CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]
TOPIC:
Classical Quantum Conciousness by Peter Jackson
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 16:20 GMT
Essay AbstractArtificial intelligence can already learn. Algorithmic foundations and structure to describe how interactions produce 'aims and 'intentions' is identified by exposing an unused momenta hiding before our eyes in a spinning sphere (OAM). Modelling this simplest of mechanisms as a fermion gives a classic derivation of the Dirac twin stacked inverse complementary pairs in quantum mechanics, exactly as anticipated by John Bell. The recursion of neural theories is reduced to fractals, however a computer the size of a brain may be needed to run the algorithm to get good approximations. Ironically limited primeval evolution of neural mechanisms can explain why it's own workings remain a mystery. Judgements using 'default' pattern matching rather than more complex rational analysis will tend to constantly re-embed older doctrine and reject anything new so hamper advancement of understanding. We identify that conscious 'self evolution' is required, using a non-linear 'layered' architecture already proven in logic, some human brains and in 'deep thinking' photonic AI. How such evolution may be achieved is informed by the new classic quantum mechanism, allowing a small probability of any DNA key switching on replication. No decision on existence of any cosmic architect can be reached.
Author BioBorn 1951. Studied multiple Sciences then paralleled research with Philosophy and Architecture degrees. UKC, UCA and Westminster. Perpetual student! Royal Astronomical Society Fellow in Observational Cosmology. Worked in Energy, Renewables & Lead Consultant on major Pharmaceutical, Petrochemical, Energy and Defence projects. Visiting student Mentor at Kent University and UCA. U.K. representative yachtsman, Royal Y.C. Flag Officer. Rugby player & club chairman. Now semi retired but continuing full time research, mainly on unification and TOE's.
Download Essay PDF File
Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 16:50 GMT
Dear Dr. Jackson.
Your essay is quite brilliant and I do hope that it fairs as well as it reads, in the competition.
I have but one quibble about it, You wrote in the abstract, “Modelling this simplest of mechanisms as a fermion gives a classic derivation of the Dirac twin stacked inverse complementary pairs in quantum mechanics, exactly as anticipated by John Bell. “
Simplicity is not gradable. Nature had to have produced the simplest of physical realities.
The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 17:55 GMT
Jo,
Thank you kindly.
But.. A 'surface' (which I agree) can only be be made of 'matter' or not 'exist', so should involve the particulate state of energy. The simplest particulate form is a rotating sphere. Ergo I invoke the simplest dynamic, or at least the most 'familiar'.
If it's not the simplest; then it isn't! It's unimportant. What IS important is the missing spin momenta which has made confusing spooky nonsense of the physics of the quanta. THAT is what's simplified, then also simplifying & uniting with Relativity.
Now everything can be or 'have' a refractive plane surface (near/far field TZ) and in all directions, so localising all physics everywhere.
Of course the 'matter' condenses from the sub-matter continuum condensate energy on perturbation, (or Higgs process if you prefer) but if we discuss that some may think I'm loosing my marbles!
Best
Peter
Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 16:37 GMT
Dear Peter,
There am only one unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. No part of that unified infinite visible surface am finitely made of finite matter. That is where you have gone wrong. You have tried to establish the smallest amount of mass that requires the least amount of energy. Infinite surface am energized by infinite energy. Light needs no empowerment because infinite light does not have a surface. Infinite non-surface light am a non-entity.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 17:08 GMT
Joe,
Using proper and understandable definitions (you offer no others); If no part of the surface is made of anything how can it be illuminated'? Do you use different undeclared definitions?
Also, the continuum I invoke (giving rise to 'matter' by condensation where perturbed) is not 'finite', is not itself 'matter' and is everywhere. Perhaps then it's somewhere
else I went wrong?
I also agree 'infinite' and have written papers identifying the wide consistencies with a 'recycling' universe. Interestingly in that case all 'matter' (including brain matter) must derive from some (probably rather more) intelligent entity at some time in the past.
Now I think your descriptions may indeed relate to some more 'fundamental' truth. So is there anything
else you might remember from back then?
Best
Peter
Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 16:43 GMT
Dear Peter,
I never stated that “no part of the surface is made of anything.” I accurately stated that No part of that unified infinite visible surface am finitely made of finite matter. You may think that there am different kinds of finite matter that originated from different finite sources, bot the one real unified visible infinite surface must be eternal.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 16:38 GMT
Jo
Yes, I see it. It did take rather a long time but not long ago I became quite comfortable with the concepts of infinity and eternity.
Best
Peter
hide replies
Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 17:13 GMT
Hello Peter,
Happy to see your essay.I recognise your virtuosity in creativity.Thanks for sharing your thoughts.I liked indeed the spinning sphères.Congratulations and Good luck in this contest.
report post as inappropriate
John C Hodge wrote on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 17:52 GMT
Peter Jackson:
Thanks for an essay that begins to address a scientific model of the brain's function. The other essays seem to get lost in vague terms such as consciousness, free-will, intention, etc. Note LaMuth's essay may add the layering of brain structure to your essay. This is certainly a 10.
We communicated is another FQXi contest years ago and through messages on Acedemia.edu. Since then, the model has advanced to include a simulation of photon diffraction. The YouTube site photon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k
shows the simulation and the new experiment that falsifies the Huygens Principle and all wave models of light. The experiment is easy to do. Although Huygens is falsified, the simulation model corresponds to ht Huygens diffraction equation. The model also suggests the speed of gravity (plenum, space wave) is much greater than c as T. van Flandern suggested. Thus, "spooky action at a distance" is really just a high wave velocity. Other QM weirdness observations can be modeled with classical (intuitive) math. This the fractal principle.
The model also suggeste a model of spin (also a video and papers).
I'd appreciate your comments on the simulation either through acedemia.edu, here, or my email (found in the video).
Hodge
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 20:06 GMT
John
Thank you kindly.
You'll have seen a coherent model of duality emerges, but I always study suggested falsifications so will look with an open (if sharply analytical) mind.
I found learning speed reading essential for the ~30 papers a week needed to accumulate adequate coherent 'data points' to consistently describe the proverbial elephant. I'm therefore speed reading all essays and note those to re-read more carefully. Yours is one, but I'll read those of all who read and comment on mine anyway.
One first question. Why does a single universe have to exist? Thinking conventionally for now, if our visible 'matter' based universe has bounds as observation suggests, yet beyond that entity is eternity to infinity, then can there not be infinitely many separate incidences of matter based universes (perhaps like the galaxies in our own). Do you know any evidence inconsistent with that? and if it were true would it falsify your hypotheses as you seem to suggest but don't seem to say how?
Then there's the temporal recycling model (of each?) of course, but only one iteration at a time. You may have seen my paper identifying the wide tranche of findings consistent with that?
best
Peter
John C Hodge replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 00:02 GMT
Peter
We are in a single universe. We are not in 2 or more universes.
If a claim is made that there are multiple universes, the affirmative is what must be shown.
I think my STOE is the only model that suffest other universes with effects showing their existance in our universe. The Sources inject the stuff of our universe into our universe not from our universe. The Sinks eject the stuff of our universe into another space not in our universe. The growth change eqn. (dA/dt = -kA) of the series of 3 universes calculates the temperature of our universe to hunt e K= 2.718 K.
The STOE suggests the universe is flat and bounded. Th ere is an outer galaxy. The spiral galaxies inject stuff and elliptical galaxies eject stuff. In a galaxy cluster, all the matter from a group of spiral galaxies flows out to local elliptical galaxies. Like water sprayed in a parking lt with sinks. There is a limit the water will go and there will be parking lot beyond.
I am uncomfortable with answers of an infinite physical parameter - it's unreal , therefore, false. Because our universe is covered with the plenum, there is no "Beyond" the plenum.
Which paper? Is on the acedemia.edu?
Hodge
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 10:53 GMT
John
I agree with much, i.e. that we're in one 'mass/energy' universe at a time, it's finite or 'bounded', there's an 'ether' with density distribution around matter, that energy is quantized whenever it interacts (i.e. measured etc.), that much current theory is seriously flawed, and that we must rationalise first then derive the maths.
However realistically the chances of your model being adopted as the new paradigm seem infinitely small (which I'm sure you know) and I'm afraid I think mainly for good reasons i.e. (despite your claims) lack of conclusive evidence. There are also apparent inconsistencies in your videos (re single slit diffraction, and aether waves I recall). As an example; you dismiss 'infinity' and insist a 'plenum with nothing behind it
'solves' the problem. It's just another 'idea' John, an interesting one but again NOT a solution or 'proof'! my view is 'infinity' may show only the limits of our brains.
I've never seen a problem with postulating different theories and don't like to 'criticise' but, to be realistic, it's way beyond what you've done to suggest you've 'falsified' Huygens, particularly as a more widely consistent model exists consistent with the effects you invoke AND Huygens principle. In general I get the impression wider reading in leading edge optics and photonics may be helpful.
I know that's not what you want to hear but I hope you agree we must all be self critical and honest if understanding and doctrine are to actually progress.
Best
Peter
John C Hodge replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 15:21 GMT
What remains is the experiment. Perhaps you could suggest how Huygens (wave ) cab explain the experiment.
Hodge
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 16:55 GMT
John
Certainly. Without going back in detail, and just a little more than the bare Huygens derivation. It's the 'wave' in the aether which you surprisingly agreed towards the end of one of the video's.
Lets consider flashed from a space probe. The signals will 'expand' in all directions as a Schrodinger sphere. Passing a detector first with light then not then light then not etc. That is the 'wave' pattern I describe, but more complex.
Take a 'patch' of the surface of the sphere and consider it as a gold miners panning 'sieve' being lifted. But it is also 'swirled' laterally as it moves up, and not only that, but it can also be moved up & down slightly (relative to its' progress upwards) as it swirls, which gives elliptical polarity.
The instant this energy encounters matter or any perturbation fermions 'pop up' (pair production/Higgs etc) which re-quantise the energy - to you 'photons', which then spread again (unless self focussed into a Bessel beam).
Now you first said there's NO diffraction pattern from a single slit, which is wrong, but then agreed it! Have you never wondered why electrons gather densely at sharp topological changes? EACH edge of the slit re-quantises the energy, so giving the diffraction pattern. All else follows from that duality. I thought you'd already seen this, which also shows how the model solves a whole tranche of 'anomalies' including producing cosmic redshift WITHOUT accelerating expansion!;
Cosmic Redshift (etc) VideoI'm sure there may be some other aspect I've missed. If so just identify it for me. Past papers include various more detailed photonics experiments you'll be interested in, including this one I think;
Inertial Frame Error Discovery Derives Stellar Aberration and Paradox Free Special Relativity Via Huygens Principle Best
peter
John C Hodge replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 17:42 GMT
Peter:
I remember see you paper years ago. I'll reread it.
There is no diffraction pattern after the 1st slit in the Young's Experiment. But the light does become coherent so there is a diffraction pattern after the second slit. This is long recognized. Do the experiment.
The rest of you comments have very little to do with the Hodge Experiment. The wave in the plenum is caused by the photon. The wave thus formed DOES NOT come through the slit , it is reflected off the mask.
You commented that the Huygens model could explain the Hodge Experiment. I don't understand how. Please explain - I'd like to understand.
photon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k
As I understand, The Huygens model suggest each point in the slit radiates a wave. Therefore, a point on the higher intensity side of the slit should illuminate the entire width ( above and below the center) of the screen. The integration then forms the pattern. This implies both sides of the screen should have an (nearly) constant diffraction pattern.
RE: your cosmic redshift video, I saw lots of hand waving, where is the data calculation. There is lots of redshift, should be able to do the calculations.
Hodge
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 19:29 GMT
John
I'm confused by your assertion of no diffraction pattern from a single slit. I've always found one, varying with energy, distance and width, and it's well documented. Are you saying something different?
Single slit diffraction
I think few here subscribe to the view that real ontological understanding is just 'arm waving' without maths! There's no new maths needed for...
view entire post
John
I'm confused by your assertion of no diffraction pattern from a single slit. I've always found one, varying with energy, distance and width, and it's well documented. Are you saying something different?
Single slit diffraction I think few here subscribe to the view that real ontological understanding is just 'arm waving' without maths! There's no new maths needed for the redshift model, it's simple as Pi! - The circumference length increases as the orbital diameter increases so each orbit takes longer. As the lateral (propagation) speed is constant the wavelength increases (redshift). 'Understanding' that simplicity is everything.
You may be right that one simplistic 'interpretation' of Huygens may be; "each point in the slit.." but that's not correct. Each PART of the slit has TWO edges, which is what produces the single slit diffraction.
Another big common error is thinking 'frequency', which is only a time based derivative. The real physical property is WAVELENGTH Lambda, which any professional Astronomer or Astrophysicist will tell you. Diffraction patterns change with wavelength. Your assertion "therefore it MUST be from photons" as "no other model can explain it" is therefore quite wrong. The reason being that you started with a false assumption.
Later you say the same of the lateral shift, which is similarly untrue. Remember just because there's no light in the dark stripes doesn't mean there's no energy on that "trajectory". I found an interesting action was to move the screen further forward and back for the CHANGING 3D picture. As my essay identifies, reality becomes far clearer with 3D models.
Of course there are photons, spreading but requantized continually, but that doesn't falsify wave diffraction or Huygens principle. Better understanding of wave/particle duality is needed (I'm referring to ALL not just you John!)
In any case you should recall from my paper that the old 'ballistic' theory of conserved photons without wave characteristics doesn't and can't coherently explain Stellar Aberration.
I like and agree with much of your model, but in suggesting it falsifies waves the whole thing fails the consistency test. That's the area I see most refinement needed.
I hope that was clearer and helps.
Best
peter
view post as summary
Anonymous replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 20:48 GMT
John C Hodge replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 21:07 GMT
The light from a candle is incoherent. when passed through a slit or pinhole it becomes coherent. As i said in the video, Coherence produces a diffraction pattern when passed through a slit. But light from a candle is incoherent. as I said in the video, there a 3 sources of coherence, for far away light sources (stars), form a lasar, and from the 1st slit in young's experiment. Incoherent light impinging on a mask with a pinhole produces an image not a diffraction pattern it's called a pin hole camera.
It's obvious you have not listened or understood the video. Otherwise you'd know the photon is the source on the direction (Bohm) wave. When the photon is between the mask and the screen, there is no wave coming through the slit to the photon. Huygens requires a wave passing through the slit.
But you don't have to accept the reflection. In that case you have to say where the directing wave comes from such that the diffraction pattern reflects photon's energy. This is the Major, major problem with the Bohm interpretation.
You really don't understand the accepted physics or the problems with it. There is a reason accepted physics says Young's experiment is the whole key to QM.
Hodge
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 22:47 GMT
John
You seem wholly wedded to your theory which blinds you to it's flaws. That's quite usual, particularly as we get old (as am I too). But you shouldn't assume or blame others ignorance. I well understand the theories behind the single slit diffraction pattern, which are FAR from settled.
I did well understand your video, also wide experimental results and current interpretation. The problem is, apart from 'passing over' key issues, that you clearly haven't recognised or taken on board that; NO WAVE HAS TO PASS THROUGH ANY SLIT!! - (That's duality for you!)
I also quite agree the Bohm interpretation is also flawed.
I'm only trying to help John, but if your belief in your full model is that deeply embedded then it supports the hypothesis of my essay, there's no capacity for development and and may then be little point discussing further.
Best
Peter
hide replies
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 10:27 GMT
Dear Peter,
I read with great interest your deep analytical essay with ideas and conclusions that will help us overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science through the creation of a new comprehensive picture of the world, uniform for physicists and
poets filled with the meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl).
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 11:20 GMT
«With the same anguish my days flash past,
Monotonous as they were,
As if roses are dropping their petals,
And nightingales are dying.
And she is also sorrowful,
The Love that has guided me
And envenomed blood
Runs under her satin-like skin.
And if I am in this world,
It is for the only dream I have,
That we both, like blind children,
Will go to the mountain ridge
There, where there are only reveries,
In the world of the whitest clouds,
To seek for faded roses,
And listen to the dead nightingales.» (Romance N. Gumilev, Music A. Balchev)
Physicists and mathematicians have become poets today to paint a picture of the world, filled with the ultimate meaning of existence.
"We are no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself." (John A.Wheeler)
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 21:31 GMT
Dear Jackson,
Very good essay, you have gone into depths of quantum mechanics very nicely….
I am just quoting few of your words just for further discussion sake ….
1. ….. “No conclusion is possible as to whether or not a cosmic architect created our or any universe”…
……………. Why we should think this way sir? Just have a look at my essay, where I have discussed about birth and death of individual galaxies, independent any other galaxies. Why should we think of some creator……?
2.……. “It is possible to model mechanisms producing aims and intent algorithmically and give similar architecture to AI, but a computer as complex as a brain may be required for useful predictions.”………
……. More complex computer structures like super computers , single bit computers which work like individual neurons which can simulate Neural networks of brain are available…… The main problems faced are, how to use them and software development and programming. Another problem is they are very expensive. Some of the programming developed on them can be done very easily on your PC, and many times more accurately ………
Best wishes for your essay
=snp.gupta
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 10:58 GMT
Satyav
Thank you.
I agree galaxies are evolving and also published a paper on an evolutionary sequence and recycling by quasar some time ago. I'll read your paper with interest. However nobody can prove how anything 'started'. I didn't want anybody to interpret or assume my essay suggested a god, or not, as many do.
I agree we're progressing, but still a very long way off nature as our doctrinal theoretical foundations remain badly flawed.
I look forward to reading your essay again in more detail and commenting.
Best
Peter
Gene H Barbee wrote on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 22:59 GMT
Peter, thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.
You taught me quite about bit AI. I had not heard of Propositional Dynamic Logic. Apparently you work in the field and I will definitely look into some of the issues since it relates to what is happening at neural junctions. Also, I enjoyed your presentation of spin. I had to look up Bloch spherical vectors. If I understand your paper, you have found a classical explanation for half spin based on rotation in 3 dimensions. Spin and its associated wave function determine whether a particle is a fermion or boson. I wonder if signals that add in a neural network are boson like until they reach a particular junction that determines the result. Multiplication at nodes may addition of logarithms until a different kind of junction is reached (your neural hub?). I recall your red sock green sock paper and its relationship to EPR. As I mention in my paper, we need to know a lot more about hidden connections. Overall your paper was excellent. I agree that reaching conclusions regarding intent is a stretch for science with our current level of thinking. One thing that continues to bother me is how we all think so differently.
Gene Barbee
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 11:31 GMT
Gene,
Thank you kindly. I think our work knits together perfectly.
I think the fermion/boson description is flawed as I've now shown the two (Maxwells) momenta within OAM can produce both so called 'states' purely subject to interaction angle with respect to the polar axis.
The problem was that QM never did consider what a particle might 'look like' so blinded itself to the logical derivation.
I think our different ways of thinking is at once our greatest strength and weakness. If we all though identically we'd be clones and not evolve at all! The key then should be to better organise our thinking to rationalise input more consistently, then allowing us to communicate better.
I'm very glad we both rationalise well already so 'are on the same wavelength'. On occasions I wonder if I'm on the right planet!
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 13:24 GMT
Peter,
Thanks for an interesting read. The three concept rule is new to me. It was also unknown to my college professors. Perhaps they thought it was a minima rather than a maxima:-)
FYI, Milo Wolff presented a visualization similar to what you present to explain QM spin. The key requirement is that there must be rotation about two axes.
Regarding genetic mutations, I had assumed that mutations were somehow related to the decay of carbon 14. Spin alignment is a less destructive alternative.
All in all, a good effort.
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 16:30 GMT
Gary,
Thanks. And a big thanks also for the heads up on Milo Wolff. I've now visited his page, sent an Email and ordered his book! I've had massive self doubts that such a simple but important discovery hadn't been spotted by ANYBODY before, so it's great relief to have it ('pre'!) confirmed.
Wolff doesn't seem to extend to the rest of classic QM yet from what I've seen so I hope our work each informs the others.
