant' measure. Just like you cannot cut planets in half. The question is not dependant on your not attempting to examine what the EM wave might be physically, the question is; can we divide the quantum (~h) and build an understanding of the wave without having more than one physically discrete state that would therefore result in the EM spectrum being subject to entropy and decay?
Speaking of entropy, do you have any comments on the article? jrc
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 14, 2014 @ 18:37 GMT
JC,
You may be right, but Eckard specified the conception previously. The bit 'on the bench' is fine, but there's much else to explain, all left in the 'engine bay'. A little like Akinbo's comments about appearing to 'introduce' unnecessary effects, it read to me like a driver looking into the engine bay and asking the mechanic 'why did you introduce all these irrelevant complications...
view entire post
JC,
You may be right, but Eckard specified the conception previously. The bit 'on the bench' is fine, but there's much else to explain, all left in the 'engine bay'. A little like Akinbo's comments about appearing to 'introduce' unnecessary effects, it read to me like a driver looking into the engine bay and asking the mechanic 'why did you introduce all these irrelevant complications around the engine'?
The answer is of course that the whole thing has to work coherently in all circumstances. An engine is really quite simple, and only as complex as it needs to be. At present the effects we call QM are still
'just' too complex for most to understand classically, but
only because most now 'believe' something different. Same with SR. The same simple solution solves both at once. It's just 'unfamiliar'.
Which entropy article did you mean? Have I missed a link? I see entropy as having one major connection with nature; They're both misunderstood. I agree Einstein's '1,000th of 1%.'
Eckard
Yes, I did again comment on your proposal a number of posts ago, but not in detail. Just as one quick example of dozens of problems it would raise from astrophysics; AGN/Quasar accretion, jet speed, energy, plasma collimation and propagation rates etc are all related and comparable. The whole process relies absolutely on an ambient local rest frame (observable vial the halo stars and gas and normally also the AGN centre of mass frame except for the longest jets) General term is the 'intergalactic medium' necessary for many other effects.
The ejected protons densely propagate new fermion pairs at the collimation shear hypersurfaces in proportion to their speed through this 'medium'. This is the same process as all astronomical shocks.
Sure, present theory is nonsense as although light is modulated by these shocks, so often Doppler blue shifted to form the GRB's we find from them, that can't be theoretically assimilated as it appears to violate SR! But then so does the 'speed' of the jets, measured trigonometrically at up to 46c. There is only one possible logical solution, and calling space 'empty' isn't it! It's just unfamiliar. But very simple; Light is continually scattered to the local c. CSL is due to 'continuous spontaneous localisation' (Pearle). But of course things always REMAIN unfamiliar if all are looking elsewhere.
Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 14, 2014 @ 20:02 GMT
JRC and Steve,
I have browsed the article. Peter, click 'back to article' on top of this page. I may not make much comment because 'entropy' as a concept itself is yet to be fully understood and now trying to combine it with an equally controversial theory like QM will only lead to the invention of more mechanisms that then lead to absurdities and paradoxes. I suggest an FQXi grant be spent...
view entire post
JRC and Steve,
I have browsed the article. Peter, click 'back to article' on top of this page. I may not make much comment because 'entropy' as a concept itself is yet to be fully understood and now trying to combine it with an equally controversial theory like QM will only lead to the invention of more mechanisms that then lead to absurdities and paradoxes. I suggest an FQXi grant be spent instead on falsifying or confirming Caroline Thompson's work. It is after this falsification and Aspect's finding passes the test then we can look at a combination of entropy with QM. But JRC, you said, "
...Only in extreme cases is entropy zero". Will the beginning of the universe not be an extreme situation? If the second law holds, then the initial state will be of zero entropy. Can a state of zero entropy be a very hot thing of quantum size at 10
32K temperature or was there a state before that which was of 0K, and thus zero entropy? Sorry, this is moving towards cosmology which may not belong here...
Eckard, I find that it will be useful for me to read Caroline's work again and again.
Peter, the part I agree fully with you is that,
that light IN the galaxy is shifted to c wrt the galaxy rest frame. Similarly light INSIDE the heliospheric shock propagates at c wrt the sun's rest frame…, although the c's may not be of same value, which you fail to mention here although you have agreed before that your c can be any value. To make DFM progress further you must give a list of unknown, yet falsifiable claims or postulates, the finding of which means that DFM must be abandoned. JRC has asked you for one by asking, "can we divide the quantum (~h)…', which I rephrase as, if DFM admits of the photon, is it divisible? List out other claims on which a bet can be taken and on which the success or failure of DFM can rest. Don't be afraid. Einstein himself said, if it is found that space is discontinuous his whole theory of relativity would vanish in the air. He was also ready to sacrifice his special theory of relativity and said so in a quote. So, what is it that if found, DFM should be abandoned? This may give you heartache though if you lose the bet.
Regards,
Akinbo
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 14, 2014 @ 20:06 GMT
Pete,
You asked..."Which entropy article did you mean? Have I missed a link?"
The article which is the topic of this blog. Go back to top and click the subscript to 'Why Quantum' that reads; 'Back to Article'. That's the typical format. Hope you're having good bike weather, jrc
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 14, 2014 @ 21:08 GMT
Peter,
In order to decipher AGN as active galaxy nuclei and GBR as gamma-ray burst, I looked into http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/
Gamma_ray_burst_challenges
_particle_acceleration_theories_999.html which was a pleasure to read while your statement "the 'speed' of the jets, measured trigonometrically at up to 46c" is an old misleading one. Perhaps there is no plausible argument that confirms your idea of "reemission locally at c".
I merely argue that Michelson's 1881/87 unexpected null-result is quite logical if ideally empty space does not behave like a medium; the explanation of the result does not require length contraction. I am well aware that cosmos is anything but empty, and a space that is considered empty for experiments with light may nonetheless contain static electric fields etc.. You still didn't show what could be wrong with my argument.
Already Thompson's comment 14 on her Fig. 1 revealed to me that she understood the common axis of "entangled particles". I will look for further evidence in her text. We should be happily in agreement with her, Planck, and Reiter. She dared called a spade a spade. Do you hope for compromising?
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 14, 2014 @ 22:28 GMT
Akinbo,
Yes you are right, this thread has gotten long in the tooth while not chewing on the topic. I think Steve Agnew summed it well, and I'm going to try to refrain from digression... with one last wild fling.
'...Will the beginning of the universe not be an extreme condition?...'
I'm not willing to close the door on the Steady State Theory, and that is currently heresy. In the 1972 3rd edition of the introductory compendium, "Asimov's Guide to Science" good ol' Isaac gives a typical thumbnail sketch in summation of Fred Hoyle's elaboration of Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold's development, that states that current estimates at that time of the expansion rate of the observable universe would require an undetectable mass quantity to evolve in the continual creation model. The energy creation would amount as equivalent to one simple hydrogen atom per year, per one billion litres of space. Given the 'dark energy' conundrum of more recent times, and the contributions by Hoyle to the evolutionary production of isotopes heavier than Helium, I think a renewed look at Hoyle and company is rational and warranted. And it raises the question as to whether entropy is only a quantum macroscopic phenomenon.
I bow now to the statisticians, jrc
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 15, 2014 @ 08:08 GMT
jrc, Peter,
Thomas Gold was definitely correct concerning active outer hair cells, cf. my second essay "Galilei, Gold, Ren - votes for realism".
Meanwhile I looked again into Thompson's paper and tend to partially support Peter's claim for priority.
While she attributed entanglement in her abstract to "shared information from the source", explained that "the „hidden variable“ lambda is simply the polarization detection", and pointed out that she "inherited [the obvious to me] mistake [in Fig. 1] from Bohm, she didn't provide a immediately persuading metaphor.
I didn't check what she called "assumptions and consequent possible realist explanations ... explored already by people such as Marshall, Santos and Selleri2, Gilbert and Sulcs3 and Wesley4" because I consider these experts too academic as to distinguish between x and r and see the simplest solution to the mysteries:
"2 Marshall, T W, E Santos and F Selleri: “Local Realism has not been Refuted by Atomic-Cascade Experiments”, Physics Letters A98, 5-9 (1983)
3 Gilbert, B and S Sulcs: “The measurement problem resolved and local realism preserved via a collapse-free photon detection model”, Foundations of Physics 26, 1401 (1996)
4 Wesley, J P: “Experimental Results of Aspect et al Confirm Classical Local Causality”, Physics
Essays 7, 240 (1994)"
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 15, 2014 @ 11:56 GMT
Eckard,
"partially support Peter's claim for priority" I don't 'claim priority' as I don't think that way. I only seek to expose truth, and for the benefit of man, not me. I really wish Caroline HAD found the full solution, however she was a statistician. She found all that approach could reveal but the answer was only discernible via dynamic geometry and assembling a number of components...
view entire post
Eckard,
"partially support Peter's claim for priority" I don't 'claim priority' as I don't think that way. I only seek to expose truth, and for the benefit of man, not me. I really wish Caroline HAD found the full solution, however she was a statistician. She found all that approach could reveal but the answer was only discernible via dynamic geometry and assembling a number of components from physics, optics and photonics.
I also don't have your skills or use 'cherry picking' to suit a pet theory. If you took my advice you'd see that apparently superluminal jets are ubiquitous and consistent. It's the other nonsensical 'explanations' you found a "pleasure to read" that are fallacious mainstream nonsense. NASA themselves, showing honesty, have just reported another one of hundreds.
Meyer E.T. et al. NASA. Also see;
Cabrera et al. 2013."Implies real superluminal motion' Thulasidas 2013. And even the Astronomer Royal! in many papers since
Rees, M., Cosmic Jets., 1985What has NOT existed is a 'consistent relativistic explanation'. Pretending the findings themselves don't exist has been a popular reaction, but only mainstream fools take that in. But having a pet theory to support also makes it easy to fool ourselves. I hope you don't. Similarly with your hypothesis. We should try to falsify not construct support! EM fields (electrons) as well as the gases couple strongly with EM energy (light) so though your idea was interesting and original thinking it really doesn't seem at all viable. The 'extinction distance' (old state for modulated state) is only a few kiloparsecs (i.e. recently found at 2.3 in an open cluster);
your link texthttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.1109.pdf
Even allowing for the rife misinterpretation of findings there really are scores more similar effects and findings in astrophysics that make it a non-starter.
I've never managed to find a copy of Wesley's paper. It seems censored! so perhaps he DID also find the solution!
Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 15, 2014 @ 12:18 GMT
JC,
I'm with you. I'm no Eddington fan. In cyclic cosmology entropy is trivial. The cup was originally many particles and will be again before they're something else. That's eternity for you!. We could look at it the other way; Ultimately they may even get messed up so much they'll look like a cup again!
But the 'Law of the reducing middle' says never one 'exactly' the same!
I think that whole tack is a waste of time. What we call in international yacht racing a 'tack to oblivion'. Nothing useful can come of it. If random particles can self organise into a helix (as they do in AGN's an nuclear tokamaks) then Popper must be correct; the whole concept was false from it's shallow 'foundations' in the mire. We have no clue how many 'states' are really possible.
Best wishes
(P.S. I like 6).
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew wrote on Jul. 8, 2014 @ 04:59 GMT
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 02:51 GMT"I would just like to point out black holes are nonsense as well. It's a vortex. What energy doesn't get radiated away, as it spins ever tighter, gets shot out the poles!! As usual, they are only looking at half the equation, obviously the condensing/reductionistic side. What is at the center is just the eye of the storm. That's why the 'physics breaks down."It is really not necessary to say what black holes really are, just what they are not. What black holes are not is a stopage of time and a place that sustains any outlaw theory. Black holes are simply the boson stars of the universe.There actually is a whole literature on boson stars awaiting our evolution...
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 8, 2014 @ 10:31 GMT
Steve,
There are a lot of potentially exotic bodies out there. I just think not enough credence is given to the fact that galaxies radiate light and other forms of energy out over areas many billions of lightyears across. This would have to be accounted for, from the mass falling into them. Then that mass is coalescing back out of that energy, in an overall cycle. My suspicion is that we will eventually explain redshift as an effect of the intergalactic expansion of this radiation, balancing the mass density in overall flat space.
As such an optical effect, it would explain why we appear at the center, without having to say space itself expands, but still assuming a constant speed of light against which to measure it, which is contradictory. Also there would be no need for dark energy, since those galaxies are not actually moving away and the curvature of the rate of expansion could be explained as a compounding effect of this redshift. Obviously no need for inflation either.
Gravity would be an overall effect of all contraction processes, not just its own force, starting with light collapsing from waves to photons and the dark matter issue would wash out with a better understanding there.
Obviously this is light on all the specifics, but while I might not have my nose pressed against the glass as close as many, it does get rid of most of those theoretical elements which mostly serve to bridge the many gaps between theory and observation.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 10, 2014 @ 05:06 GMT
The fact that an electron can pass through both slits should tell you something. In the two slit experiment, if it is indeed impossible to tell which slit the electron when through, then it seems very likely that the electron is not a solid object like a marble. It seems more likely that the electron is wave-dependent phenomena.
The electron is not a hard marble, otherwise you would know which slit it went threw. If anything, it is a projection from the quantum wave. It is a non-solid phenomena. Maybe the electron is ethereral and ghostly?
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 10, 2014 @ 16:34 GMT
I tell you practitioners of physics that the Two Slit Diffraction experiment for electrons tells us that electrons cannot be hard spheres, and there is silence. I can hear the crickets chirping. What gives?
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 10, 2014 @ 17:19 GMT
Jason,
Briefly, the 'wavicle' is enjoying something of a comeback, which is similar to the early atomic picture from Rutherford onward of a tiny, massive nuclear core in a much larger 'cloud' of electrons, or in 'wavicle' speak, energy. So there's one cricket. Another would be the Pilot Wave theory which of I think you are aware. Wave function mechanics ( the mathematic machinery) can be the same for a material wave as for the same shape of 'potential' in a purely mathematical abstract represented by a graphical curve. But the math is not any form of energy to be capable of becoming manifest in any material form. I've got both chores and the weather at the same time, so I'd best get cutting the mustard. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Luca Valeri wrote on Jul. 9, 2014 @ 12:36 GMT
Why quantum is indeed as Lawrence pointed out a metaphysical question and there is no "procedure system for metaphysics." Barrett and Leifer avoid the metaphysical part of the question demanding consistency with the second law of thermodynamics. This is interesting insofar the whole quantum journey started with Planck's equation of the black body radiation. This suggest that the key for the need of quantum mechanics might in fact lie in the second law of quantum mechanics.
In my current contest essay I tried to show, that in order to make reversible microscopic dynamic compatible with the second law of thermodynamics one has to put in the asymmetry of time from additional arguments. I take the asymmetry as a priori condition for scientific experience. A metaphysical argument!
Until now there has been no convincing argument of
why quantum should be preferred to classical mechanics. Florin was able to give 4 "natural physical principles" and one "experimentally justified postulate" to derive quantum mechanics. (@Florin: what is the difference? And please keep us updated when the paper is available.)
My guess at the moment is that maybe quantum mechanics could be derived from the fact, that a measurement system cannot know all his own states (
Thomas Breuer) and that undecidable propositions can be codified as a quantum state (
Caslav Brukner. Quantum theory would then be the minimal complete theory that describes the incomplete knowledge inherent in the measurement process. But I was not yet able to give a precise mathematical description to these statements.
Ironically it would be the reflection on the measurement process that would give the answer to the question: "Why Quantum?". Could that help to resolve the measurement problem?
Luca
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 9, 2014 @ 15:24 GMT
WHY QUANTUM? Here is why...
The photon no matter its frequency is an indivisible particle. This is a postulate of Quantum Mechanics, which if untrue, we must ask Why Quantum? In order to defend this postulate against logical and experimental assaults, and to prevent us asking the question, 'Why Quantum?', a number of mathematical escape routes have been invented.
Experiment...
view entire post
WHY QUANTUM? Here is why...
The photon no matter its frequency is an indivisible particle. This is a postulate of Quantum Mechanics, which if untrue, we must ask Why Quantum? In order to defend this postulate against logical and experimental assaults, and to prevent us asking the question, 'Why Quantum?', a number of mathematical escape routes have been invented.
Experiment already shows that light can be blocked or partially transmitted through a polarization filter. Transverse waves fit this bill easily as they can be partially transmitted through a polarization filter. Light as a particle however faces a dilemma because a single photon cannot be partially transmitted like a wave, since according to the quantum mechanical postulate a photon is not divisible. It either goes through a polarization filter as a whole or it does not.
To now fit the above experimental reality into the quantum particle jacket, rather than query the particle view further, it is decided to overcome the dilemma by using mathematics to reconcile
the observed partial transmission through a polarization filter on the one hand, with
the postulate of photon indivisibility on the other. When a polarization filter is suitably adjusted so that light is half transmitted, it is thus invented to interpret the scenario that half the time the photon passes as a whole through the filter and half the time it does not pass at all, rather than accepting that as a transverse wave, half the wave can pass through a 45
0 inclination. The overall mathematical objective is to achieve at any cost the experimentally observed reality that half transmission of incident light is physically possible by polarization. The cost is high. "
Probability" is introduced as a price into physics because of this desire to make the particle picture fit the experimental reality that is observed and simply explained by the wave-picture.
Further, it is known that the polarization properties of the transmitted light in a wave picture is unaffected by the encounter with the filter. This agrees with experiment. However, there is another dilemma as this can not hold for the particle picture. Since a second trap (or filter) can be set to determine the light's properties, it is invented that in the particle picture, each transmitted photon can have its polarization state changed instantaneously to suit what the polarization filter or experiment predicts for the wave-picture, so both particle and wave results turn out the same.
In order that the photon can wear the garment of ability to be polarized which is logically worn by transverse waves, "
Spin" is invented as a property for Quantum particles.
