Richard,

I should butt out and let the arguments about probabilistics run their course. The sheer complexity of even a small closed system does warrant the utility of probabilities, even if (big IF) determinism could define the essential particle properties. How do the fields interact, and what keeps them separated, and why don't two or more gravitationally collapse into one or a...

view entire post

Richard,

I should butt out and let the arguments about probabilistics run their course. The sheer complexity of even a small closed system does warrant the utility of probabilities, even if (big IF) determinism could define the essential particle properties. How do the fields interact, and what keeps them separated, and why don't two or more gravitationally collapse into one or a singularity. Too many variables in continual dynamic motion to render a comprehensible 'flip-book' picture.

I do agree that there is merit in seeking a theoretical, that is: universally applicable, solution to adequately describe the behavior of discrete particle-like sets evolving a continuous function en masse. But I do not agree with the Quantum dictate that nature is foundationally piece-meal. The smooth result of many probable events is at one end of the evolutionary chain. At the other end is the diffeomorphis of a continuum forming a discrete mass unit.

So I look at attempts to justify 'non-locality' not as the reality, but as a clue. We are after all...measuring by virtue of the electromagnetic field, and while it is mathematically consistent with observation to measure gravitational response as translational at 'c' within the electromagnetic locality, the difference between an electron (subluminal mass) and a photon (luminal mass) may be that rather than a spherical field the photon has an elongated field of which the gravitational region can protract in excess of light velocity. The motion solely by inertia observed in orbiting bodies, does not mean the limit of extent of a gravitational field but is rather the dynamic curve of equilibrium. And that experimentally is well within the electromagnetic locality.

In short, anything moving a light velocity is going to exhibit a physical property of rigidity. I'm not convinced that 1.3 klics is enough separation to do more than make signals sync calibration an issue.

Ask your doc about potassium, seemed to figure into my Dad's A-fib. Hope you're feeling well. OH! I have a boat now, too! I saved a 1965 Lakefield cedar strip, 11ft.6in. rowing/sailing dingy, from Craigslist. Now that's a project for next summer! All sound wood though, and in dry storage for the past 20 years. Mix up the TotalBoat! jrc

view post as summary

That's a very creative approach, John. I had something a little less ambitious in mind.

A random walk is useful for computation only if the steps are uniform. This being so, a random walk of time is bound to space in a symmetrical way -- at multiple scales. Because of this universal self-similarity, there is no discontinuity, in principle, among scales.

It only appears that way...

view entire post

That's a very creative approach, John. I had something a little less ambitious in mind.

A random walk is useful for computation only if the steps are uniform. This being so, a random walk of time is bound to space in a symmetrical way -- at multiple scales. Because of this universal self-similarity, there is no discontinuity, in principle, among scales.

It only appears that way because special relativity imposes a local limit on the ability of decohered particles to communicate. This is the illusion of nonlocality. The inability to communicate does not obviate a mind- independent reality -- all measurement results are local. That is the domain of Bell's theorem.

The topology restores completeness -- by including the time parameter -- which Hess-Philipp describe as a timelike correlated parameter (TLCP).

More should be said about why the Karl Hess and Walter Philipp PNAS paper of 2001 is a breakthrough in our understanding of time dependent systems, because it accents the physical identities among time, information and energy that characterizes complex systems -- and as the authors make explicit, the problem of decidability between Einstein and Bohr.

Criticisms of Hess-Philipp have failed to even address the key issues of Einstein separability and special relativity that drive the paper's conclusions. The critics know that these issues cannot be confronted head-on, because they are well-understood physical principles that cannot be refuted.

Let's return to a point I made in my essay (p.6), that Einstein's original quest for E = mc^2 substituted the Lagrangian (a system's energy content) for the E term, where E was then generalized to rest energy, so we get that famous equation. The continuous values of the Lagrangian, however -- vary with mass -- locally measured. In reply to critics, Philipp-Hess simplified their explanation of the model, such that " ... Imagine the time axis wrapped around a circle of circumference that corresponds to a time interval related to a simple measurement and normalized to 1. We suppose that for a fixed N each interval [(m − 1)/N, m/N ], m = 1, 2, . . . , N of arc length 1/N on the circle gets about its proper share of time measurement points over the measurement period." The authors go on to show time correlations that the critics ignore, and reproduce quantum correlations in a complete framework of distributed time-dependent energy/information. These results satisfy Einstein separability and special relativity in a way that the critics do not and cannot:

Because a continuous range of time-dependent energy values attends every classical measure, normalization of the time interval locally does not imply a global normalization (as Gill claims) -- because of the special relativity limit. Each measure carries its own time stamp, and it is always local.

view post as summary

Tom,

"Each measure' (in context of uniform steps of a random walk) 'carries its own time stamp, and it is always local."

I am one whom understands what you are saying, and its is quite correct physically. It harkens back to Albert saying that there is no region of space devoid of a field, but leaving 'field' in a rather ambiguous state. The quest for a unified field theory, or as...

view entire post

Tom,

"Each measure' (in context of uniform steps of a random walk) 'carries its own time stamp, and it is always local."

I am one whom understands what you are saying, and its is quite correct physically. It harkens back to Albert saying that there is no region of space devoid of a field, but leaving 'field' in a rather ambiguous state. The quest for a unified field theory, or as Einstein and others (Kaluza, Klein etc.) liked to phrase it... a one field theory which incorporates the gravitational with the electromagnetic in one particle field volume, has so far alluded the efforts to expand GR. The crux of the matter being the apparent uni-directional effect of gravitational phenomenon.

Bill Unruh's 'uneven flow of time', though perhaps poorly said, does pose the question nicely in context of any one of Minkowski's many spaces. Each is a locality, its time stamp is related directly to the rest energy equivalent of its inertia. Within that one field volume the uneven distribution of time may be a solution to the conundrum of uni-directional v. reversible directional response. If we reintroduce the gravitational field back into GR, then the geodesic or orbital, would not be following the limit extent of the field volume but would be along a line of equilibrium between two (or more) mass field envelopes super-imposed (not superposed). The real gravitational field volumes would aggregate into a larger volume the limit extent far, far beyond the equilibrium line of inertial motion. That equilibrium would be where in super-imposition, differing mass time distributions would coincide as the same 'time' stamp of the locality.

Yet this also introduces such irregularities, like gravel washed across a curve on an asphalt road ('road marbles' if your a pre-Ricelution Harley type), that it constructs the same level of 'choice' in deterministic regimen that QM likes to take sole bragging rights for. Determinism does not mean the surrender of 'Free Will'. You can still 'get sideways' if your choice of brake ain't so good. :-| jrc

view post as summary

Tom,

Thanks for the link to Unruh's 2014 paper, experimentally it is more interesting to me than is its take-off point on the 'source' of the so-called Hawking Radiation. The math is interesting in that it shows a threshold emerging that effectively limits ever shorter wavelengths, and we find an experimental limit at the high frequency end of Gamma. I remain skeptical on the whole subject...

view entire post

Tom,

Thanks for the link to Unruh's 2014 paper, experimentally it is more interesting to me than is its take-off point on the 'source' of the so-called Hawking Radiation. The math is interesting in that it shows a threshold emerging that effectively limits ever shorter wavelengths, and we find an experimental limit at the high frequency end of Gamma. I remain skeptical on the whole subject of Black Holes, probably due to my own limitations in math and accumulated knowledge. Intuitively however, maybe the thermalization observed and the tiny variations, might be better understood as a gravitational lensing not by a BH but as an aggregate gravitational region that simply doesn't have to get any more condensed.

Hypothetically: super-imposed gravitational fields reach a 'c^2" proportion of greater density than any contributing field. The center of the gravitational system need not eternally collapse. Yet the c square proportion while equivalent to a mass, is not matter. It remains raw energy. So we would be witnessing not a black hole, but a perfectly transparent one where the exponential factor That Unruh identifies would be simply the density proportion producing a physical requirement that light would have to travel at an exponential factor greater than c. It would therefore be shorter for light to 'bend around' the apparent horizon, the black-body spectrum observed would support this. Sorry to get all speculative and such.

Got my little gas radiant heater project done! The draft bonnet design works superbly, heat shield stays cool to the touch, pilot safety operates flawlessly, and it looks neat! I am a happy camper! Metal work the old fashioned way, hammers and heavy shears, blunt cold chisels and files, flat iron and c-clamps. Burning in the ceramic coating now (auto parts store- 1300 to 2000 F exhaust header spray can), and I'll have toasty toes this winter! I've started a small collection of the vintage stoves, they are getting scarce but most just get painted up a get lights stuffed into them. And they are still going pretty cheap if you find one with the radiant tiles still intact. :-) jrc

view post as summary

(reposting in correct thread)

It's easy to get wound around the axle with black hole thermodynamics, John. Let's see if we can simplify it a bit. Separating the particle dynamics from the wave function gives us a non-linear picture. That is the Unruh effect. How it connects to topology, quantum computing and Bell's theorem is matter of tracing the function to its origin --...

view entire post

(reposting in correct thread)

It's easy to get wound around the axle with black hole thermodynamics, John. Let's see if we can simplify it a bit. Separating the particle dynamics from the wave function gives us a non-linear picture. That is the Unruh effect. How it connects to topology, quantum computing and Bell's theorem is matter of tracing the function to its origin -- and that's where we find the reversibility we need to continue the function, and settle the question of the shape of space.

Here's what Zeeya writes:

“The team used a cunning technique called entanglement swapping to combine the benefits of using both light and matter. The researchers started with two unentangled electrons sitting in diamond crystals held in different labs on the Delft campus, 1.3 kilometres apart. Each electron was individually entangled with a photon, and both of those photons were then zipped to a third location. There, the two photons were entangled with each other — and this caused both their partner electrons to become entangled, too.

This did not work every time. In total, the team managed to generate 245 entangled pairs of electrons over the course of nine days. The team's measurements exceeded Bell’s bound, once again supporting the standard quantum view. Moreover, the experiment closed both loopholes at once: because the electrons were easy to monitor, the detection loophole was not an issue, and they were separated far enough apart to close the communication loophole, too.”

The team outsmarted themselves. This scenario could be used to build a quantum computer – if it were true. Give electrons A and B a prime number value, and have photons a and b carry the information to the third location. When the photons are entangled, assign an operation: Reverse the operation, verify the result at electron locations A and B, which give duplicate answers, the output of the function. This is the same thing a pencil and paper mathematician does when solving a non-linear PDE, compare the conjecture with the result.