I had a first speed read of your own essay this week and found some nice harmonics with my own thoughts, (the harmonics theme is one I've discussed in past papers). But I stumbled over the generous scattering of equations, conventionally frowned on for these essays. It doesn't help that I'm by no means a mathematician (though I did a while ago see and agree the physical analog of quaternions).
I nonetheless earmarked it in the top grouping for a second and deeper read and look forward to discussing any points emerging.
Best wishes
Peter
Gary D. Simpson replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 00:15 GMT
Peter,
Regarding Dr. Wolff ... unfortunately, he has passed away.
You are correct about my use of equations. It is frowned upon in essay formats such as this. However, this is the only venue where I can present these ideas with any hope of reaching a technical audience that my have useful criticism. If it affects my ranking in the contest then that is a price I will gladly pay.
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 12:02 GMT
Aaargh! I won't expect a response then. Massive shame.
Do you know if anyone is carrying on his work?
Do you think there may be any math input you could contribute on the ontological foundations I identify? I suggest a 'classical' QM could allow great theoretical advancement.
Best
Peter
Gary D. Simpson replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 15:01 GMT
Peter,
Several folks are attempting to carry forward Dr. Wolff's ideas with myself being one. We are mostly amateurs. Although, one gentleman does have a PhD in Physics. You might be able to make contact through the WSM users group on Yahoo.
Words such as ontology and teleology are barely in my vocabulary:-)
I have posted two works to viXra.org that might be of interest to you. They are Quaternion Dynamics Part 1 and Part 2. This is an active area of study for myself. They can be found here:
http://vixra.org/author/gary_d_simpson
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 20:24 GMT
Gary
Many thanks. I'll take a look. Not that I'll understand much! but I don't believe theory can advance at all without collaboration. And nobody can be an expert at everything!
From what I've seen so far it looks like the Professor may have been on the nail with non-integer spin but still missing a couple of key pieces to complete the puzzle of Classic QM
Best
Peter
hide replies
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 23:02 GMT
Dear Peter Jackson,
This reply i posted on my essay, I am just reproducing here for your immediate attention please...........
Thank you very much for the supporting reply. You touched many points, very nicely. I want to give a point by point reply. I like the idea to work in collaboration with you, we will definitely do that. You are an multi-talented person with very nice knowledge...
view entire post
Dear Peter Jackson,
This reply i posted on my essay, I am just reproducing here for your immediate attention please...........
Thank you very much for the supporting reply. You touched many points, very nicely. I want to give a point by point reply. I like the idea to work in collaboration with you, we will definitely do that. You are an multi-talented person with very nice knowledge of many fields. Please give more details of your model to me….
….Your words: As an Astronomer long focused on galaxies and cosmic evolution I found your ideas interesting and novel with much agreement with my own work and (some joint) published papers. Certainly the universe is dynamic, and many current assumptions (mainly in the 'Concordance' model) are flawed, incomplete or plain wrong!
…..My reply… You are exactly correct! Thank you very much for your appreciation!!
….Your words: but specifically; "…....our Universe reproduces its Galaxies." I've actually produced a model of precisely how it does this, with a full life cycle bases on detailed data analysis.
…..My reply… Wow, very nice!, I want see details…….
….Your words: "Galaxies tend to evolve from spiral to elliptical structure" Again that is indeed a basic part of the full evolutionary cycle the data supports.
…..My reply… Very Good, it is an expected part.
….Your words: I should say other ideas don't correspond well with findings and data. Part of my studies have been of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field survey data. Indeed I have the 'visible' wavelength image as my computer desktop background. One thing for certain is that it did NOT look the same back then as now. Far from it. There are many differences, including faster evolution and significantly lower mass functions (all smaller).
…..My reply… I want see that data, and want know why you decided like that, Was that based on the observed data…..?
….Your words: Few of the inconsistencies argue with your basics, but if you wish to be taken at all seriously by the current regime you'll need a lot better consistency with data across the board.
…..My reply… I am damn serious, I want this Dynamic Universe model to be always based on Experimental results and observed data, I will never back out.
Many papers and books were published on Dynamic Universe model, for example ‘Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary’ (1994), ‘Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe’, About “SITA” simulations, ‘Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required’ , “New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations” , “Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background” in FQXi, “Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.”, in 2015 ‘Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model , ‘Explaining Pioneer anomaly’ , ‘Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets’, ‘Observation of super luminal neutrinos’, ‘Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up’, “Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto” etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free , Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model . Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe .
Prediction of existence of large number of Blue shifted Galaxies came true. Prediction of “no dark matter” came true. All these papers were published many places available in the internet.
All these books and papers can be downloaded from freely from Dynamic Universe Model Blog or viXra
….Your words: My own model is massively well evidenced (I've studied 20-30 papers etc/wk for decades)and includes better alternatives for the big 'Bang/Bounce' and the cosmological constant (cosmic redshift). But it still hasn't penetrated old doctrinal beliefs! …
…. My reply… Please give some more details…. You can contact me by emails also… snp.gupta@gmail.com
…… Your words….(Yet it's still being refined and evolving as NONE of us should be too 'precious' about our theories!).
… …. My reply…. You are exactly correct, NATURE is very complex, and it produces new and new facets always. What we can check is how this model explains that observation. All these are being done for the betterment of humanity.
What we can check is how this model explains this new observation. That’s what I am doing always for the last 30 years, without any support from mainstream….. It was a real torture to me for the last so 25 odd years, whatever the results and predictions that are that came true, no support…..
….. Your words….If you wish I'll post links to the Evolution paper and a video simply deriving redshift without requiring accelerating expansion. I think both may help inform and advance your own good work. …
…. My reply… Yes please, I want have a look at them. Please send me, or post them here.
….. Your words….Most will of course say you're too far of topic here, but I feel better fundamental understanding of all nature from the smallest quanta needs better understanding of how the universe works. …
…. My reply…. Don’t worry. These all being done for the better understanding of the universe and its nature, and for the benefit of humanity, definitely NOT for embezzlement of Government funds…..
…. Your words…. It's also well written so I have it down for a good score. (though I try not to apply scores before reading all) …
…. My reply…. I am also thinking the same, but I am giving high score to you now itself ! These interactions are very important.
Best wishes….
=snp.gupta
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 11:25 GMT
Dear Satyav,
Thank you kindly. I've come across some of your papers before (though among thousands!) and now recall appreciating your 'It from Bit' essay on the CMB etc.
I'll give the links below. I'm probably principally and Astronomer/Observational Cosmologist but as all nature is connected have been a perpetual student spending intense periods studying a wide range of other...
view entire post
Dear Satyav,
Thank you kindly. I've come across some of your papers before (though among thousands!) and now recall appreciating your 'It from Bit' essay on the CMB etc.
I'll give the links below. I'm probably principally and Astronomer/Observational Cosmologist but as all nature is connected have been a perpetual student spending intense periods studying a wide range of other specialist areas over 50 years. That's proved highly valuable for 'joined up' thinking & science. One essential for a coherent theory is to study the scores of papers posted weekly in the likes of the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (MNRAS) etc. Of course much interpretation there is based on older false ones but the basic findings are valuable. It seems you may not do that quite as much.
I think a useful first job may be to find the Hubble UDF image, put it on your desk top and study it in comparison to the near universe, then look (critically) at the widest range of findings.
I did that at various ranges looking at the evolution of morphologies and eventually a new more coherent picture emerged, outlined in the first paper below.
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4540.5603 or;
http://www.hadronicpress.com/issues/HJ/VOL36/HJ-36-6.pdf That and most other other important results are also archived on arXiv i.e.
http://arxiv.org/a/jackson_p_1 or rather more on Academia.edu;
Peter http://independent.academia.edu/JacksonPeter/Papers The video deriving cosmic redshift is here;
Cosmic redshift without accelerating w expansion Videoand the (longer one) explaining the Classic QM mechanism here;
Classic QM video, (Full) I expect that's quite enough for now as we both have many essays to read and review! I'll copy this to you string, and score it now.
Very Best
Peter
view post as summary
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 01:30 GMT
Dear Peter,
You are very nice something like Peter Pan...!
I am giving my reply as follows
….Your words…. I'm probably principally and Astronomer/Observational Cosmologist but as all nature is connected have been a perpetual student spending intense periods studying a wide range of other specialist areas over 50 years. That's proved highly valuable for 'joined up' thinking...
view entire post
Dear Peter,
You are very nice something like Peter Pan...!
I am giving my reply as follows
….Your words…. I'm probably principally and Astronomer/Observational Cosmologist but as all nature is connected have been a perpetual student spending intense periods studying a wide range of other specialist areas over 50 years. That's proved highly valuable for 'joined up' thinking & science. One essential for a coherent theory is to study the scores of papers posted weekly in the likes of the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (MNRAS) etc. Of course much interpretation there is based on older false ones but the basic findings are valuable. It seems you may not do that quite as much.
---My reply… I will do that, I never saw through a telescope, in my life…. You will have to guide me. It is very nice to have collaboration with a professional astronomer, who is expert in using telescopes… Probably you will check my ideas, I request to have look at my book 4 or papers on blue shifted Galaxies and give your esteemed opinion…
See the link
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/books-publishe
d.html
…Your words….
I think a useful first job may be to find the Hubble UDF image, put it on your desk top and study it in comparison to the near universe, then look (critically) at the widest range of findings.
I did that at various ranges looking at the evolution of morphologies and eventually a new more coherent picture emerged, outlined in the first paper below.
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4540.5603 or;
http://www.hadronicpress.com/issues/HJ/VOL36/HJ-36-6.pdf
T
hat and most other other important results are also archived on arXiv i.e. http://arxiv.org/a/jackson_p_1
or rather more on Academia.edu;
Peter http://independent.academia.edu/JacksonPeter/Papers
---My reply… I will do that, I never saw through a telescope, in my life…. You will have to guide me. I will go through your papers and reply you…
…Your words….
The video deriving cosmic redshift is here; Cosmic redshift without accelerating expansion Video http://youtu.be/KPsCp_S4cUs
---My reply… saw your You-tube presentation, It is very good. you are still considering a expanding universe model... You please see that there are Blue shifted Galaxies,Quasars(are blue shifted).... etc...which are 60 percent of total Galaxies. You will have to consider them also....
and the (longer one) explaining the Classic QM mechanism here;
https://vimeo.com/195020202, (Full) LIVE LINKS ALL IN THE COPY OF THIS IN MY ESSAY STRING)
….Your words….
I expect that's quite enough for now as we both have many essays to read and review! I'll score yours now.
---My reply… Yes , you are correct, I want to read your essays now…
….Your words….
PS. I hope 'Satyav' is OK? SNP here is the right wing Scottish Nationalist Party!
---My reply…
LOL ! No problems, or even you can call me gupta
Today I am giving my high rating to you.....
Best regards
=snp.gupta
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 17:59 GMT
Satyav
I'm not sure 'Peter Pan' is appropriate for an ex rugby player! I don't look through telescopes either (most terrestrial telescopes can't see far), and as semi retired and not earning money in astronomy I'm not a 'professional' astronomer, but 'accredited' (still a fellow of the RAS, AAS, MRi, APS etc.), still help in AGN and galaxy classification programmes, but I'm more...
view entire post
Satyav
I'm not sure 'Peter Pan' is appropriate for an ex rugby player! I don't look through telescopes either (most terrestrial telescopes can't see far), and as semi retired and not earning money in astronomy I'm not a 'professional' astronomer, but 'accredited' (still a fellow of the RAS, AAS, MRi, APS etc.), still help in AGN and galaxy classification programmes, but I'm more physicist/cosmologist.
The data comes from the Hubble Space telescope, the dozen or so other probes we have up there looking at various things at various frequencies, and a similar number of specialist powerful terrestrial instruments and arrays. We now have so much data coming in we're
years behind in correlation and analysis!
Im also a member of the International Astrostatistics Association (IAA) and massive data sets are available at the ASAIP here;
https://asaip.psu.edu/. However studying analysis papers can be far more productive, as long as you don't do just a few (and know how to read between the lines). Some analysis is nonsense based on past errors but the papers referenced in my own papers are all top notch.
On Blue shift - don't forget 'young' galaxies (from open spirals) are all far bluer (younger stars) than old discs, which are red. ('Ellipticals' is still a common misnomer, due almost solely to the orientation of the disc plane wrt us!). The other blue peak we find is from the quasar jet approaching us, which can have collimated components at up to 46c. (No, NOT a typo!) The opposing jet is therefore red and often then red shifted beyond detectable wavelength for the instrument (a fact barely recognized by most!).
You also need to carefully study the dynamic 'whole universe' models showing the various 'flows' of clusters and filaments.
Only once you've done that for some years, absorbed masses of evidence and removed all the flaws can you begin to form and present a coherent credible picture which most of our current 'gatekeepers' of theory (including editors) will study for longer than ~0.6-1.2 seconds before deciding to dismiss out of hand or ignore, if they look at all!
You must remind me after the contest to look further at what you've done so far. I'll also post your score shortly.
Very best of luck in the contest.
Peter
view post as summary
Rodney Bartlett wrote on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 06:52 GMT
Many thanks for the praise you gave my essay, Peter. I knew my essay addressed what you call "some important fundamental physics". But because it was getting very little attention, I had almost decided that reading my own page anymore was pointless. And I twice seriously considered unsubscribing from receiving any comments. Everything feels right with the world now, though.
You...
view entire post
Many thanks for the praise you gave my essay, Peter. I knew my essay addressed what you call "some important fundamental physics". But because it was getting very little attention, I had almost decided that reading my own page anymore was pointless. And I twice seriously considered unsubscribing from receiving any comments. Everything feels right with the world now, though.
You and I really do seem to be on much the same wavelength, and I was fascinated by your video about Classic QM (and Schrodinger's Dog). Einstein published a paper in 1919 called "Do gravitational fields play an essential role in the structure of elementary particles?" The gravity surrounding us is absolutely everywhere, all the time. If the particles composing both you and me include gravitational fields, we would always be connected because gravity always fills any intervening space (actually, space-time). Is this why we're on much the same wavelength? Since everyone is joined by those gravitational waves, the whole world might oneday be on a similar wavelength to the two of us. (I've only had a quick browse through your essay so far – I liked what I saw but can't send comments until I get time to read it carefully.)
I see you presently like unification and TOE's. Maybe you'll enjoy this comment I posted on https://theconversation.com/if-atoms-are-mostly-empty-space-
why-do-objects-look-and-feel-solid-71742#comment_1216480 in response to Roger Barlow (Research Professor and Director of the International Institute for Accelerator Applications, University of Huddersfield). It contains some of the ideas in my essay -
"Professor, I think you're overlooking the possible unification of quantum mechanics with General Relativity, which is Einstein's theory of gravity. You say, "It all comes from nothing more than ... quantum mechanics." Uniting quantum mechanics with relativity means it all comes from gravity, too.
"Quantum mechanics incorporates the existence of both advanced waves (which travel backwards in time) and retarded waves (which travel forwards in time) as admissible solutions to James Clerk Maxwell's equations. This was explored in the Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory in the first half of last century. Also, John Cramer's 1986 proposal of the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics (TIQM) says waves are both retarded and advanced. The waves are seen as physically real, rather than a mere mathematical device. And "Physics of the Impossible" by Michio Kaku (Penguin Books, 2009) states on p.276, "When we solve Maxwell's equations for light, we find not one but two solutions: a 'retarded' wave, which represents the standard motion of light from one point to another; but also an 'advanced' wave, where the light beam goes backward in time. Engineers have simply dismissed the advanced wave as a mathematical curiosity since the retarded waves so accurately predicted the behavior of radio, microwaves, TV, radar, and X-rays. But for physicists, the advanced wave has been a nagging problem for the past century."
"Albert Einstein's equations say that in a universe possessing only^ gravitation and electromagnetism, the gravitational fields carry enough information about electromagnetism to allow the equations of James Clerk Maxwell to be restated in terms of these gravitational fields. This was discovered in 1925 by the mathematical physicist George Yuri Rainich. [Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 27, 106 - Rainich, G. Y. (1925)]. Gravitation carrying info about electromagnetism means gravitational waves also possess advanced and retarded forms as admissible solutions to Maxwell's equations about electromagnetism. The waves travelling back in time would cancel the waves going forwards in time, producing no motion in time. This lack of temporal movement causes instantaneous contact between particles that would otherwise be widely separated in time (and in space, thanks to the union of space and time into one entity called space-time). In other words, the entanglement of quantum mechanics is produced. This covers macroscopic/astronomical bodies in space-time, and quantum mechanics is reconciled with gravity/relativity.
"^ This means the strong and weak nuclear forces would not be fundamental but would be products of gravitational-electromagnetic interaction. This agrees with theories in which the role of the mass-bestowing Higgs field is played by various couplings [M. Tanabashi; M. Harada; K. Yamawaki. Nagoya 2006: "The Origin of Mass and Strong Coupling Gauge Theories". International Workshop on Strongly Coupled Gauge Theories. pp. 227–241]."
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 10:34 GMT
Rodney
Brilliant! Well done. And thanks. But something has stopped universal adoption, and I now think I know what and why.
For me it was Feynman's 'wave going backwards in time' that seemed to need the simpler explanation a barmaid could understand. The TQIM extends Feynman somewhat but the 'reverse time' remains standing out like a sore thumb. If you think about my essay the simple explanation is exactly what I've identified; The second 'phase' (the offset cos^2 curve) is that 2nd 'hidden' momentum in OAM, in Maxwell equations but not identified in QM!! It just takes a little thought for that to dawn.
The Mach-Zender 2 path splitter experiment is then unbelievably simple. Reflecting 90^o simply ROTATES THE POLAR AXIS 90^o so the "2ND MOMENTUM" then interacts, which gives the orthogonal 'out of phase' cosine curve of QM's offset 'probability amplitudes'.
All the confusion and counter intuitive concepts are cleared away. Simply measure the TWO momenta distributed on the surface of a spinning sphere!!!!
I hope you may be one of very few immediately able to see the simplicity and profound implications.?
Best
Peter
Rodney Bartlett replied on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 08:29 GMT
Your scenario is superbly thought out, Peter. It reveals a mind far above average! However, even people who are on much the same wavelength will disagree about details on occasion. That makes for good, intelligent discussion – which is one of FQXI's goals.
I think your video's explanation of quantum mechanics is a bit too complicated (at least for me). It's simpler for me to...
view entire post
Your scenario is superbly thought out, Peter. It reveals a mind far above average! However, even people who are on much the same wavelength will disagree about details on occasion. That makes for good, intelligent discussion – which is one of FQXI's goals.
I think your video's explanation of quantum mechanics is a bit too complicated (at least for me). It's simpler for me to imagine QM resulting from a universe-spanning gravitational field whose waves can travel back and forth in time, cancelling to produce lack of distance in space-time known as entanglement. Ptolemy's epicycles succeed in providing explanations and would probably make sense to a barmaid. But astronomy has, with time, come up with better models. Time obviously does exist and I don't think Feynman's, and TIQM's, 'wave going backwards in time' stands out like a sore thumb. This "reverse time" can be explained by the Complex Number Plane being given physical, rather than purely mathematical, meaning (since I'm an incredibly slow typist, I'll copy and paste from things I've already written – so forgive me for overexplaining topics).
The Complex Number Plane has a leftward direction from 0 on the horizontal X axis which is called the "complex axis" and corresponds to backwards motion in time^. The direction to the right of 0 on X is called the "real axis" and corresponds to forward motion in time, while the vertical Y axis intersecting the X axis at 0 represents the so-called Imaginary Time derived from Special Relativity and quantum mechanics.
When Max Planck originated the idea of quanta to solve the ultraviolet catastrophe, I'm sure that idea (like so-called "imaginary" time) was initially thought of as a mathematical trick. Albert Einstein thought differently about quanta, and developed his photoelectric effect. So it appears entirely possible that imaginary time and the Complex Number Plane will find practical application in the future.