To next remove the logical need that a particle must at least be in some state at a given time in order to have classically resulted in some determined outcome that is observed, which logic may spell doom for the probability alibi used above to explain the overall observed outcome for polarized light, it is further decreed that it is impossible to know the initial state. Therefore, even though from an outcome, you can infer the initial state, to plug further loop holes in the particle picture plan to be foisted on physics, "
Superposition" is invented, so that a particle cannot on its own even have a particular state, but possesses all the possible states at the same time so that probability can work.
Attempt to determine the falsity or truth of this alibi that the particle is in a superposition of states by measurement, always finds that the particle is not in such a state of superposition but rather can always be found in a particular state. Again to escape this dilemma, another alibi is invented. That the act of measurement is what makes the wave function to collapse (i.e. the act of measurement is what caused the previously co-existing different superposed states to collapse into that which is observed and measured).
There is no end. As more paradoxes and illogicalities are discovered, more alibi will be mathematically manufactured. Some enjoy this exercise. It is not a topic I like spending precious time on because the silliness of the whole endeavor is obvious to most except mathematicians. As Eckard would say Quantum nonsense!
Akinbo
*To distil some of what is written above I have had to browse through my copy of The Quantum World by J.C. Polkinghorne.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 9, 2014 @ 18:58 GMT
More…
A DEMAND FOR AUTOPSY ON SCHRODINGER'S CAT
Niels Bohr and partners of the Copenhagen School will have us believe that all possible states co-exist before the act of measurement in order to maintain the position in which they have been boxed by holding on to their postulate. T o counter this Schrodinger formulated his famous paradox to show the absurdity. By the way Schrodinger and Einstein are said to believe in the same school that God does not play dice. To which Bohr stubbornly replied that we should not tell God what to do.
To Schrodinger's paradox, the Copenhagen partners reply that Schrodinger's cat exists in a superposition of dead and alive states and it is only when the experimenter opens the box that the cat's wave function collapses and the cat may then be found in a dead state.
To settle the argument, since modern science is now capable of using autopsy to determine the time of death, this should be tabled before the believers in the Copenhagen doctrine for resolution of this long standing dispute.
Note that autopsy may not even be required, but just to fulfill all righteousness. Leaving the cat in the box for weeks after the triggering event, may show a recently dead cat whose wave function has just collapsed or the skeleton of a long dead cat.
Am I missing something?
Akinbo
*Peter J, I will reply you tomorrow. Laptop battery dying and no electricity.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 10, 2014 @ 04:31 GMT
Yes Akinbo,
I think so. The cat might be a symptom. I prefer looking for Gleason in hidden assumptions that were made much earlier. The experiment by Franck and Hertz did already provide what made QM so successful: quantum energy levels. Bohr's model of the atom was also appealing. However, it was perhaps premature to take it as a fact and interpret the experiment by Stern and Gerlach accordingly.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 10, 2014 @ 12:33 GMT
Peter J and Eckard, (and Tom, the mathematician if you are listening)
Do you have objection to conducting autopsy on Schrodinger's cat to determine the time of death and collapse of its wave-function?
Do you believe in the quantum postulate of photon indivisibility? If so, do you agree on how a single photon is said to pass through a half-silvered mirror in quantum mechanics?
Peter,
Thanks. I advise you not to trust the Copenhagen proponents by claiming they are 'as trustworthy as any'. I am therefore happy you asked 'Mustn't it?' and put Aspect's claim of 'proof' in inverted commas. The devil will be in the detail of those experiments which is not within my reach. But I recall you once sent me a link to a C. Thompson paper which disagreed with Aspect's claimed experimental proof.
"
The 'same room' is a problem due to small range harmonic resonance 'wave lock' effects well known in tomography etc…."
Why should the same room be such a problem for a quantum investigation? Why should A and B be light years apart? Is it easier to be entangled when light years apart or when in the same room? The logic does not sound right as with all propositions from Copenhagen. Again, why inventing all kinds of new ad hoc effects, like 'wave lock', etc when confronted with absurdity?
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 10, 2014 @ 12:59 GMT
Peter,
I just googled and saw links to Caroline Thompson's works who is now late (died of cancer 2006). I think they will make an interesting read.
http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/
http://en.wiki
pedia.org/wiki/User:Caroline_Thompson
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 10, 2014 @ 16:45 GMT
Akinbo,
Interesting that you would ask..."Why should the same room be such a problem for a quantum investigation. (and) Why should A and B be light years apart?"
Firstly I am in agreement on the divisibility of the Quantum, but completely aside from that your questions are pertinent to the topical theme of entropy as a variable of constant influence (a parameter) in physical processes treated as probabilities in both classical and quantum mechanics. Loschmidt argued that an army of Maxwell's Demons would eventually overcome the thermodynamic barrier against reversal of entropy without time reversal. But the 'marching column' turns out to be extraordinarily long. This is just a suggestion in your own ongoing inquiries, thanks again for the BIPM link. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 10, 2014 @ 19:04 GMT
Eckard, I want to know if you support autopsy (also called post-mortem) examination on Schrodinger's cat to ascertain the time of death. You and Peter refuse to give a direct answer, Yes or No. You only said, "The cat might be a symptom", what does that mean?
By the way, I wish to doff my hat to the late brave lady,
Caroline Thompson. I believe posterity will remember her kindly even if the establishment and journal referees didn't hear her out. I just read one of her papers, which I attach here because it throws much light on the subject, 'Why Quantum?', and contains links for further reading.
Regards, Akinbo
attachments:
Caroline_Thompson_RIP.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 10, 2014 @ 21:08 GMT
It is particularly confusing when explanations of quantum action give macroscopic objects like people and cats the coherent attributes of microscopic matter. Coherent matter behaves so differently from incoherent matter that comparisons of hypothetical coherent macroscopic matter can be very confusing. The dephasing times for any macroscopic object like a cat are very short unless the objects are neutron stars or black holes.
Schrödinger’s cat is truly a superposition of two states for some very short time following any quantum trigger and resultant action, which by the way is any action in the quantum universe. If Schrödinger’s cat somehow remained coherent with the action, it could then presumably exist in the superposition that you describe until you opened the box.
However, the cat exchanges light and matter with the box and the cat's coherence times are very short as a result. Once the cat dephased from the quantum trigger, the state of the cat would no be longer a superposition and would exist as one state or another as knowable information. Opening the box then simply reveals information that was knowable and the wavefunction of the cat has long since collapsed from the subsequent dephasing actions after the quantum event.
No need to kill another cat...
Until science unites charge and gravity into a common quantum action for all objects, there will continue to be confusion and strong differences of opinion about the nature of quantum action and how it is different from gravity action. For example, given similar charge and gravity forces for a coherent object, quantum action allows interference effects due to superposition but gravity only allows ballistic collisions. We have an intuition and life experience with macroscopic matter and gravity action that is very difficult to reconcile with the reality of microscopic matter and quantum action.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 10, 2014 @ 21:21 GMT
I like the beamsplitter as a coherent device where 50% of the light goes one way and 50% goes the other way. Now, a single photon ends up detected along reflected path A or transmitted path B, but there are two interpretations.
The quantum interpretation is that the photon is on both paths equally and each single photon wave shows up at both A and B, but 50% of the time that photon disappears by destructive interference at both A and B correlated or coherent with appearance by constructive interference at both A or B. The action of the beamsplitter creates coherency between the two paths B or A, respectively.
Some kind of magic occurs at the beamsplitter that made 50% of photons disappear by destructive interference at both A and B, but what is really upsetting is seeing a photon along A does not then mean that it was only on path A.
The ballistic Cartesian interpretation is that 50% of photons are reflected to A and 50% are transmitted to B and although this answer is technically wrong, it is good enough for many applications. If all you need is a one-way mirror or a grayed window or sunglasses to block sunlight, you really do not need to know much about single photon coherence. Thus our ballistic Cartesian reality does work fairly well for most predictions of action, even for those quantum actions with quantum devices like sunglasses or beamsplitters or polarizers.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 10, 2014 @ 23:54 GMT
Steve,
"...truly a superposition of two states for some very short time..."
Thank-you very much for the two posts, that explanation was comprehensible for me. It is difficult for the naïve such as I to get a grasp on the conventions of accepted definition of terms devised in QM, and you defined coherence and decoherence in a way that demystifies the idea. It also presents spin in a realistic way, which classically I have long thought existential. I can't imagine energy not going every direction of least resistance, continually at once. The neutral charge (for want of a better word) of the neutron has been accessible to me as energy physically moving in all directions at a spherical boundary because that quantity of energy must prescribe a distribution of energy through density variation which results in an optimal energy:volume configuration that does not require the whole mass to rotate to resolve a disparity with the optimum of configuration through angular momentum. So far my math just hasn't discovered a 'why' for spikes along a gradient. I might have made a grade but I don't think its a passing mark. Thanks again, jrc
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 11, 2014 @ 10:15 GMT
Yet another new alibi called dephasing time is being introduced. Nevertheless, Steve said , "… wavefunction of the cat has long since collapsed from the subsequent dephasing actions after the quantum event ", so need for an autopsy to ascertain actual time of death. Okay by me.
Then talking about beamsplitters and the quantum interpretation which results in magical and illogical behavior, what is wrong with the classical interpretation that is coherent and logical that has necessitated the need for a quantum interpretation to this problem which in turn has led to the invention of new mathematics to resolve the absurdities?
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 11, 2014 @ 17:11 GMT
Akinbo,
You advise I shouldn't trust eminent physicists. "As trustworthy as any" meant just that. Near-zero!
"why inventing all kinds of new ad hoc effects, like 'wave lock', etc." You need to catch up on much optical science on harmonic resonance effects Akinbo; Tomography, optical 'screwdrivers', 'tractor beams' etc. I'm a bit offended you'd conceive I'd 'invent' such things! I...
view entire post
Akinbo,
You advise I shouldn't trust eminent physicists. "As trustworthy as any" meant just that. Near-zero!
"why inventing all kinds of new ad hoc effects, like 'wave lock', etc." You need to catch up on much optical science on harmonic resonance effects Akinbo; Tomography, optical 'screwdrivers', 'tractor beams' etc. I'm a bit offended you'd conceive I'd 'invent' such things! I identify what has fooled so many in the past, confusion with local effects when considering 'non-locality', and you ignore me to walk straight into the same trap! Again; not doing your homework wastes my time!
Please also read my re-interpretation of Copenhagen carefully; If the electrons at the surface of a lens can have any modulation effect on the signal sent along the optic nerve/cable then there IS a valid effect to consider! Electron coupling and 'spin flip' means there can and is.
Then you say; "You and Peter refuse to give a direct answer," Excuse me! I've 'refused' nothing! Go for the autopsy. I predicted long ago what you'll find; The cat dies if and when the phial opens! Period.
But good to see you're doing your homework on Caroline Thompson. Massive shame she died. Now you're starting to understand the claims of QM and actual findings you'll be able to see the simple veracity of my solution. SOO simple, and so closely and entirely covering the surface of all our eyeballs that nobody could see it!
See my post to Eckard above. I'll also re-post the link here, which confirms a number of the DFM hypotheses are entirely valid, including the near/far field transform (lens surface TZ), re-emitted 'spherelets' etc.
Physics Today, Matter Wave Refraction and Interferometry.Steve/John,
The simple solution to the 'delayed choice' nonsense is also there, as Wheeler suspected; the signal takes both 'paths' and is recombined. It can be tuned for the positive interference at either detector.
Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Gordon Watson replied on Sep. 2, 2014 @ 05:18 GMT
RE:
Peter Jackson [via "replied on Jul. 7, 2014 @ 17:33 GMT"]: I hope you'll give the short summary a very careful read and rigorous criticism.
Classical reproduction of quantum correlations. Summary; B.Peter (Jackson),
I'd be pleased if you'd check the wording of your second paragraph and post it here (unchanged if you wish) for critique/discussion.
As it's written, it makes no sense to me.
Gordon
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Jul. 9, 2014 @ 16:03 GMT
For there to be no boundary between the probabilities of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, and the hidden variables in classical causality, there must be some invariable condition for which there is zero probability by either method to predict what, where, when or why.
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 9, 2014 @ 20:13 GMT
Absolutely correct, Anonymous. In the Joy Christian measurement framework, that invariable condition is the structure of the topology.
report post as inappropriate
oswaldo salcedo wrote on Jul. 11, 2014 @ 00:29 GMT
but can us grasp the character of nature ? i mean, we articulate concepts just that, apart we dont know the extension of "ALL" reality.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox wrote on Jul. 13, 2014 @ 01:15 GMT
The question posed by the article is not why quantum granulation in the microscopic realm arises, but only why statistically the quantum mechanical probabilities seem to be confirmed across the board, while other probabilistic theories seem to prove out as well but not always in all their parts. It would be nice to hear from those with enough practical (practiced) familiarity with probability methodologies, to explain what the Barrett and Leifer proposal attempts to discover in regard to the question of how does spacetime incarnate as energy resolve into clumps in the first place.
In our macro world things seem to be solid and smoothed over, while the micro atomic world seems to be granule. Only in extreme cases is entropy zero, as is theoretically the case for electromagnetic radiation in a background free frame. So the question goes to; Below diffeomorphism, is entropy zero or does diffeomorphism of matter-like energy clumps evolve in anentropic spacetime? jrc
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 14, 2014 @ 01:02 GMT
Yes, it is true that this thread has not taken the "Why Quantum" essay to heart. But the stated intent of the essay seems to be somewhat different from what you describe. All the essay seems to propose is that entropy might show why the microscopic universe follows quantum logic instead of a host of other possible models.
Frankly, the essay asks why the universe is the way that it is, which...
view entire post
Yes, it is true that this thread has not taken the "Why Quantum" essay to heart. But the stated intent of the essay seems to be somewhat different from what you describe. All the essay seems to propose is that entropy might show why the microscopic universe follows quantum logic instead of a host of other possible models.
Frankly, the essay asks why the universe is the way that it is, which is actually one of those questions that have no answer...at least no unique answers. This question appears most often in the context of religion or philosophy and so I was quite surprised to find it funded as a "Foundational Question."
Actually, I have been a little disappointed that the FXQi website does not actually ever seem to recognize the nature of some foundational questions that really do not have answers. There are foundational questions that people have been asking for tens of thousands of years and that have no answers. First and foremost is the question:
"Why is the universe the way that it is?"
Religion and philosophy address this question endlessly and the result is always more discourse about the answer, not a single testable answer.
I use entropy quite a lot in my work with solution thermodynamics and am always disappointed when the first definition of entropy is not the logarithm of the total number of states of the system. If the system has one state, its entropy is zero because the logarithm of one is zero.
It is very true that the entropy of an isolated system must increase over time, and yet the entropy of many systems, i.e. galaxies, within the universe have decreased significantly over time. Since the number of possible states of a system always increases over time, entropy always increases over time. However, there are no truly isolated systems in the universe and so the laws of thermodynamics are highly scale dependent.
The entropy of quantum action is quite well behaved, while the entropy of gravity action can be quite peculiar. Trying to use entropy, which is the way the universe is, to explain why the microscopic universe is the way that it is, i.e. quantum, seems circular.
The universe is the way it is because that is the way it is...
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 14, 2014 @ 03:23 GMT
Steve,
Thanks again for a clarifying moment. So if QM is inherently probabilistic its a log of the numbers of statistically averaged states, compared to what numbers of such as predicted by other theories. Assuming we live in a perfect universe and everything that could or should or would happen, always will eventually. So we have to swallow a multiverse.
Which I doubt. The one thing that you can invariably count on is Murphy's Law of Perversity (attributed to a guy on the early rocket powered test sled project) which states that anything that can go wrong, will. At the least opportune time. Applying that generally to all of reality in whole or in macro part, it isn't a paranormal question of something popping into existence without any cause, it is a matter of something that should occur that doesn't for no reason at all. And there is no predicting that. But once something does not happen which predictably should, then it alters the terrain and other things occur that are not 100% predictable classically. But that applies to classical mechanics as well as quantum mechanics. Murph rules! jrc
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 14, 2014 @ 19:39 GMT
I think the number of states of the universe has increased over time by virtue of the fact that the universe is expanding. Space itself is filled with states. If the universe expands, then it adds more states to itself.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 15, 2014 @ 02:42 GMT
It is very correct to say that an expanding universe is a universe with more states and with more entropy. Likewise, with a shrinking universe, states disappear and entropy decreases.
My universe is a shrinking universe and the red shift of Hubble is due to a concerted change in three constants with time: c, h, and alpha. The shrinking universe is a nice alternative to expansion and makes a lot more sense for entropy.
All the way from universe voids, galaxy superclusters, galaxies, stars, planets, moons, asteroids, and comets, there is an increasing order in the universe, not an increasing disorder. A shrinking universe is consistent with increasing order.
Trying to use entropy to show why the universe is the way it is, i.e. quantum, seems like a standard researchy way to do a lot of complex math that ends up proving very little and risking very little as well. The universe is the way it is...that is clear. Quantum action works and thermodynamics works and so these are both how the universe works. If they were not consistent with each other, that would be very surprising.
What we really need to know is how better to predict action with the laws we can know and not worry about what we can never know. Better thing to do would be to prove how to make quantum gravity states and therefore complete the entropy count of states. We know without a quantum gravity that we are missing many states and so entropy is incomplete and thermodynamics is incomplete in our cosmology.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 15, 2014 @ 03:11 GMT
Hi Steve,
It's nice to hear that a physicist is examining a model by changing the physics constants. It's refreshing and it should offer you insight into deeper levels of physics.
I'm sorry but I can't help you find a better way to predict action. I am of the opinion that some of the phenomena of nature is impossible to predict. It is my belief that physics might find inspiration in the following point of view. Think of mathematical physics as being like accounting. Increasing levels of mathematical development will give diminishing returns. There comes a time when you have to get down to the paper currency. In the case of physics, I believe that wave-functions come the closest to describing some kind of aether. This aether fills everything and all of space, it's what is actually real and fundamental. I think this aether, this quantum field wave-function aether is somehow imprinted with the speed of light. That is, the speed of light is somehow built into it. I'm sorry that leads to a path that may as well go up the side of an impossibly high cliff. But I think it's the best option. :)
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 15, 2014 @ 04:27 GMT
You may be interested to know that your questions do help me refine my quantumology. Science by and large says the unanswerable questions are not worth answering. However, religion and philosophy spend great resources on answering the unanserable questions and then arguing further about the answers.