Problem is, there is no reversibility in this experiment, save along one linear channel of commutativity. One gets out what one put in – proving only the assumptions one started with.

If the universe is simply connected, reversibility is built into the topology. The nonlinear PDE’s that describe Ricci flow provide the cure for singularities before information is destroyed, allowing time for the process to reverse and the function to do its work of transforming the numbers.

As Joy Christian has reminded us – one must understand what a function is. There is no function in Bell’s theorem. As Hess-Philipp have reminded us – functions are time dependent under transformation.

And all this rests on the difference between multiply connected and simply connected topology. Richard Gill has tried assumption after assumption to save Bell’s theorem – including endorsing Belavkin’s theory of “eventum” mechanics and Vongehr’s “quantum Randi challenge.” Always with the same result of proving what one assumed in the first place.

Until we get over this hump of self-referencing “proofs”, we are unlikely to get anywhere with quantum computing. Separating the particle dynamics from the wave function, we can see why surgery on every singularity has to be run in reverse.

view post as summary

Tom,

Agreed. Symmetry is pervasive to such an extent that at the end of a really rather good PBS program which gave an overview of the Higgs protocols at CERN, one of the lead scientists in epilog to the celebration ceremonials stated that we have come another step further, but the quest for an understanding of where and/or how symmetry is broken is still the allusive goal.

Briefly,...

view entire post

Tom,

Agreed. Symmetry is pervasive to such an extent that at the end of a really rather good PBS program which gave an overview of the Higgs protocols at CERN, one of the lead scientists in epilog to the celebration ceremonials stated that we have come another step further, but the quest for an understanding of where and/or how symmetry is broken is still the allusive goal.

Briefly, because I must get doing some things but do not want to leave any impression that I am not fully confident in your mathematical physics acumen, I admit to being more of a Mike Faraday intuit. And that is an easy thing to be.

If by: integrated spacetime field, you can accommodate energy with spacetime and without the perennial chicken and egg salad, then symmetrical reversibility need not be expected to define a mathematical time origin of existence. The Big Bang is as much a product of our limitations as our maths, Hoyle may not have been far off.

So the arguments that Unruh addressed in 2014 of Hawking Radiation accepts that Hawking allowed time 'running' in reverse in a black hole. How sweet. Yet in nature, macroscopically we find wholesale non-symmetry. At the cusp of diffeomorphis of energy breaking symmetry to differentiate an inertial domain, if scale-wise time could run in reverse at the core of an integrated spacetime field it would become like a tiny star swallowing itself. Yes, there are a lot of math models that chase the dragon. But consider that idealized as a theoretical free rest mass, free of any background interaction, we might find a constant functioning at a finite volume core? That constant as a proportion of a simple measure of energy would provide a finite ratio of the full measure of energy quantity. So there would be one bound at the greatest density. Now allowing symmetry, we need not assume that the remaining energy quantity would extend volumetrically to infinity, but would have an empirical limit to a zero boundary at the lowest density.

My hypothesis has long been that for a particle to exhibit inertia, some portion of its total energy quantity must exist at a density of a c^2 proportion of that total quantity. I=Ec^2. And given that measurement by our empirical standards has followed mathematic symmetry, that c^2 proportion is not necessarily ad hoc. Permeability and Permitivity of free space are mutually exclusive, in that they each operate at a c proportion but in different signs. Hence their product is -c^2. Yet in physical reality, both properties coexist, and must be accounted for beyond the massenergy equilalence.

I=Ec^2, later :-) jrc

view post as summary

Tom and Steve,

Perhaps my brevity was misunderstood in particular to my post of Sept. 10 @ 29:29 GMT. Steve's English struggle may have something to do with his quip that I wanted to build a time machine, when what I meant was "no... Unruh's critique points out that it was Hawking whom allows time reversibility interior to the event horizon of a black hole." Not that my humble objection to...

view entire post

Tom and Steve,

Perhaps my brevity was misunderstood in particular to my post of Sept. 10 @ 29:29 GMT. Steve's English struggle may have something to do with his quip that I wanted to build a time machine, when what I meant was "no... Unruh's critique points out that it was Hawking whom allows time reversibility interior to the event horizon of a black hole." Not that my humble objection to any time reversal rationale would likely be much damage to either Stephen Hawking or myself. By the way, Steve, are you Belgian? Should we address you as 'Mssr. Dufourny?'

And Tom, my friend, every time I reread your paper on recursive SG primes I gain a little more understanding of your methodology and some more bits of knowledge that you condense into that discourse. It's quite a lot, you know, and it requires no small amount of research to grasp the various elements you bring to bear. Have I mentioned how phenomenal mathematician's memory must be? Pardon my slow memory and lack of familiarity with what has evolved a holographic quality in your integrated thinking.

Still, I'm a little perplexed that you read me so as to post that: symmetry destroys my argument. Where I was arguing that lack of any modeling of either photons or electrons made all experiments such as this Blog's topic on the Hensen Team's "proving spookiness" entirely arbitrary and observer dependent.

Sec 1.4 - p.4 '...temporal events cannot precede the arbitrary zero point that we assign...'

Sec 1.5 - pp.7 (-10) 'For massless particles such as photons, polarization is a product of wave behavior - the direction of rotation depends on the position of the polarizing instrument. The effect is even replicable in particles of minimum mass-energy, such as electrons, with dependence on observer choice of measure instruments.'

I would only qualify that within my own hypothetical parameters that a photon is not necessarily 'massless' but that it's rest energy value is low enough that its corresponding proportionate inertial density is less then that which would effectively produce an inelastic physical property. Hence, we must go to a co-variant of Lorentz allowing 4 dimensions of freedom in modeling a wave event.

If we take Lorentz invariance to its logical conclusion we can construct a metaphysical model of an inelastic cylinder of equal height to circumference which when accelerated to light velocity would shorten only in one dimension to an infinitely short length and remain at a constant circumference with the consequence of it's mass computing as also infinite. Co-variantly, incorporating a lateral expansion of the circumference and the logical diminution of density by virtue of it's velocity attenuating energy in the linear direction with time would provide a model of one degree of freedom corresponding to one dimension, in each dimension of spacetime, where each transform limits not at infinity but continuously limits at a single magnitude of c proportion. We would begin to have a volumetric model of a longitudinally attenuated waveform which could incoroporate a gravitational as well as electromagnetic field response. Symmetrically, a diminuated density would respond to external energy application towards sustaining or increasing acceleration, that would compute as infinite at light velocity. Like the saying went in West Side Story.."same diff!".

On symmetry, I firstly assign the qualification of symmetry to mathematical formality. Specifically, if an operation is taken two steps, and is completely reversible those two steps back to the arbitrary zero origin, then it is symmetric. If the operation can be taken two steps but revert back only one step before proceeding again two more steps, it is asymmetric. If operations become disjunct in profusion such as we observe in our macro-world experience, I hold that as non-symmetric. It is by virtue of our mathematic discipline that we ascribe physical laws and empirical measure to correspond with only those operations which are held symmetrical. But philosophically, this should not extend to any convenience such as taking time itself to be reversible.

On your utilization (Tom) of Sophie Germain primes, and taking SG23 as the boundary at infinity, I am happy with the notion of dimension meaning 'that by which we make one measurement'. And as such infinity does not necessarily mean taking an energy quantity to the spatial limit @ infinity, but can also apply as the continuous function to a zero difference with a boundary condition.

So in general I find a very good agreement with what you argue in, what to better equipped mathematical minds than mine, might be considered a seminal paper. Best of luck in getting serious appraisal. Fondly, jrc

view post as summary

John,

Sophie Germain primes have the non-trivial property of pairwise correspondence, like qubits. That particles are created in pairs provides a reasonable relation to physical reality; furthermore, it is an odd coincidence that of the first four pairs,the fourth is reversible only because of the dual nature of the prime 23, belonging to both sequences p & q.

It should call into...

view entire post

John,

Sophie Germain primes have the non-trivial property of pairwise correspondence, like qubits. That particles are created in pairs provides a reasonable relation to physical reality; furthermore, it is an odd coincidence that of the first four pairs,the fourth is reversible only because of the dual nature of the prime 23, belonging to both sequences p & q.

It should call into question the illusion of quantum entanglement -- if information is created in qubits and no qubit is ever destroyed, all information is conserved in one extra degree of freedom and all information is in principle accessible all of the time. We just aren't looking for all of it all the time, we are looking for the piece that matches our expectations. Because we are cognizant of the extra degree of freedom required to make us cognizant, and we are unable to connect with it in a physical 3-dimensional model -- we feel we have fulfilled our expectations. The topology of space must be multiply connected.

Of course, Joy Christian has done the work of showing why space cannot be multiply connected -- more importantly, why it must be simply connected. Karl Hess and Walter Philipp have shown that all information is time dependent. Suppose the universe stores information in spacetime, as it stores energy in mass -- it would be most reasonable that the proportion is equal. E = mc^2 is a quadratic relation.

If that relation is non-zero, i.e., if neither energy nor mass goes to zero as c --> oo, each quantity must exchange a quantum of mass for a quantum of energy. Because c is finite, E and m are constrained at both ends, - oo < --> +oo, and are thus infinite, and only comprehensible because c is finite.

So what is a quantum? -- a continuous set { - oo, +oo } or a closed probability measure on [0, 1]? A finite set of infinite things is still finite, when orthogonal quantities are considered simultaneously.

So you're not wrong about the quadratic relation, and the ability of square integrable results to normalize the relation. This a nonlinear norm, however; linear norm 1 gives 1/2 upper limit each to measure orthogonal quantities simultaneously. There is no probability in a square-integrable norm.

And what is the least square integral > 1? -- 4. Because c is finite, all measurement is local; it is easy to show that measurement is incomplete, and some information is nonlocal -- that merely begs the question -- what remains to be shown is reversibility, because that validates the meaning of finite.

At the least, one ought to question the probability assumption. I don't think they will, though, until it comes down to a quantum computing algorithm that works.

(I like your metaphor of an artist's palette.)

view post as summary

Tom,

I've become accustomed to you being a rational realist to the extent that you argue to the mathematically inclined Quantum Machinists in their own language, That does sometimes make statements a little confusing, however...