^ The photons in a beam of light – or the theoretical gravitons in a gravitational wave - going back in time could be the hypothetical particles called tachyons. Experiments have been conducted to search for tachyons, with no compelling evidence for their existence. If such particles exist, they always move faster than light. Special relativity says this means they travel back in time and cause violations of causality, the relationship between causes and effects. I don't think it violates causality since the tachyon would be the cause and it couldn't affect a particle until it began its journey back through time. What it does violate is the idea that time only ever moves in the forward direction.
Time's obvious existence – together with the tremendous appeal your video has to me – cause me to prefer explaining quantum mechanical things like entanglement as "a universe-spanning gravitational field whose waves can travel back and forth in time, cancelling to produce lack of distance in space-time". To address another example (quantum tunnelling) - Inside black holes, their gravitational and electromagnetic waves possess both forward and backward motion in time, cancelling to produce the zero time/zero distance called entanglement (this allows instant travel to the past, the future, and other planets/stars/galaxies). Physicists now believe that entanglement between particles exists everywhere and that moments of time can become entangled too - "The Weirdest Link" (New Scientist, vol. 181, issue 2440 - 27 March 2004, page 32 - http://www.biophysica.com/QUANTUM.HTM and "Quantum Entanglement in Time" - http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0402127). If there's zero time and zero distance between the inside of a black hole and the seemingly empty space surrounding it, the gravitons and photons of the black hole can exist outside a black hole's boundary or event horizon as "pairs of particles of light and gravity … (with) one member of the pair being a particle and the other an antiparticle (the antiparticles of light and gravity are the same as the particles)" - "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking: Bantam Press, 1988, p.106. In other words, the particles "quantum tunnel" and cause Hawking radiation.
About 55 seconds into your Classic QM video, you say "Spin, in QM, can't be rotation". I also prefer to explain spin not as rotation on an axis. However, spin on multiple axes doesn't satisfy me and I use the gravitation spanning space-time. According to General Relativity, matter causes a gravity field by its mass creating depressions in space that can be pictured as a flexible rubber sheet. Space could affect particles through its curvature (gravity) infiltrating particles, thus giving them quantum spin. The curvature of my essay's Mobius strips implies this quantum spin could be continuous. Since it's known this type of spin can only have discrete values, these values (and space's curves) must be determined by individual pulses of energy (fluctuations / pulsing of virtual particles* could produce the distinct values of binary digits' on-off states, or 1's and 0's). Space's curves influencing particles is consistent with Einstein's 1919 paper "Do gravitational fields play an essential role in the structure of elementary particles?"
*The motions of virtual particles filling space-time appear to be random but a principle of Chaos theory – perhaps science's most important theory after relativity and QM - is "order within apparent disorder". So their randomness may well be an illusion.
Bell's theorem says any system of Hidden Variables that agrees with QM's predictions must be non-local. The binary digits (bits) I speak of are hidden variables, removing probability and restoring exactness (a precision hidden within apparent disorder). The digits are the most basic composition of gravitational waves, and the universal nature of these waves and bits, plus their trips back and forth in space and time, causes them to immediately affect any distant location ie be non-local.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 15:47 GMT
Rodney
I agree simple rotation on multiple axes shouldn't satisfy you. That's just the potato part of the full gourmet meal! My problem is in showing the whole meal when it has to be served on separate plates in courses. Indeed that's the main focus of the essay, All will revert to whatever they have embedded as it's far less work!
From your position you'd need to backtrack a lot....
view entire post
Rodney
I agree simple rotation on multiple axes shouldn't satisfy you. That's just the potato part of the full gourmet meal! My problem is in showing the whole meal when it has to be served on separate plates in courses. Indeed that's the main focus of the essay, All will revert to whatever they have embedded as it's far less work!
From your position you'd need to backtrack a lot. i.e. Bohr never identified any 'particle' description in his model leading to weird 'non-locality'. Einstein, Bell etc, said that must mean his model was flawed. That was Bell was saying in the quote you give, and more directly too! The real pièce de résistance of my dish is the 2nd spin 'momentum' in OAM, showing QAM CAN now be simple OAM! What Bohr forgot was Maxwells second momentum;'curl',
orthogonal to Bohrs simple Up/Down!!!
So the error was 100 years ago and we've been digging ever deeper nonsensical and unnecessary holes thinking up unfalsifiable ideas ever since! Everything becomes simple; fermions re-emotto ing at c in their own local rest frame, which we know they do, then allows the 'Classic' QM to be unified with a (now logical) Special Relativity. Sure 'entanglement' exists, all derivable 'b'directly from all pairs & emissions having N and S poles facing in opposite directions!
Now none of that also precludes an underlying universal ('non-local' if you like) 'sub matter medium' or continuum. In fact I refer to it as implicit and essential in the essay - for, gravity, dark energy, Coulomb force etc. and from which to condense (3D vortex) matter from fermions up.
However each will follow their own intuition. In other words I quite see we may be too far down the long slippery slope, with minds not well enough evolved to overcome embedded content and recover a simple coherent understanding of nature.
My 2010 finalist essay describing this simple unification mechanism was titled; "2020 Vision" as I explained I thought at best it would be 2020 before we'd manage any paradigm change, if at all. Unfortunately that's proved correct, possibly for the reason I identify. But I don't fret, perhaps just feel a little guilty at my own inability to convince others. It's just where & what mankind is. We can all only do our best.
Sincerest thanks for being one of the few who've actually looked in any depth.
Best
Peter
view post as summary
sridattadev kancharla wrote on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 23:18 GMT
Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 11:00 GMT
Dear Peter Jackson ! Your argumentaion on maths as cognitive stimulus, algorithms as models of human behavior, and rational-ethic self-organozation do find my support. It is also very reasonable to state that science cannot decide if human development (as contrasted to animals and machines/automata) follows a random process or an eternal order.In any case, the human physics of consciousness does indeed improve by rational & ethic thought, and not by lower brain impulses for biological survival. Best wishes and success: stephen
report post as inappropriate
Stephen I. Ternyik replied on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 11:01 GMT
Natesh Ganesh wrote on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 18:39 GMT
Dear Peter Jackson,
I really enjoyed your essay, and being a computer engineer especially the parts on the need for hierarchical layered architectures to achieve learning and use of algorithms to possibly program some form of aims and intentions in machines. I need to read it a few more times to understand the QAM part better.
I would be interested in your thoughts on my submission titled 'Intention is Physical' in which I explore the possibility of learning dynamics and intentional agency as a manifestation of minimal energy dissipation. I too end up requiring an hierarchical predictive model to implement those dynamics, and explain how a little bit of wandering is not bad. Thanks and good luck.
Natesh
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 15:00 GMT
Natesh,
Many thanks. I appreciate your comments. It seems either the word 'quantum' or finding 'intent' as a mechanism turns many people off!
I've just read yours. Very good. I'll comment there.
QAM from simple OAM proves very important, giving a classical mechanism for the complex orthogonal 'state pairs' we actually find (in QM), which allows both the infomation levels and 'path options' needed, with the critical regions as actually PAIRS of 'cusps'; (is the equator rotating clockwise or anticlockwise?, and; are the poles moving up or down?).
The 'Cascade' or Avalanche you refer to being a 3D not 2D process is also critical as that completes the full Cos^2 predictions of QM. Of course this is such an enormous 'elephant in the room' most either won't see it or will turn away in fear!
I have a number of questions on yours so look forward to discussing further. I also saw your responses to George Ellis and tend to agree with you.
Very best
Peter
Rodney Bartlett wrote on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 02:02 GMT
Sorry for the delay in replying, Peter. We all get a bit busy sometimes. It was a real pleasure looking at your ideas! You're correct that all any of us can do is follow our intuition and do the best we can. Then we have to wait and see what happens. It'd be nice if a paradigm shift could happen by 2020 (or even 2017). But from the way human nature appears to me, I wouldn't be surprised if we have to wait ... and wait ... and wait. It might be 2120 before people can accept a better paradigm. Best wishes, Rodney.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew wrote on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 17:07 GMT
Your essay seems to be about two very different things; neural networks and the angular momentum of a rotating sphere. My focus is on the rotating sphere.
You argue that a classical rotating sphere of charge, which of course radiates at its precession frequency in a magnetic field, describes the spin of an electron. While a classical charge sphere has a continuum of states as it slowly...
view entire post
Your essay seems to be about two very different things; neural networks and the angular momentum of a rotating sphere. My focus is on the rotating sphere.
You argue that a classical rotating sphere of charge, which of course radiates at its precession frequency in a magnetic field, describes the spin of an electron. While a classical charge sphere has a continuum of states as it slowly loses energy in a magnetic field, an electron has just two states.
Until an observer bonds to the electron by a photon coupling, the electron exists in a superposition of up and down and the observer finds the electron either up or down in the magnetic field. Now both the phase and amplitude of the electron affect the phase and amplitude of the observer since the observer is also made up of spinning electrons and has bonded to the electron with other electrons.
It is difficult for me to understand why your argument of flipping a classical sphere helps me to understand the superposition states of an electron in a magnetic field. Now two electrons can exist in a quantum superposition state, entangled across the universe where one is up and the other down. Why this simple quantum concept is so difficult to understand is something that I do not understand.
It is true that most of reality behaves very classically and this is because quantum phase coherence exists for only very short times for macroscopic sources. For microscopic sources, quantum phase coherence can persist seemingly indefinitely for mainstream science. But in aethertime, there is an inherent very slow phase decay for the universe, 0.26 ppb/yr, that is what drives the universe charge and gravity forces. This phase decay is also what sets the arrow of time.
Your description does not seem to include phase decay and so it is not clear what happens to your two classical spheres that begin spinning together. How long do they spin in phase? Two classical spheres will only be subject to the chaos of classical noise, but two spinning quantum electrons are also subject to a quantum phase noise of decoherence.
So a classical observer can couple to a classical spinning source and measure the source spin without changing the source spin in ways the the observer can always know. A quantum observer bonds with a quantum source and therefore changes the source and observer phases in ways that the observer cannot know.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 18:13 GMT
Steve,
Seems you didn't get far enough into the spin hypothesis to find the path to neuron interaction. Studying new fundamental theory first needs 5 steps back 'out' of present doctrine & understandings. You wrote about 20 lines on the latter so missed the whole new overview (I admit it did take me a decade to do that unguided!)
Now lets forget 'electron emissions' and all you've...
view entire post
Steve,
Seems you didn't get far enough into the spin hypothesis to find the path to neuron interaction. Studying new fundamental theory first needs 5 steps back 'out' of present doctrine & understandings. You wrote about 20 lines on the latter so missed the whole new overview (I admit it did take me a decade to do that unguided!)
Now lets forget 'electron emissions' and all you've 'learnt' and go back 100 years. Maxwell's 2 orthogonal 'coupling forces' or pairs of states are 'curl' and some 'linear' momentum. All is provisional and as poorly understood as his Near & Far fields and 'Transition Zone', but the orthogonal forces are Elec & Mag.
Now cut forward to Neils & Werner. Not liking any model they assumed none, only
'what we can SAY about' particles, but still had to
interpret data! So we had 'entangled' pairs each with ONE pair of 'superposed' states spin ('up/down') which 'collapsed' to just one instantly depending on what Alice did a million miles away.
OK that's ONE option! Now just in case that's a fantastical story due to some mistaken assumption lets check what would happen if Bohrs particles each had two pairs of REAL orthogonal momenta. First of course that's consistent with Maxwell's coupling 'forces'. Now second, and this is the giant 'elephant' you missed; we can find momenta equivalent to BOTH those pairs simply by looking more closely at OAM!! and just considering one of a pair (propagating antiparalell on the polar axis) meeting a 'detector' field electron which can be at ANY ORIENTATION. On absorption there is, to simplify, a transfer of momentum ('giving detection').
Now the question is HOW MUCH OF WHICH momentum (polar 'curl' +/- or equatorial up/down) is 'detected. Clearly at the equator curl is zero, and at the poles up/down is zero. Add the field depth 'cascade' of QCD and we have a
COMPLETE reproduction of QM (Diracs complementary Cos^2 curves!!!) found classically! If Bob reverses HIS setting then HIS finding reverses! No spookyness needed - and exactly as Bell predicted; by 'fermion numbers.'
The problem is that's so unbelievably shocking it seems unbelievable to all, proving the hypothesis of my essay on lack of rational thinking. So is that why it's so invisible?' or is it that so few understand QM enough to disbelieve it, and see the 'kings new clothes'? I need to understand the problem to overcome it.
Best
Peter
view post as summary
Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 18:50 GMT
You have a very good intuitive approach and that intuition tells you that something strange goes on with physical reality. When you try to articulate your intuitions, your words seem to get in your way.
Orbital angular momentum is a well known classical and also quantum notions. However, those classical and quantum notions are not compatible because quantum phase and amplitude have no...
view entire post
You have a very good intuitive approach and that intuition tells you that something strange goes on with physical reality. When you try to articulate your intuitions, your words seem to get in your way.
Orbital angular momentum is a well known classical and also quantum notions. However, those classical and quantum notions are not compatible because quantum phase and amplitude have no classical analogs.
You posit a classical observer who detects the angular momentum of a classical rotating sphere. Your classical observer forms quantum bonds with the rotating sphere by exchanging photons and after some period of observation, reports a velocity of rotation as well as a momentum or mass for that rotation.
The fact that the classical observer needed to form quantum bonds with the rotating sphere does not really change the report of velocity and momentum. You further argue that the relative orientation of the observer and rotating sphere will affect the measurement and this is certainly true. However, there does not appear to be any hidden truth in this classical description.
The hidden truth is that the classical observer used quantum bonding with photon exchange to measure the properties of the rotating sphere. That means that it is possible that some of the phase information of one rotating sphere would be entangled with another rotating sphere. In this case, two rotating spheres might show quantum correlation, but it would not be possible for the observer to know this without some other knowledge.
Moreover, the observer phase will affect the phase of the rotating sphere in ways that the observer cannot ever know. Thus the measurement of the sphere velocity first, and then momentum will never agree with measuring the momentum first and then velocity. That uncertainty in these measurements is quite small but inherent. Moreover, an entangle rotating sphere across the universe will show correlated properties to some observer over there as well.
Since the classical observer does not measure quantum phase, it will never make sense. Once a classical observer uses a phase sensitive spectrometer, they become a quantum observer and now can make better sense out of the way the universe is. However, a quantum observer believes in the existence of a fundamental uncertainty for reality because there is simply no way to know the exact quantum causes of some quantum effects.
It is very interesting that many people get wound up in the logic of identity recursion, even very smart people. Even very smart people discourse endlessly about the mysteries of quantum decay. Why do wavefunctions decay from one state to another? Wavefunctions decay because wavefunctions decay. This is an identity that describes an axiom in which one must simply believe: It is how the universe works.
A classical observer uses a spectrometer that does not measure phase and so a classical observer chooses to not believe in quantum phase. This works fine for many predictions of action, but a quantum observer measures phase. This means a quantum observer will naturally predict many more possible futures than a classical observer. So what? The classical observer can still argue endlessly about explaining the definition of quantum phase since they do not believe in it and so do not even bother to measure it.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 22:39 GMT
Peter,
Good to see you here again.
Your description of present-day elements that hamper clear thinking descriptively represents a kind of stream-of-consciousness approach that will keep us "wandering in a search for understanding until we decide to "self evolve" to allow more complex rational thinking." Your quantum computing seems to describe a fractal-type processing that avoids the recursive and linear default modes we have developed.
You make a lot of good points about out-of-the-box mental "self-evolution" and fresh thinking built into our subconscious.
I touch on some of the same concepts but lack the PDL approach you have fashioned.
Jim Hoover
report post as inappropriate
Paul N Butler wrote on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 21:49 GMT
Dear Peter,
Since you asked me to read your paper in your comment on my paper’s page, I was not sure if you wanted me to respond on my paper’s page or yours, so I am doing it on both to cover both possibilities.
I am doing this partly because of a problem that I have noticed with the email notifications that tell when someone has made a new comment. If I press the link in the...
view entire post
Dear Peter,
Since you asked me to read your paper in your comment on my paper’s page, I was not sure if you wanted me to respond on my paper’s page or yours, so I am doing it on both to cover both possibilities.
I am doing this partly because of a problem that I have noticed with the email notifications that tell when someone has made a new comment. If I press the link in the email it always takes me to my paper’s page even if the comment was made to me on some other page. If several comments come in quickly it is easy for me to miss one on someone else’s page that was made to me.
Thank you for your agreement with the understanding that the concept that the complex structure of the universe demonstrates a pattern of design and not just what would be expected from random natural occurrences. I have found that as people in this world proceed down a path of search for understanding they tend to gain beliefs some of which are likely to be true and some are also likely to be false because of lack of information or other causes. These beliefs tend to channel their further search patterns into narrower more localized searches that exclude concepts that do not agree with their current beliefs. There is also a pattern of disconnection from real observational information and the buildup of abstract concepts that when all are put together tend to separate people from reality especially in areas where they are in error because irrational abstractions can often be used to justify those beliefs when rational arguments would not work, thus allowing them to continue to believe the false information to be true. It is, therefore, always an uphill battle to get new concepts accepted, especially if they show that previously established beliefs are in some way lacking or false. You are probably right about the numbers because I try to stick to reality in discussions and this may offend those who are willing to just give what they perceive as being expected of them to get high scores or may not like it if reality is contrary to their theory in some way, but to me it is better to find out if your theory is in error so you can work on correcting it than to just have everyone agreeing to overlook each other’s errors because that just adds to the confusion. Luckily for me, I am not concerned about the scores, partly because I don’t have man’s credentials to get more than a $1000 prize and partly because I currently can get by with what I have and don’t have any delusions of grandeur to think that what I am giving out will be understood adequately in my time in this world to give me any gain from it while I am here and once I am gone it doesn’t matter anyway. My goal or purpose is just to do what I can to make life better for those in the future in this world and to help prepare as many as I can for a positive result in what comes after this world.
I am glad that you consider it possible that the world was created by God. I Spent about twenty two years in about the same situation, but as scientific developments progressed and the complexity of the world and the life that is in it became more and more known, It got to a point that the possibility of a natural creation of it all became so improbable that it would have been ridiculous for me to keep going down that dead end path. I am not sure of what you mean by “having identified a mechanism to allow rather more of consciousness (and even an RNA mutation model!) from hierarchical levels of interactions than yours.” Please explain. I have seen concepts of random self-assembly of RNA molecules, but man has been attempting to purposely cause such self-assembly for several years now and the last time I looked has not been successful. If intelligent man cannot do it with purpose and intent, it is hard to believe that it could be done by random occurrences in a world in which entropy actually works to break down such complex structures. Even if such an RNA molecule were to be produced randomly, there would still be the great improbability that it would contain the proper coding to build an actual very simple living creature because it would have to contain all of the information on how to construct the 200 or so exact protein machines needed to make that creature out of a possibility of about 2.58 x 10^220 possible different proteins that could be produced. This plus other improbabilities make natural production of the right RNA molecule so vastly improbable that it would only be wishful thinking to believe that it could happen.
In this basic model I am presenting the motion that is called the speed of light as being generated by a specific motion amplitude level above which the threshold is crossed allowing any further increase in motion amplitude to be transferred to the sub-energy particle’s fourth dimensional motion that then generates its wave and dynamic mass effects, thus turning it into an energy photon. This threshold level is generated by the structural relationship between the lower three dimensions and the fourth dimension. If the three dimensional motion amplitude of an energy photon is increased the extra motion is transferred to its fourth dimensional motion and its frequency is increased. If it is decreased motion transfers from its fourth dimensional motion back down into its three dimensional motion to maintain it at the speed of light and the decrease in its fourth dimensional motion lowers its frequency. I mention these things because they are important in explaining the mechanisms of blue and red shifts, etc. I looked at rotation to explain the static mass effect in matter particles, but found that basic rotation is just a two dimensional operation, so the mass effect that it would produce would vary depending on the direction of interaction compared to the axis of rotation.