Needless to say, we humans have a built-in intuition about the world that generally works very well. However, the particulars of the universe are somewhat different from our intuition and so that causes some people to despair.
Although quantum action is often considered odd, I think that gravity action is by far the oddest of the two. However, our intuition and our beliefs all tend to favor the determinism of gravity action. It is clear to me that quantum action is the way and science needs to find a way to interpret gravity as quantum action.
There are so many issues that are off right now in the twilight of gravity action that something will happen shortly to correct this mess.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 15, 2014 @ 08:12 GMT
If I understand what quantum action means from this definition,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwinger%27s_quantu
m_action_principle
and I probably don't, but it sounds like it's saying there is a field source that can transition a quantum system from a set of states |A> to another set of states |B>. But you want to interpret gravity as a quantum action? Is that correct?
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 15, 2014 @ 10:02 GMT
Steve,
I agree that our "Science by and large says the unanswerable questions are not worth answering."
But do you not think that might just be because our science has developed with only the answers we have not those we don't? (i.e. 'ignorance is bliss').
To most race car drivers, how the engine works is immaterial as long as it does. Only the mechanic know how it works and he knows that ultimately that's really everything (unless we're horse & cart fans!)
Peter
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 15, 2014 @ 20:59 GMT
Jason,
As to quantum action...you can read or download Max Planck's lecture (it's brief) on the Origins of the Quantum Theory at; http://www.-history.mcs.st-and-ac.uk/Extras/Planck_quantum_t
heory.html
It's packed with his references to relevant works of other notables of the era, and is an easy to read English text. It will perhaps help learning the jargon that gets a bit lost in popular translations. Don't worry though, everybody has that problem, as things go on meanings of definitions conform to new thinking. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 15, 2014 @ 23:15 GMT
Hi John,
I really wish we could explore this stuff with our imagination. While I do believe in spirits and souls, just the idea of trying to justify it in terms of physics helps to understand the nuances. For instance, if we treat a soul as something that experiences things, then we could argue that the soul can experience all of the eigenstates of a quantum system. Since the whole biological cell, or a much larger organism, has lots of eigenstates that can be experienced, then it really comes down the how sharp is the consciousness that experiences these things. If a consciousness can experience eigenstates, then it should be able to move those eigenstates from a starting piont |A> to a final point |B>. Depending upon what the consciousness is trying to do, this might be very easy and fun or very difficult or impossible. For instance, pushing those eigenstates into a configuration that produces a momentum in one direction might almost violate laws of entropy, and so it would be very challenging. I'm just throwing ideas out there.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 01:24 GMT
Just to use a little bit more imagination, does dark matter exist as some real particle? Are there particles out there that are waiting to be added to the standard model? I think about the molecules of the biological cells. There are receptors made of proteins that react to other protein molecules to change the configurations of other protein molecules. Molecular proteins would certainly have a wave-function associated with it. While all of these molecules lend themselves to wave-functions and eigenstates, I wonder if there is any way to squeeze a darkmatter particle into the eigenstates in such a way as to exert control over the randomness. It's just a thought.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 04:54 GMT
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 15, 2014 @ 08:12 GMT
"it sounds like it's saying there is a field source that can transition a quantum system from a set of states |A> to another set of states |B>. But you want to interpret gravity as a quantum action? Is that correct?"Okay, first of all, do you understand action? Then do you understand the difference between gravity action...
view entire post
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 15, 2014 @ 08:12 GMT
"it sounds like it's saying there is a field source that can transition a quantum system from a set of states |A> to another set of states |B>. But you want to interpret gravity as a quantum action? Is that correct?"Okay, first of all, do you understand action? Then do you understand the difference between gravity action and quantum action? The universe is full of strange and mystical things and the mathematics of the universe is the most mystical of all mysticisms.
Action is a term that describes how objects move around in space over time, but action can equivalently describe how objects change their matter over time as well. Since a change in velocity is equivalent to a change in mass, changes in object masses also describe their motions in space.
Currently science uses two somewhat inconsistent actions to predict the futures of objects in time, gravity and quantum, but the eventual goal of science is to describe all action as quantum. Quantum action is largely about the behavior of microscopic matter and is much less intuitive than gravity action at all scales.
Quantum action depends on matter or mass as well as on something called phase and coherence. The interference effects of light are due to light’s phase as well as light’s amplitude and so light gives us polarization and partial reflection. Yet these coherent effects occur to some extent for all objects of matter, not just for light.
Quantum action is often called odd although its application has been extraordinarily successful for all predictions of action. However, quantum predictions are always probabilistic and uncertain and sometimes matter waves show correlated or coherent effects that even entangle different locations in space. Even for a highly local matter wave there is still some quantum uncertainty, which bothers many people, and so when that quantum uncertainty involves locations across the universe, people get even more uncomfortable.
The basic equation of quantum action is the Schrödinger equation, but it is not clear that you are ready for differential equations. You are more into intuition and reasoning. Suffice it to say that quantum action always has finite steps or states in all motion and all bonding. Currently, the gravity action of general relativity is continuous and that simply is incompatible with quantum action.
Science knows that this is a problem but has been unable to come up with a unified theory. This is very disappointing to me and science should have solved this many years ago.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 05:06 GMT
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 15, 2014 @ 10:02 GMT
"But do you not think that might just be because our science has developed with only the answers we have not those we don't? (i.e. 'ignorance is bliss')."There are questions that are clearly without answers. The questions are still useful because they show us the limits of knowledge and the boundaries of what we can know. These questions show us our axioms, which are beliefs about the universe that we must simply accept. Axioms are the necessary beliefs that we all have that anchor our consciousness; matter, time, and action.
Why is the universe the way that it is? Why is matter the way that it is? Why is time the way that it is? Why is action the way that it is? These are question that have no answers.
There are also in between questions, questions where it is not clear that we have enough information to answer. These are also very useful questions since there may be knowledge that we lack that will answer such questions. What is consciousness? Do plant have feelings? Is there life after death"
These are questions that revealed knowledge may indeed answer, but there is simply no knowledge now that permits answers.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 05:17 GMT
Hi Steve,
It scares me that physicists are trying to jam gravitational action into a quantum action hole. Sorry, but it feels like it's going to massively complicate physics and obscure a subtle truth. I'm not confident that everything can be predicted. In fact, I would say that the randomness and uncertainty of quantum mechanics is supposed to be there; it tells us that "other things" can press into our physical world if they need to. Getting rid of the uncertainty would be like wallpapering over a hole in the wall.
Also, the relativistic mass is not actual mass. It has to do with the observer. If a mass is moving at 0.5c compared to some observer, the observer will measure a larger relativistic mass, not because there is more mass, but because the "physics information" has to transfer from the 0.5c frame to the "rest" frame. Does that make sense?
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew wrote on Jul. 15, 2014 @ 03:10 GMT
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 14, 2014 @ 20:02 GM"I have browsed the article. Peter, click 'back to article' on top of this page. I may not make much comment because 'entropy' as a concept itself is yet to be fully understood and now trying to combine it with an equally controversial theory like QM will only lead to the invention of more mechanisms that then lead to absurdities and paradoxes."Oh my goodness sakes almighty...entropy as a concept is very well defined. It is the logarithm of the number of states available to the system. Now, the number of state of a system is perhaps not always very well understood, especially gravity states. Quantum states, however, are very well defined. People just don't want to believe them.
In thermodynamics, it is actually the density of states or the heat capacity of a substance that is most important, not really the entropy or free enthalpy
per se. That is, heat capacity determines both entropy and enthalpy and so it is heat capacity that is the empirical function fit that we use all of the time for complex systems.
Quantum action is very compatible with thermodynamics because the partition functions are so well defined and partition functions are how you do everything in statistical mechanics. The particle in a box is a standard quantum description of the states in space and is very nice. Gravity in a box has no simple partition function.
Once again, the theme of this essay is specious. I do not like to be critical of these sorts of things, but really...using the universe as thermodynamics to prove that the universe is the way it is as quantum action does not seem very useful. The universe is the way it is. Period.
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 15, 2014 @ 14:40 GMT
LET US SUBJECT QUANTUM MECHANICS TO EDDINGTON'S TEST!
Since Barrett and Leifer believe in Sir Arthur Eddington's advice to assess the credibility of a proposed new model of physics (see article), let us subject Quantum mechanics to Eddington's test:
"…if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to...
view entire post
LET US SUBJECT QUANTUM MECHANICS TO EDDINGTON'S TEST!
Since Barrett and Leifer believe in Sir Arthur Eddington's advice to assess the credibility of a proposed new model of physics (see
article), let us subject Quantum mechanics to Eddington's test:
"
…if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
The indivisibility of the photon, although nowhere expressly stated as a postulate of Quantum mechanics, is fully implied and is high up there in the Copenhagen temple. That is why a photon hitting a half-silvered mirror cannot have half of it transmitted and half-reflected, but must be transmitted or reflected whole. To make this theoretical idea work and conform with experimental findings it has led to the introduction of probability amplitudes (50:50), and from this being in two-places at once, entanglement, etc. Note that the wave-picture does not require any improvised mechanisms to be half-transmitted and half-reflected at a half-silvered mirror.
Let us consider the relationship between the Sun and Earth. Here I quote Roger Penrose
1 to make things authoritative:
"
The light from the sun brings energy to the earth in a comparatively low-entropy form, namely in the photons of visible light. The earth, including its inhabitants, does not retain this energy, but (after some while) re-radiates it all back into space. However, the re-radiated energy is in a high-entropy form, namely what is called 'radiant heat' – which means infra-red photons". Penrose goes on to explain, since visible light photons has higher frequency and thus higher energy than infra-red photons, "
…there must be fewer visible-light photons reaching the earth than there are infra-red ones leaving the earth, so that the energy coming in to the earth balances that leaving it".
This conforms with the second law of thermodynamics.
If photon number is not conserved and the earth can
transform fewer photons into a larger number, what then is the reason for this insistence that a half-silvered mirror cannot transform a single photon into two, one transmitted and the other reflected? Is it justified to subject physics to the numerous absurdities and paradoxes, all because of the obstinate clinging to a postulate which as I have explained does not even appear to pass Sir Arthur Eddington's test and in his words should have collapsed in deepest humiliation? Or does the postulate pass the test?
I will therefore urge Jon Barrett and Matt Leifer to spend part of the $120,000 FQXi grant to consider and answer the question whether the postulate of photon indivisibility passes Sir Arthur Eddington's test. Secondly, to use part of their time to do an open, non-anonymous peer-review of late Caroline Thompson's papers and report publicly. That is the least she deserves.
Regards,
Akinbo
1Roger Penrose, The
Emperor's New Mind, p.413 and Fig.7.7
*Thanks to JRC and Steve for bringing me and us back on track of the blog topic.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 08:49 GMT
There is a certain evasiveness in answering the question whether the
photon is an elementary particle or not. Quantum mechanics is based on the idea that it is. Whereas, if it is not, most of the absurdities and probability mathematics in physics at the micro-scale would disappear. Again, does the Quantum mechanics postulate that the photon is an elementary particle pass Eddington's test? If so, how? If not, what next?
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 08:59 GMT
And to add to the incomprehensibility of the Quantum postulate, I just saw our Zeeya Merali in an article in Nature discussing that even our dear electron is "
Not-quite-so elementary". So what exempts the photon? Why can it not be split at a half-silvered mirror?
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 09:48 GMT
Akinbo,
In 'joined-up' physics photons ARE split. Old historic assumptions seem to endure too long in old theorists minds. The worst part is to bypass Planck's solution they teach the nonsense to young ones as 'facts'!
As Milton Freeman pointed out; there are no 'facts' in physics.
Of course it seems the energy is never spit precisely equally. If you look at the last figure in my previous essay you'll see the experimental evidence of charge density distribution. At any point in space the positive peak will go one way OR the other (50:50). When recombined they'll interfere subject to phase, constructively or destructively (and tunably so). There is the so called 'quantum eraser' so imply resolved as Wheeler suspected. If theorists kept up with experiments we'd get more 'joined-up-physics!.
If you followed up the citation in my last essay you'll also see a much more up to date details on the effects Zeeya reported on in 2012.
All should understand this simple update, which I'll post again; It includes references to the effects I invoke which I'm sure some think 'don't exist'!
2014. Current Matter Wave Diffraction and interferometry update.Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 12:15 GMT
Peter, that link is to your computer drive C, not the web.
Our ideas are similar although we still have areas of divergence. One new area of similarity is that in 'joined up' physics photons can be split. However you seem not to acknowledge that the resort to probability and invention of the so-many mechanisms are precisely to maintain the position that the photon is not splitable, e.g. at a half-silvered mirror. In QM it either passes through whole or is reflected whole with a probability of 50:50. That according to a little book by Polkinghorne is a major source of the weirdness of QM and why new mathematics have to be introduced to make this QM dream come true.
Regards,
Akinbo
*Please repost the link again if you can.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 14:30 GMT
Akinbo and Pete,
Splitting hairs won't get us there. Again, a 'photon' is one second of singular emission of quantum increments specific to a particular, experimentally prescribed, wavelength; = hv, where v is the frequency per second @ 'c'. 'Splitting' the photon is simply a matter of time, and why any successful model of EMR must incorporate a mechanism that 'chops' the waveform into distinct wavelength increments. Rather than this meaning the Quantum to be indivisible, it would require it to be portioned between two superposed portions. The portion that would prescribe the wavelength, and the other that would act as a coupled charge propelling the wave event. ((h/2)) The higher the frequency, the greater the acceleration rate across half the wavelength, and the smaller the portion prescribing the wavelength.
E = (h/2)lambda : where E is the rest energy quantity prescribing the wavelength, h is Planck's constant, and lambda is the observed wavelength.
If infinity is 'a practical absurdity' in calculus, then affinity is 'an absurd practicality' in algebra that allows 'the boundary of the boundary to be zero'.
Onward! through the fog! jrc
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 14:53 GMT
Akinbo
I don't agree 'ballistics' period! The NLS equation spread function is analogous to Huygens construction, essential is laser optics. Arguing unsplittable photon 'particles' reminds me of the argument that engines can't go behind drivers in motor racing. Kindof agreeing with JC I think, but not exactly, and probably a bit more.
Have you actually heard anyone claiming photons are particles and can't be spit recently? I sure havent! It's ancient myth. What is the whole point of a Stern Gerlach photon polariser!? I agree with JC it's red herring.
Sorry about the link, it was doubled up. Here's the right half; Relatively I think it describes the new Mercedes F1 power unit components in overview.
2014 Interferometry etc..
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 16:40 GMT
Pete,
A = sqrt(f/c) : where A is amplitude defined as a lateral cross-section such that A/2 would be deflection from the baseline of linear propagation, f is the frequency, c is light velocity in vacuo, and the square root obtained by rate of acceleration being per sec per sec.
This can come from hypothesizing a parameter of size of rest energy moment the diameter of which is...
view entire post
Pete,
A = sqrt(f/c) : where A is amplitude defined as a lateral cross-section such that A/2 would be deflection from the baseline of linear propagation, f is the frequency, c is light velocity in vacuo, and the square root obtained by rate of acceleration being per sec per sec.
This can come from hypothesizing a parameter of size of rest energy moment the diameter of which is predicated as P = L/c^2 : where P is a parametric nominal diameter of a quasi-particle, L is the wavelength, and c is is light velocity.
In keeping with the hypothesis of my previous post of partitioning the Quantum (h/2) such that the rest energy quantity is prescribed as E = (h/2)L, the parametric diameter subjected to a foreshortening a midpoint of wavelength by a factor of light velocity would prescribe a disc diameter by H = P/c and would only pertain to the wavelength through the constant proportion of P for any wavelength. This results in a constant relationship of E/P as an empirical numerical value.
Assuming that the affinity of a coherent energy discrete quantity is dependant of any specific quantity prescribing a proportionate density constant to any quantity of I = Ec^2 : where E is the rest energy quantity, c is light velocity, and I is the inertial density of any discrete massenergy quantity.
This produces a constant predictable finite volume of energy affinity by vol. = I(E/P) and a continual transformation of configuration of that volume with wavelength by 4/3 pi (A/2)^2 * (L/2) which with produce a prolate spheroid in wavelength shorter than 1 centimeter, a spherical volume at 1 centimeter, and an oblate spheroid in wavelengths greater than 1 centimeter. All waveforms will have a finite volume of 5.2359^-1 cm^3 which provides mathematical rational for the Quantum exhibiting the characteristic of being a preferred, indivisible, massenergy entity.
Given this rationale, suggests that superposition of partitioned energy quantities of the Planck Constant is not only possible but real due to the cohesion exhibited as the affinity of each. The sinusoidal curve is indicative of the second half of a wavelength being a collapse of the waveform in recouping the portion acting as a coupled charge. In the dynamic waveform volume, superposition is a single physical state and gravitational density of energy simply isn't observed by electromagnetic detection apparatus. Light velocity as measured observationally would be exceeded somewhat at midpoint of the wave but still be a constant value (compensatory rationales also are plausible). And specific densities are also obtainable hypothetically accounting for primary force effects.
The constant volume : Quantum rationale would allow a direct correlation thermodynamically as degrees Kelvin typically applied to lighting systems, with the energy quantity of Planck's Constant.