So in your post of Sept 17 @ 20:23: would you clarify paragraph #2, please? I follow your argument in the first paragraph, but am unsure of whether all of #2...

view entire post

Tom,

I've become accustomed to you being a rational realist to the extent that you argue to the mathematically inclined Quantum Machinists in their own language, That does sometimes make statements a little confusing, however...

So in your post of Sept 17 @ 20:23: would you clarify paragraph #2, please? I follow your argument in the first paragraph, but am unsure of whether all of #2 is an argument against the assumption of everything being essentially probabilistic, and where you stand on *information* and qubits being encoded indestructibly and presumably available for retrieval from the past at any time. I find that a bit tangled with convenience in arguments of Quants that because we are yet without a gravitational theory at the micro level of sub-atomic particles, that such elementary particles are too small to respond gravitationally in a manner that effects time relativistically. It is on that rationale that QM assigns Newtonian absolute time and space as the measure norm.

It is that normalization to 1, which sets the stage for *spin*. You may recall Ed Klingman and I arguing that the symmetrical spherical co-ordinate system, which is really what *spin* is, requires that an axis of the precession of a magnetic moment of a body bisects the zero point center of *spin*, whether that body is rotating physically or not. Hence QM restricts itself to -1/2:+1/2 absolute probability. (Which I find not only unrealistic physically, but philosophically as well.)

I'm quite clear, however, on your rational utility of the mathematic reverse function inherent to any equality. Why that poses such a problem for others, I'm not sure. It is after all where the search for a break, or tangental diffeomorphis from symmetry, is sought. Which is where your paper on recursive Sophie Germain Primes finds differentiation between the mathematic reverse function and the physical non-reversibility of the time parameter. Like I've said; perhaps a seminal work. But then I say that from the experience of having you drag me kicking and screaming into a better comprehension of what math is all about, as well as what it should not be. Thanks again! jrc

view post as summary

Well, John, I'm really more a rational idealist. That means that whatever is local is also real, and the two are inseparable. The problem facing a "loophole free" quantum mechanical experiment is that there is no such thing. If spacetime is a time-dependent continuum, there is always a direction to which reality can escape -- what I mean is, there is no nonlocal information. When we say the...

view entire post

Well, John, I'm really more a rational idealist. That means that whatever is local is also real, and the two are inseparable. The problem facing a "loophole free" quantum mechanical experiment is that there is no such thing. If spacetime is a time-dependent continuum, there is always a direction to which reality can escape -- what I mean is, there is no nonlocal information. When we say the moon is real when no one is looking at it, we mean it was real approximately 1.3 seconds ago, and will be real again approximately 1.3 seconds from now. There is no universal "now." What happens between 0 and 1.3 seconds is anybody's guess.

If quantum information theorists confined themselves to quantum information, I could forgive them their excesses. What I find hard to forgive is such statements as Johannes Kofler made in the latest edition of New Scientist, under the boastful headline "Quantum Weirdness is Reality": "This is the magic of Bell's theorem. It brought an almost purely philosophical thing, where no one knew how to decide between two positions, down to a thing you could experimentally test."

There's no magic there. Bell's inequality is analytical -- the result is discrete. There is no reconciling the language and the result experimentally. One doesn't keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. That makes Bell's theorem not "almost" a purely philosophical thing. It's an abandonment of science to philosophy -- a step backward.

So what I mean when I say that spacetime may store quantum information the same way it stores energy in mass is what Bar-Yam means by Multi-Scale Variety -- sufficient variety is a rule by which a connected system distributes resources and shifts the burden to another node in the network. This is the way Bar-Yam solved the problem of bounded rationality.

The problem of bounded rationality—the limitation of individual elements of a linked system, be they human, network node or subsystem, to acquire sufficient information for central control decisions—had long been cast in systems thinking as a problem of hierarchy, vertical or nested. Bar-Yam’s network, of multi-scale variety with distributed control, allows communications technology to be integrated laterally into the system to solve or mitigate the problem of bounded rationality. In so doing, the system is open to self-correction; some problem might be time- limited in a particular part of the system, yet is not unresolvable in the whole, as the hub of activity shifts to a different subsystem, allowing the time-limited system the freedom to recover.

Now that is the domain of quantum information. That is where probability applies. It makes for some very useful technology.

In my opinion, though, the topology of Bar-Yam's network is simply connected -- Spacetime being physically real, “ … having a physical effect though not itself influenced by physical conditions …” (Einstein) suggests a set of simply connected metric spaces in which every time metric is a vector and every hub state of the network is a scalar.

That obviates Bell's Theorem's application to a foundational theory. There simply is no theoretical support for it.

view post as summary

Well Steve ,let's speak,I am going to be clear even with my poor English.

First like all people I am also a little vanitious but I take my meds me !!!

Second,I don't see correct sciences from several persons and it is serious on a Platform of sciences. I am for the free will but please be rational and deterministic.Time is not reversible and the postulate of Einstein is...

view entire post

Well Steve ,let's speak,I am going to be clear even with my poor English.

First like all people I am also a little vanitious but I take my meds me !!!

Second,I don't see correct sciences from several persons and it is serious on a Platform of sciences. I am for the free will but please be rational and deterministic.Time is not reversible and the postulate of Einstein is important.

Third even with your good English technical,that does not change my opinion.

4 don't bad interpret my words and don't change them.

5 I am repeating, I am not perfect and I am vanitious when we speak about our foundamentals,withor without your approvement.

6 How are the objecvts like you name them??? Square,pentagon,quaternions it is that , or octonions????Me with vanity I can assure you that I see all forms but Inside and above I see sphères.And it is not a problem of continuity, space or motion or time.

8You utilise badly the theory of game of Van Neuman, I don't see the point of equilibrium.

9 We have not the same perception of the SR and general relativity and frankly it is not a problem , technical.

10 I am repeating and insisting, time is not reversible.You do not understand the SR and the general relativity.We can see our past, like we see our sun after 8 min,it permits toclass the evolution.We can decrease our internal clocks,and so we can go oin the future but we cannot return at home, at our present.But it is irreversible in all centers of interest.

11 The general relativity curves our spacetime and predicts the link mass energy in a pure evolutive point of vue.That is why we see the spherisation by sphères!!!

12We have not the same perception of what is a complexity.For me I see complex the créations of mass and their évolutions, the encodings.You confound what are a play of maths with our pure rational universe in deterministic road.Ypou forget the laws, the limits.You insert symmetries there and here without sense???

14 you speak about cohérences.Me frankly in your reasoning, I see an ocean of uncoherent things physically speaking.

15In other words,I don't change my point of vue about pseudo sciences and the rabbit is not the problem.

To you dear general thinker

Regards from steve the spherical humble traveller of stars

7

view post as summary

Thomas,

You say: "Supposed experimental efficient reached 99%".

That is ok, it would be a nealy-ideal Bell's experiment, and in that level of efficiency you could have a conclusive Bell test, like Ansmann's that, nevertheless didn't violate Local Realism either. (You can see a detailed analysis of this experiments here http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4010 )

The problem is that,...

view entire post

Thomas,

You say: "Supposed experimental efficient reached 99%".

That is ok, it would be a nealy-ideal Bell's experiment, and in that level of efficiency you could have a conclusive Bell test, like Ansmann's that, nevertheless didn't violate Local Realism either. (You can see a detailed analysis of this experiments here http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4010 )

The problem is that, with photons, you don't have any detectors with efficiency over ~60%. So if you have photons in both arms of the experiment, it will always be inconclusive because it never reaches de 76.5% critical efficiency level; if one arm of the experiment has nealy-ideal detection and in the other arm you have photons, you have less than 76.5% efficiency in this side of the experiment, so, the experiment will also be inconclusive; and when you have quasi-ideal detection in both arms of the experiment, like Ansmann's, you have to measure crosstalk and have a low probability of crosstalk ( less than 0.05), l which they did, but nevertheless they the S value found couldn't violate Local Realism.

Ansmann's team should had been more careful when using Korotkov's inequality, that as a calculation problem (or none noticed that the limit at the negative side is different from the on of the positive side?), and made it take the wrong conclusion.

This is the experiment that is worthwhile re-analyse -not Hensen Et al.’s.

The experiment that should redone by another team should be Marissa Giustina’s experiment, where she calculated a value that violates Local Realism, really really close to Local Realism’s limit, and very very far from the maximum limit predicted by Quantum Mechanics. [Suggesting that an experimental error could had occurred] . That is the experiment that is worth repeating, making sure you guarantee space-like separation.

Answering your question: yes, I'm a Bell "believer". :)

I believe that the Bell's test are the falsification tests for Local Realism. And that no experimental violation of Local Realism, means that Local Realism research should be funded - both paradigms, Quantum Mechanics and Local Realism are scientifically valid.

That is what I am fighting for ...

[This post was reedited because something went wrong and the last paragraphs were missing].

view post as summary

You know dear Ms Teresa,

I am conscient of my discovery and its generality.I have many persons interested on LinkedIn.I have severalpersons wanting détails.I have even send détails to Mr Leary a commander of Navy and Mr Pavlopoulos, Mr Sarfatti and many others.My works are rational and dterministic and I share it simply.

If now FqxI does not respect my works just because they have...

view entire post

You know dear Ms Teresa,

I am conscient of my discovery and its generality.I have many persons interested on LinkedIn.I have severalpersons wanting détails.I have even send détails to Mr Leary a commander of Navy and Mr Pavlopoulos, Mr Sarfatti and many others.My works are rational and dterministic and I share it simply.

If now FqxI does not respect my works just because they have a team behind.So it sad since the 6 years I post here.If people are jealous or are not general,it is not myproblem.The sciences community must be rational andmust respect the goog general works.I d like to test my équations and my model with a good team.In fact in all humility, it ismy work which is revolutionary hereon fqxi, not theothers.If they want to copy with geometricalalgebras or with a mathematical modelism.It is sadsimply.I just hoped tobe respected me on a physics platform.I like FQXi me, I d be surprised if they don't respect me.I just want to test and to improve my general works about this spherisation of the universalsphere by quantum sphères.If now they have not seen my general works, so it is sad simply.But it is not a reason why I will stop.Never I willstop with my works, I have worked a lot to find this universal link.The sciences community must be dterministic ,and my works are deterministic.So I don't see a probelm,I am persuaded that several generalists have seen the relevance of this theory.Do you know the word of Feynman, one day we shall see all the truth and wwe shall say, oh my god, howis it possible that we have not seen it before.The sphères , the rotations and the sperisation dear ms mendes.It is not arrognt, it is simply a general evidence.If FQXI respects me ,I will respect them, I will work with them,now ofcourse I need a team and experiments for several extrapolations of my theory.I explain gravitation you know, dark matter, dark energy,....My model is rational.