I read over your paper quickly and I find many things that are said using word patterns that are not explained in common terms, so it will take me some time to look up and get familiar with the more expanded meanings of those terms. I am sure that there are some who work in areas that would expose them to all of these terms who would easily understand all of them and their extended meanings, but I must still decipher them and translate them into those that I am familiar with. It does appear to me though that you propose that matter particles are spherical and rotate. I am not sure, but it looks like you may consider a second rotation that occurs in a different direction/angle than the first. Is that the case? What do you consider a matter particle to be composed of? What do you consider energy photons to be composed of? What do you consider fields to be composed of? Since they can all be changed into one another, how do you explain the mechanism(s) that allows or causes those transformations?
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 1, 2017 @ 10:25 GMT
Paul
Thanks for your thorough response. On RNA, I identify a 'mutation' (evolution) not
creation mechanism, equivalent to people having to decide if they're spinning clockwise or anti clockwise with Earth when standing exactly on the equator. Both answers may result in that case. There IS a mechanism for
forming RNA (see below) but I don't discuss it, and it can't rule out a...
view entire post
Paul
Thanks for your thorough response. On RNA, I identify a 'mutation' (evolution) not
creation mechanism, equivalent to people having to decide if they're spinning clockwise or anti clockwise with Earth when standing exactly on the equator. Both answers may result in that case. There IS a mechanism for
forming RNA (see below) but I don't discuss it, and it can't rule out a greater intelligence. Of course in an infinite recycling universe everything that can happen WILL happen so 2.58 x 10^220 is a small number. And the anthropic principle refutes ours is necessarily the 'right' model when it may be just one mutation! But we can't be the most intelligent 'beings' that ever existed in any case.
I concur with you on light speed but showed 3D rotation isn't a 2D operation as assumed, the 'hidden' momentum I identify classically reproduces QM and shows the cetral role of the 'angle' you mention. I also derived cosmic red shift very simply without expansion. See the video here;
Time Dependent Cosmic Redshift Video The mechanism for this is the expanding radii on the Schrodinger sphere surface which forms helical paths. If orbital speed is limited by c then increased wavelength results. Combining that helical path with pair production can then produce the chain morphology of RNA as the key first step to life.
No I don't assume particles are just simple spheres, indeed behind all spheres is a toroid. I just show how this simplest form can produce far more output complexity than we currently assume. I also identify all 3 not just 2 rotation axes! Just ask about any unfamiliar terminology. I think 'composed of' is a simplistic human term. To over simplify; 'Matter' is 'condensed' by rotations (so into 'quanta') of a sub-matter scale medium or 'condensate' as 3D 'vortices' from shear perturbations (= 'pair production', or fermion pairs 'popping up') 'Fields' are simply spatial zones containing multiple quanta, orientations, bound states etc. which interact giving transformations. Relative motion of whole fields for instance can produce the Lorentz transformation, localising c and giving further red/blue shifts.
Does any of that start to sound intuitive? You really do need to read the essay slowly and be able to handle 5 linked concepts at once as it's quite condensed.
There is a very compressed (100sec) video showing some effects of 3 axis rotation, (though it really needs the full half hour version to explain)
100 second Video; Classic QM. Best
Peter
view post as summary
Paul N Butler replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 20:02 GMT
Dear Peter,
If a Schrodinger sphere actually exists in nature, and not just as a mathematical construction, what is it composed of and how does it actually function to produce that helical path? How can it be observed? In your theory what limits the speed of light to C? Generally pair production creates a matter particle and its antimatter particle. These particles would normally either...
view entire post
Dear Peter,
If a Schrodinger sphere actually exists in nature, and not just as a mathematical construction, what is it composed of and how does it actually function to produce that helical path? How can it be observed? In your theory what limits the speed of light to C? Generally pair production creates a matter particle and its antimatter particle. These particles would normally either have enough kinetic energy to travel away from their creation point with the antiparticle usually interacting with another matter particle in a very short time resulting in their destruction by conversion into photon energy or if their kinetic energy is low enough they would attract each other and convert to photon energy. How would this develop the complex molecular structure of RNA? Moreover, pair production needs a source of high level motion amplitude such as a gamma ray that has a high enough frequency so that it contains enough motion to make the two particles. What is the source in your concept? It must also come in contact with an angular motion component such as the field structure of an atom near its nucleus. Where would it get that in your example? In nature most pair production in an area where life could exist would just be production of electrons and positrons. Where would the protons and neutrons needed to form atoms come from? RNA molecules are not composed directly of basic matter particles, but are composed of complex molecular components that are linked together by chemical bonds to form the complete RNA molecule. How would you get from the basic matter particles to that much more complex hierarchical structure?
Generally in a recycling universe the big crunch destroys everything created in the previous cycle. How does your theory work in that respect and if things in some way survive from one cycle to the next what is the observational evidence of that? I have not seen any evidence that the universe is infinite. If you have such observational evidence that it is; what is it? The 2.58 x 10^220 is actually a very large number when you consider that it is estimated that there are only about 10^80 elementary matter particles in the universe. This would mean that if each RNA molecule only contained one matter particle, you would still only be able to produce as very small percentage of all of them if you used all of the matter in the universe to do it. Of course, in reality an RNA molecule contains a very large number of matter particles, so you would actually get a lot fewer of them. The 2.58 x 10^220 number that I gave came from a simplified example of a hypothetical simple living creature that contained 200 protein machines that each contained amino acid chains of a length of 100 amino acids. In real living creatures the protein chains can vary from about 66 to 1400 amino acids in their chains. And any living creature contains proteins of more than one size. This would likely be the same for the most basic living creature’s structure, since each protein machine has a specific job to perform, which would mean that its needed structure would likely vary in size from another protein that did a different job. If you consider that the mechanism to randomly produce RNA molecules would, therefore, need to produce not only the coding of all of the possible protein variations of proteins with a length of 100 positions in their amino acid chains, but would also have to produce the coding of all of the different variations of all possible proteins of all of the possible sizes of chains, you could see that the total number would be beyond comprehension. In addition to that Each RNA molecule would have to contain the exact coding for all of the 200 protein machines that would be needed to make the first living creature. If it contained less than that, it would require more than one RNA molecule that all together contained the exact right codes and then there would be the added complexity of how they would work together. If they contained more than the 200 codes they would not likely work, but random production would likely produce some of both. This would also greatly increase the total number of RNA molecules that would need to be produced to get the valid one. In real life cells, the codes are stored in DNA molecules. When a protein machine needs to be constructed, a messenger RNA molecule connects to the proper place on the DNA molecule where the code for that protein is stored, with the help of several other molecules, and reads and stores that code in its structure. It then connects to a ribosome, which is a very complex molecular machine composed of variously modified RNA molecules and protein molecules, etc. The ribosome connects to the first codon, which is the three letter code that tells it what amino acid to add next to the new protein chain. A transfer RNA molecule picks up an amino acid and if it sees that it is the one needed by the ribosome it connects to the ribosome and transfers its amino acid to the ribosome, which places it in the new protein chain. The ribosome then reads codon for the next required amino acid from the messenger RNA molecule and the cycle continues until it reads a stop code from the messenger RNA when the new protein machine is complete. I left out many details, but that is the general way it works. If you could get an RNA molecule that actually contained all of the codes for all of the necessary protein machines needed to make a living creature and if you could get that very complex RNA molecule to automatically replicate itself, you would still need to either randomly make a ribosome to build the proteins and some kind of molecule to transfer the code from the RNA molecule to the ribosome and other RNA molecules to acquire amino acids and deliver them to the ribosome to allow it to assemble the protein machines necessary to build the first living creature or the RNA molecule would have to be super complex and do it all by itself, which would make it even much more unlikely that it could be produced randomly by nature. Even if there were a large number of universes, the anthropic principle would say the our world is at least a right model that produces a viable functional world compared to the much greater number that would not be so. I think that you may have intended to say the evolution principal instead, since that is the one that deals with the mutation concept in that way. If you don’t include God as the necessary more intelligent being than man, why do you believe that any other being(s) that are more intelligent than man must either exist or at least have existed? From the naturalist point of view, if the universe and the life in it was created by just random chance occurrences, then it could be effectively argued that intelligence is not needed in the universe at all because the randomly constructed universe and the life in it are far greater in scope of size, speed, and complexity than anything that intelligent man can do. All life and the intelligence that goes with it could just be some wasteful entropy structure that will ultimately be eliminated as the random universe advances to operate more efficiently. Our existence could in that way be looked at as holding back the natural progression of advancement of the random universe. Isn’t that a pleasant thought? I don’t expect to see that line of reasoning given by anybody though because from what I have seen the main reason that the naturalist point of view is so popular is that man would like to think of himself as god or at least that he will attain that status at some time in the future through evolution, so it tends to be a very egotistically motivated argument. I believe that is why even now when it is obvious that the universe and the life in it requires an intelligent source (God) to generate it and make it work properly, so many still try to twist reality to make it look like it doesn’t. It is always possible to imagine the possibility of anything that one desires to believe in strong enough even without observational evidence.
I thought you were talking about a 3 dimensional rotation, but was not sure that I was interpreting your paper properly. That is a great improvement over the concept of a point particle that still seems to be the most accepted concept that I have seen. When I talk about the substance of a matter particle, etc. I am talking about an actual thing that has existence of itself. What I have observed is that matter particles and energy photons can be converted into each other, so neither of them is truly conserved. They can both also be converted into basic motions and vice versa and in all interactions when you add up all of the motions contained in the input entities and also their kinetic motions the total motion content of the input particles is always conserved. This makes motion the one basic material from which all other entities are composed. When we talk about shapes such as a sphere or a toroid they can be changed during interactions between things and are not necessarily conserved either. Motion possesses a built in structural operation of change, but shapes don’t. You can put a shape in motion, but it is the motion that causes the changes that you see, not the shape itself. When you say matter is condensed by rotations of a sub-matter scale medium, the things that could actually exist are the medium and the motion with a rotational structure. What do you see as the structure of the medium? When you say 3D vortices from shear perturbations, the shear perturbations are the input motions and the vortices are the pattern or structure of the resulting or output motions. You are saying that the matter particles that are produced are composed of motions with structural patterns of vortices. You probably do not realize that you are saying these things because you are used to looking at the shapes, etc. instead of the motions that work or move in such a way as to produce those shapes. When you talk about a sphere, you are actually talking about the 3d rotation of motions in a spherical pattern that is why when I ask you what the sphere is composed of you can’t identify any substance. The true substance is the motions themselves. Your concept of a field is a little more difficult to interpret, however. It starts with a spatial zone (area of space), that contains quanta. How would you define the structure of a quanta? These quanta have orientations in space, which may be changeable. Are they? Bound states seem to also apply to the quanta, such that they can be connected or joined together in some way. How does this joining work? Etc. implies that there are other presently unmentioned properties or variables, etc. Are there and if so what are they? Which interact giving transformations, the bound states interact in some way that causes changes in them. How do these interactions work and how are the changes made? You give one example of such interaction and the change generated by it. (Relative motion of whole fields can produce the Lorentz transformation). The Lorentz transformation is a space time concept. A time dimension does not exist, however. We live in a motion continuum. Time is just a relationship between motions and the spatial distances that they travel through. Motions are not all the same. One motion may contain a greater amount or amplitude of motion than another motion. If two motions are on points on the same line and they both leave those points simultaneously traveling in the same direction that is perpendicular to the line and travel toward another line that is parallel to the first line, so that if they both travel to that line they will both travel the same distance and if one motion reaches that second line when the other motion just reaches the halfway point between the lines, then the motion that reaches the line has a motion amplitude that is twice that of the second motion. Any convenient motion amplitude can be selected to be the motion amplitude standard and all other motions can then be compared to that motion amplitude level. Motion can then be measured by its amount or size just like distance in space can be measured by its size or amount. A condition of all the motions in the universe that existed, but no longer exists because motions have now moved to their present locations, is called the past. The conditions of all the motions in the universe that currently exist, is called the present. A condition of all the motions in the universe that does not yet exist, but will exist when motions have moved from where they are to those positions, is called the future. It is not possible to go back into the past because the motion conditions that existed then no longer exist because the motions have moved from those positions to their current positions. You cannot go into the future because the motion conditions that will exist then have not yet left their current positions and traveled to those future positions. We can only live in the present motion conditions because that is all that exists. If there were a time dimension, a whole complete new copy of the universe would have to be made each time any motion in the universe moved to a different position in order to allow someone to travel back or forward to that point in time with those exact motion conditions. This would certainly not work according to Occam’s razor or that the universe will always choose the simplest and most direct or efficient way to do things. This unimaginable amount of needless structural waste would be ridiculous. I can understand the desire of people to believe that they could go back into the past or into the future, but I might desire to have a kangaroo with wings that can fly me to exotic places on distant planets, but that desire doesn’t make it exist. The time dimension is the same type of thing. The multiverse concept is also in the same category. The universe is large enough as it is. Why clog up all of the actual valid concepts with all of the unnecessary and unreasonable baggage of these types of things that can never be tested or observed or experienced by us in any way even if they were to actually exist, which they don’t. The security on my computer prevents me from looking at videos on it. I will try to look at it when I get a chance to use a different computer.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Paul N Butler replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 02:04 GMT
Dear Peter,
In your previous comment to me you say “On RNA, I identify a 'mutation' (evolution) not creation mechanism, equivalent to people having to decide if they're spinning clockwise or anti clockwise with Earth when standing exactly on the equator. Both answers may result in that case.”
This is a very good example of something that I have found concerning most people in...
view entire post
Dear Peter,
In your previous comment to me you say “On RNA, I identify a 'mutation' (evolution) not creation mechanism, equivalent to people having to decide if they're spinning clockwise or anti clockwise with Earth when standing exactly on the equator. Both answers may result in that case.”
This is a very good example of something that I have found concerning most people in this world and that is that they are extremists. When confronted with an observation, most will look for the most immediately conveniently found answer and accept that as the true answer and tend to reject all other answers. In the above example you say both answers may result and you are right in that observation because it would be likely that any who were standing looking to the north when the sun came up would give one answer and those who were looking south would give the other answer. A true scientist on the other hand, would look for all of the observational information and then give a complete answer based on all of it. First after seeing the sun come up and go down several times he would come to the conclusion that either the sun was going around the earth or the earth was rotating on its axis. To determine which, he would look at the background stars and see that they also seemed to be moving in coordination with the sun’s movements. This would mean that either the sun and all of the stars, etc. were revolving around the earth or the earth was rotating on its axis. The logical conclusion would be that since the sun and all of the stars would almost certainly contain much more mass than the earth, the earth must be rotating on its axis. If he then stood facing north when the sun came up he would see the sun come up on his right side. If the sun was considered to be relatively stationary in comparison to the earth during one rotation time, he would come to the conclusion that the earth was rotating clockwise when looked at from his current position or if he were to back up off of the earth and move down until he was above the South Pole. If he then went back to the equator and turned around so he was facing south, when the sun came up it would come up on his left side. From this he would see that the earth was traveling to his left. From this he would come to the conclusion that it was rotating counterclockwise when looked at from his current position or if he were to back up off of the earth and move down until he was above the North Pole. If he then stood facing east, he would see that as he continued to travel around the curve of the earth, he would be traveling down compared to his current position which he would consider to be the top for reference purposes relative to his standing position on the earth with the earth under him. If he then turned to face west he would see that the earth in front of him was coming up over the curve of the earth toward him forcing him to move backwards compared to his initial position. From all of this information put together he could truthfully say that the earth was rotating clockwise and counterclockwise and was traveling up and down and also to the right and to the left depending on the given input parameter conditions. Not to say that there are not any other possible parameter variations or ways of looking at them.
Of course, we do not always have time to analyze all observable details, but when confronted with another possibility than what is currently believed, most people will just deny it and never even check it out to see if it has merits. That reaction is one of the things you have to be prepared for in this world when you try to give a new concept or even a different way of looking at an old one. So when that happens to you, just smile within yourself and think, “That’s earthlings for you.” Wait a minute that somehow doesn’t seem quite acceptable. How about, “That’s humons for you.” Still could use some tweaking. Maybe, “That’s man for you.” I may have to consider that a little more yet. Just be glad when you find any of the few who are able and willing to think, regardless of where they are from or who or what they are. For any who can hear it, think of what God has to go through, he has to try to reach and convince all of us of his love for all of us, most of who are not just denying what he is telling us, but are actively trying to prove that he doesn’t even exist.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 12:13 GMT
Paul
Wow, that's longer than many essays! I'll try;
"If a Schrodinger sphere actually exists in nature, and not just as a mathematical construction, what is it composed of and how does it actually function to produce that helical path? How can it be observed? In your theory what limits the speed of light to C?The sphere surface is the plane wavefront of any signal....
view entire post
Paul
Wow, that's longer than many essays! I'll try;
"If a Schrodinger sphere actually exists in nature, and not just as a mathematical construction, what is it composed of and how does it actually function to produce that helical path? How can it be observed? In your theory what limits the speed of light to C?The sphere surface is the plane wavefront of any signal. Imagine a supernove in space. The light travels at c in all directions creating a growing sphere (just one of a packed sequence of them). If it hasn't reached an obsever he hasn't yet seen it!
Now image a rotating 'photon' or pair of charges at any point. The propagation (translation) at 'c' produces the helix we find in Photonics at ALL points on the sphere surface. If the rotational axis does NOT orthogonal to the sphere surface we get
elliptical polarity. As the sphere expands the radius of each orbit increases. However; 'c' is LOCAL so although the 'sphere expansion' rate is c (or 2c considering the whole thing) the speed round each local orbital path CANNOT increase so the orbital time increases.
Simple geometry shows this can produces cosmic redshift - WITHOUT requiring acceleration expenasion of the universe!
Back to 'c'. Propagation speed modulated locally by fermion interactions. If ALL fermions re-emit at c then we'll always FIND c locally so NO PROBLEM EXISTS which needs paradoxical mathematical gymnastics to solve!
"....How would this develop the complex molecular structure of RNA?". The 4 dots preceeding that sentence represent a lot of doctrinal assumptions. As in computors, it only takes one tiny original input or design flaw to make EVERYTHING it produces from then on illogical gobbledygook full of inconsistencies, anomalies and paradoxes . That's what's happened. Revert to my 'Discrete Field Model' etc essays 5 years ago onwards and the adjusted input removing all those inconsistencies, anomalies and paradoxes is explained. Any 'shear' perturbation of the condensate produces identiacal 'pairs', with reverse spin orientations (the 'Higgs process'). RNA is at a much larger scale with more complex 'proteins' but the fundamental structure is fractal.
"Generally in a recycling universe the big crunch destroys everything created in the previous cycle. How does your theory work in that respect and if things in some way survive from one cycle to the next what is the observational evidence of that?"
The (smaller fractal) galaxy model shows us best. Not quite ALL matter is recycled. Most is re-ionized (solving that one!) o and the old is mixed with the new, i.e the hypervelocity stars already spat out whole on the axis of our own AGN WON'T be re-ionized this time round. Same with the outermost halo matter seen in 'ring' galaxies. i.e. Google Centaurus A. (note also the helical form of the superluminal (collimated) jet outflows) A mass of evidence exists, identified in this paper;
http://www.hadronicpress.com/issues/HJ/VOL36/HJ-36-6.pdf or Academia, or DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4540.5603. Enough for now.
Peter
view post as summary
Paul N Butler replied on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 01:33 GMT
Dear Peter,
The fact that you answered me without resorting to abstract math and used visual examples of your concepts lets me know that you have greater visualization abilities than many in this world at this time. The next thing that I need to know is your current level of structural conceptual understanding.
If you consider a line that extends out from the point of origin of a...
view entire post
Dear Peter,
The fact that you answered me without resorting to abstract math and used visual examples of your concepts lets me know that you have greater visualization abilities than many in this world at this time. The next thing that I need to know is your current level of structural conceptual understanding.
If you consider a line that extends out from the point of origin of a photon at the supernova and goes through the center of the photon, do you consider the photon’s shape to be a rotating sphere traveling out away from the supernova along that line at the speed c, as an object that consists of one or more point objects that travel in an orbital pattern around that line while at the same time traveling at speed c in the direction of the line, or as some other form or shape?