There is NO BOUNDARY between Quantum and Classical mechanics! JRC
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 17:24 GMT
Pete,
correction: I should had said 'disc volume' by the H foreshortening and A amplitude rationale. Density throughout the model is predicated on a direct inverse proportion of c. And if you give it a bit of thought, the model corroborates your DFM helix thusly: The rise and fall of inductance from the variation of density in the acceleration>deceleration event of the waveform would by your own cosine rationale result in a helix of constancy of effective influence on angular momentum in the absorption phase and extend from the emission source through the E = (h/2) * L and P = L/c^2 rationale imparting a real spatial 'spin' to the whole waveform.
Now you know why I've been tolerant of your obsession. But this also goes to entropy existing as a physical phenomenon only in the emissionabsorption phases and the inductance resistance of gravitational influence of affinity of the waveform cohesion in superposition with the clutter of 'crowded' space which could well explain the classical spread of Reiter's observations. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 18:14 GMT
JC,
"There is NO BOUNDARY between Quantum and Classical mechanics!" Excellent. And Relativity too! I confess I struggled to entirely follow your construct, due to me abandoning the language of representation by ancient arabic symbols long hence to find other vistas for insights.
I also vastly prefer to think dynamics in 3D. Perhaps from my Architects training, so always the helix in...
view entire post
JC,
"There is NO BOUNDARY between Quantum and Classical mechanics!" Excellent. And Relativity too! I confess I struggled to entirely follow your construct, due to me abandoning the language of representation by ancient arabic symbols long hence to find other vistas for insights.
I also vastly prefer to think dynamics in 3D. Perhaps from my Architects training, so always the helix in time (non instantaneous). Could I ask you to read my previous essay. It discusses both the above matters in detail. Your P/2 becomes the spin/orbit primary radius, but then also a smaller scale spin radius (the 'hyperfine' spin discussed in the above link).
It from Bit. The Intelligent Bit.I'm not certain what H was, how a 'disc' has a volume, and I always prefer to stick with L not mix it with f due partly to the issues with assumptions about f I discussed in the essay before that. But I do like the "real spatial 'spin' to the whole waveform", which I see as just one of the 'scales' of helical windings in the fractal hierarchy.
I think I see your point on entropy, but the helical form is also 'self organising' from chaos, leading to the point where all is broken down and re-ionized (in tokamacs and AGN's.) This is just one glimpse of that apparently 'anti-entropic' behaviour; I must confess n a battle between black holes and Eddington my money would be on black holes. Or are they compatible?
Plasma helical self organization.I greatly appreciate your tolerance. Could you give me your views on my Fig, 4. a reproduced experimental finding of orbital 'non linearity'. I also couldn't extract how the cosine^2 distribution of smaller radii (with angle to latitude) emerged from you mathematical analysis.
They say there's a fine line between commitment and 'obsession'.
Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 19:19 GMT
Peter J,
"
Have you actually heard anyone claiming photons are particles and can't be spit recently? I sure havent! It's ancient myth. What is the whole point of a Stern Gerlach photon polariser!"?
I take the ballistic explanation with a pinch of salt too. As recently as today, it is in between the lines but remains firmly as the corner stone of QM up till now. I will go the...
view entire post
Peter J,
"
Have you actually heard anyone claiming photons are particles and can't be spit recently? I sure havent! It's ancient myth. What is the whole point of a Stern Gerlach photon polariser!"?
I take the ballistic explanation with a pinch of salt too. As recently as today, it is in between the lines but remains firmly as the corner stone of QM up till now. I will go the extra mile by quoting authority and pasting an extract below. I had earlier posted the link to Wikipedia's description of photon as an elementary particle. Most Quantum mechanics avoid discussing this embarrassing postulate.
JRC,
a 'photon' is one second of singular emission of quantum increments specific to a particular, experimentally prescribed, wavelength...
I don't think it would be helpful for the 6 billion inhabitants of Earth to each have their own definition of a photon.
"
However, we know that quantum mechanically we can also think of the beam (of light) as made up of photons. Suppose the intensity is lowered to a level at which only a single photon at a time encounters the crystal (sensitive to the polarization of light). Such a photon is in rather a quandary. To agree with the results it should only allow a fraction sin2α of its energy to get through. But our photon is indivisible. Either it gets through completely or it totally fails to do so, the whole hog or nothing. The only way out of the (self-imposed) dilemma is to suppose that sometimes the photon gets through and sometimes it does not. What will happen on a particular occasion we cannot say, but we can predict that after a large number of photons have encountered the crystal a fraction sin2α will be found to have been transmitted. In other words, the best we can do is to assign a probability sin2α for the photon to get through and of course a complementary probability cos2α that it does not. The radical unpredictability of individual events in quantum theory has made itself felt" – Prof. J.C. Polkinghorne, Professor of Mathematical Physics University of Cambridge, Honorary Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Kent in
The Quantum World, p.18 (1990 edition).
Regards,
Akinbo
*words in bracket are mine.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 19:33 GMT
Pete,
Mine is a static model, slice in time so to speak, and entirely background independent. The reductionist method is due my lack of higher math, and so deliberately parametric. I can recognize its naivety, but think it lends itself to differential extrapolation. I also used cgs and think that Gaussian terms are preferable for quantum level calculation because they were meant to, and so...
view entire post
Pete,
Mine is a static model, slice in time so to speak, and entirely background independent. The reductionist method is due my lack of higher math, and so deliberately parametric. I can recognize its naivety, but think it lends itself to differential extrapolation. I also used cgs and think that Gaussian terms are preferable for quantum level calculation because they were meant to, and so require less interpolation. MKS is a compromise to the vast magnitudes of scale in the universe. Nor do I have add-ons for symbols in posting, my fixed income is currently zero. The parametric E quantity volume varies with that partition quantity, but in further developmental protocol produces a base radius through a justification via inverse square law, as an integral portion of the total Quantum and a volumetric distribution of energy through density variation as an exponential rationale which results in density at any radial point following the inverse square rule. BUT, this ain't MY blog.
So I'm not math savy enough to comment on fig.2 but can still see in my minds eye how partial differentiated intensities must integrate within the whole. My own take on things is informed by my own naïve modeling, however, and that biases me just as everyone else is informed by their personal experience in following a scientific path. We are all seeking a same goal. Where my intuition takes me, seems to make the general contemporary view of the mass:energy equivalence project energy like the proverbial 'dog that can't hunt'.
And some can't. But that is due to the manner of their domestication and not that domestication changes the natural instincts of the dog, just conditions the instinctual behavioral patterns which can leave them confused in a natural environment. And Physics does intend to domesticate Nature.
The point of departure can be reduced to an assumption for any and all practical purposes, that EMR is a succession of constant volume events regardless of wavelength and the Quantum is the total energy quantity in each such volume as a superposition of all partitions of that divisible quantum. In this assumption (which is not as ad hoc as Bohr's) rests the capacity to relate heat capacity through Kelvin degrees of 'light temperature, to the Quantum. The systemic probabilities ensue, classically or quantally. jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 19:48 GMT
Akinbo,
What do you think the definition of 'Photon' is other than that which is always given in all references as; hv, where h is Planck's Constant and v is the frequency in the measured duration of one second of time! Is that frequency not of wavelengths? The 'photon' is NOT a particle-like deposit of energy at the end of one second, and the Quantum can only be taken as the packet of energy effective in the duration of any wavelength. There are billions of people who think the sun 'comes up' in the morning. What's your point? jrc
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 22:32 GMT
Pete,
"I also couldn't extract how the cosine^2 distribution of smaller radii (with angle of latitude) emerged from your mathematical analysis."
A central premise is that energy density varies as a direct inverse proportion to velocity, with 'c' being the velocity limit to acceleration. So at the (relative) rest moment the density of the E partition of the Quantum would exist at a...
view entire post
Pete,
"I also couldn't extract how the cosine^2 distribution of smaller radii (with angle of latitude) emerged from your mathematical analysis."
A central premise is that energy density varies as a direct inverse proportion to velocity, with 'c' being the velocity limit to acceleration. So at the (relative) rest moment the density of the E partition of the Quantum would exist at a 'c' proportion greater density than that same quantity at (approx.) 'c' velocity in the hyperdisc volume at peak periodic velocity. The hyperdisc would result from a 'c' acceleration laterally producing the amplitude, and the acceleration linearly to 'c' would foreshorten the P diameter. So at rest moment the full spherical field of the E partition quantity would project the induction of response by density, that the density at midpoint of the waveform would induce. It gets a bit more complex but not much.
Another central premise is that for any mass:energy quantity to exhibit inertia, some portion of that quantity must exist at a density proportionate to the whole, and without getting into an abstract, that proportion is c^2. Hence the I = ec^2 inertial density formula. This is equivalent to I = mc^4 giving a rationale for mass being measured as energy decelerated by a factor of light velocity in 4D. And that inertial density would be the greatest density in a discrete field and exist in a volume at a constant homogeneous density. No singularity obtains, its self-limiting. The argument against, that mass cannot achieve light velocity, is countered by the qualitative rationale as to the behavior of energy vis-à-vis density; what inhibits mass acceleration is a density producing the physical property of true inelasticity. The E partition quantity would prescribe an inertial density lower than inelastic property and be deemed an electric charge quantity. And this is where I part company with Lorentz invariance which would have all the energy quantity in a compact volume of perfectly inelastic density and that density would not be altered by extant velocity resulting in an infinite amount of energy accumulating with acceleration as the linear dimension is diminished to zero length. What I propose is an exponential Lorentzian co-variance.
I promised not to digress, and defend this collection of posts as being supportive of consideration of a constant volume being practical, and theoretically obtainable whether by my method or another, and assumable as counterpart of the energy quantity of the Quantum of Planck's Constant. So that a direct correlation of the Quantum might be found with classical thermodynamic mechanics, and suggest that classical state might be had through degrees Kelvin of 'light temperature'.
Not that what humanity has never suffered is a lack of theories. jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 17, 2014 @ 01:32 GMT
Pete, One last digression on my part.
I went to my reader cache and looked again at your fig.4 in It from Bit, and yes I see that in context of a vector projection of a circle topologically. In my extended version of exponential rationale I found a similar non-linearity off the straight line function that had projected EM quantities, where the same set of simple algebraic differentials...
view entire post
Pete, One last digression on my part.
I went to my reader cache and looked again at your fig.4 in It from Bit, and yes I see that in context of a vector projection of a circle topologically. In my extended version of exponential rationale I found a similar non-linearity off the straight line function that had projected EM quantities, where the same set of simple algebraic differentials plotted sub-luminal quantities of eV, the electron, and Hydrogen produced graphic line angle change slightly, and my crude mapping of all averaged isotopic weights from listed a.m.u. shows a tiny variation off linear projection. Mass accumulation ended at 263.11 a.m.u. where the energy difference I/K as the radicand of index e (exponential rate unit) equals K; where I is the relative requisite inertial density and K is the minimum kinetic density of inelastic property of energy. That was back in '87 and its all dusty now. So I am confident that the modern classicist revival is on the right path.
Obviously, I'm not the Cox of Cox and Forshaw you mentioned, and I do not expect the universe to be so perfect that 'everything that can happen will happen'. To the contrary, invariably something that in all probability should predictably happen, simply won't happen for absolutely no reason at all. By definition, that something is entirely unpredictable, simply. And there is no knowing what it would be, where it should be or when, nor is there any why for it not happening. But once that something doesn't happen it changes the terrain and other things that would have been changed by what didn't happen, are then subject to other influences, so there is no 100% probability in either classical or quantum mechanics to predict what those sets of states and influences will be. And as Tom H. Ray pointed out recently, that terrain is the structure of the topology that is mapped out in Dr. Joy Christian's model.
We must wait, now to see if Barrett and Leifer's protocols concur.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 17, 2014 @ 12:31 GMT
Akinbo,
I agree; "Such a photon is in rather a quandary" as a better explanation of why 'manifestation' can only be in one place has yet to replace the old ways in the minds of academic physics.
Huygens construction, the NLS equation, 'hyperfine' charge spin and even QED's sum-over-paths' can tell us that.
Lets's avoid maths and study a QED analysis. Four lifeguards are watching a stunning girl swimming, off to the left, 250m away, 50m out to sea. She suddenly shouts for help. They all set off at once.
One goes straight for her, one angles right towards the sea as he's the strongest swimmer, the third angles left to enter the water opposite her to swim the shortest distance. The fourth heads just to the right of the third.
ONE will get there first and enact the rescue (etc!) Which one? Maths will tell you the same as intuition. It's number 4. Running is much faster than swimming. The third swims say 2m less far but starts the swim ~3 seconds later so the 4th is ahead. The others have to swim too far.
The positive 'hyperfine' spin charge on an orbit may be anywhere on the orbit when it hits the splitter, so 50:50 direction. But the other half is NOT zero! The 'WHOLE' photon distribution can indeed be 'divided', and when recombined can 'interfere with itself' in a way tunable by delaying each part slightly.
I've identified that, and leading edge experimental science finds that (
Matter Wave Diffraction Article 2014.) unfortunately it seems even those in fqXi, apparently including Zeeya et al. do as academia and editors, rely on old beliefs and 'familiarity' as a judge of veracity. It's probably just fear and peer pressure but the result is the same; progress is strangled and theory stays in the old rut. I can see John Templeton turning in his grave!
Is that an unfair or inaccurate assessment in any way?
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 17, 2014 @ 13:18 GMT
JC,
I find your constant volume concept interesting. What you don't yet seem to address in considering 'velocity' is what I find most important; distinguishing between propagation velocity and relative velocity, only the former 'Proper', local and limited to c. That gives a 'local background hierarchy' (always a background rest frame but no 'absolute background) which appears to provide the master key to unlock all the mysteries and paradoxes, now also including QM.
The absorption and scattering process is the domain boundary mechanism. Acceleration' of EM fluctuations may then be a misnomer, as it is with electrons. 'Velocity' is dictated by relative velocity of the particle emitting at c, and as t the next fractal scale 'up' the 'charge delay' of bound molecular scatterers provided another medium 'velocity' (c/n).
I can't quite seem to rationalise your conception with those foundations, but I'm sure it may be possible. I suspect no theory is ever really complete, (and certainly not SR or QM!) and as you say, we've never been short of them).
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 17, 2014 @ 17:36 GMT
Pete,
I see your distinction of proper and relative velocity, and it resolves from taking light velocity as the invariable rather than Newton's (et al) ubiquitous scalar increments as one or the other, time or space. Hence the relativities.
Your own dynamics of relative velocities methodology may well stem from your architectural training, live loads are just that. I climbed steel up...
view entire post
Pete,
I see your distinction of proper and relative velocity, and it resolves from taking light velocity as the invariable rather than Newton's (et al) ubiquitous scalar increments as one or the other, time or space. Hence the relativities.
Your own dynamics of relative velocities methodology may well stem from your architectural training, live loads are just that. I climbed steel up to 50 feet above the millwrights on a one job, and in the States loads are in KIPS, that is; 1 pound of instantaneous applied force will propagate across structural members (seeking ground! center of earth!) at a rate of 1000 inches per second. So from a measuring method, comes our rationales.
The somewhat archaic 'free rest mass' simply means reducing to first principles in measures, the dynamics then can be examined from having a co-ordinate free, proper set of scalars as an invariable benchmark. But all dynamic models seem to fail to address a gap in understanding that Quants always point towards as segmenting the continuum. We treat inertia only in comparing one mass to another, and have not reasoned out what it is that makes inertia unique to all mass.
Typically: a body at rest tends to stay at rest..a body in motion tends to stay in motion So what is it about mass that is the same for either condition given that there is no way to determine motion or no motion except relative between two masses? And, keeping in mind that mass:energy equivalence is only that and says nothing about matter.
Addressing only that in terms of a free rest mass, meaning free of any influences save it's own self-gravitational parameters, and only one such free rest mass:energy quantity, it becomes nearly self-evident that inertia is the translation of response (at constant rate, c ) across a finite volume of energy. If we can say 'c' , the energy must seek to be existant at that ubiquitous velocity and have a continuum constant density. Physically, that would be a conceptually impossible state. Yet we also experience energy concentrations, as if we live in an energy supersaturate space which precipitates masses of energy concentrations to conserve space. There is not enough space for all the energy to exist in homogeneity at any given instant. There is therefore an equal tendency of energy to seek an existential deceleration from 'c' which is a cornerstone of John Merryman's thinking, ying and yang (sp?).
So we can hypothesize that inertia is relative to any size mass, but must be of the same proportional value for any relative size concentration, or different masses would fall in a gravitational field at different rates as each mass would have a different valued gravitational field of its own. That relative proportional constant value logically follows from the homogeneous continuum density paradox to a gradient of increasing density as deceleration piles up in front of itself, slowing the rate of decelerant energy in ever smaller spherical volume. It will seek nil velocity.
So we can conclude that for any mass to exhibit the characteristics of inertia, some portion of that energy quantity must exist at a constant density as the greatest density, in direct proportion to the quantity of energy itself. Given the established mass : energy equivalence of e = mc^2 , which can be taken as two dimensional, suggests that a 4D density gradient resolves from the existential deceleration of energy from 'c' to nil in four dimensions of measure consistent with the paradigm of two dimensional measure in equivalence. The proportional value sought as common to the characteristic of inertia would thereby obtain as the greatest and constant density concentration of energy, being X = ec^2 or its equivalence I = mc^4.
Quantum Mechanically, this classically defining energy density proportion is what determines whether a state of being exists or not. The 'Zero Point Particle' can exist in any relative location, however uncertain that location might be, within a spatial volume prescribed by that classical energy density parameter.
The trick will be to discover how that seed density volume relates through energy distribution to find true size of the full field volume and the inertial density volume, as well as the volume radial length of any specified density in a distinct, discrete field. Dynamic models are like schematics of experimental apparatus to detect how energy behaves. jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 17, 2014 @ 18:36 GMT
Tom, you seem to have found Utopia elsewhere. Do you have any comment on whether the quantum postulate of photon indivisibility passes Sir Eddington's test?
Peter,
On your analogy of the four life guards and the girl. It didn’t occur to me at first that life guard 3 shouldn’t get there first since he does most of his own journey on land and "swim the shortest distance". I guess you are right though.