I know the human nature, I know its vanity, its tastefor money, its jealousy,I have habit you know.But it exists generalists and Copenaghian thinkers fortunally.On LinkedIn, I have many persons inetrested in my works,from all countries, they have seen the generality of this theory.

The evil is in détails, I agree, but détails must be rational, if not it is ruin of soul.You make a revolution, I try also in creating an international humanistic sciences center focus on priorities for forgotten, I have promised to many friends that I will create it.I have several inventions in several topics.I must continue for my friends and this center.Never I will stop.AndI am patient and I know thzt several have seen the relevance of my theory.The rest is vain.I have faith and my rule is to put this theory on net, like that,it will be still there in future, I don't fear todie, all is eternal,I bekeive in this entropy in evolution, my universal faith helpsme.If people wants to stop me, they must kill me, but even like that, I have put the équations and my theory.If the sciencescommunity is corupted, it is not my probelm, it is just that theylack of general analyses and that their hormons, vanity and ...are important.It is not my probelm.Here on fqxi, I know the teamof irrationalist profitting of this team for the publications, they speak together and think that they are scientists.It is sad but I accept and I continue.Fqxi merits a determinsitic road,fqxi is a wonderfulplatform, I doubt that they don't want my well.I have nothing against fqxI me,I am just against the anti determinism.Now it is complex their probelm with me.They can respect me or they can copy me,they fear perhaps even of my comportments in the future if they endorse me.I imagine the dizscussions during their conferencez or this or that.But I am just a theorist wanting a little of respect.I don't see other revolutionary works here on fqxi.Theonly revolutionary and innovant ideas are from my theory.They turn so they are.

Regards

view post as summary

Here isthe kind of post that I put on LinkedIn.

If we imagine a Big Bang from a central main sphere,so we can extrapolate a spherical accelerated expansion.This Dark Energy has a repulsive gravity .If the gravitation is in increasing Inside the universal sphere,so we have a well thought system of equilibrium if we extrapolate the future.The repulsive gravity like an energy is essential for...

view entire post

Here isthe kind of post that I put on LinkedIn.

If we imagine a Big Bang from a central main sphere,so we can extrapolate a spherical accelerated expansion.This Dark Energy has a repulsive gravity .If the gravitation is in increasing Inside the universal sphere,so we have a well thought system of equilibrium if we extrapolate the future.The repulsive gravity like an energy is essential for the balances between matter.Without this constant ,evolutive , all our matter fermionic and bosonic d be in a pure universal disorder about motions and spatial coordonates.The spherical expansion so is an evolutive system towards equilibrium.Let's imagine this central BH like a sphere of dark matter and implying this repulsive force in correlation with the production of dark matter, gravitons.The general relativity becomes relevant if we consider the curves , naturel in corrlation with mass.Like this mass increases, so we have a natural spherisation.The dark energy is correlated with the production so of gravitons.The space in this logic disappears if we consider that all is composed by matter in evolution of mass by encodings.

This dark energy is a force and the gravitation also,so it implies a spherisation of our universalsphere with evolutive properties.That is why in logic we shall have a contraction after the maximum volume of the universal sphere.The gravitons and this dark energy shall evolve in a kindof proportions towards the equilibrium.It islogic considering the increasing of entropy on a pure Arrow of time irreversible considering its gravitation in evolution.If this central sphere produces these smallest spherical volumes of gravitons, so can see why the space disappears with relativity.On the other side these gravitons are linked with this cosmologicalconstant and so are linked with an universal spherical gravitational aether, the primordial wave pilot if I can say.The gravitons so of different volumes due to their different productions from BH (sphères of dark matter)are everywhere for an universal gravitational equilibrium of evolution.The homogeneity, the isotropism can be analysed with determinism in a pure logic of spherisation by spheres, quant and cosmol.

I beleive that we cannot really class the gravitons in the classment of bosons.

If the protonic system encodes mass via bosons and gravitons and if the sphericalvolumes are important, so we must consider different stepsof encoding for these gravitons produced by cosmological blacs sphères.It is difficult to see where and how they are encoded in the quantum system in evolution of mass.The protons and their impossibility to decay show us the road if the spherical volumes are inserted considering a stability of gravitation. If dark matter is also in our quantum uniqueness, so it becomes relevant to imrpove the standard model in inserting new parameters.In fact the standard model must be completed with the encodings of gravitons and also with a more far vue of the nucleis in evolution of mass

I ask me what is the universal link between neutrinosWIMP and gravitons, it exists a correlation it seems.If the sphericalvolumes of these particles is better understood, so we can link with the mass, the charges, the spinal rotations, the orbital rotations ,thecinetic moment....My secondequation can help if it iscorrect considering all physical 3D sphères,quant or cosmol.mlosV is a constant where mmass of the studied sphere, llinear vel,o orbita vel,s spinalvel and V volume.Can we class the gravitons and neutrinos in the way of bosons?I am not sure.The standard model needs a real imrpovement of complementarity.

In all case if the quantum dark matter is present Inside, above the nucleis, so the quantum gravitation is explained due to the encodings of these gravitons in this dark quantum matter.It is a new kind of energy, different that our heat and thermo, but that said the methods of thermo can be applied to gravitons and dark matter.Clausius, Caratheodory,Maxwell,Carnot ...Shall agree it seems to me .This new gravitational energy can be transformed in thermodynamical energy afterall like a work.This reasoning gives us the roads towards the centers and also towardsthe universal entropy in paradoxal increasing

view post as summary

An other post

If we analyse a simple logic, the bosons so have not a anti particle.It is probably due to their linearity of motion before the encodings Inside the fermions.Now I personaly consider the gravitons without also an anti particle,but that said , I don't consider it like a boson.It is a gravitational particle and not an electromagnetic particle.It seems that above our fermions ,...

view entire post

An other post

If we analyse a simple logic, the bosons so have not a anti particle.It is probably due to their linearity of motion before the encodings Inside the fermions.Now I personaly consider the gravitons without also an anti particle,but that said , I don't consider it like a boson.It is a gravitational particle and not an electromagnetic particle.It seems that above our fermions , it exists a dark matter ,if the gravitons are encoded there , soit explains the gravitation,but it is a little disserent of our bosons.I beleive that it ismore far thanour sttandard model in fact.This standard moder need to be completed in inserting the encoding of these gravitons Inside the dark matter.This dark matter can be considered like fermions but there also we must class it with a different logic, probably that spherical volumes and the spin are the keys.This extrapolations show us a new road towards this entire entropy , soit is relevant to analyse this dark energy above our therrmo and heat so.

It seems that photons, gravitons and even neutrinos with gluons so have a charge nul ,it implies that they are their own anti particle .If the fermions have anti particle ,it is so always balanced .Now if the sphericalvolumes are essential, so we can consider that the central sphères implies a main code for theother entangled sphères cominig from cosmological sphères.So it exists different codes of informations but the main is from gravitation in the quantum uniquenss and its finte number in increasing of mass due to encodings.Probably that the system of rotations of spherical volumes are essential for the stability of matter.If allis balanced with + and - so it becomes relevant to analyse all theserotations, senses, angles, volumes,orbital rotations....If the gravitation is more far than our actual nucleis and if thevolumes are important for the stability , so we can complete the standard model in inserting dark matter and gravitons in thesame logic that fermions and bosons.The anti particles or this anti matter is just due to maIn codes Inside quantum gravitation. This line of reasoning says us that we can complete rationallyour standard model in inserting a gravitation in evolution of mass.The E must be so imrpoved in inserted these steps of dark quantum matter.So E=mc² is not sufficient because it does not insert these dark matter and encoded gravitons.if l is the linear velocity of gravitons produced by cosmologic black sphères and that we consider the same lineof reasoning than for photons, so we can insert an other energy correlated.E becomes so E=mc²+ml² ,it shows us a road towards the entire entropy in increasing on the irreversible Arrow of time.This dark energy can be calculated in the same logic than for our standard model for our quantum uniqueness.The cosmological scale is in the same logic

view post as summary

An other about Entropy

E=mc² is correct but not sufficient.Because this equation don't calculate the entire,total energy of our principle of uniqueness.

The steps of énergies towards our quantum entanglement must insert the dark matter at my humble opinion.The eletromagnetism correlated with heat and thermo is a step, but does not calculate the other steps towards the central...

view entire post

An other about Entropy

E=mc² is correct but not sufficient.Because this equation don't calculate the entire,total energy of our principle of uniqueness.

The steps of énergies towards our quantum entanglement must insert the dark matter at my humble opinion.The eletromagnetism correlated with heat and thermo is a step, but does not calculate the other steps towards the central sphere in my theory of spherisation.

There is a problem which can be analized in several roads of reasoning.

There is probably a kind of bridge between the thermodynamical energy and this dark energy.The method can utilise our logics of thermo to find the road.But it seems that this dark energy is an other thing than our laws in theormo.

That said thecalculations with thesphericalvolumes seems relevant.

Energy after all have different meanings in correlation with its transformations.In all case, if the road of this dark energy is found, it can transformed in thermodynamical energy.

If the cosmological black sphères,like our centers of galaxies,produce these gravitons, these black quantum sphères, so the aim is to find where they are encoded,and how with the other entangled sphères.

If my constant is on the good road, so the orbital and thespinal rotations and these volumes become relevant to sort these steps of disponible énergies.I don't know where they are encoded these gravitons and the correlated energy.Have we an increase of volumes for the dark entangled sphères of protons so a fusion or even an orbital rotation around them?.Are they encoded orbitally speaking,before or after the electromagnetism.Or even are they around the bosons?It is a big puzzle anddifficult to see.If they are around thebosons,it is so the gravitons which gives mass to higgsbosons.But it isjust a thought ofcourse .In all case the entangled spherical volumes become relevant to find the roadsof encoding of this dark matter.

It is relevant to consider the central black sphere of our universal sphere, its volume is correltaed with thecentral black sphere of the system of uniqueness.It is so important to consider the volumes.