Do you consider the shape or form of the photon to just be the shape that the motions are traveling in and the motions are the real existence or do you consider the photon to have some other substance beyond just the motions that you mention? It looks like you are saying that the photon’s size is increasing, so that it takes a longer time to complete one rotation on its axis. Is that the case? If that is the case then that size increase will grow very quickly due to the rapid increase in size of the wave front sphere with distance from the source. I could be wrong, but it would seem that this would result in a very great red shift even at a short distance from the source and in even 1 light year from the source the red shift would be very extreme, much more than is generally ever measured in light from actual stars.
When a photon interacts with an electron in an atom, such that it causes the electron to go to the next higher level in the atom and in the process the photon disappears, what happens to the photon in your understanding? If the electron later drops back down into its normal lower level and in the process a photon is generated, where does the photon come from?
What is the condensate made of and how does it create matter particles when shearing motion is added to it? Is it like the vacuum energy of quantum mechanics or something else? What is a real world example with actual observable data of how the identical pairs (such as 2 electrons) that you mention have actually been produced? Most of man’s current data, that I have looked at, only talks about the production of a matter particle and its antiparticle in pair production.
When you say that the fundamental structure of an RNA molecule is fractal, I am assuming that you are talking about the backbone structure of an RNA molecule being the same throughout the molecule and that the same small number of molecular structures are used to generate the stored codes (that contain the pattern and number of amino acids required to build each of the protein machines in the living creature) are also used throughout the molecule, but the important part of the structure, which is the actual coding for the structure of each protein machine is individual for that machine and can vary greatly from that of any of the other codes in its order of and pattern of the codons, etc. It is sort of like saying that a video disk with a movie recorded on it is just a simple disk of plastic with small holes burned in its substrate that are all the same size, etc. and not noticing the great variation of where those holes are positioned that generates the complex code that allows the generation of all of the images that make up the movie. The information is generally not fractal in structure. It is generating and storing the proper valid information of how each of the 200 or more protein machines that are needed to produce a very simple living creature with no errors that is difficult because there are too many possible code combinations that could be produced for the structure of each protein with only 1 of them actually being the valid 1 to ever produce the valid 1 by random self-assembly and the RNA molecule would not only have to get that one code right, but would also then need to do the same for each of the other 199 protein machine codes. If an error is made anywhere in any of those 200 codes, the RNA molecule would not work. Just the number of possible different protein machines that could be built that have an amino acid chain length of 100 amino acids, that could be coded for in the RNA molecule is more than 1 x 10^220. If you count all of those that have all of the other possible chain lengths the total is much greater than that. For comparison to that, it has been estimated that there are about 1 x 10^80 elementary matter particles in the universe. This means that if you could use all of the matter in the universe to try to self-assemble that RNA molecule, you could not produce a large enough portion of all of the possible ones to have any reasonable possibility of producing the one that you needed to use to make the first living creature.
I looked at the paper that you provided the link to and I found the concept to be interesting. It would require the existence of various phenomena elements that have not actually been observed and proven by man, as far as I have seen so far. If we first look at its feasibility to actually produce your desired result of an infinitely recycling galaxy, I do find some apparent problems with the concept. First you say that the new galaxy that is produced during each cycle has a greater mass than the one from the previous cycle. It also looks like the cycle times have slowed down with each cycle. This would be expected to ionize the greater mass contained in each subsequent cycle. It would also be expected that as the accretion process progressed a point would be reached where the remaining matter that had not yet been accreted would not possess the power needed to keep the process going, so that it would die out without fully accreting all of the matter from the previous galaxy. Most of that left over matter would likely be higher elements that could not be fused in stars. It would mostly be located in the accretion zone of the new galaxy and would likely at least initially hinder the accretion of matter from the new galaxy. This would likely only be a temporary problem because the accretion flow would likely move that matter out of its path by interactions with the accreted particles, but it would be likely that some of these accreted particles would be converted into heavier atoms that could not be fused in the process. This heavy matter would likely remain in the plane of the previous galaxy and would then become part of the galaxy of the next cycle. It would mostly be near the center of that galaxy and could interfere with the production of long life stars in that area, which could interfere with the production of the power needed for the new accretion cycle. These types of things could add to the overall increase in the cycle times over many cycle generations. The big problem that I see is that as the cycle time increases over many cycles, it would get to the point that it would be longer than the lifetime of most of the stars in the current galaxy. This would cause a loss of power to the accretion process that would result in a greater portion of the galaxy’s matter content not being accreted. All of this unusable matter would continue to build up over many cycles to the point that the amount of accretion that would be produced by a cycle would not be enough to produce a new functional galaxy. The process would then end either in a very big black hole or in a very super supernova type explosion or both, which would then end that galaxy. If it ended in a black hole all of that matter would ultimately be reradiated in the form of gamma radiation according to most of man’s current theories. If it ended in the explosion, it would result in much of that matter being converted into higher mass matter even up to and including uranium by the explosion. This matter would then be spread out in space over time and could be taken into and cause problems in other galaxies. After all of the galaxies died out, the remaining matter would ultimately be drawn into black holes and be converted into gamma radiation. Over time this gamma radiation would be red shifted by interactions with sub-energy particles until it all was transformed into sub-energy particles. Over a very long time the sub-energy particles would interact with each other until they all had the same speed in the same direction and all interactions in the universe would cease. That is the ultimate result of entropy. I will stop there for this time, so as not to get concepts scattered too widely.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 15:17 GMT
Paul,
I've now read through all your comments, needing another essay to answer. I saw nothing I disagreed with, but I'll try to take your latest points above.
"If you consider a line that extends out from the point of origin of a photon at the supernova and goes through the center of the photon, do you consider the photon’s shape to be a rotating sphere traveling out away from...
view entire post
Paul,
I've now read through all your comments, needing another essay to answer. I saw nothing I disagreed with, but I'll try to take your latest points above.
"If you consider a line that extends out from the point of origin of a photon at the supernova and goes through the center of the photon, do you consider the photon’s shape to be a rotating sphere traveling out away from the supernova along that line at the speed c, as an object that consists of one or more point objects that travel in an orbital pattern around that line while at the same time traveling at speed c in the direction of the line, or as some other form or shape?"No2 is closest, but the path has 'helicity', the radius expands and the dynamics are fractal, so maybe better described as toroidal (perhaps
twin helices for electrons). 'Particle like' when 'detected' (from ahead) and a 'wavelike' track if 'observed while going past' (impossible of course). The 'speed c away from the supernova' also becomes increasingly unlikely due to interactions/ requantizations at c in the centre of mass frame by quanta in some other state of motion ('inertial frame').
Do you consider the shape or form of the photon to just be the shape that the motions are traveling in and the motions are the real existence or do you consider the photon to have some other substance beyond just the motions that you mention? It looks like you are saying that the photon’s size is increasing, so that it takes a longer time to complete one rotation on its axis. Is that the case? If that is the case then that size increase will grow very quickly due to the rapid increase in size of the wave front sphere with distance from the source. I could be wrong, but it would seem that this would result in a very great red shift even at a short distance from the source and in even 1 light year from the source the red shift would be very extreme, much more than is generally ever measured in light from actual stars. Yes, and should only be problematic if you don't account for requantizations.
When a photon interacts with an electron in an atom..." Good question. I haven't yet thought about possible answers.
"What is the condensate made of and how does it create matter particles when shearing motion is added to it? Is it like the vacuum energy of quantum mechanics or something else? What is a real world example with actual observable data of how the identical pairs (such as 2 electrons) that you mention have actually been produced? Most of man’s current data, that I have looked at, only talks about the production of a matter particle and its antiparticle in pair production."Just run your finger through water. But don't be fooled by the (easier to observe) surface boundary dynamics. The 'vortices' are 3D. In a 'vacuum' they're made of 'Comprathene'. A silly answer 'medium' I invented long ago to demonstrate the silly question. It's really just fractal spin states, like water and turtles - 'all the way down'. The 'bottom' is well beyond the capability of slow motion giants line mankind the even conceive let alone 'see'. ('antiparticles' are nonsense, just the tail of the 'heads' or yang of the ying)
"
When you say that the fundamental structure of an RNA molecule is fractal..."Macro 'effects' can emerge at any 'scale' in the fractal sequence (How could/why should they not?) and interact ('couple') with other dynamics at that scale. Something else shocking; NO one protean should be precisely identical to any one other in the universe! Like grains of sand and snowflakes at our scale, stem cells, atoms & fermions.. etc. At some 'higher order' (I prefer; 'smaller scale') that may cease being true, but god only knows where!
"
I looked at the paper that you provided the link to and I found the concept to be interesting. It would require the existence of various phenomena elements that have not actually been observed and proven by man, as far as I have seen so far"
You just need to look a little further, but little further than the Plank probe, the HubbleST and the annals of the MNRAS for instance. The secret is to discern and recognise what perhaps even the author hasn't from the findings, often by making unseen connections. All I describe is consistent with findings, and well referenced. The model only
'resolves' anomalous findings, and many of them! What 'new' mechanism do we need to see?' If we see shots of two cars heading for each other, then one of two mangled messes spinning away from each other, do we need some new physics just because out model suggests they may NOT have passed through each other as current theory suggests!
"
...the remaining matter that had not yet been accreted would not possess the power needed to keep the process going," Correct. The new AGN is 'born' on the orthogonal axis and a host of anomalus older stars in holo's and sattelite galaxies etc etc and explained along with the orthogonal outer rotation.
" The big problem that I see is that as the cycle time increases over many cycles, it would get to the point that it would be longer than the lifetime of most of the stars in the current galaxy." that may be true, but by that time the larger fractal has long started recycling the whole lot anyway! (maybe another 15Gyr). Or if not, then sure, a supernova may result. Whichever way, the greater majority of the matter seems to be re-ionized each time. I don't like unsupported assumptions and think you may have been getting into a few towards the end there!
I hope that helps your understanding of the model. Do take up the references to see the massive and wide gamut of anomalies and paradoxes the model can resolve!
Perhaps more importantly it's fits into the great jigsaw puzzle with other pieces that do the same; i.e. uniting relativity and SR, and all ultra Occam!
Best
peter
view post as summary
Paul N Butler replied on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 17:28 GMT
Dear Peter,
First let me say that I am not trying to discredit all of your concepts. It looks like you are at least very close to coming to the conclusion that it is really the motions that are the true existing most basic entities from which all things are made. That is an insight that very few people in this world have attained to. The next step after that is to come to the...
view entire post
Dear Peter,
First let me say that I am not trying to discredit all of your concepts. It looks like you are at least very close to coming to the conclusion that it is really the motions that are the true existing most basic entities from which all things are made. That is an insight that very few people in this world have attained to. The next step after that is to come to the understanding that since energy photons and matter particles can be broken down into basic linear motions, you have to get an understanding of how they can be built up using only basic linear motions. Since linear motions always travel in a straight line in the absence of an interaction, you must find a way to generate the interactions necessary to generate curved motions, etc. It also looks like you understand that in order for a matter particle to have a static mass effect that is the same in all three dimensions, the angular motions that create this effect must be three dimensional instead of just a two dimensional rotation, as an example. All that you need now is to understand how a three dimensional composite cyclical angular motion can be generated from simple linear motions and you will understand most of the basic concepts needed to explain the structure of matter particles. Energy photons require a simpler back and forth non curved cyclical angular motion to create their frequency, wave length, and dynamic mass effects. Since a matter particle is just an energy photon that contains the additional curved angular motion mentioned above to cause it to travel in a repetitive cyclical enclosed curved path at the speed of light instead of traveling in a straight line at that speed, it also contains the frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects similar to that of the energy photon that is contained within it. Field structures are also composed of simple motions that I call sub-energy particles. Once you understand all three of them you can then figure out how they are combined together to make atoms and how they operate or interact together, etc.
These things are much more important to understand than any attempt to try to justify an infinite universe when entropy precludes that possibility. Once you understand that the total amount of motion is the only thing that is truly conserved and, therefore, can’t be increased or decreased in the universe, you will begin to see why it is impossible to use the energy that is produced by the fusion of light elements in stars to turn all of the heavier elements that are produced by that fusion back into the light elements that they originally were. That would require total 100 percent conversion efficiency. In actual fact since the fusion process is a normal entropy motion dispersion process, reversing it would not only require the use of all of the originally radiated energy, all of which could not be recovered, but would also require an additional amount of energy to cause the process to run in the direction that is opposite to the normal entropy dispersion process. To put it more directly, it takes more energy to break down the heavier elements that are produced by fusion reactions then the amount of energy that is freed from their atoms binding energy during the fusion process that creates them. Since matter particles are composed of motions you can’t just create new ones from nothing because you can’t create the motions that they contain from nothing. This would mean that if the galaxy mass were to continue to increase over time it would require the continual introduction of motion into it from outside of it. That would not be practical. That could possibly happen for some time if the matter between the galaxies was slowly taken into the galaxies, but that source of matter would eventually run out. Everybody wants a free lunch, but the universe doesn’t serve it. You always have to pay more than you get back from the universe because it is slowly decreasing the motion content of entities that have more and transferring it to those that have less, thus decreasing the total range of motions, while at the same time dispersing all of the motions evenly throughout space. That is what entropy is all about. Because of this the most efficient way to store matter particles in atoms is in the middle of the range of atom sizes. That is why the lightest atoms can give up or free motion through fusion into heavier atoms. Once you get to iron it takes more energy to fuse them into heavier atoms than is freed in the process because you are too near the center most efficient energy storage part of the range. Of course the atoms at the high end of the size scale have the opposite problem because as you go away from the center of the range in that direction it takes more energy to store all of those particles in one atom than it does in the middle range atoms, so the natural entropy reaction for them is to break down into lighter atoms through fission. In either case if you go in the direction that is opposite to the natural energy flow, it requires the addition of all of the energy that had been freed from the fusion or fission reactions plus an additional amount because some of the applied energy is always dissipated and lost in one way or another in the process. I can understand your desire to believe that the universe is never ending because it makes it easier to believe that the tremendous complexity of living creatures could somehow have come about by some natural process if it can be over an infinite amount of time, etc., but entropy makes the world run down over time and that can’t be stopped. That is one of the problems with man’s current quantum mechanics is that over time many foolish concepts have been added to it that make it look possible to do such things. It is not until you get the understanding of the level of structure that generates the quantum effects that you can sort out the fact from the fiction. If you continue to work on understanding the basic structures of matter particles, energy photons, and sub-energy particles as mentioned above, you will come to understand these things and all of the indeterminate fog will be removed. Of course maybe I am just talking gibberish and you have it all figured out already.
To cover a few things in your response:
1. When you talk about requantizations, I am assuming that you are saying that energy photons interact with matter particles on the way from the emitting star to your eyes or other sensor and are thereby frequency up shifted every so often to restore their frequency to the higher level that we detect. I see a few problems with that concept.
a. During the individual interactions the amount of frequency up shift that a given photon would receive would be variable depending on the amount of energy that the matter particle brought to the interaction and other variables.
b. The interactions would be random so some photons would intersect and interact with many matter particles while others would go all the way from the star to your sensor without any interactions, since the matter particles would not just be sitting in one place, but would be moving around at various velocities.
c. Depending on the direction of interaction, etc. a photon could actually be down shifted instead of up shifted during an interaction.
The end result of all of these things and also other things would be a great variation in sensed frequency from the photons coming from any star, so that you would not see all of them red or blue shifted from normal, etc. as is usually observed.
2. It seems that you consider antimatter particles to just be matter particles that are turned upside down compared to each other. It has been demonstrated that when a matter particle interacts with an antimatter particle, such as an electron with a positron they both turn into energy photons. If one is just the other one upside down, it seems that it would be possible to pass two streams of electrons through opposite fields that would align all of the electrons in one stream in the same alignment with each other and opposite to those in the other stream and then bring the two streams together to cause them to all turn into photons and generate a lot of energy. Moreover, if they are just at opposite rotational directions, it would seem that free electrons would be at random rotational positions compared with other free electrons and we would, therefore, often see them aligned naturally, so that they would be converted into energy photons and there should then be a great shortage of electrons in the universe.
3. Fractal structuring generates similar structures at various size levels. You might be able to use such a system to generate RNA molecules, but the code patterns for the protein machines that would be contained in the RNA molecules can vary greatly for each code pattern of the 200 or so complete codes that would need to be stored in the molecule to allow it to be used to generate the needed protein machines to make the first living creature. It is, therefore, not subject to fractal duplication except that an RNA molecule could possibly be duplicated with the same code that happened to be randomly formed in the first RNA molecule that happened to come about in some way naturally, but since that first molecule would not likely get the valid code patterns in it randomly, duplicating it would not be of much practical use. Fractal duplication would not help much to produce the particular RNA molecule that contained the complete valid code pattern set for all of the machines. It takes intelligence to determine the jobs that each machine needs to do and then to design the machine to do that work and then to build the first Molecule that contains all of the right codes. There is no random short cut due to the extremely large number of possible proteins that could be made, most of which would not produce machines that would work. All indications are that at small scales things can be identical. The fewer parts that are contained in something the easier it is to assemble it in the same way each time. When it comes to matter particles and energy photons, etc. the built in dimensional structuring components generate duplicate entities due to the constants that are built into the dimensional system. There are various servo mechanisms that are built into the structure of entities such as atoms, etc. that control conformation of their parts to basic structural design requirements, thus limiting variability in their operation. It is much easier to have an atom or molecule missing in a crystal, etc. in large scale objects because they are not operationally bond to the degree that the smaller entities are and they contain so many more parts.
4. When looking at the accretions of galaxies what methods do they currently use to determine what the accretions are composed of and the level of their structure, such as plasma and if so what elements are included, whole atoms and if so what elements are included, molecules and if so what complexity level are included, large scale objects and if so what size scale range is included? I ask this because you mentioned that in the milky-way galaxy several whole stars have been accreted. On the other hand, it seems that the thrust of your argument would be that it is all broken down into protons and electrons.
5. My assumptions were based on the information that you supplied that indicated that the mass of the galaxy would increase with each cycle and that the cycle times have been increasing. It is only logical to assume that if the mass increases, it would take a longer time to complete the next accretion in order to accrete that extra mass. It would be reasonable to then extrapolate that increase in mass and cycle times into the future and see where that would lead us, especially since you propose it to be an infinite cycle. It looks like it would work ok until the cycle time became greater than the average life time of the stars in the galaxy. Then the fuel source for the accretion would be used up leaving more and more burned out remnants of stars not accreted at the end of each new cycle. This material would mostly be heavier atoms that could not be fused in the new cycle’s stars. It would, however, be drawn into and become parts of those stars, thus adding to their mass. This would mean that the stars in the galaxy would become larger and larger with each new cycle. Large stars fuse more source material much quicker than smaller stars do because they need to be at higher temperatures to balance the pull of gravity on their greater masses. This would use up the available fuel quicker with each cycle. They also have much shorter lifetimes than smaller stars. Stars the size of the sun might last about 10 billion years, but stars about 60 times the size of the sun would burn out in as little as 3 million years. This would mean that the fuel source for the accretion would be depleted much faster as the cycles progressed. At the same time the larger stars usually end their lives in supernovas that generate much heavier elements even including lead and uranium, etc. This would add even more heavy elements to the stars in the next cycle making them burn out sooner. Over a long enough time the accretion process would completely die out because there would not be enough accretion to enable the production of functional stars for the next cycle. There are several assumptions used above, but they are all in line with man’s current understanding of the ways that stars function. Supernova explosions don’t generally break atoms down into lower elements. The temperatures and pressures created by the explosion tend to condense the matter into higher more heavy elements.