Since you are allergic to the entropy concept I won't ask you if DFM passes Sir Eddington's test, especially concerning light behavior as depicted in my Penrose quote.
Steve was right there about Utility. But it is often stated even in the establishment that General relativity has had little or no utility so far, except for the GPS which can alternatively be interpreted as a Sagnac effect. On the other hand, much utility has been ascribed to Quantum mechanics most commonly mentioned being the Laser. It is unclear if a wave-picture can also not explain that without resorting to particle nature. In summary, dogmatism and lack of forthrightness in the establishment about light behavior (its velocity and particle/wave nature) appears to be at the root of the lack of progress in physics.
Best regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 17, 2014 @ 20:20 GMT
Much agreed, Akinbo,
"...In summary, dogmatism and lack of forthrightness in the establishment about light behavior (its velocity and particle/wave nature) appears to be at the root of the lack of progress in physics."
Yessir, that dog don't hunt! But you are lot closer to nature than most who have large investments in finding chinks in the ivory tower, and recognize as they might not, that physics is about what is physical. We really need a physical model of electro-magnetic radiation that can be unambiguously falsifiable, experimentally. What I take from Reiter saying 'There is no photon!' is not simplistically that a 'partly-like' matter state doesn't at least momentarily exist, but rather that the ambiguity of what is meant by 'photon' in a finite physical sense makes the photon irrelevant.
Aside: in the States white-tail deer are wide ranging, and where I live the first day of gun season is a 'Business Holiday' and demographics of rural and urban mix makes the hunting season a necessary cull of overpopulation. In the rut, male deer (bucks) develop horns from rapid bone growth on each side at the top of the skull, nourished by a placentia called 'felt'. I'm sure you get the physiologic of the sensation of bone growing, and growing and growing... which lasts til the doe they corral into a harem, come ready and the bucks rake the felt off their antlers. Consequently, out of season after a bucks antlers break off, or as yearlings, you can tell gender by bucks having an angled profile a little above eyebrow level while the does have a straight line profile from top of skull to nose tip. Good huntin', jrc
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 17, 2014 @ 21:36 GMT
JC,
" Quants always point towards as segmenting the continuum. We treat inertia only in comparing one mass to another, and have not reasoned out what it is that makes inertia unique to all mass."
That goes right back to the birth of the discrete field dynamic, which found deeper foundations in deriving both, opening the door to the rest. Consider a hierarchical 'Russian Doll' set of 'gyroscopes'. Billions of tiny ones /sq mm, repeating as fractals is steps all the way up to the CMB.
The disc of the gyro you and I play with is made up only of tiny spinning gyroscopes, each with inertia. We call them 'matter', or each one a 'quanta'. The smallest we've found are the 'hyperfine' spins of the article I posted, the gluon, the quark, etc.
Let's stick a few in a car shaped block of foam. Now loads more in a car shaped block of lead. Now try to move them both! You find the opposite to what a child's intuition' of gravity may tell him; The lead one is more difficult to move! Gravity will struggle more to accelerate the lead one! - making up for the instantaneously greater downward force already heading for the ground. The inertia is the OAM itself, the resistance of a gyro to acceleration.
We must distinguish between the gauges all the way up! It needs a whole new organised way of thinking about nature, but then the whole jigsaw puzzle all suddenly fits! Inertial systems themselves are real, spatially finite and part of a hierarchy. You may indeed call the number of tiny gyro's 'energy density' but that can also disguise the real big picture. And of course all spin becomes helical with translation. A simple dipole is a double helix.
Must go, but ask about any 'mysteries' and I'll see what comes out of the 'sausage machine'.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 17, 2014 @ 21:42 GMT
Akinbo.
Is the helix a wave or a particle? It solves the problems of both. A spinning particle also creates ('emits') the density fluctuations that propagate at c. (so two approaching are doing 'apparent' 2c, as intuition tells us).
But nothing is at just one scale. It seems the helices are fractal too, as evidence tells us. See my post to JC.
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 18, 2014 @ 18:43 GMT
Peter,
Is the helix a wave or a particle?...
I will give a diplomatic response. In my opinion, a helix is a spiral shape. It is neither a wave nor a particle. It is a shape. Having said that matter particles can be arranged in a static spiral shape, e.g. a spring or coil, (which are not waves) or in a non-static spiral shape like a tornado or vortex (which are disturbances and may depending how you look at it (be stationary or propagating waves). A spinning particle cannot be a wave unto itself (i.e. it cannot be the source of an action and a reaction at the same time, at least according to Newton). But it can create disturbance in the medium in which it is located by its spinning and that disturbance can propagate. The medium can be the source of reaction while the particle can be the action.
As a result of the alternating changes that occur during wave propagation, with return forces on opposite sides of equilibrium, the helical pattern is also used to diagrammatically represent vibrations and wave behavior. Emphasis on diagrammatically. Therefore water, sound and light waves can be represented with a helix diagram but it does not necessarily imply that water molecules or air molecules are spinning or move spirally when water waves or sound travels. My humble opinion (can be changed).
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 18, 2014 @ 20:59 GMT
Akinbo,
I can demonstrate the logical failure of considering a 'wave' as being anything other than a helix in a 3D+t universe.
Consider the 'lateral waves' which provide the additional dynamic required over and above simple linear density fluctuations. But consider them slowed down and 'visible'.
Look from some angle, say looking down from the 'top' as they propagate from YOUR left to right. They will then 'wave' up and down wrt you (so left and right wrt a horizontal view angle). Now go back and look from the side. Either side. You won't be able to 'see them! which may violate the odd law. But worse, the 'up and down' is entirely a ARBITRARY! Who is to say you should observe from one 'angle' or another! wrt what? Detection is entirely inconsistent.
However a helix appears consistently as a wave from ALL observer positions. What is more, when we look very closely it's only helices that we find! In spin/orbit dynamics, in the nono-optics link I gave above, the references in my essay, and all fields, including with entropy busting self organisation. i.e.
Self-assembly of helical dynamic structures.The helical path of a spinning dipole performs the full roles of the wave AND the particle (a spin entity also translating). There's much more evidence including that in my previous 'Intelligent Bit' paper, but I suspect that may suffice?
Best wishes
Peter
PS. A wave based Compton description also emerges; i.e. see also the linked Raman scattering link and my post.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox wrote on Jul. 15, 2014 @ 15:07 GMT
Let us be careful not to confuse 'Quantum' = h; with 'Photon' =hv. While also being aware of the common use of 'quantum' simply to distinguish from the fuzzy quasi-differentiated matter state expressed as a continuous function via the inverse square law of interaction. Hence the use of 'heat capacity' as a measure of number of states in classical mechanics.
Steve, would you please elaborate on how heat capacity correlates to Quantum states? jrc
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 17, 2014 @ 03:42 GMT
Gladly. Anyone who has done practical thermodynamics knows that it is the density of states that drives all other thermodynamic properties. Heat capacity is the easiest and closest link to density of states...so much thermal energy results in so much rise in temperature.
Entropy is just the accounting of the those states, temperature is their average occupation, and enthalpy is their relative differences. If we want a quick and dirty measure of a system, we fit the heat capacity to an empirical function of temperature and let er' rip.
Quantum states are very well defined in general, either by calc or by direct measurement. That simplifies their partition functions and their entropy, which is just an accounting of states.
Gravity is the pain in the ass for thermo. There are just too many singularities in gravity for any clean description of entropy.
report post as inappropriate
ABC wrote on Jul. 15, 2014 @ 15:10 GMT
I am convinced that you are searching in the right direction.
* the Born rule,
* the no-go theorems of quantum mechanics,
* the time-symmetry of weak measurement and, nevertheless, the impossibility of using weak measurement apparent retrocausality so as to get information about a future strong measurement outcome (cf. Can a Future Choice Affect a Past Measurement's Outcome? Yakir Aharonov, Eliahu Cohen, Doron Grossman, Avshalom C. Elitzur (Sep 2012) http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6224 )
* the strong links between quantum theory predictions, bayesian inference, maximum entropy approach and irreversible phenomena (cf. the entropic dynamics approach to quantum theory of David T. Johnson and Ariel Caticha http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.2550v1)
* the strong link between the lack of information of an observer and the emergence of time (Von Neumann Algebra Automorphisms and Time-Thermodynamics Relation in General Covariant Quantum Theories, A. Connes, C. Rovelli http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9406019)
* the strong link between the irreversible diffusion of information in the environment of an observed system and the emergence of a classical world (Environment as a Witness: Selective Proliferation of Information and Emergence of Objectivity in a Quantum Universe Harold Ollivier, David Poulin, Wojciech H. Zurekhttp://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0408125 )
All that seems to suggest the relevance of your aim of embedding the second principle of thermodynamics as one of the building blocks of quantum mechanics.
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 06:01 GMT
Peter wrote "We should try to falsify, not construct support!" and I understand this as an affront against the strategy to speculatively outperform the mainstream without daring to reveal possible serious mistakes. Let me admit that I don't ask "why the subatomic realm is governed by the strange laws of quantum mechanics rather than by an alternative theory" but I envision something more close to the sentence "one day we might find that our quantum view of the world breaks down".
While I don't see any reason to doubt that the experiments by Franck and G. Hertz and by Stern and Gerlach paved the way for many successful applications, I got aware of logical incorrectness in the mathematical interpretation.
Therefore, I put the question why quantum into the same drawer as questions like why nature: So far no reasonable answer is in sight. Barrett and Leifer don't have any chance.
Instead, I see good chances to find out why no variant of quantum interpretation so far is free of mysteries. Peter Jackson has been offering a possibly too simple as to be believable explanation of seemingly strange experiments.
My approach focuses on possible logical mistakes mainly made around 1924.
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 16, 2014 @ 09:27 GMT
Eckard,
You misinterpret my point. Falsification is the most important test of a hypothesis. A common mainstream flaw to focus on 'supporting' a hypothesis not finding disprooofs. That problem however seems even more prevalent in outlying science! The method is NO 'affront' to the widest speculation, indeed it's consistent application is even more important in helping to validate speculative hypothesis.
A theory is either consistent with all evidence or not. It 'is what it is'. We must test it and face the answers. I agree the solution I present initially looks "too simple as to be believable", it certainly did to me, but when we're HONEST and put it through the rigorous falsification (as I had many before which failed) and it passes all tests, we MUST look closer.
QM was the steepest falsification test (see my prev essay) of the dynamic I've identified which appeared to resolve the SR paradoxes. If it couldn't reproduce QM's predictions it couldn't be correct. I assumed it wouldn't. I was wrong. (I often am, and most hypotheses fail, but not all!). It does what it does Eckard. It derives 'non-locality' and the Cos^2 distribution with a classical mechanism, and consistent with Caroline's work and Bell's views! It's
entirely 'free of mysteries' (down to a far smaller scale). What more could it do???
Of course I have no doubt all mainstream quantum physicists and 'experts' will take the view that it can't be right as it's too simple, (I've said it's simple all along) but those who don't understand QM will still find it too complex! I agree "Barrett and Leifer don't have any chance" in the dark part of the forest they're searching. Actually I'm impressed at least that you do now find it simple. It shows you're now getting a good conception of 'QM'. However I don't expect any trumpets on the hilltops, soon or probably ever!
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 17, 2014 @ 03:51 GMT
I like you used to think of falsification as the key to provation...however, it is clear that while falsification is important, there is a much more important principle.
Utility.
A new theory must first of all be useful for predicting action compared to some existing theory. Utility is much more important than falsification.
For example, science knows that gravity is incorrect because of the motions of galaxies and large scale structure. And yet science does not reject gravity. Instead science patches up gravity with dark matter and dark energy and moves on.
If falsification were all that important, science would have thrown gravity out. Since gravity is very useful at many different scales, science instead patches it with dark matter and dark energy. Ergo, utility supersedes falsification.
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 17, 2014 @ 12:01 GMT
Steve,
I always saw utility as a falsification, but you put a good case. Utility has been the main case for the model of discrete field dynamics (DFM). I can't recall if you've read the past essays. Or the recent summary?
Unfortunately most of science seems to hold "consistency with past theories" as a far more valuable asset. On that the DFM scores less well. As an astronomer I quite agree most theory is multiple patches on patches and an entirely inconsistent mess. The problem is it's now so embedded in academic belief that no amount of evidence or logic can overcome it. We may perhaps call that test; 'familiarity'.
The model passed all the classical tests of utility and predictions are continually verified, so QM was the ultimate test! Did you read how the model proves able derives the QM predictions classically (non-locality and the cos^2 distribution). Yet quantum physicists will run ten miles screaming "impossible" rather than consider any classical solution! (Though even John Bell said "what is proved by impossibility proofs is lack of imagination".
But I do see 'falsification' as a more umbrella 'category' of which 'utility' is the key part.
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jul. 17, 2014 @ 04:58 GMT
"But our photon is indivisible."? Akinbo pointed us to Zeeya Merali's hint to the three quasi-particles of an electron: holon for charge, spinon for spin, and orbiton (orbital location) - with no avail as far as I can see.
The word indivisible reminds me of what sparked my curiosity in the question how to deal with zero when splitting IR into IR+ and IR-. Of course, splitting a number does not make sense. Being familiar with sign and step functions, I came to the conclusion that the devil is hidden in Dedekind's redefinition of the notion number. This made me a fan of Euclid and Galileo.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Jul. 18, 2014 @ 08:26 GMT
Interpretation of Compton scattering might be a key for those like me who are looking for what led to strangeness of QM within the decade 1920-1930. Of course, incoming "photons" are "split" into "photons" of less energy i.e. larger wavelength, propagating with a component towards one side and motion of the hit electrons towards the other one.
Physicists heuristically considered this the evidence for h/lambda being particles.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 18, 2014 @ 13:19 GMT
Eckard,
"Dealing with zero..."
That does seem like it shouldn't be a problem, but ends up with a result that can be '2' instead of '1' scalar increment. I sometimes think it might be applicable as a utilitarian device, to simply carry across on the number line from ...-2,-1,1,2... and assume 'zero' occurs at either end of an equivalence function setting the scale of increment between -1 and 1.
I also agree that assuming one particle, or quasi-particle, to carry only one force effect, is wholly artificial and the source of quantum confusion. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 18, 2014 @ 15:03 GMT
Eckard,
I agree scattering is poorly interpreted. Some fundamental assumptions are inconsistent, as I discussed 3 years ago. Compton elastic scattering was interpreted to prove 'photon' particles, yet the wavelength change increases not reduces with lateral angle. One also wonders how we can have all round lateral emissions while supposedly not 'dividing' the 'photon'!
Three years after Compton's Nobel Raman got his, for inelastic scattering. Yet even now it's considered as both a resonant and NOT a resonant effect! But at least in (more sophisticated than Wiki) optical science it's now recognised as having a 'wave' based (as well as particle) interpretation. i.e;
Raman Scattering.Though scattered light power has a linear relationship with incident intensity it has an inverse relation with wavelength to the 4th power.
Also while standard Rayleigh scattering re-emits at incident f, Raman scattering has a non-linear change ('energy exchange') with the phase shift; Θ = 2πx(1/λ − 1/λ'). That is highly relevant to my cosine derivation via the non-linear Stokes and Anti-Stokes up and down shifting. The Stokes parameter distribution is the same as I derive for the QM cosine distribution, again produced both classically and experimentally.
Though having little support I'm more certain than ever that we need to backtrack far further than most are willing to and change fundamental initial assumptions to then be able to rebuild our view of nature coherently. I appreciate that you at least seem perhaps to have seen that.
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 18, 2014 @ 16:42 GMT
All,
Well, Albert did confuse what 'photon' is supposed to mean with his photo-electric model, which puts one second worth of hv in one spot in a non-determined (brief!) span of time. Alternatively, the same effect could be explained as the rapidity of numbers of quasi-ballistic quantum (h) 'hits' that would occur with higher frequencies, in a determinable span of time and (intensity) numbers of discrete wavetrains. Which is consistent with classical wave magneto-electric inductance where a higher voltage in your ignition system is developed by a faster rate of change in the magnetic field strength. And here as usual we see the dependence on the choice of the observer determining the conclusion from experimental data.
The Bohr model and Schrodinger are typically pictured as 2D concentric circles, but realistically in R4 the 3D 'wave' between spherical shells would have to be an undulation producing mounds and hollows and the probability function collapse would compare to the topological construct of 'combing the hairs on a coconut' where no matter how you style the contour there will always result at least one 'cowlick'. But if we can only say light quanta can only be quasi-particulate, then the same for electrons and they can be seen as energy concentrations within a unified field of an atomic mass:energy volume. What is probability in QM, is Classically the propensity of energy concentrating to a certain density, to prescribe an optimal volume:energy configuration. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 18, 2014 @ 18:29 GMT
Thanks Eckard for mentioning Compton scattering. I was wondering what to say when I cam across Thomson scattering. And just as I was about to put in a comment I saw Peter's reference to Raman scattering. So I guess the jury is still out on the importance to the wave-particle debate so let me reserve my comments for now. I however wish for a wave explanation of the Compton effect.
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew wrote on Jul. 18, 2014 @ 13:33 GMT
Photons are of course divisible and we do it all of the time with sum and difference laser spectroscopy. In fact, the beamsplitter involves surface plasmon excitation and some of the photon energy is lost as an inelastic scattering that splits the photon into two. If we used certain kinds of birefringent crystals or photoactive gain media, we could split it many different ways.
Splitting the photon is not the issue at all. Having a single photon with two possible coherent futures is the issue.
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 18, 2014 @ 15:25 GMT
Steve,
"a single photon with two possible coherent futures is the issue."
Can you explain that in more detail, or rather why it may be assumed this scenario would fail, simplified;
Consider a hierarchical spin-orbit model with the photon as a spinning dipole fluctuation with a hyperfine spin +1 and -1 'peak' and 'trough', so describing a twin helical path. At the splitter mirror the +1 -1 positions are random, so head off ('re-emitted') either way. Note the negative charge exists, with a wavelength and phase. It is not 0 or 'nothing', (those qualities are conserved across the surface TZ). We may effectively then consider at two 'photons' of significantly different energies.