This center is essential it seemsto me for the understanding of what it produces and its volumes and what are the propeties of these primordial gravitons if I can say.I ask me how many sûper massives black sphères have we between our central massive BH of galaxies and this central sphere.It is the same logic for the quantum entanglement considering its uniqueness and thefinite number.I see them linked with the prime numbers correlated with the decreasings of volumes.We can so correlated with the different gravitons produce by these cosmological sphères due to their volumes.How many super mega BH have we between our galaxies and this central sphere.3 5 7 11....I don't know.In all case these spherical volumes for the cosmologicaland quantum scales become very relevant.If the primordial informations come from this central sphere, so we can see their transformations when they pass Inside the other cosmologicalspheres before to arrive in the planets if I can say and the elements protonic.If the protons don't decay, so their primordial codes are a reality and the evolutive informations permits this increasing of mass and linked entropy.Now ofcourse it is a big puzzle but the different ways can be searched with proportions and rationalities.This dark matter and correlated dark energy are very intriguing.The spherisation Inside an evolutive universal sphere is a big puzzle considering the kindof informations correlated with volumes.

I am asking me what is this energy in fact, what are its physical properties.

If one of my équations are correct about E=mc²is in fact E=mc²+ml² this one seems the best .with l being about the velocity, linear of smallest gravitons from this central sphere.This equation can be adapted in several domains if the spherical volumes are inserted and the two other motionsof these sphères,spinal andorbital.It is interesting for the phases of encodings by synchro, sortings or fusions.It is a big puzzle in fact.

view post as summary

Here is a discussion with Peter Cameron about geometrical algebras and the degrees of freedom.

E8 like the quaternions are just mathematical extrapolations where several foundamental loose their foundamentals.The symmetries must be rational respecting our determinism.Theoretical physics need laws and mAths are just a tool. It exists 3duniverse and a time constant. Extradimentions are just a...

view entire post

Here is a discussion with Peter Cameron about geometrical algebras and the degrees of freedom.

E8 like the quaternions are just mathematical extrapolations where several foundamental loose their foundamentals.The symmetries must be rational respecting our determinism.Theoretical physics need laws and mAths are just a tool. It exists 3duniverse and a time constant. Extradimentions are just a play of maths without real rationality. Time is not reversible furthermore.Clifford algebras are a tool which must utilized with determinism respecting our school of Copenaghen and our Standard model.

20 days ago

Like(0)

Delete

Peter Cameron

Steve - no argument with any of that.

20 days ago

Like(0)

Reply privately

Report spam

Steve Dufourny

E8 toe is a joke where pyhsics are forgotten

20 days ago

Like(0)

Delete

Peter Cameron

hah. that's what i'm trying to sort out with the impedance approach, how we get the physical insight into E8

20 days ago

Like(0)

Reply privately

Report spam

Steve Dufourny

I have discussed about this E8 of Lisi on FQXi several years ago ,It is not the theory of everything due to an ocean of decoherences . Our universe is in 3D at my humble opinion. The Clifford algebras are a beautiful tool, that is all .Physics need laws, domains,limits....

20 days ago

Like(0)

Delete

Peter Cameron

don't understand what you mean by ocean of decoherences

20 days ago

Like(0)

Reply privately

Report spam

Steve Dufourny

Harmonical analyses are relevant and the complex numbers also but physics are more than these explainations simply.

20 days ago

Like(1)

Delete

Steve Dufourny

When it is associated with our universe and its laws, For example time is not reversible. Vectors and symmetries need laws when we want to correlate with the physicality and its foundamentals.Copenaghen seems always the best road.

Quaternions ,E8,E12 ,extradimensions are not correct physically speaking. But it is a beautiful mathematical tool,that is all.

20 days ago

Like(1)

Delete

Peter Cameron

harmonic analysis is present in impedance approach. the impedances are defined from Planck length to radius of universe, as elements of the continuous group their energy/frequency is of infinite variety. what comes out when you excite the network is in some sense a harmonic analysis. the impedances comprise filters of different characteristic at different energies.

re complex numbers, that is indeed how we keep track of phase in QM. Hestenes et al argue that the pseudoscalar is the equivalent of the imaginary number, in which case one might consider a real matrix and let the geometric algebra take care of the phases via the amplitude of the pseudoscalars.

20 days ago

Like(0)

Reply privately

Report spam

Peter Cameron

agree re extra dimensions. in the early days of string theory they were called what they are - degrees of freedom of the model. later it was better hype to call them dimensions. anyone can imagine a degree of freedom. nobody can imagine an extra dimension. except of course the physics superintelligencia. freedom to play politics in the King's court emerges, is embraced and cultivated,...

20 days ago

Like(0)

Reply privately

Report spam

Peter Cameron

The manifold of the spacetime subalgebra of geometric algebra is Minkowski space. I think E8 can describe interactions in Minkowski space.

20 days ago

Like(0)

Reply privately

Report spam

Steve Dufourny

Yes I can understand but maths and physics are totally different. It is always a question of interpretation of our datas,equations,extrapolations.Maths permit to calculate,I amok with this statement but they need laws; Physics permits to understand how our universe evolves and with foundamental équations. That said it is relevant your appraoch about the planck lenght and the radius of our universe. I doubt that said about how we utilise the imaginaries and complex with these Clifford algebras.

20 days ago

Like(0)

Delete

Peter Cameron

oops, misspoke myself there. The proposed group I'm working with has subgroups that are even, odd, and mixed. I've seen several claims that only even subalgebras of GA can be Lie groups, the why is yet far beyond me. If that's the case, then the near field electrodynamics suggest that they are associated with the eigenstates, and the odd subalgebras with the intermediate states that appear during transitions. So E8 would then describe not the interactions but rather the eigenstates. have no idea what to do with the odd subalgebras in this circumstance.

20 days ago

Like(0)

Reply privately

Report spam

Steve Dufourny

I know Minkowski but you know, it is in complete opposition with my works of spherisation. The conclusions are not for me, and it is just my opinion, deterministic about how works our universal sphere in 3D.

20 days ago

Like(0)

Delete

Steve Dufourny

:) it is in all case interesting your works Mr Cameron.Do you know FQXi , foundational questions in physics and cosmology, a Platform of MIT created by Mr Tegmark and Mr Aguirre,It could be interesting if you come there.There are several articles about E8 and lie algebras and Minkowski spacetime.

20 days ago

Like(0)

Delete

Peter Cameron

Steve - please would you explain your doubt re using the pseudoscalar for the imaginary phase information? am i misunderstanding the role of the pseudoscalar in geometric algebra?

and thanks for what i interpret to be agreement on impedance picture of harmonic analysis.

19 days ago

Like(0)

Reply privately

Report spam

Peter Cameron

re complete opposition to minkowski, i find it difficult to imagine any such thing. how do i learn more about spherisation? is it related to Riemann sphere that Penrose talks about?

19 days ago

Like(0)

Reply privately

Report spam

Steve Dufourny

I doubt a little because it is how we use the complexs and the correlated physical foundamentals.So the conclusions about the phase waves can be misunderstood if the physical limits are not inserted.

The information phase needs a real rationality like for our genomic encoding for example.pi ,i,-i,o are pure imaginaries.So it is not with the pseudoscalar geomtery the problem but the conclusions implyied when we analyse the charge, the sense of rotation. I am persuaded that the sphericalvolumes are important for phases of encoding.Fourier can help at my humble opinion.If the superposition of waves can be in phases of encoding considering the spherical volumes and the velocities of rotation,it becomes relevant for the sortings and superimposings of encoding considering the external waves and the intrinsic waves(quantum entanglement).This logic is for the electromagnetism ,but it can be extrapolated for the gravitational waves and the black particles and their encoding in nucleis. The 3D is essential for the respect of SR, the standard model and the generalrelativity.The volumes of sphères produced ,cosmologically speaking ,are so relevant for the phases of encoding when we consider that electromagnetism is produced by stars and gravitational waves by the BH cosmologica sphères.

19 days ago

Like(0)

Delete

Steve Dufourny

My theory is very simple in general,quantum sphères........cosmological sphères......Universal sphere in spherisation improvement.More 2 general équations about matter and energy.

mlosV =constant and E=mc²+l^3o^3s^3 whith m mass of the studied sphere, l linear velocity, o orbital, s spinal and V volume.In this lineof reasoning, the universalsphere does not turn and the central BH sphere also does not turn.Dark matter is produced by these BH cosmological sphères and these black particles with a small spherical volumes are encoded in our quantum entanglement in evolution of mass.Dark energy is correlated. In logic these particules and the correlated waves go faster than c due to their volumes. See also that this central BH sphere of our universal sphere produces the smallest spherical volumes, and their linear velocities are very important.The quantum uniqueness is in the same relative logic more the encoding in +.

19 days ago

Like(0)

Delete

Steve Dufourny

I think humbly that it is relevant if the harmonical analysis is inserted for the phases of encoding of evolution spherastion with an entropical increasing correlated with this mass in increasing also.

Your works are relevany so for the mathematical explainations of encoding of bosons and gravitons also if the spherical volumes and their rotations orbital and spinal are inserted with determinism like in our genomic system.

Regards

19 days ago

Like(0)

Delete

Steve Dufourny

You can perhaps help me to formalize mathematically speaking a kind of universal equation of encoding of sphères. I am not a mathematician :)

19 days ago

Like(0)

Delete

Peter Cameron

Steve Dufourny

Of course the gravitational waves do not respect the SR ,there is a kindof bridge between the electromagnetic waves and the gravitationalwaves of several kinddue to the different volumes of BH sphères central to,galaxies and this central main sphere of the universalsphere. It permits to have a new kindof energy it seems to me. Perhaps even that thermodynamics are not sufficient ,a bridge there also is necessary. It is complex like problem in fact. Not easy even.

19 days ago

Like(0)

Delete

Peter Cameron

Peter Cameron

Steve - many thought re what you say, can't put together all the pieces tho i do find some relevance to my understanding. would be helpful if you have a paper explaining your ideas in an organized manner. like you, i'm not a math guy. learning as fast as possible, tho. for me understanding impedances gives a clear perspective into many diverse areas of physics, strong motivation to look deeper,...