Since your model is based more on realistic structures of matter particles, etc. than the currently believed point object construction it is no wonder that you come out being able to explain things that can’t be acceptably explained by the main accepted theory structure. The more that you learn about the detailed structure of the basic particles and how they work together to make larger scale structures the more your theory will be able to explain and the less likely it will be that you will get sidetracked into unworkable concepts. I would not worry too much about uniting relativity and SR, and quantum mechanics, etc. because they contain some truth and some false information. As you progress you will see the good parts of them and they will then fit together. At the same time you will also be able to see the false parts of them and be able to not get caught up in following their dead ends. It will come naturally as you gain in understanding of how things really work. Occam’s razor or the concept that the simplest answer is usually right is good to remember, especially when you hear people talking about multiverses, 20 or 30 extra dimensions, or traveling forward or backward in time, etc. Sometimes a few things must be added to get things to work, but it is best to add only what is necessary to accomplish that. Continue the good work. Sorry I wasn’t paying attention to how big this was getting. I hope it is not too much.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Mar. 1, 2017 @ 16:30 GMT
Dear Peter,
I have read with great interest your thoughts about the next step of humanity.
Indeed after about 100 years you can say "classical" quantum theory, and still some cannot accept the consequences.
Your approach of "spin" is new to me, but particle physics is not my strongest knowledge.
As in all your essays this also is a clear explanation of your goal.
You were right with "down marking" of high noted essay's, I received THREE ones after a nine and a six.
I know you have already read my essay thanks for that, but if you still wanted to have some further opinion pls here is
the link to itbest regards and good luck
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Yehuda Atai wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 21:54 GMT
Dear Peter
Very interesting essay and a challenging one. It seems that there a cross-point between us. Your claim that :"Ironically limited primeval evolution of neural mechanisms can explain why it's own workings remain a mystery." and that non-causal factors are playing in the occurrence of the phenomena. The late Prof. David Bohm and others saw that causality is not having sufficient explanation to the occurrence of the phenomenon and Quantum and Relativity theories are special cases in the evolvement of phenomena.
My claim is that it is all in the attributes of movements, and maybe String theory will prove it. The motivational selection of the self-organization is subject to its Optimal STATE, intrinsically and locally. And the "existent" chooses the most optimal potential action (or non action).
Yes, this is a real challenge to prove it, but realty is being ratified again and again in the relationships of 2 waves or particles relating to each other.
All the best. interesting view and approach.
yehuda atai
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 11:39 GMT
yehuda
I liked Bohm but he didn't crack the problem. I find close analogies between the original strings and helical path ellipticities. But a more important point on self organisation;
I suggest the REAL start of conscious intelligence is when;
A BRAIN IS ABLE TO ORGANIZE AND ARRANGE STORED INPUT TO 'IMAGINE' FUTURE SCENARIOS, TRIGGERING MOTOR NEURONE RESPONSES, WHICH THEN LEADS TO CREATION OF WHAT WE TERM 'INTENT' and 'GOALS'.Can anyone think of a better learning 'step point' for the definition?
Peter
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 01:17 GMT
Peter,
Your paper involves a hypothesis concerning a classical underpinning to quantum mechanics. You have written a number of papers on FQXi on this topic. I will say these papers do quite well on both the popular and community votes. However, this and related ideas contradict a number of theorems on quantum mechanics, such as the Bell inequality violation, the Kochen-Specker theorem,...
view entire post
Peter,
Your paper involves a hypothesis concerning a classical underpinning to quantum mechanics. You have written a number of papers on FQXi on this topic. I will say these papers do quite well on both the popular and community votes. However, this and related ideas contradict a number of theorems on quantum mechanics, such as the Bell inequality violation, the Kochen-Specker theorem, no-signaling and Tsirelson's bound. I will not go into these, though I published a paper last year on the categorical equivalency between the Tsirelson bound and aspects of spacetime geometry. What these theorems tell us is that if there is a classical underpinning to quantum mechanics they must be nonlocal and have no observable consequence, and if they do have observable consequences and are local then QM is wrong. So for the experimental implications of these theorems have been consistently positive.
While your papers do well on the voting, as do others that express similar ideas, they never win any of the prizes. The FQXi judges are the ultimate gatekeepers, and even if a paper has top spot on the voting, if it contradicts known physics it will not win. Of course to be somewhat jaded about it all the FQXi judges end up picking largely essays by FQXi members, with maybe one or two winners that are not.
I will say right off that I am pretty much in line with the basic understanding of quantum mechanics without hidden variables and the rest. There are of course issues with us trying to understand QM in a macroscopic or intuitive way, because QM has these odd consequences that seem too bizarre to believe. However, maybe the problem is not so much QM, but the human brain. If you own dogs you know they simply can't figure out how to unwind their leash if they get caught up. Their brains can't process deep geometric relationship. When it comes to QM we are a bit similar in our mental deficiencies with regards to intuiting it.
Of course this does not mean I would judge your paper badly. It is pretty well written, even if it simply does appear to be incorrect. I will have to wait to think before I score. I will probably give it around a 7.
Cheers LC
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 13:20 GMT
Lawrence
Thanks for the comments. You did what the essay suggests most do; make an assumption the model contravenes the (familiar) Bell inequality (so the others too) without using analysis. It doesn't. There are no 'hidden variables'. It simply uses different starting assumptions, of the type and in the way Bell specifically anticipated would solve the problem; "..lattice fermion...
view entire post
Lawrence
Thanks for the comments. You did what the essay suggests most do; make an assumption the model contravenes the (familiar) Bell inequality (so the others too) without using analysis. It doesn't. There are no 'hidden variables'. It simply uses different starting assumptions, of the type and in the way Bell
specifically anticipated would solve the problem;
"..lattice fermion numbers.." (see the key Bell quotes in my post yesterday in Jack Sarfatti's string).
The problem is most don't understand QM well enough to dare any 'Kings new clothes' challenge, and those that
do understand the theory have 'bought it' flaws and all. Bell knew circumvention must be possible; Q;
"...the new way of seeing things will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us. In any case it seems that the quantum mechanical description will be superseded.” Ch3 p27, and "...the ‘Problem of Interpretation of QM’ has been encircled. And the solution, invisible from the front, may be seen from the back.." (J Bell 'Speakable..." Ch20 p194)
I identify precisely that 'astonishing' leap of visualisation, simply hiding before our eyes; TWO state momenta in OAM, with orthogonal complementarity at the pole and equator, producing 'QAM'.
But we should be entirely scientific; The undeniable fact is that these momenta and the detection process
precisely reproduce the full predictions of QM! - which are as the Dirac stacked 'Spinor' pairs;
two Cos2 curves inverse and offset by 90o. That is repeatable by anybody with a dynamometer and pair of photomultiplyers!
Just a wet finger can give a rough approximation. Is a pole going up or down?, and; is any point on the equator 'rotating'. ...No. Both = Zero, but go to max at 90
o.
Have you watched the video? All 'spooky' effects emerge classically. OK 'Astonish' was about right - human brains just don't seem capable of conceiving, so bothering to check, if 2+2 equals 4 if they've been told and believed for decades it equals 3!
Is yours?
Best
Peter
view post as summary
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 15:50 GMT
It is the case here that I am a bit in the minority on this here on the FQXi contest. I will say there was a parallel development from the late 19th century that was popular through the 1920s and still has some popularity today. When Maxwell, Boltzmann and Gibbs laid down the foundations of statistical mechanics it solidified the no-go theorem for perpetual motion machines. There arose a sort of...
view entire post
It is the case here that I am a bit in the minority on this here on the FQXi contest. I will say there was a parallel development from the late 19th century that was popular through the 1920s and still has some popularity today. When Maxwell, Boltzmann and Gibbs laid down the foundations of statistical mechanics it solidified the no-go theorem for perpetual motion machines. There arose a sort of cottage industry to show this physics was wrong and to demonstrate a perpetual motion machine. This waned in the 1930s and 40s, largely because humanity was up to its eyebrows with other problems, which unfortunately seem to be returning. Since the 1970s there has been also a sort of cottage industry that is strikingly similar with respect to quantum mechanics.
The two trends have some analogous features as well. Thermodynamics has the generating e^{-βE} = e^{-E/kT} in the partition function, while quantum mechanics has e^{-iEt/ħ} in a path integral or as the evolutionary development of a state. The quantum mechanical path integral under a Wick rotation is a partition function in statistical mechanics. The equation or replacement 1/kT = it/ħ with the reciprocal of temperature as Euclidean time. This is a route towards quantum critical points and phase transitions induced by quantum fluctuations.
The idea of the perpetual motion machine had a bit of motivation with Maxwell’s demon, who could open and close a valve between two regions to separate fast and slow moving molecules, However, as Szillard demonstrated this can’t be done for free. The demon is a sort of computer who if restricted to resources of the system will not be able to perform this activity. The demon must appeal to outside resources. In doing so entropy over all still increases. Much the same happens in a quantum measurement. A measurement is a quantum decoherent event where superposition or entanglement phase is coupled to an outside system or open world. By this means the density matrix of a quantum system is reduced to diagonal form. However, the actual outcome is not predicted.
Now enter hidden variables, beables or classical-like descriptions. This would seems to be a way in which the actual outcome is obtained. However, this would imply that a quantum observable has some prior existence or objective outcome independent of the Born rule of quantum mechanics. This is that the spectrum of an observable has a one to one correspondence with probability amplitudes or probabilities. This is really where the fly in the ointment occurs with these ideas. It is a quantum version of the Maxwell demon that can obtain prior information about a system independent of the information = entropy constraints of the system.
This has connections to other areas of physics, such as black hole quantum mechanics and thermodynamics. Of course in science we do not have proof of things, but only go on the basis of evidence that supports known foundations and models. I have no assurance the future will not have anti-gravity warp drive space travel with sub-quantal instantaneous communications and so forth. On the other hand I have some pretty serious suspicions these will not happen. Since you mentioned Sarfatti, I do not take his ideas about UFOs as real alien spaceships at all seriously along with his claim these demonstrate his various claims.
Cheers LC
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 15:02 GMT
Lawrence
I don't blame anyone for not fully 'understanding' QM. Feynman was right, but there is no comparison with ANY other case. In this case 'interpretations' don't matter as a simple, repeatable and irrefutable experimental proof trumps everything. All illogicality then evaporates.
The challenge is simply to reproduce the orthogonal complementary pairs of Cos[sup2 curves...
view entire post
Lawrence
I don't blame anyone for not fully 'understanding' QM. Feynman was right, but there is no comparison with ANY other case. In this case 'interpretations' don't matter as a simple, repeatable and irrefutable experimental proof trumps everything. All illogicality then evaporates.
The challenge is simply to reproduce the orthogonal complementary pairs of Cos[sup2 curves with some physical mechanism. Bell and others show 'hidden variables can't do it, but I show Bell was on the right track with his idea that 'fermion numbers" might be the way, somehow.
I was a complex 3-part solution which has taken time to put together (the last bit was the photomultiplier 3D field 'cascade' amplification, derived then found already proven in QCD!) but now it's done and it works. It reveals a few flaws in the foundations of QM, the key one being NOT adopting Maxwells orthogonal momenta for 'entangled pair' particles. 'Spin up/down superposed' is incomplete and misleading - loosing the logic of the reality.
Of course although conclusive and irrefutable (you can reproduce it yourself at home, experimentally
and mathematically) it stands zero chance of admittance as a new paradigm in the next decade, if at all! Indeed my essay identifies why. Our brains prefer pre-set patterns and reject new alien concepts as they require the much harder 'rational computation' processes. It also takes a real understanding of QM - without completely 'buying' it. A very rare combination it seems! Even the few like Joy Christian have their OWN hypothesis (quite incomplete physically) which blinds them to anything else.
I'm a realist Lawrence, so not stressed, desperate or wanting kudos. I'm not even entirely convinced mankind is evolutionarily ready for significant improvements in understanding nature. But I shall anyway present it, in my own way, as I do feel some duty not to 'keep it secret'.
Anyone who's like to collaborate, i.e. with the mathematics etc, is most welcome.
Very Best
Peter
view post as summary
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 22:40 GMT
I can say that in many ways I hope you wrong. I published a paper last year on the categorical equivalency between Tsirelson bound on quantum mechanics and spacetime structure. My goal is to illustrate how divergences in quantum gravity can be absorbed into unobservable nonlocal hidden variables. It is a sort of renormalization procedure.
Your recent drop here is not due to me. I am tabulating plausible future scores on a copy of the FQXi essay page, and have graded rather few so far.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 15:42 GMT
Hi dear Peter
It is nice to see you again in this contest.
I have very good impression on your works, in a whole! That is why now I start to study your attractive essay with pleasure. I hope we can tell each to other some ours favorable opinions, if there will be not some hard contradictions in ours approaches, of course.
My best wishes!
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 19:28 GMT
George,
Good to hear from you. Thanks for your comment.
Yes I 'speed read' you essay once and found it excellent with some heartening agreement so marked down for a more thorough read. I've just pulled it up to the top of the pile!
Best
Peter
George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 05:42 GMT
Dear Peter
I cannot to say “I read your essay” because whatever we can do right now, it only can be surface checking the material. I understand that you are in the same situation (that comes from contest conditions). What we can do with this - if not to delay this on the good time? Nevertheless, I think it is not disturbs us to understand each to other as two not so young people (I am 67) who have the same illness (or, maybe it is a happiness!) I know you not only from this work that allows me to say that you are a truly thinking man who try to understand the reality by using own brain and - the own skin!
Of course you are on the right way, but only let me say one practical advice – we must beforehand to count ours time and real opportunities when we put any task; we must see those as realizable, otherwise the sad disappointment waiting to us in the end. A second very important thing is what that we must to start from the one right end to build a somewhat complete - indisputable science. The live forced to us to start our science from what are close to us (i.e. from somewhere of uncertain middle position). Nevertheless, we need go to some strong defined point to be starting everything from there. This however we can do only mentally (as Copernicus has gone to sit on the sun)! Excuse me if I gone on some other side ...
My thanks and best wishes to you!
report post as inappropriate
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 06:43 GMT
hi peter,
i read your essay and found it to be coherent, logical, and well-written. regarding one of the two conclusions:
"Mathematical laws can only give rise to aims and intentions insofar as they may help motivate intelligent beings to resolve to understand more."
how did you arrive at this conclusion? could it be said that you are asserting, by inference, that there is no possibility of aims or intentions *unless* there is a motivated being involved that may be deemed "intelligent"? if so, what constitutes an "intelligent being"?
thanks peter.
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 15:27 GMT
Hi Luke,
Good question (best so far).
Let's hypothesize a relatively low threshold for 'intelligence' as creatures who can derive and formulate mathematical laws. I suggest in that case the laws then aid and help motivate the beings aims and intentions (A&I).
That does not exclude the A&I existing in the first place at lower intelligence, in fact I've suggested AI has A&I. However I suggest 'mathematical laws' can only 'give rise to' such aims and intentions via the agency of those able to derive and employ them
So on some planet with lower life forms, though mechanisms exist which may be describable by others with mathematical laws (correctly OR not!) those laws have not causally 'given rise to' any A&I of the lower species.
You may then surmise that I am not a disciple of the 'mathematical universe' hypothesis, though agree that ubiquitously all mechanisms in the universe should be able to be described or more accurately;
'approximated' in various ways including numerically.
Do you think one day we may find a snowflake, grain of sand or molecule absolutely identical to another? I propose not, so have stated a; 'Law of the Reducing Middle' (QM's Bayesian curves) removing the 'excluded middle' paradox of binary maths & integers in logic. (You'll find it in an earlier essay).
I that complete and agreeable?
Best
Peter
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 18:10 GMT
Dear Peter,
in your conversation with Lawrence Crowell some posts above you state
“Of course although conclusive and irrefutable (you can reproduce it yourself at home, experimentally and mathematically) it stands zero chance of admittance as a new paradigm in the next decade, if at all! Indeed my essay identifies why. Our brains prefer pre-set patterns and reject new alien concepts as they require the much harder 'rational computation' processes. It also takes a real understanding of QM…“
May i ask why you do not – neither in your comments to Lawrence Crowell nor in your essay – simply describe how one does reproduce your findings (at home) experimentally?
Thanks
Stefan Weckbach
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 21:58 GMT
Stefan,
Sorry, I've done that so many times I forget how invisible it can be. It was supposed to be implicit in the essay but the work limit cut it to the bone. Now this is representation remember (as you can't absorb and re-emit stuff!);
1. Take one spinning sphere and a dynamometer (dym) or 2 able to record linear momentum AND rotation (or 'curl'). Link its output to a standard...
view entire post
Stefan,
Sorry, I've done that so many times I forget how invisible it can be. It was supposed to be implicit in the essay but the work limit cut it to the bone. Now this is representation remember (as you can't absorb and re-emit stuff!);
1. Take one spinning sphere and a dynamometer (dym) or 2 able to record linear momentum AND rotation (or 'curl'). Link its output to a standard pair of photomultiplyers (or avalanch photodiodes), or just tabulate & feed it in later.
2. Find a girl called Alice or play both roles if you want. The 'entangled' pair are antiparallel so say horizontal & opposite polar axes as the diagram in the essay. But you don't have to go 2 light yrs from yourself so only need one sphere to represent both (AND detector field electrons).
3. Now just touch anywhere on the surface of the rotating sphere with the dym. Then go 180o round the other side (the condition when Bob & Alice's dials are set THE SAME) and repeat. I think all can see that the findings at 180o will be the exact OPPOSITE. (i.e. for equators one is UP and the other DOWN, for poles S= clockwise N= anti..).
4. Now either Bob or Alice can rotate their dials (=field angle). If one is REVERSED it simply means you don't need to walk round and the finding is identical. (that may need a bit of thought- just imagine Alice has a separate sphere and flips it 180o
5. At each POLE you'll find linear momentum is zero. But 'curl' (rotation) is at Max, and the INVERSE at the equator, where 'curl' is 'uncertain'. You can stay at a pole and Alice can go just HALF way round (turn her dial 90o) or ANY angle.
6. Now you'll find that the AMPLITUDE of each property (linear/curl) changes NON-LINEARLY; by the cosine of the latitude on the sphere (angle from centre, over 90o) Lets say from zero to 1. AND of course from zero to MINUS 1 round the other side (180o from 1).
7. So what we have when plotted with 'angle' on the x axis is TWO cosine curves, offset by 90o[/sup). (We already know the linear momentum from geophysics, and 'curl' is simply the inverse). But as fermions are quite small we need amplification, so we send the signals into the photomultiplier (pm) tubes, one of which which will produce a 'click' at a threshold amplitude. (Normally '2-channel' set in opposite directions).
8. Now these pm's and pd's are quite clever. Ihe input amplitude is magnified by cascade interactions in the field (pair re-emissions) which lets say is 'pre charged' so there's no amplitude loss.
9. Now when we draw cascades on a sheet of paper we get a simple mathematical 'doubling' progression. However nature ISN'T 2D! Reality is 3D(+t) so we'll get a CONE, which outputs the SQUARE of the input amplitudes! Which in fact we already know from Quantum Chromodynamics (which I found afterwards, costing 2yrs as QCD was a theory I'd only skimmed!)
And that's it. Shocking I know but that has done the 'impossible'. Plot the 'click' outputs and you'll get a pair of orthogonal curves changing by the SQUARE of the cosine of the angle of the detectors. QAM is simply complex OAM and NO NON-LOCALITY IS NEEDED. Einstein AND Bell were correct (just not entirely). The video shows how the so called 'measurement problem' and most other 'weirdness' resolves.
However I've found wide cognitive dissonance in academia and publishing. The essay was a self referring test of that, so far confirming it. It's simply human nature, which is what I identify we need to evolve to advance.
Do ask questions, you should have quite a few.
Peter
view post as summary
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 09:11 GMT
Dear Peter,
thanks for your answer.
I like your creativity and that you do not give up with your goal of demystifying QM. So please don't take it personal that i am not convinced.
I thought you present a quantum mechanical experiment (at the microscale). Your experiment may be creative and intelligent form the point of view to build up some analogies between your experiment...
view entire post
Dear Peter,
thanks for your answer.
I like your creativity and that you do not give up with your goal of demystifying QM. So please don't take it personal that i am not convinced.