Now the 're-manifestation' on interaction with a surface (where not recombined) can only be from the positive charge (so 50:50)
However when recombined by the 2nd mirror the phase can be tuned to give full positive or negative amplitude 'interference' at one or other detector.
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 18, 2014 @ 22:44 GMT
I was hoping that we could sneak in without polarization effects. The beamsplitter is acually sensitive to polarization and works differently in the two linear polarizations.
It is better to start with a circularly polarized photon and then propagate that as right or left handed. The surface plasmon of the beamsplitter will preserve that polarization. Linear polarization reflects differently in a typical beamsplitter. There are now both polarization and beamsplitter operators and this complicates the simple analysis with more possible states.
I think you question comes down to if a single photon can be circularly as well as linearly polarized and the answer is yes. At the beamsplitter, the transmitted beam is rh for an rh photon while the reflected beam is inverted as a lh photon. Thus the single photon still just has two possible states. Ring lasers tend to run on circularly polarized light.
I am afraid I did not quite follow your example, though. Sounds like a Stern-Gerlach magnet type of beamsplitter. Coupling magnetic spin effects with the electric field of a surface plasmon beamsplitter would really be tricky.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 18, 2014 @ 23:50 GMT
Steve,
Pete will seek to refute every possible explanation that does not end up being 'a wave can only be a helix', which is kind of like pushing a string. Not that his helical model doesn't find applicable consistency, it just doesn't have the physical property component in and of itself to explain why it would continually wrap around a timeline through otherwise empty space. It's his blind spot that everybody else sees through (pssst! over here Pete!). A 'tiny spinning gyroscopes...each with inertia' is only an operational definition of inertia between two or more inertial reference frames. They wouldn't have a continual rate of spin if they each didn't have their own inertia of equal value relative to unit mass.
Akinbo...can easily see that traverse and longitudinal waves can and do occur 'in a media'. But spin (CW or CCW) a sinusoidal curvature that continuously repeats, around its graphical baseline, and you have a 3D+t graphic picture of a self-limiting, finite volumetric of clearly deterministic wave events of distinct start and end points through spacetime. Let that graphic shape contain energy which is coherent, at density proportionate to amplitude, and rotating and it will induce a signature in a detection system, of a helix of constant OAM. A LINK sausage machine.
And as You have consistently brought to discussion...
The task is to find direct correlation between classical characteristics of physical properties, with the vectors of quantum states in a space of infinite possible directions at any loci; in any selected region of real spacetime.
Energy is a dog that can hunt. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 19, 2014 @ 03:39 GMT
I keep hearing about these helical thingys and there are a lot of helical thingys already out there. Why are this thingys any different from the thingys that we already have?
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 19, 2014 @ 05:03 GMT
Steve,
"Why are these things any different from things we already have?"
Aaahhhh... I'm very glad you asked that.
Answer: Because they aren't!
I'm not saying the analytic geometry isn't right, I'm saying; that's what it is. It is just Pete presents it as a model, which it could be if it were in a reference frame of Minkowski 4X4 matrix Blocktime, then the helix could...
view entire post
Steve,
"Why are these things any different from things we already have?"
Aaahhhh... I'm very glad you asked that.
Answer: Because they aren't!
I'm not saying the analytic geometry isn't right, I'm saying; that's what it is. It is just Pete presents it as a model, which it could be if it were in a reference frame of Minkowski 4X4 matrix Blocktime, then the helix could physically operate like an apple peeler stripping off helixes of disturbed spacetime. But it only infers a physical model (the link sausage string made by the helix pudding machine) by projective trigonometry, the time and energy have to be put in by hand. In that sense it is not a model itself, and I dislike 'framework' unless it ontologically exists as the armature of a model of physical material properties. It is rather the same genus but different species as Einstein's GR construct. It's not a theory (though many theories might come of it) and its not a methodology; it is a mechanism, you apply your own method to it.
Pete, you might consider pitching it as a mechanism, and calling it the Discrete Field Mechanism. And here's is why, Steve..
As a mechanism it can project a physical model, while as an analytical geometric mechanism it can project vectors trigometrically without interaction physically, non-locally. But those vectors are relational to the helical parameters, the point on the helix incident to projection is the point at unity of coefficients between the helix parameters and those of the "Tiny spinning gyroscope" . Simple right angle induction, point at unity of time , physically it could amount to magnetic traction, but skids at 45 degrees. That sort of interface, its a mechanism. BUT TRANSLATIONALLY, that sets the vector given the proportions of coeffecients; the induced anglular attitude of the axis which is 'direction' (okay... you get to be the quarter, I'll be the twist-off beer cap with the horses head on it, both turn out the same unless we say so) and the size of the disc is 'magnitude' being equal in length of axial and diameter in proportion to helical diameter. It's a vector projector.
So what ontology might be had to relate those projective vectors as quantum vectors? I can think of a QTD = quantum time density, completely ad hoc. Relative inertial energy density, could be a parameter. Pete's prohibition against anything other than helical (or distortion thereof) being translational of wave mechanics is simply axiomatic, its a mechanism. Can it be Quantum as well as classical?
Peace out jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 19, 2014 @ 15:19 GMT
So the DFM is a model of the way the universe works, but it is not clear how it makes a quantum gravity. Once science has a quantum gravity, we should be able to create a gravity beamsplitter and prepare neutral matter into coherent quantum states.
These coherent gravity states will show interference effects, there will be an exchange force that adds to gravity just like exchange adds to charge force. Once we have a nice quantum gravity, a lot of things will become clear. Including the thermodynamics of a gravitational system like the universe. And a quantum gravity will do away with the messy business of black hole singularities and give us back an absolute or proper time.
As far a helices are concerned, there is a fundamental math that shows how the spiral form of our galaxy bound density wave with a pitch of 12° is a generalization of a line as pitch = -90°, hyperbolas, ellipses, and a circle as pitch = 0°. Spiral trajectories and forms show up a lot in nature and the creation of hydrogen atoms early in the universe must have been as pairs with complementary spin or angular momentum, up and down hydrogen.
This original pair represents the basic duality of complementary spiral action in the universe. Up hydrogens tended to get together as up galaxies and down hydrogens as down galaxies. Thus it is true that the angular momentum of our galaxy permeates our reality down to the spins of our protons and electrons.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 19, 2014 @ 16:53 GMT
Steve,
Very thoughtful insights. First let me address the quantum issue with a nod of approval to spiral trajectories, its in our DNA. But I think the route to proper time is through helical trajectory being a special condition of uniform linear motion, and so Maxwell's finding of the constant 'c' proportion of relative electric and magnetic field strengths provides a time dependent...
view entire post
Steve,
Very thoughtful insights. First let me address the quantum issue with a nod of approval to spiral trajectories, its in our DNA. But I think the route to proper time is through helical trajectory being a special condition of uniform linear motion, and so Maxwell's finding of the constant 'c' proportion of relative electric and magnetic field strengths provides a time dependent velocity gradient to drop down to spherical nil velocity.
Pete's DFM is as he often reiterates, is scale hierarchical. So quantum mechanically, superposing his mechanism over real space we can find an ontologic trigometric structure for vector space, thusly. At any loci there exist infinite possible dimensions, that is; lengths of directions. There are infinite possible loci. We can posit an arbitrary start state, magnitude at all scales at 'c' has an effieciency of a cylinder of equal diameter and length and the helix transits one full cycle end to end. So the size of that helical cycle is scale dependent at loci A, and the same size at another loci B will be a quantum equivalent magnitude. The pairs state is either orthogonally aligned (coherent) or anorthoganal (incoherent), coherence and decoherence relate as relative angular attitude and coherent obtains as noninterference, mathematically the algebraic sum will be a whole number. Decoherence is quantum interference which obtains an algebraic sum which is not a whole number, and resolves out of the scale hierarchy of different size 'gyros' with different vector special attitudes and magnitudinal proportion relating to spin. A coherent path of OAM influence simply connected through bifurcation will translate the original loci A parameters to the loci B parameters through a bunch of little gyros, we might retrace the path and find our loci inside a larger helix. But it becomes immediately clear that there are probably numerous other paths that would do the same thing of reaching a whole number algebraic sum for A @ B. All the paths of non-whole number sums are quantum interference. That's why it's good to have a cheap cooling pad under your laptop.
So I think (within my limits of ignorance) as a mechanism, Pete's DFM might fit the bill as a little hand-held, co-ordinate free, spherical mechanical device with helical parts that could compute both quantumly and classically. There is a probability of one OAM path being taken to a whole number algebraic coherent relationship of A @ B, out of probable others. And there is an undeterminant probability of wholesale dechorent non-whole number path bifurcations.
"...it's not clear how it makes a quantum gravity" - "And a quantum gravity will do away with black hole singularities and give us back an absolute or proper time."
That is the 'blind spot', the time and energy have to be put in by hand. I have suggested my own humble invention from beaucoup years ago, of a 'Postulate of relative inertial energy density' as the solution to the mathematically inherent singularity which emerges in GR. But classically human I am adverse to a universe of 'infinite string theory helical birdsnest' spacetime energy that matters. And entropy lies in the quantum interference.
This has been fun, jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 19, 2014 @ 18:20 GMT
Okay, that helps. DFM is one of the many multidimensional multiuniverse thingys that seek to explain everything by introducing a bunch of unknowables...like we don't have enough unknowable stuff already.
I like starting a universe off with very simple axioms: matter, time, and quantum action. Matter has two dimensions as mass and phase, time has two dimensions, proper and action, and a fundamental orthogonality between matter and time reduces to the three dimensions of matter, time, and phase.
That is all that seems to be necessary to explain the universe, so why make it more complicated?
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 19, 2014 @ 19:05 GMT
Steve,
Yeah, I like to keep it simple too, and I have long thought that naivety is somewhat under-rated these days, but only if it is informed. And like an old Gordon Lightfoot tune: "I never came to borrow / I only came to learn." Tom Ray got through to me early on, and it took a while to see the method in Pete's madness, and people like Eckard and a number of others have been tolerant at least of my deficiencies of acquired knowledge, which I greatly appreciate. This forum is about as close as I might hope to get to august company. I guess, intellectually I'm in the School of Errorstotal - Alas, none but geometers may enter here! jrc
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 21, 2014 @ 21:11 GMT
John, Steve,
"...it's not clear how it makes a quantum gravity" - "And a quantum gravity will do away with black hole singularities and give us back an absolute or proper time."
There's a link between the helical Gottfried-Jackson angle (Cos Theta GJ) (between the lab frame Higgs and a photon modulated to the resonance rest frame) and Quantum Gravity. But perhaps best read this first
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.3658.pdf and I'll just write about how (Absolute) Proper Time also simply emerges independently anyway. (I actually did that in the 2012 "Much Ado..." essay).
When inertial (rest frame K) systems meet the Higg's process condenses fermions (electron, positron proton pure plasma) in BOTH frames. From each rest frame the OTHER is considered 'virtual'. But they are both real, just as two cars are both real before they collide! 'Yours' is at rest in Maxwell's 'Near field' the other the 'Far field'.
The plasma meets and cancels across the Debye length (after a lot of hydrodynamic turbulent mixing!) but not before it's done it's job as a two-fluid plasma and converted all EM fluctuation crossing it (both ways) to the new local c (K/K') by absorption and re-emission. Ergo; One rule; Electrons only know ONE speed c. Their own! So c in K is the same as c in K' but wrt K and K' NOT each other! That's a simple Doppler shift (limited by the Lorentz factor as max plasma density approaches at K-K'
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 21, 2014 @ 22:22 GMT
Pete,
That's digestible, though I'll need to learn enough to use chop-sticks to get a wrap on the Higg's mechanism. 'Two fluid' plasma is comprehensible from the condensed matter paradigm, and I think you are correct in examining the TZ for tracing how relativistic spacetime might determine the metamorphis of a continuous energy emission into a distinct quanta wavelength package in the far field. I think there is a linkage between Unruh time and the evanescent waves which reflect entirely back into the electronic energy volume, and which have an exponential rate of dissipation, where in the near field the electrostatic intensity follows a cube root dissipation rate while the magnetostatic intensity drops by the familiar inverse square. It suggests that the exponential rate prevails in the first half of the first wavelength distance in the near field, and governs the change of electro rate in the near field to the inverse square value in far field. The right angle relationship between electric and magnetic influence at 'c' might thus resolve into the far field, and Maxwell is found in the 90 degree out of phase relation (linear) at relative nil velocity, which is in phase at 'c'. Unruh time might be worth a look as that 'rate of time' phase shift would be exponential. At nil, 90*, the proper length is half again the proper length at 'c' where mag and elec fields are in phase linearly. What do you think?
Pardon my feeble attempts at interpretation of your discrete field dynamics. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 22, 2014 @ 01:18 GMT
Okay, geez louise, let's see if we can do a simple mind experiment. Let DFM do a beamsplitter on a single photon, 50% to path A and 50% to path B. Now, we observe the single photon on path A...does that mean the photon was always on path A? Or was it a superposition of paths A and B and never on just one path? Do possibilites exist that are unknowable or is the universe deterministic?
These theories get so unwieldy that it is nearly impossible to tell left from right and up from down without simplicity.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 22, 2014 @ 02:46 GMT
Steve,
Fair enough! Pete, you're up. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 22, 2014 @ 09:03 GMT
JRC, Thanks for your comments. Will check the Unruh paper.
Peter, The much I agree with you is that by some mechanism 'c' can be modulated to a local value and in essence this results in Galilean relativity. Your preferred mechanism is by electron absorption and emission of light. But what of electron-free media, or don't they exist? What's your take on the cause of stability in orbits we can see (i.e. gravitational orbits)? Insights from that may help us understand orbits we cannot see (i.e. quantum). To put it this way: Why has the moon not fall on our heads despite billions of years of the earth and moon tugging at each other? What keeps them apart?
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 22, 2014 @ 11:12 GMT
Steve,
"Do possibilites exist that are unknowable or is the universe deterministic?"
I don't know. i.e. 'unknowable' in the model as it only resolves one order of the hierarchy at a time (parameters may change at smaller scales). Godel's fuzzy logic and Chaos theory always apply. But the bits logically resolved include QM non-locality, SR, (with the LT 'limit' mechanism) and GR....
view entire post
Steve,
"Do possibilites exist that are unknowable or is the universe deterministic?"
I don't know. i.e. 'unknowable' in the model as it only resolves one order of the hierarchy at a time (parameters may change at smaller scales). Godel's fuzzy logic and Chaos theory always apply. But the bits logically resolved include QM non-locality, SR, (with the LT 'limit' mechanism) and GR.
Annoyingly the 2nd half of my post is lost in cyberspace as I used a 'more than' chevron. At least that made is 'digestible'! There is ONLY 'Proper Time' (absolute rate) because SR only banned a SINGLE 'ether' frame, not many hierarchical local background rest states. The SR postulates and AE conceptions survive, the paradox ridden 'interpretation' is junked.
BEAMSPLITTER
The probability of getting precisely 50;:50 are the same as you chopping a sausage precisely in half blindfolded or not. Now look at a 2D cosine 'wave', strike a vertical line blindfold, and check the probability of hitting it precisely at the peak. It's infinitely small (remember the red dots on my 2012 essay Fig 4 rings). So rule one is there's always an energy imbalance.
Now also consider in terms (almost whichever you like but they overlap) of re-emissions at the surface (mirror or glass), Huygens construction, QED sum-over paths, and the non-linear Schrödinger equation. There is NO 'photon' as such following any 'path'. Our preconceptions are nonsense. There are spreading fluctuating energy distributions. If something physically interacts at any number of spatial positions a 'quanta' will however only manifest at ONE position, where any constructive interference is highest. (in kiddies terms, the 'path' the original positive charge took, which DID have a 50:50 random probability).
If a 2nd splitter is introduced to 'recombine' the patterns the same thing happens. BOTH patterns are requantized/re-emitted at the splitter. But NOW they BOTH have 'peaks and troughs' (2D simplification) so phase can be 'tuned' to create the positive energy peak in EITHER direction! i.e. by changing transit time/distance. (A bit more precise to think of playing with two representative twin helices, but less familiar!).
That solution is pretty well as Wheeler anticipated. As usual it's only silly starting assumptions that make nonsense of all that follows. The ontology is powerfully predictive across the board.
I think I also posted the application to cosmology, which suggests a cycle of galaxies and universes. When we look for the specific evidence we find it all lined up for us, presently 'anomalous'. There were two more new 'anomalous' findings this last week which were predictions of the model (satellite galaxy orbits, and anomalous large morphologies in the early universe)
Velocity anti-correlation of diametrically opposed galaxy satellites. and
Anomalous Galaxy Formation and Evolution(finding not interpretation!.
It seems now that even the Higg's may be better described as the 'dipole' the DFM suggests!?
Twin Peak Higg's anomaly!The cyclic evolution paper also derives galaxy bars. It's in print but preprint here (with other papers). None will of course get accepted by a 'big' journal as I'm not an academic, and they're on the 'big picture' not minutii.
www.academia.edu/6655261/A_CYCLIC_MODEL_OF_GALAXY_EVOLUTION_
WITH_BARS.
The model is as Freeman predicted, incomplete, imperfect and apparently confusing (as it's unfamiliar) but the basics couldn't be simpler (see my prev 3 essays, all top 10 scorers). It's open for all attach and falsification, as well as help to tidy up and help 'describe' in current doctrine terms!
Akinbo
Free protons also scatter EM energy, and provide most of the gravitational mass of pure plasma (dark matter). Parts of space with few electrons are big to compensate. There will always be a kinetic state and radius for any mass where centripetal and centrifugal forces balance. But electrons are not 'orbiting particles'. They may better be seen as an additional wider 'spin state' when 'bound' to a proton. It seems they then can't 'annihilate' with free positrons. Further evolution is then to the more complex bound molecular gases.
Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 22, 2014 @ 13:22 GMT
Good, DFM has prepared a superposition state of some sort to represent a beamsplitter. So it sounds like DFM is a lot like QM with a new basis set.
Next problem: What does DFM do with the inside of a black hole? Does time stop? what is the meaning of displacement inside of a black hole?
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 22, 2014 @ 14:20 GMT
Peter,
I am okay with the part about EM scattering.
I will not contend QM orbits and whether or not electrons are not 'orbiting particles' since we can't see them. But we can see the moon orbiting the earth and the earth orbiting the sun, so lets start from there...
You say, "There will always be a kinetic state and radius for any mass where centripetal and centrifugal forces...
view entire post
Peter,
I am okay with the part about EM scattering.
I will not contend QM orbits and whether or not electrons are not 'orbiting particles' since we can't see them. But we can see the moon orbiting the earth and the earth orbiting the sun, so lets start from there...
You say, "There will always be a kinetic state and radius for any mass where centripetal and centrifugal forces balance.".
We know the centripetal force acting radially inwards, which is gravity
F = GMm/r
2 = mrω
2 = centripetal force
What is the cause of the centrifugal force, acting oppositely and radially outwards? For a sling whirled around, your swirling hand provides the centrifugal force radially outwards, while the tension in the string provides the centripetal force radially inwards.
In gravitational orbits, the orbiter's velocity is tangential to the orbit and not in a radial direction, so in my opinion it cannot fit the bill.
Why should the magnitude of forces be varying rhythmically, strongest at perihelion and weakest at aphelion? Does this not indicate the presence of a 'ghost'? To illustrate consider a swinging pendulum. When it swings downwards in an arc we are not surprised because we know of gravity. But suppose you are confronted with a pendulum bob, you will not be alarmed by a downward swing/ fall, since you know of gravity but you must surely tremble with fear if you see it swing upwards without a string attached to it! Unless someone like Jason points out to you that there is actually a string only that it was invisible. That is what I see in orbits. The earth swings downwards and falls to the nearest point to the sun at perihelion, then just as we expect it to continue falling further under gravitational attraction, it rises till it reaches aphelion!
It is that invisible string that makes it possible for planets to defy gravity that I want you or anybody with further insight to shed more light on.
It may be important quantum mechanically as I think the same agent is responsible for preventing the wedding of electrons and protons in the nucleus despite the strong electromagnetic affection existing between them.
Regards,
Akinbo
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 22, 2014 @ 14:59 GMT
Pete and Steve,
I take Planck seriously, and simply.
A photon is one second worth of Quantums. An emission source that spits out a pulse one half second long that equals e=hv, will be two individual wavetrains. One will take path A and the other path B. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 22, 2014 @ 17:22 GMT
Steve,
"What does DFM do with the inside of a black hole? Does time stop? what is the meaning of displacement inside of a black hole?"
Joined-up-physics means 'Black holes' and all the rubbish surrounding them are dumped and replaced with the simple active galactic nuclii (AGN's) we now know lots about (and the scale model in the Crab Nebula). It's all in the Cyclic Model Paper,...
view entire post
Steve,
"What does DFM do with the inside of a black hole? Does time stop? what is the meaning of displacement inside of a black hole?"
Joined-up-physics means 'Black holes' and all the rubbish surrounding them are dumped and replaced with the simple active galactic nuclii (AGN's) we now know lots about (and the scale model in the Crab Nebula). It's all in the Cyclic Model Paper, overflowing with evidence.
Nutshell version; The AGN grows with intrinsic gyrokinetic rotation of matter in space, and speeds up with accretion of galactic matter (OAM). It's simply an EM toroid, but the tubular 'body' is interesting, behaving exactly as a nuclear tokamac (fusion reactor) where the accreted accelerated matter 'self organizes' onto contraflow 'windings' around the body (2 continuous opposing helices, one inside the other see the 'helicoil' reference). When at full power all is ionized (even Hi in the early universe and He at the ~z=2 peak) and 'spat out' at the 'z-pinch' or 'venturi' points which precess around each other, forming the quasar jets, measured trigonometrically at up to 46c in the HST rest frame.
Absolute time just carries on merrily as it has no physical presence. All 'EM signals' on the other hand (including those from emitters we decide to call clocks) are broken down. Only the stripped protons re-emerge, propagating nice fresh electrons and positron pairs in the jet pulse collimation shear planes. (just extreme 'bow shocks'). All the solid references are in the paper. The AGNs recycle almost all galactic matter, becoming a nice new blue open spiral when the 'column' starts to rotate on the new axis. (The Milky Way is at half cycle).
'Gravity' is interesting as the accretion (gravitational or centrepetal attraction to the core) is in the old disc plane but there's less force near the jet axis, where all the flow is outward. The new gravitational pattern is then 'longitudinal' for a while until the disc with virial radii 'steps' (of rotational velocity) re-forms. The 'bar' is the remains of the inner jet matter within the main virial radius.
The gravitational potential distributed in the oblate spheroid and halo around the main disc is from the electrons and free protons distributed there. There is no need for any 'exotic dark matter'. The densities found, well above assumptions, are just fine. And right there is all we need for QG and refractive 'space-time curvature' all in one simple mechanism.
Steve,
Planck loading theorem applies to bound molecular gas. Pure plasma is n=1. That means no delay. The 'only' refraction from pure plasma is then kinetic; 'JM rotation', 'Kinetic reverse refraction', lensing delays, and Stellar Aberration' etc. as found by the VLBA, and giving the birefringence and scintillation found.
You guys really need to read the papers. The real consistent evidence is overwhelming. Unless, like most, you don't look!
Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jul. 22, 2014 @ 17:38 GMT
Pete,
As you keep saying, (we) guys really need to read your bibliography to participate in Your blog.
Does it pertain to the topic of This blog, and how so, without digressing to a point that (we) guys really would need to read Your bibliography. Or are you going to sound like a ping pong padel instead of a sounding board til Brandon shuts this topical blog down, too, and dedicates an FQXi blog to Peter Jackson?
Dammit. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 22, 2014 @ 17:52 GMT
Akinbo,
That's momentum, AND inertia. It's ONLY rationalised by the hierarchy of spin. Imagine a gyroscope flywheel made up of billions of tiny gyroscopes. Let's say if the big gyroscope is spinning but held rigidly and in rectilinear motion (in rest frame K), it's very happy "spinning but at rest" in it's own centre-of-mass frame.
Now apply a force perpendicular to it's linear motion. It will NOT want to change it's vector! The spin gives it mass. Spin IS mass! (current exchange rate E=mc^2).
Now reconsider the moon as made up of billions of tiny gyroscopes per mm^3. At any instant it's very happy on it's tangential vector and left alone will continue in that inertial state K. BUT that damned annoying centrepetal force keeps trying to accelerate it laterally!! It's inertia ('momentum') is then what is balancing the gravity.
When one gets bigger than the other, as one day one surely will, it will either crash down or fly off.
Finally, that relative 'momentum' is a direct function of relative speed right? At epigee the relative speed is far higher. Does that now become intuitive? It should do unless you're hanging on to some false assumption or other.
The spin relation works hierarchically at all scales, and explains why the polystyrene car is easier for you to push than the lead car. You'd think that as gravity is pulling the lead car down far more, that it may be accelerated more when let go! It only
isn't because it has more spinning particles not interested in getting out of their rest frame inertia).
That works all the way up. Including with the Earth round the sun, the sun round the AGN, etc.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 23, 2014 @ 02:40 GMT
Oh my goodness...what wicked webs we weave...
I am pleased that you have an alternative to black holes. However, I am disappointed that you pull out another rabbit out of the hat with AGN's. Is there now way to navigate inside of a black hole? An AGN is a supermassive black hole by commone understanding and so why bring it up at all.
Either quantum action works inside of a black hole and we get a sensible universe or it does not and we continue with the silly chaos of Hawkings radiation...
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 23, 2014 @ 10:02 GMT
Peter J,
Your reply is innovative but I doubt if it works. It contains a number of improvised mechanisms, such as "
The spin gives it mass. Spin IS mass!" What you imply is that the origin of mass is spin. There are things that don't spin yet have mass. Moreover spin requires a third party to agree that you are spinning, making it relative. But mass is a scalar...
view entire post
Peter J,
Your reply is innovative but I doubt if it works. It contains a number of improvised mechanisms, such as "
The spin gives it mass. Spin IS mass!" What you imply is that the origin of mass is spin. There are things that don't spin yet have mass. Moreover spin requires a third party to agree that you are spinning, making it relative. But mass is a scalar quantity.
"
Now reconsider the moon as made up of billions of tiny gyroscopes… BUT that damned annoying centripetal force keeps trying to accelerate it laterally (inwards)!! It's inertia ('momentum') is then what is balancing the gravity".
Again, innovative but faulty. What we see in orbits is acceleration alternating with deceleration to gravity. We can attribute the acceleration to gravity, but mass or inertia by themselves cannot cause a deceleration without the intervention of some force. Momentum cannot change just because a body has mass without a force acting. That much Newton's second law tells us. Momentum is not the origin of force. The moon will happily maintain its momentum in the direction of gravity, if no other force acts on it, but it is not seen to maintain this momentum and momentum is a vector and so has direction.
As a body falls in the direction of a force, its relative speed gets higher as is observed when objects fall under gravity. The question is why the change of direction? Why not continue increasing in speed till the satellite (moon) crashes into earth? Something ghostly prevents this from happening.
On the energy balance sheet, your explanation too appears deficient. When gravitational potential is lost, TOTAL energy account of the two-body system enters deficit (see my earlier formulae for P.E. and K.E. posted on Jul. 21, 2014 @ 12:12 GMT). For satellites, it is said the lost energy radiates away as heat. How is this replenished in the earth-moon and sun-earth system to enable the orbiter regain exactly its previous height in the gravitational field?
To put things simply without hiding behind obscure mechanisms, the pendulum analogy helps. When the bob swings downwards under gravitational influence, it gathers 'momentum', it has inertia but these are not what makes it defy gravity at its lowest point. What balances gravity and makes the bob defy gravity is the Tension in the string (a force). Cut the string and the bob with all its inertia, momentum and its 'far higher relative speed' will crash to the floor.
To however give some favorable response. Let us assume your mechanism "
It's inertia ('momentum') is then what is balancing the gravity" is faultless, (which it is not), then in atomic orbits since the electron has mass (inertia, 'momentum') then that is also what is balancing the electromagnetic attraction force and that is what prevents atomic collapse, thus no need for Quantum mechanics to improvise stationary waves and probability clouds to explain atomic stability.
Regards,
Akinbo
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 23, 2014 @ 12:54 GMT
Steve,
Suggesting AGN's are rabbits from hats to astronomers is like suggesting haemoglobin is an invention by doctors to confuse 'blood'. I deal with observational findings not ancient theory. A quasar jet outflow is also analogous to 'Hawking radiation'. We find the same dynamics at stellar scale in the crab nebula so called 'neutron star'.
The only 'wicked web' is current...
view entire post
Steve,
Suggesting AGN's are rabbits from hats to astronomers is like suggesting haemoglobin is an invention by doctors to confuse 'blood'. I deal with observational findings not ancient theory. A quasar jet outflow is also analogous to 'Hawking radiation'. We find the same dynamics at stellar scale in the crab nebula so called 'neutron star'.
The only 'wicked web' is current nonsensical theory. All evidence is simply rationalised, but not using old doctrine. Golden rule; just as something's unfamiliar doesn't make it wrong, and vice versa. And of course particles 'navigate' in an AGN; helically around the torus body right up to the 'z-pinch' (another real mechanism).
One more characteristic of a helix is that when rotated one way the apparent 'phase velocity' of a helical form rotating as it also bodily 'passes by' an observer is different to that when rotated the 'other' way. That means that if 'charge' (+1/-1) relates to direction of rotation there will be a natural energy disparity measured. Now if that's correct we'd first need to find some kind of anomalous 'parity violation' between charges to apply it to. Hmmm.
I don't understand your comment on 'quantum action'. The process is one of re-ionization, at very high 'temperatures'. I suspect you may need to escape many layers of nonsense patches clear the way to coherent understanding. The reason the model remains unpublished is because most prefer to cling on to old assumptions.
Akinbo,
There is no 'improvisation'. You consistently take a disappointingly 'Akinbo centric' approach to the universe. If you haven't come across something personally before you automatically assume it's it's 'superfluous', 'improvised' or 'invented'. That's not how discovering new and unfamiliar things works! Life is a ALL about learning.
It works just fine. And matches the evidence far more consistently than any other theory! Think harder and afresh. All particles have spin. You won't then be able to name ANY physical entity that does not contain spin! What third party do you need to ask if an electron is spinning?
You don't seem to have grasped the concept of hierarchy. Think of a ships rope; each strand is twisted, so is each group of strands, on and on through many levels of DIFFERENT twists. In the end we can wrap the rope around a spar, and spin the spar on a planet. What is 'faulty' is the constrained way you're thinking. You must open your mind to a new way of thinking to understand. Are you able? Perhaps read Wittgenstein, or de Bono.
You state blandly; "..which it's not" but identify no flaw just trot out old mythical confusions which you seem to prefer. Do I have to give up on you?
best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 23, 2014 @ 13:16 GMT
The rabbit you pulled was dodging the black hole with an AGN, which of course is a black hole. You claim that DFM is consistent with GR, but then do not say what happens to the odd singularities that occur with gravity force.
If you have the states inside of an AGN, then you have the partition function and can calculate the entropy and free energy. What is the entropy of a black hole or AGN by DFM?
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 23, 2014 @ 19:29 GMT
Steve,
There are no singularities. Entropy is also shown to be a misnomer. You need to rip off a few more layers of patches and look at what's underlying them. It's simple to rationalise once you clear the rubbish and can see it. I try never to 'dodge', just better describe from more coherent basics.
First
singularities; Take any body, big or small. Lets' consider Earth, and...
view entire post
Steve,
There are no singularities. Entropy is also shown to be a misnomer. You need to rip off a few more layers of patches and look at what's underlying them. It's simple to rationalise once you clear the rubbish and can see it. I try never to 'dodge', just better describe from more coherent basics.
First
singularities; Take any body, big or small. Lets' consider Earth, and Lagrangian points. Will you be crushed by gravity in a void at the centre of Earth? No. You'll feel none. The map of the gravitational potential of all spheroids bodies is TOROIDAL.!! The potential returns to zero. It's also true of MULTIPLE bodies. In astronomy we've position probes at Lagrangian points L1 and L2 which are two of 5 zero potential points in the Earth/Sun/Moon system. The concept of singularities is an archaic stupidity we need to clear away.
Now
'Entropy'. The same applies. We've taken a local 'snapshot' in time and assumed it represents evolution. The universe is dynamic and cosmology is cyclic and eternal. As the evidence in the paper on cyclic evolution shows; the whole concept of entropy is a short sighted stupidity. When an AGN re-ionizes the particles that made a mug, not only is it making then immediately MORE organised as part of a whole by breaking them down to the "self organised" helical flow, but once ejected and incorporated into the new galaxy they may turn into something far more complex than a mug! Rip away that patch which includes 'partition functions', 'entropy' 'free energy' etc. and we get closer.
It's all there, set out clearly in the essays and papers. But you won't understand without looking. Each essay was a top 10 finalist only because those who read them glimpsed the clear truths and answers to at least some degree. I show for instance that the galaxy mass growth since high z is NOT all from 'collisions' as assumed. Each recycling (quasar) mechanism increases conjugate pair production so also total mass, scale and OAM. But from the dark energy condensate 'pool' which is presently still over 80% of the mass/energy of the universe, not from 'nothing'. (no issues of 'aether' arise).
I've always read at least 20 papers a week and 'top'n tailed' far more. But I study findings not interpretations. I think we need to do at least that for adequate data points to make out the big picture.
Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 24, 2014 @ 03:40 GMT
What perplexes me is not why this blog folds its posts into very obnoxious ways, what perplexes me is why DFM has no entropy. If DFM works, then count the fricking states and tell me what that logarithm is, multply it by Boltzmann constant and be done.
So I guess you do not like the word entropy, but I hope that at least states exist, nicht weil?
It is no wonder that people somehow believe that something is wrong with our understanding of reality. I am one of those. But then to throw the baby out with the bath water seems rather silly.
Quantum action is the most successful model of the universe. Gravity action, a la GR, has been somewhat successful, but there have been lots of problems with GR. So, people get pissed off at quantum action when in fact the problem is with gravity action. The way out of this mess is with quantum gravity...give me quantum gravity and all will be what will be.
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 24, 2014 @ 11:02 GMT
Peter J,
Do I have to give up on you?Perhaps, not until you answer these four questions:
1. Do we see acceleration and deceleration to gravity in orbits?
2. Can a body accelerate or decelerate without a force acting on it?
3. Put another way can a body increase or decrease in speed without the action of force?
4. Can the same force that causes acceleration of a body be the same one that causes its deceleration?
Be straight to the point without much 'Peter-centric' mechanisms. Better still, a Yes/No answer before any elaboration.
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 24, 2014 @ 13:21 GMT
Akinbo,
1. Yes. An orbiting body experiences a lateral 'force', which can strictly be termed an 'acceleration'. Otherwise it would continue on it's tangential vector.
2. No. I don't really like the word 'force' as it's poorly defined, but it'll do. 'Deceleration' is strictly an 'acceleration', which is a change of rest frame.
3. Yes. Because that's a different question....
view entire post
Akinbo,
1. Yes. An orbiting body experiences a lateral 'force', which can strictly be termed an 'acceleration'. Otherwise it would continue on it's tangential vector.
2. No. I don't really like the word 'force' as it's poorly defined, but it'll do. 'Deceleration' is strictly an 'acceleration', which is a change of rest frame.