19 days ago

Like(0)

Reply privately

Report spam

Peter Cameron

Steve Dufourny

Hello Mr Cameron,no I have not published. I have invented two équations also, intuitive about matter and energy. E=mc²+l^3o^3s^3 and a constant for all physical sphères mlosV =cst with m mass of the sphere,l linear velocity,o orbital vel, s spinal vel and V volume. I need to formalize them mathematically speaking for the publications. Impédances are relevant and the correct algebrical formalism.My theory is a general work ,I class animals and vegetals since the age of 16,I am 40 years old. I have seen this universality in classing the brains in evolution since the first celles after the selacians after themammalians inferior and Superior and I said me that all wasin this logic ,after I have seen the cosmology and the quantum physics and the universal link.

Regards

18 days ago

Like(0)

Delete

Peter Cameron

Steve Dufourny

Here is a post put some minutes ago

Impedance is very relevant when the signals correlated with phases and synchronisations are also correlated with the rotating spherical volumes.The complex numbers are relevant if the correct algebric analyse is inserted in all case.

The phases of encoding so can appear.I am asking me if the dark matter needs a kind of bridge between the electrmagnetism and the encoding of dark matter.The spherical volumes can answer if we have a logic above our electromagnetism and even our thermodynamics.

If this extrapolated bridge between them can be found in a pure determinism, so we van see this new energy. I don't know really what is this new energy. There is a bridge but what is this new energy ,this dark energy correlated with these black particles produced by these cosmologicalblack sphères implying gravitation.The quantum uniqueness is in the same logic, perhaps even that it is time to change our model of nucleis in inserting also these black sphères.

An universal constant so exist between these black quantum sphères and the black cosmological sphères. The gravitatoion is explained in this line of reasoning.The mass increase like the entropy but now How??? Is it a fusioned system or a binar system like our encoding of bosons, I don't know.In all case, these black quantum sphères are rational respecting the uniqueness principlecorrelated with our BB and cosmological correlated

Regards

18 days ago

Like(0)

Delete

Peter Cameron

Steve Dufourny

an other post on fqxi put this day about aether and gravitation and my theory of spherisation in all humility.

Aether is the gravitational spherical waves from the central black sphere of our universal sphere.This sphere,black, the biggest volume produce the smallest and the speedest black sphères particles.Dark energy correlated with inflation is from tis central sphere also.The God particles are not really the higgs bosons so? It exists several gravitational spherical waves considering the BH of our universal sphere and also several kinD of black particles with different volumes.

Our quantum entanglement is like a foto of our universal sphere with so also black particles but different than black particles produced by cosmological black sphères which are them encoded in the quantum entanglement.The spherical volumes so are very very important.

The gravitation is explained and the toe is found

EUREKA in all humility.

18 days ago

Like(0)

Delete

Peter Cameron

Blake Taylor

If a medium exists which doesn't affect the speed of light then inductance = inertia. Such a medium must affect the wavelength of light therefore no big bang cigar.

17 days ago

Like(0)

Reply privately

Report spam

Peter Cameron

Steve Dufourny

It is interesting if the SR is respected and if the phases are correlated. I see the BB in a spherical logic of expansion. Logically in the future afterthe maximum volume, we shall have a contraction due to the increase of mass.

16 days ago

Like(0)

Delete

Peter Cameron

Steve Dufourny

The parallel universes are not foundamental respecing the principle of uniqueness.They are just mathematical extrapolations about symmetries .

16 days ago

Like(0)

Delete

Peter Cameron

Steve Dufourny

my twolast posts were for you Mr Taylor. If my equation is correct about an universalconstant between all physical sphères. So the motions of these sphères can be relevant for the encodings of evolution. Here is my second equation. mlosV=constant m mass of the studied sphere,l linear velocity, o orbital vel and s spinal vel , V volume. See in thislogic that the universal sphere does not turn.Now the particles produced by the central main sphere are the smallest vol and the speedest in linearity.It is there that the gravitational spherical wave from this cenral sphere is relevant .It is different than electromagnetic waves.

Regards

16 days ago

Like(0)

Delete

Peter Cameron

Steve Dufourny

more a black coqsmological sphère is important in volume, speeder will be the linear velocity of the quantum particle and smaller will be its quantum volume.See that our BH central to galaxies are also cosmological Black sphères.They have a rule of motion embarking due to their mass the stars and also it seems tome a rule of recycling of bosonic informations.And also a rule of production of gravitons coded for the evolution .The waves are correlated and proportional respecting the spherical volumes

view post as summary

You know Ms Mendes,

If I speak in being arrogant.I have explainations.I have had many probelms due to human nature here in Belgium.I am an agronomist.I have created at the age of 23 years old, I am 40 years old now,an enterprise in vegetalmultiplication and production of compost and creation of gardens.I have had several persons against me.Just because my Financial plan of production was...

view entire post

You know Ms Mendes,

If I speak in being arrogant.I have explainations.I have had many probelms due to human nature here in Belgium.I am an agronomist.I have created at the age of 23 years old, I am 40 years old now,an enterprise in vegetalmultiplication and production of compost and creation of gardens.I have had several persons against me.Just because my Financial plan of production was relevant.These persons have implied a bankrupcy in putting allmy flowers(12000 fuchsias aged of two years of )In fact ,they were in a green house .And two societies have put them during the night at the cold winter.I have lost all in one day.After they have taken my lorry and even my piano during the bankrupcy.I have lost more than 150000 euros in one day.Andanybody to help me.My mother andme we have had many problems due to bad persons.It is after.It was in 2003.12 years of probelms and my mother is dead two years ago due toher health.Thisstory have had many effects on our health.Fortunally 1 years ago ,my notary have seen the errors due to these persons and he gave me the tel number of an attorney.I am saved since 1 month in fact.I have had a loan to save the little house.This story is crazzy.I am not pretentious youknow,but my theory is the only thing that I have.I have lost all even my mother, already that my fatheris dead and I have not sisters and brothers.I say me that I must be prudent about the human nature.I must be strong on sciences Platform.But you know I am humble in front of our entropy in evolution.I just fear of the human nature simply.I know it and I say me that several institutions have seen the relevance of my general work.They can modelise it mathematically.I cannot accept this.But I work on my parano :) I have been always too nice, and I have lost all???You understand that you? This planet and the human nature are bizare.My arrogance is just a result of my past.But I am nice.I am christian ,even an insect I don't crush it.

But apparently it is not thecase of all??Bizare is a weak word.Iknow the vanity, the jealousy, the hormons,I must be prudent simply.

Regards and universally yours :)

view post as summary

Hi Don

Let me tell you why I think the discussion focused in Bell's experiments is so important.

The Bell theorem is a piece of math. Accepted by all scientific community as a valuable test.

A test for what? A falsification test for Local Realism.

So Bell theorem doesn't say

"There are two options for the nature of reality. The first is that reality is...

view entire post

Hi Don

Let me tell you why I think the discussion focused in Bell's experiments is so important.

The Bell theorem is a piece of math. Accepted by all scientific community as a valuable test.

A test for what? A falsification test for Local Realism.

So Bell theorem doesn't say

"There are two options for the nature of reality. The first is that reality is irreducibly random, meaning that there are no hidden variables that “determine the results of individual measurements”.

It says exactly the opposite: it says

1. Reality is not irreducibly random, it's realist. And

2. locality means another thing but is commonly translated as "influence cannot travel faster than light".

And the theorem says that these two properties, together, define the basis of a whole class of possible Local Realist theories.

That is the hypothesis of Bell's theorem - You are testing Local Realism, not the alternatives, [that can be 3 - realism + non-locality; non-realism + locality, and non-realism + non-locality.]

So you do the test. You get the results. You have two options:

- the experiment is inconclusive, so you cannot reject Local Realism. Nor reject all other alternative hypothesis. All paradigms remain scientifically valid.

- the experiment is conclusive and you can reject Local Realism. But you don't know witch one of the alternatives are correct, because the test was not build to test those alternatives. You have to design a specific test for each of them. But you cannot call those tests Bell's tests.

That is the importance of Bell's Theorem and all Bell tests. You are just testing Local Realism. You have to comply to all Local Realism requirements, [including contrafactual definiteness].

You cannot assume that there is a property named "entanglement" because that property, for Local Realism, doesn't exist. It is just a prediction of one of or some of the alternatives.

You can't pick your sample accordingly to "a ghost action at-a-distance", now called entanglement swapping because you cannot accept a posteriori sample picking based on a back in time influence.



You prepared some pairs of electrons, they emitted photons. You prepared them all, you count them all. You can count all or almost all electrons. bot you couldn't detect all the emitted photons? So you have an inefficiency there, you have a non-ideal experiment, you use the generalised Bell's inequality, and compare the experimental result with the predicted value for Local Realism. In this case the experimental result is 2.4, and the upper limit for local Realism, for this level of efficiency, is very near to 4 and not 2. There is not a violation of Local Realism in the Delft's experiment.

You have to follow a scientifically valid protocol. Use the theorem and the generalisations for non-ideal conditions. Use the universal statistics rules for a representative sampling in your experiment to be able to draw conclusions. And so ... you have to not accept as conclusive a test, the Delft's experiment, that uses biased sampling, as you wouldn't accept it in any other test.

That is the advantage of Local Realism. You explain everything rationally . You don't need any magic.

==================

Yes, I'm in Lisbon. Glad to receive you if you wish to pay me a visit.

view post as summary

Tom,

Your qualification is accepted, thank-you. I had stated for simplicity's sake, your argument in terms of reduction to first principles. If you'll allow me a common experience illustration, I'll then withdraw from discussion which can and should exceed my level of technical acumen of probability theory.

Dirac's Belt and his equation that tracks the 4pi rotation is a formalization...

view entire post

Tom,

Your qualification is accepted, thank-you. I had stated for simplicity's sake, your argument in terms of reduction to first principles. If you'll allow me a common experience illustration, I'll then withdraw from discussion which can and should exceed my level of technical acumen of probability theory.

Dirac's Belt and his equation that tracks the 4pi rotation is a formalization of an ancient amusement that predates the origin of logic in the Age of Reason of the Greeks. It is easy to imagine a woman entertaining herself to the amusement of the communal tribe with what is sometimes called 'the wine glass dance'. (I knew a woman many years ago whom would pantomime it in the eclectic crowd of Larry's bar on High Street in Columbus, Ohio, and whom probably delighted in knowing that few recognized what she was doing.) She begins by holding a wine glass on a small tray with the palm of her hand level above the elevation of her elbow, then in a continuous motion, rotates her palm around and downwards so that the wine stays level within the glass as she moves it to an elevation below her elbow with the rotation of a point on the rim of the glass always following the same direction. Naturally, the glass still must be pointing upwards throughout the motion to keep from spilling the wine, so at the lowest elevation below her elbow her fingers are pointing in the opposite direction as they were at the original position. The rim of the glass has rotated only 1/2 a revolution while the sum of rotations of her shoulder and elbow had transited through one full rotation. To continue the fluid motion still maintaining the direction of rotation on the rim, and bring the glass back above the (equatorial plane) of her elbow to the original position with fingers again pointing in the original direction, the point on the rim has now made one full rotation while the sum of rotations of her arm joints has transited through two full rotations. The circumference of any rotation being; pi2r, we obtain 4pi which is what h-bar is predicated on.