I thought you present a quantum mechanical experiment (at the microscale). Your experiment may be creative and intelligent form the point of view to build up some analogies between your experiment and the quantum world, as it should be according to your theory (here the first critique: Your experiment and the assumed properties of quantum particles build up a circular reasoning). But a spinning macroscopical sphere is not necessarily the same as a particle. Surely, you want to convince the audience that it indeed is in some sense, but i sincerely think that one cannot call this an experiment regarding what you want to prove - because you don't experiment with the objects you want to find out something, but with some macroscopic replacements.
If i do not understand you wrong, what you want to achieve is to map the probability distribution curve (which is nicely sinusodial, or cosinusoidal) onto some physical processes, and what would be better than using a sphere for this. I can understand that you are fascinated with this approach and i surely cannot disprove it (without delphing into your arguments or due to the fact that i do not have access to the mechanisms you describe).
I therefore do not judge your approach, i am simply not convinced. Especially some macroscopic spheres do not necessarily say something about microscopic particles. I think if you really want to establish a new interpretation of QM, then you had to develop some theory which is able to predict something different from QM. Yes, i know, you will say you exactly had already done this, but as i remember, your predictions were all just retrodictions. Besides that, probing the behaviour and properties of the quantum world, i think, necessitates to operate at the quantum level and not with macroscopic spheres.
I will not downrate you according to my opinions, because nonetheless i think you are a creative thinker and i think i understand the fascination you have for your approach. Therefore i will not rate your essay.
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 11:06 GMT
Stefan,
You'd need a deep understanding of QM, which you agree you lack, and to overcome cognitive dissonance to be 'convinced'. I understand & predicted that. But anyway;
1. QM suggests ABSOLUTELY
NO classical mechanism can reproduce those orthogonal cos
2 curves! ('QM's predictions') My 'surrogate' simplification shows that to be false. How close to the 'actual'...
view entire post
Stefan,
You'd need a deep understanding of QM, which you agree you lack, and to overcome cognitive dissonance to be 'convinced'. I understand & predicted that. But anyway;
1. QM suggests ABSOLUTELY
NO classical mechanism can reproduce those orthogonal cos
2 curves! ('QM's predictions') My 'surrogate' simplification shows that to be false. How close to the 'actual' mechanism it is has no relevance in that respect. (I state regularly that rotating spheres are great simplification of particles!)
2. Using the simple explanation to help understanding means you jumped to a false conclusion. In fact the REAL mechanism of absorption/re-emission came FIRST. You may remember it as Discrete Field dynamics, localising 'c' on fermion field re-emissions. There is then no 'circular reasoning'.
3. You misunderstand QM, the formulation of which is ITSELF is
purely based on experimental findings. That means the 'correct scale' experiments have all been done and all
entirely support my (absorption momentum transfer) mechanism. I analyzed the key Aspect and Weihs experiments i.e. here;
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3754.1287. or (note this was incomplete;)
Jackson, P. A., Minkowski, J.S. Quasi-classical Entanglement, Superposition and Bell Inequalities. Academia.edu 9th Nov 2014.Experiments at the quantum scale would only then repeat what's already been done. That's NOT the task. The ONLY problem was findings some classical mechanism able to reproduce the findings. Dirac's twin stacked spinor maths are just fine, but now we have an inkling of the physical process the formula REPRESENTS.
4. The other important part of all this is that ALL the 'spooky' interpretations fall away. Too shocking and unbelivable to accept I quite understand, but the fact is they do. See the definitions in the above paper.
a) 'Entanglement' effects simply come from the anti paralell axes.
b) 'Superposition' refers to the ACTUAL momentum transferred subject to detector electron orientation (everything is RELATIVE!).
c) Wavefunction collapse' simply comes from absorption and re-emission, which solves the 'measurement problem'.
d) Non-integer spins come purely from relative y or z axis rotations as the video shows. (very compressed one of some basics here;)
https://youtu.be/WKTXNvbkhhI 100 Second Video I'll even explain what's really happening in the 'quantum eraser' experiment without needing 'backward causality' if you can't see it (it's not easy first time).
Again, I have no delusions that humankind is able to assimilate and rationalise this quite 'different' understanding of nature, even with Occams razor. However I do feel obliged to steer anyone interested 'back on track' when they depart. The track will remain invisible to most until well trodden. I thank you kindly for that interest.
Very best
Peter
view post as summary
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 15:54 GMT
Dear Peter,
thanks for the answers. Your theory enables a similar kind of hidden-variable theory that has implications for the question of qualia. Let me be as original as you and claim that the impression of the color red is - at its fundamental level - not due to a certain wavelength, but due to the fact that a red stream of light consists factually of *red* photons. Via absorption an re-emission photons with all kinds of colors are produced naturally. Due to the process of absorption an re-emission, in the brain the impression of all colors is facilitated by the re-emission of the apropriate color mixture photon ensembles. These photons are projected in a cinema-like process in a holographical, encoded fashion onto the homunculus - what 'proves' that there must be some homunculus which can filter and decode a kind of holographical colored data-stream of photons. I am not sure if this also holds for all the other senses :-)
I ponder over wether your mechanism is strictly deterministic and wether or not the maths of your theory should lead to an infinitely precisely defined location for every particle at detection. Since you have reproduced the cosine-curves, one should expect that interference patterns and all the rest should be arise like a perfect printer plot, without some positive accidents in the destructive parts. Please explain.
Peter, i hope you can swallow some humour, not because your theory is silly as such, but how can it make a difference if it has no experimental consequences? The difference would only be in changing some worldviews. People would believe in absorption an re-emission and in your mechanisms instead of believing in entanglement etc. Would this improve the world or make it a better place, beyond changing some minds in the scientific community?
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 19:53 GMT
Stefan,
Yes, it'd be ideal if such major advancements were perceived immediately, but it never happens, as history shows. Big new physics is 'wrong', ignored, and finally 'self apparent'. In 2010 I estimated 10 years ('2020 Vision') so it's on track.
But there are no 'local hidden variables' in the model. Bell was correct. The 'secret' is found in the particles themselves, hidden...
view entire post
Stefan,
Yes, it'd be ideal if such major advancements were perceived immediately, but it never happens, as history shows. Big new physics is 'wrong', ignored, and finally 'self apparent'. In 2010 I estimated 10 years ('2020 Vision') so it's on track.
But there are no 'local hidden variables' in the model. Bell was correct. The 'secret' is found in the particles themselves, hidden from current theory and designated as the second unreal but 'superposed' quantum state. It isn't unreal. IT IS REAL! (And we know well the process in an eyes lens 'decoding' lambda!!).
We get lots of discovery's in astronomy, only the odd one BIG. An astronomer in my field, Nick, had the previous big one a while ago, but that similarly proved TOO big to be accepted! To save loosing his job and livelihood he stopped pushing it. All very sad. Finally, more recently, it 'crept in' after verification by someone else, but it then caused that guy endless problems too!
As the US Chemical Soc. president said explaining why Dan Sheckman had 40+ years of pain before his recent 'quasicrystal' Nobel,
"That's how science is done". That was only a
minor advance! but he was right, and I'm a realist. I just hope nobody ends up like the guy who followed Nick, he ended his life under house arrest by the Pope!
To answer your question; People
really should READ essays as I try to, not skim them! I identify clearly that, and why, there can be NO 'perfect printer plot!' Chaos and stochasitic variables are
not eliminated. They just can't reproduce the QM findings, as Bell showed. you'll find the explanation partly under 'mutation'. 'Curl' is uncertain to 50:50 at an 'equator' and similarly linear momentum at EACH POLE (So both orthogonal to the angle of max amplitude).
"how can it make a difference if it has no experimental consequences?" It's a fair question but I don't think you thought much before asking it. Nicholas Copernicus and Galileo's discoveries also had no physical consequences. Celestial bodies didn't suddenly head off in different directions! They just explained what we DO find (that's what all Cosmology is too!) Yet those were the greatest advancements in understanding for eons, and have ended up affecting almost everything in physics in some way or another! (I don't include Relativity or QM as both are flawed and have been counter productive).
So; Yes. Unlike Eddington's view, science ISN'T 'all sorted'. My papers and video's include long lists of just about every anomaly, paradox and inconsistency in physics which the combined 'SR/QM' model resolves. They only have to be actually read! If you're interested in any one in particular just ask and I'll show you how it emerges.
Unlike most I DON'T want to be a 'new Einstein' and don't want rewards. I was a legend in my own lunchtime by 30, have a nice yacht and drive an Aston. But think about it; if you were me wouldn't you feel guilty if you 'kept it all secret'? It's actually now rather a cross to bear!
Very Best
Peter
view post as summary
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 07:33 GMT
Dear Peter,
thanks for your reply.
I really read your essay, not skimmed it. You used 47 times the term ‘may’ in the sense of ‘it may be that’. Therefore and for the reason that i am not into cosmology, i don’t want to comment on the anomalies, paradoxes and inconsistencies you claim to have resolved. It only appears to me that you use two different modalities to...
view entire post
Dear Peter,
thanks for your reply.
I really read your essay, not skimmed it. You used 47 times the term ‘may’ in the sense of ‘it may be that’. Therefore and for the reason that i am not into cosmology, i don’t want to comment on the anomalies, paradoxes and inconsistencies you claim to have resolved. It only appears to me that you use two different modalities to communicate your ideas, one that does claim something to be ultimately true (IT’S REAL), the other which suggests a probability for something to be true in a subclause (it may be).
Then you go on to claim that ‘the secret is found in the particles themselves’. Peter, why don’t you then – after a couple of essays on your topic – eventually write down the relevant equations which describe the particles and their interactions and show mathematically that they violate Bell’s inequality? You can’t argue that there isn’t the appropriate maths out there if you have already identified the physical mechanisms. Please show mathematically the interactions between your particles and how this necessarily leads to the violation of Bell’s inequality. Put in some stochastic terms to even mathematically model the chaos you spoke of.
I never saw an elaborated equation of the interactions from you, nonetheless seeing you so heavily claiming these interactions meet reality. This is not a cross to bear, but could be elaborated together with a good mathematician. The fact that you do not show up such equations leaves the impression that if indeed done, they wouldn’t lead to your intended claims.
You cannot compare your case with Galileo and Copernicus, unless you have done the mathematics. I very well thought about it, and additionally i must note that even if Galileo and Copernicus couldn’t prove some of their ideas by observation, the later generations could – and verified them. Your theory is immune against testing it empirically and moreover, there are a multitude of different ideas about how to explain what you want to explain out there. How can you, for example show that your theory IS REAL instead of the one David Bohm developed, unless you have exemplified your theory with mathematical equations that show that your theory is more than just a suitable idea?
Peter if you have a yacht and you drive an Aston, you should also be able to find a mathematician with whom you can develop the needed mathematical equations. Nobody is guilty of developing and publishing some ideas. But couldn’t it be that your were really guilty if you would further insist that IT’S REAL without simply doing the maths? This would be your fault, nobody in the scientific community can be blamed for that, not even i myself for criticizing you! You constantly complain about modern science and its omnipotent behaviour and its trickery, but yourself do just the same - you constantly claim something to be true without putting the mathematical litmus test on the table!
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 11:57 GMT
Stefan,
I did so & published the algorithm in 2014. You had the link. (Diracs twin stacked 'spinor' pair equation is then fine). DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3754.1287 (open access). Most schoolboys know spherical surface momentum (Earths surface speed) varies by the cosine of latitude, and QCD shows Amplitude
2 values emerge in fields ('squared' 3D 'cascade' geometric progressions...
view entire post
Stefan,
I did so & published the algorithm in 2014. You had the link. (Diracs twin stacked 'spinor' pair equation is then fine).
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3754.1287 (open access). Most schoolboys know spherical surface momentum (Earths surface speed) varies by the cosine of latitude, and QCD shows Amplitude
2 values emerge in fields ('squared' 3D 'cascade' geometric progressions couldn't be simpler!) and I identify WHERE - which is in cascade photomultipliers or avalanche photodiodes). The words 'cascade' and 'avalanche' kind of gave that away, hiding before our eyes!
All I can do is publish it, point to it and keep working Stefan. I'm a scientist not a salesman. In the end notes of my 2014 essay I even reported an experiment deriving it subjectively with students and did a full results chart! So it's certainly NOT immune to testing! In the next I showed that 'reversible' socks, like dipoles, or simply 'lining' red socks with green, allowed the classical solution. In algorithmic terms the (mathematicians) correction of QM's 'state pair' revised algorithm was;
p(A1 B1 |a,b, l + b,a, l) = p(A2 B2 |a,b, l + b,a, l) = p(A1 B2 |a,a, l + b,b l) = p(A2 B1 |a,a, l + b,b l) = 1. Certainly perturbation theory
always applies too.
I do ask mathematicians regularly if they'd like to look and play with it, but have the same problem Einstein found with that! (You'll even note a co-author is one J Minkowski!). I don't know what else you want. I can teach students and children, but it seems that beyond 25-30 everyone knows better so ignores it. That's really not a problem for me Stefan. I'm really anyway not entirely convinced humanity is quite ready for any great advancements in understanding.
On
"MAY", just so you know; I've said 'NOTHING is certain in science', but some are more certain than others (My 'Law of the Reducing middle' in logic is Bayesian curves) so adopt the convention "may" for anything
suggested but not 'required' (or 'highly probable' like finding 'left' or 'right' near an equator).
Lastly on
ANOMALIES etc. Your assumption that these are just in astrophysics is wrong. Try me on ANY well known anomaly, the chances are I've 'turned the model on it' and a resolution is shown; CP Violation? simple dynamic geometry produces it, Lorentz Transformation? I described & derived that 5 essays ago, 3 Filter problem?, Non-integer spin states etc? - all in the video, Quantum eraser/backward causality? simple and all in a current draft paper. Just pick one.
For me this is an academic excercise Stefan. I don't have a website (the net abounds with them!) I don't 'OWN' it, nature does! I don't want to belittle work by others, much of it has informed the DFM, and I'm certainly not an expert on everything! But at the end of the day it's veracity can be judged as a jigsaw puzzle. Either it fits together or, like most current science, heaps of confusing inconsistencies remain. Anyone who looks at it all can see this fits rather better.
Please take any part you wish and improve it (but do beware the papal police!).
Very best
Peter
view post as summary
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 14:40 GMT
Peter,
thanks for your reply. Surely i had the link, but i cannot see the algorithm which produces the common experimental findings. You write that the dynamics you propose is not 100% deterministic, but i do not understand this statement in light of the recursive fractals you also mentioned. In a fractal, there is no room for quasi-causal mechanisms, your attempt to unite both points of...
view entire post
Peter,
thanks for your reply. Surely i had the link, but i cannot see the algorithm which produces the common experimental findings. You write that the dynamics you propose is not 100% deterministic, but i do not understand this statement in light of the recursive fractals you also mentioned. In a fractal, there is no room for quasi-causal mechanisms, your attempt to unite both points of view, the deterministic and the probabilistic one, are then contradictory. Therefore it is no wonder that you write you published the algorithm in 2014, but what you published was a Bayesian probability assignment on the basis of your assumptions.
If nature operates mechnistically in a fractal setting, there should be a non-bayesian equality to show at what place within the fractal the interactions you are interested in take place and how ‘higher order uncertainty’ within this fractal does impact the measurement results. Introducing higher order uncertainty itself does not help, because within a fractal there is no higher or lower level, but only precisely defined mechanistical relations that lead to a precise sub-picture of the fractal. With the notion of fractals, i think you run into problems with infinity, because you can zoom in and out without ever identifying the initial causal basis for each quantum event and that is something which i think really does circumvent Bell’s theorem. If your main assumptions meet reality, i think this reality cannot be a fractal. But if the latter would be true, you need another ‘source’ to introduce uncertainty.
I am not the one to decide what nature really does. I am just not convinced by your papers. And you indeed do not need to convince me, but need to convince the professionals. I regret that your co-author, having such a prominent name like Minkowski, has not achieved to present your ideas in a more radically mathematical formulation, but mainly by words which are sometimes hard to trace if these lines of wordings really describe an ontology or merely an idea (an idea to which you personally attach a high probability to meet reality). Personally, i would say, presenting your ideas as a string of words instead of a string of mathematical symbols does damage your ideas. And personally i think your diverse concepts are contradicting each other, leading to inconsistencies, but that’s only my personal view. Maybe it is the case that what confuses the one person, elucidates another person and vice versa. As Lawrence Crowell recently wrote, you cannot disprove a theory with another theory, same as you cannot disprove strict determinism with the concept of fractal emergence of different sub-pictures within that fractal.
We humans cannot in most cases attach proper probabilities for our ideas to indeed meet reality, because we lack the needed information. What seems probable for one person, seems totally improbable for another person (think of the idea of God). The consistency of the idea does not prevent us from not having the needed information to judge the proper probability for that idea to meet reality. So you are right that nothing is certain in science, at least for the things from which we yet don't know how, why and if they indeed exist.
And i am far away to pick more of your ideas to analyze them, because i see no reason to do this in general and also specfically not in the current essay contest, where the main question is much different than the ones you claim to have consistently answered.
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 16:52 GMT
Stefan,
If you read my 'mutation' description again you should see that
as well as stochastic process and mathematical perturbation there is a genuine 50:50 uncertainty at crossover points which maths can't predict. If I stand 10 people exactly on an equator and ask them to decide if they're rotating clockwise or anti clockwise, can maths predict the result? No, it cannot. Yet it's end up as 50;50 as coin tosses. This is as Kurt Godel proved.
Your suggestion
"your attempt to unite both points of view, the deterministic and the probabilistic one, are then contradictory." uses an over simplistic approach so is untrue. Indeed I haven't
"attempted to" do anything at all! That's what I pointed out to Lawrence is unscientific. What comes out comes out. That's it!
"
you indeed do not need to convince me, but need to convince the professionals. Hmm. And why is that. Fact is I don't actually
'have to convince anybody! I'm very happy if I don't. I've done my 'duty' and explained it. Indeed I'd probably be more worried right now if I did! For one thing it'd suggest the first part of my essay (which WAS directly on the brain you may recall!) is wrong, which I don't think it is.
Anyway must dash for now; England are just about to set a new world record by decimating Ireland in the Grand Slam 6 Nations rugby union final and I'm meeting a bunch of friends from Ireland and here to witness it.
best
Peter
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 18:15 GMT
Peter,
there is no uncertainty in Gödel's results and the latter have nothing to do with coin tosses and 50:50 outcomes.
Anyway, have a nice rugby final!
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 22:55 GMT
Stefan,
You just tried what you agree can't be done! Disprove one theory with another; i.e. That underlying the incompleteness theorem is a physical truth consistent with my own 'reducing middle' theorem (resolving the long standing fundamental logical paradox of the 'excluded middle').
You state current doctrinal interpretation of what Godel 'means'. I showed in an earlier essay why and how that understanding is incomplete. New physics is impervious to attacks using old physics. It need only be internally logically consistent, which it uniquely is, match findings, which it entirely does, and preferably also resolve anomalies and paradoxes etc. which it does in droves! You only need to look.
But please don't agonize over it Stefan. You CAN'T find it 'acceptable' and won't bear to look, not for some time yet anyway. The essay explained exactly why. Did you disagree with that part? It really isn't a problem, that's human nature.
The rugby was rubbish. The Frenchman ran away with it and never let England have the ball. They lost the match, but won the 6 nations championship and now equal the All Blacks win series. The Irish didn't play badly and Siobhan and my Irish mates were ecstatic. The lesson? Never give a Frenchman a whistle when England are playing!
Best
Peter
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 05:03 GMT
Peter,
no, my attempt is to interpret Gödel's results in a broader way, since it involves terms like logics, truth, consistency. But i am aware of that my attempt is only an interpretation (although i think it is a good one).
Your link with Gödel is also only an interpretation and i think it is somewhat arbitrary. What have Gödel's results to do with whether the earth spins clockwise or anti-clockwise? This question is ill-posed from the very beginning, because there is no external reference frame to decide it. We can not disprove an interpretation by another interpretation. I only wanted to state that both our views on Gödel's results are interpretations of it. Gödel himself never intended to interpret his results these ways - and more important, the involved mathematical relationships do not say anything about the earth's rotation or about the meaning of Quantum mechanics.