3. Yes. Because that's a different question. 'Speed' is poorly understood and applied as it's only ever a
'relative' concept, and also requires 'time'. If a shuttle astronaut in some rest frame calculates the 'speed' of a passing asteroid he's being self centric and parochial if he does so wrt himself. He may accelerate then cruise in another rest frame, in which case the asteroids 'speed' has changed - with no force applied! He may also change it's 'speed' by choosing some other datum, Earth, some nearby planet, the sun, the centre of the galaxy? ALL give different 'speeds'. That realisation is FAR more important than we realise and not using it causes much confusion.
4. Yes. Same 'poor thinking' problem! Scientifically there is no such thing as 'deceleration'. As far as the asteroid is concerned it's entirely at rest. What speed any nearby planets and shuttles with to do is entirely up to them. ANY 'force' applied then causes an equal and opposite 'acceleration'.
You also need to improve your concept of the gyroscopic 'spin' motion which is the building block of what we call 'condensed matter', the hierarchical 'fractal' dimensions it lives in, and the implications. I described them but you were stuck in the simplistic view.
Only once that entirely different way of thinking is entirely assimilated and consistently applied will the path to reality start to become visible. Only then can we introduce the local 'background' rest frame which always exists despite the paradoxical insistence of the one wrong assumption in SR. Those are also ento irely hierarchical (only the LOCAL one is valid for 'propagation' speed). 'Relative' speeds are unconstrained, as intuition suggests. Only then can concepts such as 'deceleration' be reconstructed with a very different and consistent logic.
Don't 'dismiss' any of the above as each part of the code is required to unlock rationalism.
Steve,
Entropy isn't. It cycles eternally. All the time you refuse to read the papers you'll be stuck with the same old vista and never see the simple consistent logic and evidence. The 'babies' are Einstein's postulates, QM's 'absolute' rate of time and OAM as 'quanta'. They are conserved along with the maths. The rest is dirty water and the fog you must allow to lift.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 25, 2014 @ 02:59 GMT
I have read all of those papers and I can't even count the number that I read every week. So there! Thank-you for the reference to the stringy guy at Princeton, Nima Arkani-Hamed. That helps me understand the rather obscure approach that you have to quantum action.
Stringy theory is one of those kind of things that I find very distressing. Stringy theory includes hidden dimensions and hidden variables and you can explain anything...I accept stringy theory as true without argument since the universe is the way that it is and stringy theory affirms that. I dispute whether stringy theory results in any improved prediction of action.
Once again, a large number of scientists have found a way to say that the universe is the way it is in a really complicated way so that it seems really cool.
Is the math cool?
Yes.
Is it useful?
Not for predictions of action.
Without useful predictions of action, a theory is simply not useful for the guys in the trenches. Lots of math is really cool even though it does not help us predict things. When you ask why the universe is the way it is, the answer is simply not useful because the question has no answer. What is useful is to recognize the limits to our knowledge and then predict action from those principles.
Entropy is a number...related to the number of states of a system. If you can't count states, you do not have a useful theory and you do not have an entropy. Quantum action is very useful for predictions of action. Current gravity action is useful in some scales and clearly wrong in other scales.
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 25, 2014 @ 03:14 GMT
Yes Steve,
String theory has not lived up to its promise, and where it has seen progress is mainly in combination with other ideas such as twistors. Thankfully that combination is one of the several areas Arkani Hamed is researching. He seems to be well able to use stringy concepts, without becoming immured of the entire idiom. There is nothing wrong with adding dimensions, or assuming that higher dimensions exist, so long as they are dealt with correctly and there is a physical rationale behind using them. But when correctly used, proving anything you like is NOT possible thereby.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 25, 2014 @ 08:58 GMT
Peter J,
Thank you for your frankness in answering the questions. With little differences we have the same answer for 1) and 2). I am thinking 'Newtonically'. The little difference in 1) requires clarifying which side is lateral force acting, is it outwards or inwards towards the centre of the orbit? Newton says inwards and gives this force, F = mv
2/r = mrω
2. His...
view entire post
Peter J,
Thank you for your frankness in answering the questions. With little differences we have the same answer for 1) and 2). I am thinking 'Newtonically'. The little difference in 1) requires clarifying which side is lateral force acting, is it outwards or inwards towards the centre of the orbit? Newton says inwards and gives this force, F = mv
2/r = mrω
2. His formula works well in engineering, etc. In 2), Yes deceleration is an acceleration depends on which direction. For example friction though viewed as a deceleration is an acceleration in the direction opposite to the direction your car is moving.
On 3) and 4), we have a problem. You have abandoned Newton here, but perhaps rightly so from the DFM perspective. Let's look at your answers. According to Newton's second law, a body cannot increase or decrease in speed without the action of a force. Rather it will continue with uniform motion, which means constant speed. I agree there may be difficulties here depending on the observer's own frame. So your insight is helpful. Einstein had similar insight hence his Equivalence principle, i.e. strictly speaking acceleration or deceleration depends on the observer's reference frame, hence not absolute. This I think led Newton to contemplate an Absolute reference frame for motion, on which there is yet to be agreement in physics. Newton was very much worried by this and this was the basis of the long argument between him on the one hand and Leibniz and Mach on the other. Newton formulated several thought and real experiments (bucket, globe, etc) to prove his viewpoint and the absurdity of saying ALL motion was relative, and there was no absolute way of differentiating 'stationary' from 'moving'.
Note however the viewpoint that the Cosmic Microwave Background now appears to provide just such a reference by which ALL other motion can NOW be judged and thus seems to vindicate the Galileo-Newton view against the Leibniz-Mach position. Using THIS frame, there will be no more argument who is moving and who is stationary relative to the other.
So when you say, "
What speed any nearby planets and shuttles with to do is entirely up to them", in the frame of CMBR, it is no longer up to them. That may be Old School talk. Shakira and Beyonce are thinking differently! It is what the CMBR says that you can now use to judge if you are moving or stationary, and at what speed if you are moving. For example, the CMBR says earth is moving at about 380km/s through space. Can you cast a stone against that?
Best regards and many thanks for sharing your view (even if more Leibniz-Machian in my opinion).
Akinbo
*This has taken us away from Why Quantum, but for good reason. That same ghost , DFM mechanism or any other proposal preventing gravitational orbits from collapsing, may for economy be similarly at work in Quantum orbits. I will leave the gyroscopic aspect for now. Let us judge first what we can see. Before imagining what we cannot see.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 25, 2014 @ 14:16 GMT
Akinbo;
The 'force' acts 'inwards', as Newtons. 'Self centric' thinking still pervades all science. We've escaped it a little, in baby steps, but all the time you reject the hierarchical / fractal view of nature you'll be locked in to it, and nature will confound.
3 and 4 need escape from those 'self centric', 'earth centric', barycentric' or even 'galactocentric' viewpoints to...
view entire post
Akinbo;
The 'force' acts 'inwards', as Newtons. 'Self centric' thinking still pervades all science. We've escaped it a little, in baby steps, but all the time you reject the hierarchical / fractal view of nature you'll be locked in to it, and nature will confound.
3 and 4 need escape from those 'self centric', 'earth centric', barycentric' or even 'galactocentric' viewpoints to rationalise.
Perhaps start from the premise that for understanding nature WE are not important, nor is Earth, nor our sun. There are countless barycentric systems out there, all in relative motion all equivalent, as SR says. Light speed is c locally to all, so is found 'different' if all 'viewed' from one distant rest frame.
Think hard about that. The only logic then is that any valid concept 'speed' is only valid if using the LOCAL background frame as the datum. A car driving at 40mph on Siruis 5 is then NOT doing the 7,340mph we find (a self centric view) but is doing 40mph. Sirius 5 is doing 7,300mph wrt YOU! However it may only be doing 2,000mph wrt it's own local background frame.
ALL speeds are then relative. We stupidly assume we don't have to specify a datum frame for 0. We always must. Only then does it all make sense.
"the CMBR says earth is moving at about 380km/s through space. Can you cast a stone against that?"
It does NOT say that Akinbo! You added the "through space" using a self centric assumption of 'all space'! Read the actual Scott & Smoot (2004 Nobel) analysis.
Earth has a known orbital speed wrt the heliosphere, which has a known speed through the local group, which has a known speed through the cluster, which has a known speed through the supercluster, which has a known speed around the local filament, which has a known speed wrt the 'Hubble Flow'. (Yet even having found and calculated those speeds, now largely confirmed, Smoot couldn't rationalise the pattern without invoking ether and suggesting 'differential expansions'!! It's far simpler.
The fish swims at 3 knots in the river whatever speed it's flowing. It wonders at the intelligence of humans on the bank who insist it's swimming at 6! Wouldn't you?
Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 25, 2014 @ 14:29 GMT
Akinbo,
An insight emerges from Campbell (Camb Univ. Press 2nd ed., 1913; p.388. 'Modern Electrical Theory'). Quoted by Cambridge Prof. Harold Aspden in his book "Physics Unified" on free view in this link just passed to me.
. Aspden "Physics Unified. Ch.3. p54-76. Aspdens anaylsis was brilliant and he was really only 3 steps short of the holy grail (extinction distances, the fully hierarchical mechanism, and aberration).
Campbell;
"This is the simple way out of the difficulties raised by the MM experiment. If from the beginning we had used a plural instead of singular word to denote the system in which radiant energy is localised … those difficulties would never have appeared. There has never been a better example of the danger of being deceived by the arbitrary choice of terminology. However Physicists, not recognising the gratuitous assumption made in the use of the words 'the Aether', adopted the second alternative, they introduced new assumptions."
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 25, 2014 @ 15:00 GMT
Steve,
I agree entirely about stringy stuff. Watching Hamed's Messenger Lectures it doesn't even appear as an old string to his guitar.
You seem irrevocably set on the 'entropy' view of nature. That's fair given the approach discussed here. But if you'd understood the papers you looked at you'd see the argument that 'infinite' states exist. You'd also see the well developed...
view entire post
Steve,
I agree entirely about stringy stuff. Watching Hamed's Messenger Lectures it doesn't even appear as an old string to his guitar.
You seem irrevocably set on the 'entropy' view of nature. That's fair given the approach discussed here. But if you'd understood the papers you looked at you'd see the argument that 'infinite' states exist. You'd also see the well developed argument, in the very well supported 'It from Bit' essay, that entropy being a 'number' further constrains it as a valid concept in describing nature. Do comment on the "Law of the reducing Middle" postulated there if you disagree with it. Only one queried it in the long string of discussions.
The predictions and usefulness of the discrete field ontology is unprecedented. You suggest;
"When you ask why the universe is the way it is, the answer is simply not useful because the question has no answer." Yet if you'd read the Cyclic Galactic Evolution and Cosmology preprint you'd see that isn't true. Not only IS there now a consistent candidate but it's a very 'useful' one for decoding galaxy morphologies and astronomical anomalies.
Astonishingly all the a large scale CMB anisotropies naturally emerge. Some of the most recent findings predicted by the mechanism include;
Space Telescope Science InstituteVelocity anti-correlation of diametrically opposed galaxy satellites in the low-redshift UniverseThe effect of fluctuations on the helium-ionizing backgroundSo if there's one thing that discrete field dynamics seems to do consistently it's resolve anomalies. (It also explains how cups are made from many condensed particles). But it's still under test. If you can think of any throw them at it and we'll see what it says!
Best wishes
Peter
PS; One thing It predicts is that ALL information eventually re-emerges from so called 'black holes', whether decodable or not. I've just seen that Hamed agrees.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 26, 2014 @ 01:48 GMT
You seem irrevocably set on the word entopy. Forget entropy. Count the states and tell me the answer! Why is this so hard? Entropy is a word the represents the logarithm of a number of states. It is the states that are important, not the word.
Just tell me how DFM helps me to get across the street without getting killed by some black hole-driver. All of these platitudes about things that are very well known are very confusing. A useful theory tells me how to predict something that I do not already know.
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 26, 2014 @ 10:12 GMT
Peter J,
Thanks for your reply.
"
3 and 4 need escape from those 'self centric', 'earth centric', barycentric' or even 'galactocentric' viewpoints to rationalize".
I understand what you say and I agree WE are not important. However there is now a 'CMB centric' viewpoint to consider. Newton would be a happy man now in his grave. To agree and show our unimportance as you...
view entire post
Peter J,
Thanks for your reply.
"
3 and 4 need escape from those 'self centric', 'earth centric', barycentric' or even 'galactocentric' viewpoints to rationalize".
I understand what you say and I agree WE are not important. However there is now a 'CMB centric' viewpoint to consider. Newton would be a happy man now in his grave. To agree and show our unimportance as you point out, the CMB is not isotropic in our frame.
"
ALL speeds are then relative".
To an extent yes. It depends how high you want to go on your hierarchical ladder. At the top now sits the crown of CMB which physically depicts Absolute Space reference frame.
"
Read the actual Scott & Smoot (2004 Nobel) analysis"
Thanks for giving me that assignment for my morning coffee. Don’t know the link but I found this from one of the
Scott & Smoot papers:
"The
LARGEST anisotropy (read as the dynamical crown) is in the = 1 (dipole) first spherical harmonic,... The dipole is interpreted to be the result of the Doppler shift caused by the solar system motion relative to
the nearly isotropic blackbody field, as confirmed by measurements of the velocity field of local galaxies...
At every point in the sky, the spectrum is essentially blackbody, but the spectrum of the dipole is the differential of a blackbody spectrum, as confirmed by Ref.[8].
The implied velocity [9] for the solar system barycenter is v =
368 ± 2 km s-1,... Such a solar system velocity implies a velocity for the Galaxy and the Local Group of galaxies relative to the CMB.
The dipole is a frame dependent quantity, and one can thus determine the
`absolute rest frame' of the Universe as that in which the CMB dipole would be zero. Our velocity relative to the Local Group, as well as the velocity of the Earth around the Sun, and any velocity of the receiver relative to the Earth, is normally removed for the purposes of CMB anisotropy study"
So more homework for DFM on 3) and 4).
Regards,
Akinbo
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jul. 26, 2014 @ 13:45 GMT
Steve,
"..cross the street without getting killed by some black hole-driver."
Hmmm. Yes, Surprisingly I think the model can actually do that. All the time you're in the disc (or toroidal) orbital plane you need to stand back and wait.
But the moment you're anywhere near either spin axis projection, go for it. You should even get a bit of a 'push' to help keep you out of the...
view entire post
Steve,
"..cross the street without getting killed by some black hole-driver."
Hmmm. Yes, Surprisingly I think the model can actually do that. All the time you're in the disc (or toroidal) orbital plane you need to stand back and wait.
But the moment you're anywhere near either spin axis projection, go for it. You should even get a bit of a 'push' to help keep you out of the accretion flow.
In other words it suggests an anisotropic spherical gravitational distribution which resolves a number of anomalies. Our kinetic resolving power has recently massively increased and our findings are now what current theory predicts. The gravity (accretion distribution) of an AGN (black hole/neutron star in old money) does not appear to be spherically symmetrical. There are variable but strong and seemingly ubiquitous outflows and 'feedback' (poorly understood). These may of may not be separate kinetic effects but either way they completely overwhelm any other 'gravitational' effects in the disk OR jets (thousands of LtYrs long).
Take a look on NASA's Hubble Space Telescope site, at the centre of the Crab Nebula (Stellar scale and outflows still at low power - but giving GRB's), at Centaurus A and M87 (Our nearest active Galaxies at that stage) and at Saggitarious A, our own AGN, accreting from the presently limited radius disc and still spitting stars back out whole (14+ hypervelocity stars on the axis recently).
If you tried to cross the accretion disc when at full power you'd be spun round helically for a bit on max spin cycle (and heat) and spat out as free protons. That's not just 'theory', it's coherent assembly of a massive body of detailed evidence.
It's only the result of one practical falsification of the fundamental dynamic. another says that is a car's max speed is 100mph (call it 'c') if you're riding towards it at v on a bike your closing speed CAN be c+v, but the moment you interact your maximum speed will be modulated to the same as the car = LOCAL c.
(But don't try that at home!)
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 26, 2014 @ 14:25 GMT
Akinbo,
Smoot shows the cosmological model LESS well supported by the evidence, and identified a wide range of anomalies still to be resolved. He also knew ONE measurement would get just ONE finding and didn't imply greater isotropy. Indeed true of ALL constants, remembering that as we look 'out' we're looking back in time; "many of the cosmological parameters change with cosmic epoch, and...
view entire post
Akinbo,
Smoot shows the cosmological model LESS well supported by the evidence, and identified a wide range of anomalies still to be resolved. He also knew ONE measurement would get just ONE finding and didn't imply greater isotropy. Indeed true of ALL constants, remembering that as we look 'out' we're looking back in time; "many of the cosmological parameters change with cosmic epoch, and so the measured values are simply the ones determined today,". To be clear, that means there is not necessarily just ONE CMB dipole, (rest frame) the same everywhere, as the 'flow' maps of the universe now show us. i.e;
Dynamic Cosmic Cartography.
The only 'ultimate' one is that of the so called 'great attractor' (Centaurus) which has NO direct relation to the 'axis of evil' flow towards it or any of the CMB rest frames around it or near us. We always have to pick ONE background frame as a reference. That NEVER also implies it's the 'absolute' one. We don't have that power! So even LESS self centric thinking needed!
He identified Planck as an important expose of more. He was right. Around 5 major large scale anisotropies remained unexplained. Some simplified here;
Planck announcement -significant discrepancies' etc. What the DFM does is derive a model which explains and 'predicts' ALL of them! i.e. each of the peculiar anisotropies a emerges exactly from the fractal 'quasar recycling' dynamics described in the HJ paper (do please look for any that aren't - but your time may be wasted!).
The evidence is overwhelming, but I can't keep spending time doing your incomplete homework and correcting your false assumptions Akinbo. Do please challenge, but 'assumptions' are normally wrong!
Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 26, 2014 @ 17:04 GMT
RSS feed | RSS help
 = A_0 cos (\frac{n \pi x}(L)))