All quantum particle physics upon which any experiment depends employs h-bar in the spin co-ordinate system. But that itself is dependent on keeping the wine glass pointing in the initial (up) direction. But if the center of gravity for the wine in the glass were the palm of the dancer's hand, not the center of the earth upon which she strolls, she could simply rotate her hand so that the glass would transit through a down attitude and the wine would stay in the glass with only a single, one full revolution.

What Quantum Mechanics asks us to do is accept that there is the uni-directional attitude maintained by the wine glass, yet that because there is no connection between any two (or more) points there is no need for the wine glass to maintain a unipolar attitude, and not spill the wine. There is no argument given to do as Luca suggests; "accept the results of Delft's experiment". In the entertainment business that's called 'a hook'. The highly publicized and subsequent box office success of the sci-fi movie 'Avatar' did not produce a continued success as has Lucas' 'Star Wars' because the 'hook' was too visibly bare. The typical movie goer is blithely unawares of mass-energy equivalence, so when asked to swallow the story that an inter-galactic mission at astronomical cost is being mounted to go harvest a mythical element that is anti-gravitational and sell it at $2 million per kilogram, the pop-corn question is immediately evident. 'If it defies gravity and they sell it per kilo, how can they make any money?'

Maybe QM could buy a bigger truck? ;-) jrc

view post as summary

Hi Luca thanks for your reply. I don't really understand the objection as you have said it.

Luca, All,

In the macroscopic scenario each observer receives a cascade of photons but we could imagine each cascade reduced to just one in the quantum version, so each cascade, representing a singular photon, is like an individual object that will be a part of the singular independent...

view entire post

Hi Luca thanks for your reply. I don't really understand the objection as you have said it.

Luca, All,

In the macroscopic scenario each observer receives a cascade of photons but we could imagine each cascade reduced to just one in the quantum version, so each cascade, representing a singular photon, is like an individual object that will be a part of the singular independent measurement systems.

Each observer is creating their own space-time experienced reality independently from the received sensory input alone. They have no access to each others space-time output. That space-time output reality does not exist prior to fabrication. Like the quantum measurement does not exist prior to measurement.

Other possibilities in the macroscopic example are not destroyed but just are not formed into a space-time output by the observer. So any photons bouncing off at angles that are not received by the observer don't make it into the output. In the quantum version there are no other possibilities once measurement is made as there is only one particle. The other possibilities just become irrelevant as they no longer apply. Though they did until the observer/apparatus position coincided with the particle giving the observation. For analogy a spinning globe has the potential to be observed as spinning clockwise or anticlockwise until the selection of one hemisphere for observation is made. It then has measured spin but that measurement did not preexist, the object was in a superposition of states having both clockwise and anticlockwise rotation. A cup is a superposition of concave and convex until an observer perspective is applied causing a space-time output in which it is seen as only one fixed state not both simultaneously.

The observers don't have to be perfectly opposite each other but another version could be imagined with a segmented coloured beach ball and observers located at different angles to it. There will still be correlation between the independently fabricated output space-times but not now always the opposite of the first observation but related to the first output and angle of observation relative to the first observation. Does the ball have a colour prior to observation -no it has many colour possibilities. Does either of the measurements (observer space-time outputs) exist prior to measurement -no. Are the independent measurements correlated -yes. When observer 1s measurement is made knowing observer 2s angle of observation the space-time output from observer 2s sensory input can be accurately predicted. If observer 1 makes another measurement getting a different output then observer 2s output will alter accordingly and can be predicted by knowing the new angle between observer 1 and 2. The fixed singular state outputs that do not preexist their production are independently produced but always correlated.

Quote"Local realism is the combination of the principle of locality with the "realistic" assumption that all objects must objectively have a pre-existing value for any possible measurement before the measurement is made." I think that that has possibly been shown to be untrue according to the above arguments. The counter factually definite measurements not made do apply because a clockwise spinning globe seen at the Northern side might have been seen from the southern hemisphere and been seen spinning anticlockwise. Even though once a single state has been applied by measurement the alternative becomes counterfactual.

view post as summary

Quote "How can one account for something that was at one point indefinite with regard to its spin (or whatever is in this case the subject of investigation) suddenly becoming definite in that regard even though no physical interaction with the second object occurred, and, if the two objects are sufficiently far separated, could not even have had the time needed for such an interaction to proceed...

view entire post

Quote "How can one account for something that was at one point indefinite with regard to its spin (or whatever is in this case the subject of investigation) suddenly becoming definite in that regard even though no physical interaction with the second object occurred, and, if the two objects are sufficiently far separated, could not even have had the time needed for such an interaction to proceed from the first to the second object?" "The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen From Wikipedia

It should be questioned whether there is necessarily change in the not yet measured particle 2 when particle 1 is measured. There is the assumption that it must be the particle that is instantly changed in some way. This is is not necessarily so.There does not seem to be recognition that there is a change in the reality that is being considered. [/B]

Going from an underlying reality with undefined states, different possibilities that might be measured including what would be after measurement be counter-factually definite ones- As no observation protocol has been applied to extract a singular measurement from the possibilities that might be measured.

Going to an output reality in which there is a measurement and so an isolated singular fixed states can be assigned to the parts of the system. I.E. From the absolute state of the unmeasured to the human made, impoverished, singular state that says it is this and only this as no other measurement data is available to contribute to the output reality or in the case of the quantum experiment no other measurement is possible due to destructive interaction preventing other data being extracted.

This is making the quantum object like an observed macroscopic object seen from a singular observer perspective. The images of Macroscopic objects formed from sensory data have singular fixed states because the output reality of the observer is constructed from limited sets of sensory data, so the full nature of the object is not simultaneously appreciated. Also the counter-factually definite outputs are not produced as that data is not simultaneously received. Eg. The globe is not seen spinning clockwise and anticlockwise simultaneously and the cup is not seen convex and concave simultaneously.So singular states are applied to the objects that mentally mask their absolute nature, having the potential to be viewed in many different ways other than the singular relative viewpoint.

What changed on measuring particle 1 is not the unmeasured object 2 but the way it is being thought about by someone who knows there is entanglement of the states. The measurement protocol interaction with the nature of the particle gives the output state, the singular isolated state does not preexist. But knowing what output was obtained from a certain measurement protocol the output from test of particle 2 can be known, IE mentally isolated imagining the experimental outcome because of the related nature of the two particles.

view post as summary

Hi Luca thanks for your reply its good to find some agreement. The cup scenario isn't important.

You wrote "But QM in the orthodox interpretation really states somehow - like you? - that reality is created by observation. But then we are really in trouble: How do we describe the measurement itself? Can we do that by using the same theory? When and where is the cut, where the output reality...

view entire post

Hi Luca thanks for your reply its good to find some agreement. The cup scenario isn't important.

You wrote "But QM in the orthodox interpretation really states somehow - like you? - that reality is created by observation. But then we are really in trouble: How do we describe the measurement itself? Can we do that by using the same theory? When and where is the cut, where the output reality is created? In my consciousness? Or in Wigners friend's consciousness? Or never created and there are many (un)realized words?

I don't think merely that reality is created by observation but that there is an underlying external reality not seen, the sequentially occurring configuration of the Object universe, and an emergent reality produced from received sensory data. The two kinds of reality differing as I have previously outlined. The output reality requires the direct sensory data input from the experiment or receipt of information permitting knowledge of what the measurement is.

So an experimenter who knows value 1 can fabricate the reality in which 2 is also known but distant technician who will measure 2 who has no knowledge of 1s value has not formed a mental reality in which 2s value is known. Nothing has changed for particle 2 itself. The experiment itself is an interaction of the substantial particle with the substantial apparatus which are both parts of the external foundational reality. The output of the experiment emanates from the foundational substantial reality but is received directly or indirectly by what I have been calling a reality interface, a detection material, device or organisms sensory system, that generates an output reality, different from the source reality and the input- that is either directly or indirectly knowable.

As for many unrealized worlds they are never fabricated as the sensory data or measurement from which to fabricate them has not been received. They were only ever possibilities. Like all the different possible views of a cup not observed by the observer looking down at his coffee. Or all the different velocities of an object that might have been measured but weren't. This explanatory framework has the benefit of not requiring a substantial multiverse of all worlds pertaining to the different possibilities actualised and unactualised during the experiment. William of Ockham would approve of that, I should think.

view post as summary

Hi Luca,

thanks for the questions. I would really like to say something sensible but do not know if I will manage that.

Bell showed that the results should fall within certain limits if there was local realism, dependability of the couterfactually real measurements (measurements not made) and no conspiracy. That is what the classical picture with those assumptions is supposed to...

view entire post

Hi Luca,

thanks for the questions. I would really like to say something sensible but do not know if I will manage that.

Bell showed that the results should fall within certain limits if there was local realism, dependability of the couterfactually real measurements (measurements not made) and no conspiracy. That is what the classical picture with those assumptions is supposed to produce. That result is what differs from the quantum experiment results.

I think some aspects of realism need reappraising. I don't think it unreasonable that there is something substantial underlying the statistical "picture' Of QM. But the elements of that reality certainly are not carrying around the values that will be output by a subsequent experiment they have not yet encountered. The output forms part of a newly fabricated reality in which the isolated value is attributed to the element of reality even though it is a value obtained via an interaction that changed the particle and produced that output value.It seems to me it might be thought of as a chimera being in part due to the nature of the particle and in part due to the experimental apparatus and protocol. Now the interference of the measurement process can cause the deviation from the classically predicted measurement.

This is not showing that there is no underlying realism but that that unseen reality is distinct from the reality produced by experiment.

I would like to try to give an analogy don't know if it will work. Take the human visual system. The eyes receive sensory data, the cells of the retina process it, and the subsequent signals are sent to the brain for further processing. Manifestations of objects are seen with various colours produced from the sensory input and we think we have a pretty good idea of reality from what we see. Most humans are trichromats having 3 kinds of colour receptor though a few have been identified who are tetrachromats having 4 colour receptors. The mantis shrimp has 16 distinct colour receptors compared to the human 3. The human fabricated reality must lack the colour information included by the shrimps visual system. It can be seen from this that the output reality is a product of the system /apparatus that partakes in its generation.

view post as summary

All,

there is the assumption with realism that measurements not made are still real intrinsic properties of the external reality, however .... Consider position and velocity: One iteration of the Object universe I.E. a singular arrangement of all substantial elements of Object reality can be considered in which each element of that reality can be thought of as having one position. ...

view entire post

All,

there is the assumption with realism that measurements not made are still real intrinsic properties of the external reality, however .... Consider position and velocity: One iteration of the Object universe I.E. a singular arrangement of all substantial elements of Object reality can be considered in which each element of that reality can be thought of as having one position. (Obviously all positions of everything in the universe can not be known- but never mind they theoretically have positions). If a sequence of iterations of the Object universe, which is the equivalent of an amount of time, is considered then the element of reality no longer has a singular position but many. The temporal relation of observed and measuring apparatus/reality interface must be imposed to get a measurement. The different measurements are mutually exclusive because they pertain to different temporally exclusive relationships, different circumstances. Also the position selected to be THE position of the object, or the velocity measured, both depend upon the behaviour of the observer, or measuring apparatus-protocol. Whether the position is this or that depends not only upon the behaviour of the object but on when/where the sample is taken. A moving observer will find the velocity different from a stationary one and so the measurement is not an exclusive intrinsic property but a relational attribute, attributed to the object.

Consider spin: An object may have spin but whether it is measured at all or to be clockwise or anticlockwise depends upon the relative spatial orientation of the observed and observer, or the measuring apparatus-protocol/reality interface. Co-moving no measured spin, relative up orientation and relative down orientation producing opposite spin. The different spins and no spin measurements are mutually exclusive because one measurement results from one imposed relative spatial relation. A similar argument can be made for topology of an irregular plane. The relative relation being with bottom or top surface giving a measurement which is a relational attribute rather than an exclusive property.These measurements are not exclusive intrinsic properties but spatial relational attributes, attributed to the object.

The singular fixed state of the reality output from observation at all scales is impoverished as it gives a singular relation perspective whereas many different relations with an element of underlying external reality are possibilities. The alternative possibilities are not realized. I.E. The relations between observed and observer, or apparatus-protocol /reality interface do not output those measurements and therefore they do not form any part of the observer's output reality. (No need for the Many Worlds hypothesis.)

Thus 'properties' of the objects can not be likened to different coloured socks being definitely this or that. As the "properties" are really relational attributes, attributed to the object after the measurement relation has been imposed (or imagined in the case of the second particle of an entangled particle pair prior to its own measurement.)

view post as summary

Luca, All,

Lets call them contingent attributes and non contingent properties. Re socks the pigmentation is necessarily non contingent property due to chemical composition (unless we consider its degradation over time, for example by exposure to UV radiation) but colour can be considered either (normal circumstances using un-altered eyesight) non contingent attribute (but not a property of...

view entire post

Luca, All,

Lets call them contingent attributes and non contingent properties. Re socks the pigmentation is necessarily non contingent property due to chemical composition (unless we consider its degradation over time, for example by exposure to UV radiation) but colour can be considered either (normal circumstances using un-altered eyesight) non contingent attribute (but not a property of the object unseen) correlated to the non contingent property of the pigmentation, like Bertlmann's socks OR a contingent attribute as it depends upon how it is measured (as previously discussed) and thence produced/output by the observer. Which makes me think rather than having the two colour individual socks I suggested with choice to be made of inside or outside colour, or the alternative version -top or bottom colour choice ; there could just be a choice of filter to be made upon measurement - making output colour unknowable until measurement.

Luca wrote-" .... the latter ones are fixed for an object, actually define the 'kind' of object are not necessarily relational and no superposition can be observed (due to super selection rules)." That all sounds fine to me except for due to super-selection rules. I don't know that the algebraic rules are what is causing that condition rather than being a description of it. Luca wrote "I don't think the relationship for the contingent properties are casual." Not sure what you mean by that. Of course what is being interacted with (the object's intrinsic nature) and the spatial or temporal relation to it are causing the output measurement and the 'reality' fabricated from that. The measurement-relation has no effect on what it would have been if the relation was not imposed and measurement not made.It remains, until measurement in its absolute state of being potential source of all measurements that could be made on it.As you can see there are two distinct 'realities' involved in this explanation ,the underlying foundational Object reality and the limited fixed state output reality formed from measurement and processing of those measurements.

I don't think there is need to imagine superposition of location. Because the object isn't in many locations at once but one location is yet to be selected as THE location. So until the temporal measurement relation is imposed it could be a position along its trajectory anywhere within the becoming sequence of iterations/configurations, of the Object universe. (This is talking of a singular an element of reality and not a distribution of potential sensory data that could be intercepted at different locations and give different distant source object locations, as the temporal origin of the data is different at different locations.) Unlike for example spin which could be randomly clockwise or anticlockwise depending upon the measurement relation, location is not randomly distributed between measurements but the latest position it occupies depends upon the previous position it occupied. It just doesn't have a singular fixed position until a measurement isolates it from the continual change it would otherwise be undergoing. I haven't seen a derivation of superposition for location but that means nothing, there are a lot of things I haven't seen.

view post as summary

Hi Luca, your post and this subject is very interesting to me.

We are using different explanatory models which explains some of our differences of opinion ( as well as my ambiguity/ lack of clarity). Though I agree that velocity can be in a superposition prior to measurement, as all velocity measurements are a possibility prior to imposing the measurement relation. So also for simple...

view entire post

Hi Luca, your post and this subject is very interesting to me.

We are using different explanatory models which explains some of our differences of opinion ( as well as my ambiguity/ lack of clarity). Though I agree that velocity can be in a superposition prior to measurement, as all velocity measurements are a possibility prior to imposing the measurement relation. So also for simple rotation (velocity or direction). One single entity in two separate locations though is another matter. That is not to deny the results of double slit experiments but calling in to question whether it actually is one particle traversing two slits. In one of my essays I suggested it might be vibration of the apparatus causing interference that then carries the particle to a position which if repeated with many particles would lead to the build up interference pattern. In this linked article it is suggested that it is vibration of the particle prior to meeting the screen that causes a wave to pass through both slits and then carry the particle surfer like onto towards the screen. Which sounds plausible to me. Surfing and the double slit experiment

So I would classify location differently to velocity and spin (direction or velocity). I agree charge is different again from all of the three properties just discussed as it is non contingent and not depending upon the temporal or spatial relation of the measuring apparatus-protocol only the convention for assigning positive and negative and its intrinsic and inherent nature. Mass also does not depend upon the spatial or temporal relation of the measuring apparatus -protocol but is non contingent inherent and intrinsic.

I really need/want another word rather than 'attribute', (which I was using to mean attributed to (externally imposed) rather than intrinsic-inherent. Designation might do the trick. Producing a classification for velocity and spin (either velocity or direction)of a contingent relational designation. Once a temperature scale has been chosen a temperature measurement can be thought of as non contingent non relational designation. Due to relativity applying to classical measurement location also appears to be contingent relational designation but in underlying foundational reality only one position is occupied by object making it, interestingly non contingent intrinsic but not inherent.

Time is special.It is contingent.Its classification depends on what one means by time. The changing configuration of the Object universe, or the distribution of potential sensory data spread within the environment (or something else.) In underlying foundational reality it is non relational, but relational when using sensory input of varying temporal origins to form output Image reality experience.

view post as summary

Hi Luca, All,

Still trying to achieve clarity on this topic

It is my viewpoint that all things have motion whether measured or not as there is motion of all astronomic bodies including the Earth. Something can have additional motion as well as its motion with the Earth that may affect its form. Eg.The dogs ears flying out behind like flags when the dog puts his head out of the...

view entire post

Hi Luca, All,

Still trying to achieve clarity on this topic

It is my viewpoint that all things have motion whether measured or not as there is motion of all astronomic bodies including the Earth. Something can have additional motion as well as its motion with the Earth that may affect its form. Eg.The dogs ears flying out behind like flags when the dog puts his head out of the moving car window. The change in behaviour of the ears does not require observation to occur. So it is the velocity measurement that is relational not intrinsic motion. Breaking it down; motion (related to velocity or velocity of spin) can vary due to change of (A.) what the object itself is doing; measured velocity can change because of A. but also because of change in relation to the observed object B. Motion is independent of observation but velocity measurement is relational. Interesting as the property (what is measurable ) is not the intrinsic nature or behavior but representative of the relation. Likewise actual location of a substantial object and measured position are not the same variable. Actual location is independent but measured position is relational (more on that later).

Spin too need not be the output of an observer relation alone. Imagining pizza dough being spun: Whether watched or not the dough becomes elliptical or with good luck circular due to the Newton's first law. But the measurement values of direction of spin and velocity of spin are relational. To illustrate -Do we consider the direction of spin of the base of the dough or the top surface of the dough? Spin direction clockwise or anticlockwise does not seem to be at all independent as the direction is a relational measure. Which is peculiar to me. The dough 'experiences' intrinsic angular motion (as shown by its deformation ) but not intrinsic orientation, as orientation requires external reference. There doesn't seem to be an equivalent,intrinsic, non relational variable in common parlance. Yet direction of spin could vary once the observer relation is established by an intrinsic alteration of motion, so stopping and maybe then spinning in the opposite direction. How is that possible if there is no intrinsic variable to alter? May be there is something that we can not easily comprehend, which I will call innate spin orientation.

I realise I am rambling somewhat but it is a bit of a revelation to me that properties are not mere intrinsic aspects of an entities nature but only what is measurable and the fact of measurement plays a part in what the outcome is. That is not referring to the measurement problem, a separate issue, but the relation established between observer and observed sharing in conception of the outcome obtained. That is important as conventional realism would have us consider the outcomes of measurement pre-existent. Yet this analysis of what properties are shows that no, the outcomes are 'conceived' at measurement due to the relations only established at that time. I'm sorry Einstein, but measurements are not of the intrinsic nature of the measured, but newly formed relational outputs.

view post as summary