Peter, i indeed find it inacceptable, but for the reason that i don't fully UNDERSTAND what your theory says in detail. Not all things which exist are self-explaining and yours essays are of that kind, and i also criticized your style of writing and your hypnotic and suggestive language. I do not agonize about it, but if you want that professionals understand what you really mean, you should improve your capabilities to explain your lines of reasoning mor rigorously. And additionally you should really begin to model your results as mathematical equations other than merely as bayesian claims.
Hope the rugby night was nonetheless fun and enjoyable.
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 12:40 GMT
Stefan,
I agree with most. But "All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses." (Bronowski) or finding "new connections". Too many reject such new connections as too unfamiliar. Mathematicians have tried to limit the implications of Godel's theorem into ever smaller boxes as they hate it. I discussed this about 4yrs ago here.
'Understanding.' OK.; Start from OAM, in...
view entire post
Stefan,
I agree with most. But "All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses." (Bronowski) or finding "new connections". Too many reject such new connections as too unfamiliar. Mathematicians have tried to limit the implications of Godel's theorem into ever smaller boxes as they hate it. I discussed this about 4yrs ago here.
'Understanding.' OK.; Start from OAM, in which I identify an additional momentum HIDDEN from QM (or 'not used' in the simpler formulation; 'Up/Down' states). It DOES exist in some science, from Maxwell equations on. It is 'curl', which, despite confusion, is what we commonly call 'CHARGE', or clockwise or anticlockwise rotation. This momentum peaks at the POLES, so is ORTHOGONAL (at 90
o to) the tangentially LINEAR ('up/down') momentum which peaks at the equator. BOTH these states are then OPPOSITE at 180
o.
QM postulates NOTHING about particle morphology and dynamics, except to say up/down 'spin' are some magically 'superposed' states which CAN'T be classical rotation because different angles get bizarrely different 'orthogonal' findings!!
Bless their little cotton socks. Lets give them some nice new red socks lined with green, then explain each is REVERSIBLE. That's equivalent to reversing the angle of interaction with a sphere, so you find the OPPOSITE state!
I'll leave you with that for the moment because it DOES take some initial absorption and integration into neural networks, needing lots of old rubbish to be cleared away to establish. Once done it's simple to then learn how the orthogonal Cosine value distributions with angle emerge, and how they are squared. But one step at a time.
You know the common foundation with the DFM's 'Relativity' already. Light propagation speed is
localised ts 'c' wrt the centre of mass of each fermion on interaction. That creates exactly Einsteins 1952 final conception
'spaces in motion within spaces' but gives it a quantum mechanism and removes all the nonsense (in BOTH) preventing unification.
But enough for now. First go back and embed the TWO DISTINCT momenta previously poorly understood and not employed.
On the subject of maths. Sure it'd be helpful to speak Swahili to those who speak Swahili, but my last essay shows that has limitations when it's essential they learn a whole new language to advance. Maths and logic need rebuilding using those simple common rule of brackets as foundations. That was understood on reading it and thus scored top, but then of course just forgotten! I also quoted Wheeler this year; Ontological understanding comes FIRST! Nonetheless if a mathematician came along and joined the party to numerate it all then that's fine. Be my guest! All I can say is; sorry but it won't be me! I have far more important things to do than spend time improving my Swahili.
Thanks for your efforts Stefan. I'm now wondering if you really can be an exception and overcome my essays cognitive dissonance hypothesis (that term itself intentionally not used).
Best
Peter
view post as summary
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 18:28 GMT
Dear Peter,
so far i agree on what you wrote concerning Gödel’s results.
Thanks for the first step of your explanation. I first like to know to what kind of particle you refer, to electrons or photons. I assume to electrons, since photons are known (at least to me) to have no charge.
The OAM you spoke of – is this the usual OAM of electrons? I assume not, since you write...
view entire post
Dear Peter,
so far i agree on what you wrote concerning Gödel’s results.
Thanks for the first step of your explanation. I first like to know to what kind of particle you refer, to electrons or photons. I assume to electrons, since photons are known (at least to me) to have no charge.
The OAM you spoke of – is this the usual OAM of electrons? I assume not, since you write that it is hidden from QM. But i nonetheless ask, since OAM has two components, a position and a momentum component. To define the desired position or momentum, one has to take into account all 3 vector components of position or momentum.
I now assume that what you identified as additional momentum is the momentum component of OAM. The particle spin is always orthogonal to the OAM and both facilitate the total angular momentum. This is the standard interpretation and is valid separately for all 3 spatial directions.
You should give me feedback whether i understood what you wrote or misunderstood it. I would be also helpful to first tell what orthodox QM says in each step and then tell me what your theory says for that step.
Now i imagine a sphere with the north pole above and the south pole down below. This sphere has then its equator inbetween north and south pole. It is turning in the plane of the equator such that the poles do not turn. At the poles, the charges you spoke of are maximal, at the equator they are zero. Therefore, at the equator, another momentum (is this the QM spin?) is maximal an at the poles is zero. This particle has its maximum angular velocity at the equator, and its maximal charge at the poles. During its journey from its source to some detector, the poles always stay where they are, north up and south down below (so the particle has no precession or something like that?). Alternatively, during their journey from their source to some detector, the plane in which both particles turn around is always the equator plane and always stays the same, namely the equator plane (is this more correct?).
Is this the right description so far?
“You know the common foundation with the DFM's 'Relativity' already….”
Please let us proceed on step after another. I do not remember what DFM is, although i may have read it some years ago.
What is the next step (if my conclusions so far are correct)?
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 10:56 GMT
Stefan,
First, photons DO have 'charge'! Latest max= 10
-46 of detector field 'electrons', which dominate exchanges. i.e. IOP & Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 261801 (old rubbish to go!)
The key player is the detector electron field (as Bohr et al & now QBism infer) Use incoming photons or electrons at will, and photons as or part of 'spread wavefronts, and propagating ON their polar...
view entire post
Stefan,
First, photons DO have 'charge'! Latest max= 10
-46 of detector field 'electrons', which dominate exchanges. i.e.
IOP & Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 261801 (old rubbish to go!)
The key player is the detector electron field (as Bohr et al & now QBism infer) Use incoming photons or electrons at will, and photons as or part of 'spread wavefronts, and propagating ON their polar axis or with some 'elliptical polarization' (simply different axial orientation, or, think hard, Einsteins 'lateral' wave component.)
You must also step back from the old 'position/momentum' assumption, cause of much of the confusion by assigning them as the offset sine curves. THAT is what's helped
hide the distinctive curl PLUS linear momenta.
It was also 'hidden' because QM famously assigned no 'morphology' to the paired particles. The algorithms then assume ONLY spin UP or DOWN. There logic all fell apart because they had to be magically 'superposed', and one 'collapse' on detection, with FTL or 'non-local' effects between Alice & Bob. Rather than listen to Einstein, EPR etc and correctly taking the hint that some assumption was wrong we just learned to live with what Bell insisted & showed was utter nonsense!
You'll have seen the effects of the 3 'vector component' or 'degrees of (rotational) freedom in the video; (snippet here
100 sec Compressed version. The complex OAM analysis isn't far off, but famously it's said 'Quantum' angular momentum (QAM) CAN'T be OAM for the various 'reasons' I identify and reveal as invalid (non-integer spins from the 3 degrees...etc). But I show 'interaction latitude' is critical, So;
QM; Each particle of a pair 'collapses' to just ONE 'state' (and a 'position').DFM; Each has both momenta, & relative detector field angle gives amplitudes.Your description would best start with the poles left and right. When 'split' they maintain that attitude, so lead by OPPOSITE charges. To keep it simple for now ignore elliptical polarity and remember the DETECTOR electrons, which Alice & Bob rotate, are king! The 'requantize' the energy by absorption and re-emission, and their angle DICTATES the new Cosine values of curl and AM. (that is equivalent to entirely poorly understood 'wavefunction collapse')
Of course arriving
electrons (read 'fermions') have similar charge to field electrons, but each encounters millions so the effect is the same. Once you've re-run and absorbed all that we'll go on to the final 'squaring' of amplitudes to complete the mechanism (or delve into QCD!). But do challenge any bits or ask any more questions first.
Best
Peter
view post as summary
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 16:42 GMT
Peter,
o.k., the particles propagate on their polar axis. Therefore the equators build an up/down line, so by propagating the equators do describe a helix-like path. Is this helix-like path the ‘curl’ you metioned?
I understood the charge of the photons the way that only 10 exp 46 photons in a wavefront have the charge of one electron (detector field electron). Is this correct?
What do you mean by “When 'split' they maintain that attitude, so lead by OPPOSITE charges”? Do you mean negative versus positive?
“The 'requantize' the energy by absorption and re-emission, and their angle DICTATES the new Cosine values of curl and AM. (that is equivalent to entirely poorly understood 'wavefunction collapse')“
You mean *They ‚requantize’*, right? So i assume that the particles are re-quatized. What property is re-quantized, the charge i guess? Or do you mean by re-quantized that the particle’s new orientation is different from the absorbed particle’s orientation?
So, your DFM has two governing mechanisms, one the momentum, the other the detector field angles? What do these two mechnisms contribute to the measurement and first of all how do they contribute to the measurement result?
I couldn’t watch your video, because your link has no valid internet adress attached.
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 19:07 GMT
Stefan,
Yes, "they requantize" not 'the' (or requatized!) See my 2014 'It from Bit' essay; 'The Intelligent Bit' for helices, also this cosmic redshift video Time Dependent Redshift, but remember the 'fractal' scale heirarchy (so all entities 'orbiting' as they translate are themselves rotating), so here 'curl' is really the transfer of
"a momentum able to induce rotation."...
view entire post
Stefan,
Yes, "they requantize" not 'the' (or requatized!) See my 2014 'It from Bit' essay;
'The Intelligent Bit' for helices, also this cosmic redshift video
Time Dependent Redshift, but remember the 'fractal' scale heirarchy (so all entities 'orbiting' as they translate are themselves rotating), so here 'curl' is really the transfer of
"a momentum able to induce rotation." (Try to think simply for initial understanding, only then build the full complexity). And yes; When re-emitted the FIELD ELECTRONS dictate orientation (a whole new 'wavefunction' if you like). Now you can see REAL 'observer dependency'!!) The new amplitudes (pairs remember) have the inverse Cosine values of the the interaction tangent point.
Sorry about the '100 Sec' video link. Try these;
youtube or
vimeo But remember that's just a glimpse of this;
Full Classic QM video. I see electron charge more as 'power' (amplitude) at each interaction but you may be right. So 'charge' is better thought of as rotational energy, not 'speed' (which is 'c' wrt the last event).
Yes, +/-. If North happens to be left, then even when split, if heading left it will only be found negative, so the one heading right is Positive. Remember the +/- is a 50:50 chance but
always opposite. NOW we can make sense of the findings when Bob & Alice rotate their 'electrons'. 'Action at a distance is NOT needed!
"So, your DFM has two governing mechanisms, one the momentum, the other the detector field angles? What do these two mechnisms contribute to the measurement and first of all how do they contribute to the measurement result?"TWO momenta remember, with (Diracs) 'complementarity', dictated by the field angle, (so inverse Cos values).
NOW the big finale; Those 'polarized' photon/fermion/whatevers now hit lets say (most commonly) a 2-channel photoamplifier, (each channel has opposite polarity) and each will only make ONE channel go 'CLICK', and at a rate dependent on it's amplitude. If Bob & Alice's settings are the same, and Bobs + channel clicks, then Alices - channel will click. If either of them reverses electron angle ('dial') at the last instant then both ++ (or both --) channels will click. If both dials are at half way (say the equator, for 'curl') then BOTH findings will be quite random 50:50 - yet angular momentum AM will PEAK!
Thus the results of current statistical analysis are entirely reproduced with a classical mechanism, and without all the nonsensical spookiness currently needed. Shocking I know, but it's entirely self evident.
So Einstein was right at Solvay 1n 1927, he was just a bit wrong about SR (c is localised by CSL) which prevented him finding the mechanism.
How are you doing? I'm impressed you've hung in where professional physicists have so far failed. As John Bell said;
"Professional physicists really ought to be able to do better!" I wait patiently.
...ooops I'm late for tennis! must dash.
Peter
view post as summary
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 05:37 GMT
Peter,
the field electrons dictate orientation (due to their own orientation relative to the incoming particle) and this orientation dictates the measurement outcome (if no more intermediate interactions occur), is this correct so far?
The dial you spoke of is the polarisation filter, i guess?
“Yes, +/-. If North happens to be left, then even when split, if heading left it...
view entire post
Peter,
the field electrons dictate orientation (due to their own orientation relative to the incoming particle) and this orientation dictates the measurement outcome (if no more intermediate interactions occur), is this correct so far?
The dial you spoke of is the polarisation filter, i guess?
“Yes, +/-. If North happens to be left, then even when split, if heading left it will only be found negative, so the one heading right is Positive.”
Let’s assume that the two polarisators have the same angles (there is no relative difference in angles between them). Then the one particle (say, the left with north) is re-quantized with a certain ‘power (charge)’, depending on the particles initial angle relative to this polarisator, is this correct? For the other particle it is the same, but with the difference that the certain ‘power (charge)’ i spoke of is complementary to the one for the first particle (the north particle). Complementary in the sense that if one would add up both ‘powers (charges)’, it always results in the maximum charge that is possible on a single particle. Is this correct?
So if we give the maximum charge (power) an arbitrary value of 1, then the charges of the two particles always add up to 1. The same principle should then be true also for the other property you spoke of, namely the tangentially linear momentum. If charge has a zero peak at the equator, this tangentially linear momentum has its maximum peak at the equator and vice versa. The two properties of the particle, the charge and the linear momentum, have their opposite interaction powers both at 180 degree.
Concerning the two-channel photoamplifiers, i now could investigate how these tools function in detail due to mainstream physics. But i guess they work a bit different in your scenario. Anyways, it would be helpful for me if you would explain me the detailed mechanism. Only ever one channel will click, i understood so far (and is self-evident). What channel will click depends on the orientation of the final re-quantized particle arriving at the photoamplifier. But how can a clicking rate depend on the (charge and/or linear momentum) amplitude of a single particle event? As i understood it so far, at the poles, there is no tangentially linear momentum, but maxiumum power (charge). But what for the case *near* the pole – does a certain channel, say the minus-channel (arbitrarily choosen), click here and what is the mechanism that would *prevent* this channel to click? I mean i must understand how a continuum of charge-values from the pole to the equator translates into a binary clicking behaviour of either + or - channel. At what point of the mentioned continuum does the clicking-channel switch from + to – ? The same question arises for the continuum of the tangentially linear momentum. How are these continua quantized into + or – clicks in the photoamplifiers for a *single* particle event? Something inside them must decide which channel clicks for a single particle event and this is something i haven’t understood yet from your hitherto explanations.
After a flue and lots of antibiotica i do well again! Thanks for your compliments concerning my essay, i do my best to clear up some issues which i consider as fog concerning the essay contest’s questions!
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 12:50 GMT
Stefan,
All correct up to para4; "
Then the one particle (say, the left with north) is re-quantized with a certain ‘power (charge)’, depending on the particles initial angle relative to this polarisator, is this correct?"Not quite. The TWO momenta (curl+AM) amplitudes are very much dependent on the FIELD ('electrons') angle relative to the particles not vice versa (which...
view entire post
Stefan,
All correct up to para4; "
Then the one particle (say, the left with north) is re-quantized with a certain ‘power (charge)’, depending on the particles initial angle relative to this polarisator, is this correct?"Not quite. The TWO momenta (curl+AM) amplitudes are very much dependent on the FIELD ('electrons') angle relative to the particles not vice versa (which could be implied by your description). The particles relative +/- & up/down 'states' are conserved.
Para5 is also wrong; For each property the max values +1 and -1 are at the opposing poles (for curl) and opposite 'sides' of the equator (up/down). So each is then 0 at 90
o. We can only EVER interact with one 'side' at a time so can only 'find' one (curl/AM value pair) at a time. We don't 'add up' Bob & Alice's values. If we did we'd get 0 as one is + and one - !
What we do in QM is 'correlate' the 'clicks' statistically, which is quite different (leading to the famous 'damn lies' due to the key false assumption that there's only ONE 'state pair'). The orthogonal Cos
2 curves are the amplitude plots from changing polarizer field angles. The complimentarity of QM is the inverse relationship of curl/AM values with the angle. Add each of THOSE together and yes, you get 1. (But the cheese would taste a bit chalky as the 0-1 is only mathematical abstraction.)
Photomultipliers "..i guess they work a bit different in your scenario." Nope, not at all. They're called 'Cascade..or Avalanche..' as they have a dense field (think of a matrix) of fermions (think of them as 'pre-charged to avoid transmission loss) which amplify signals due to cascades of interactions; That is, viewed in Feynmanns 2D, the incoming particle hits one electron which produces two. But look from ANY angle (say 90
o) and you find the same! Nature is 3D
NOT 2D! The mathematical progression in cascades is therefore by the SQUARE of the input amplitute, not just 'doubled'.
When Bohr, Von Neumann etc said the detector/meter is 'part of the system' it seems they really didn't have any idea just how right they were!
"
how can a clicking rate depend on the (charge and/or linear momentum) amplitude of a single particle event? Instruments are tuneable, and each emission arrives at BOTH channels. If (relative remember) amplitude in the 'lower value' side doesn't reach a threshold level there'll be no click, but that means there'll be a click from the opposite channel (higher input value side relative to that channels field orientation).
"
At what point of the mentioned continuum does the clicking-channel switch from + to – ?". It doesn't. Rephrase to; "At what point does the + channel stop and - channel start clicking." The answer is then; at 90
o. But actually AT 90
o there's around a 50:50 chance of
either clicking (if set/tuned correctly). And THAT is 'quantum uncertainty'. Actually to 50:50 is presently (also) the statistical correlation between Bob and Alice's clicks when set at 90
o to each other. Say Bobs dial is fixed, Alice changes to OPPOSITE, = SAME results, then she goes to 90
o and the 'statistical correlation' becomes 50:50. A quantum physicist, website or even Wiki will confirm that's what's found. However as you and I and very few others so far now know, the apparent 'paradoxes' of those findings don't actually need to exist!
I can still recall how tricky it was to first get my brain round that, so you really do need to read it through and visualise it many times! But you should soon be able to read all about QM, spot the flawed assumptions and confusion of interpretations they led to.
Peter
view post as summary
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 17:59 GMT
Peter,
thanks for the reply.
“Not quite. The TWO momenta (curl+AM) amplitudes are very much dependent on the FIELD ('electrons') angle relative to the particles not vice versa (which could be implied by your description). The particles relative +/- & up/down 'states' are conserved.“
I have difficulties to understand this. I thought that, lets say the particle propagating...
view entire post
Peter,
thanks for the reply.
“Not quite. The TWO momenta (curl+AM) amplitudes are very much dependent on the FIELD ('electrons') angle relative to the particles not vice versa (which could be implied by your description). The particles relative +/- & up/down 'states' are conserved.“
I have difficulties to understand this. I thought that, lets say the particle propagating to the left from the source has, say, its north pole left (at the propagation axis, since the poles are initially always at the propagation axis). The up/down ‘states’ are initially all on the equator, since the particle spins around itself on the equatorial line (the equator is initially oriented vertically).
The first interaction is due to a polariser with a certain angle. According to your description i concluded that the polarizer’s field absorbes the particle and re-emitts a new one with the same orientation as the polarizer’s field orientation. Mmhh, is this correct so far?
If yes, i further concluded that the new particle (with the new orientations) hits a photoamplifier’s electron and due to its orientation, it transmits a certain momentum to the electron. But now i have to consider that these amplifiers have two channels and both channels are stimulated by the impact of the particle. The one channel is stimulated by ‘curl’, the other by ‘momentum’. Is this the right visualization?
What i do not understand is that you wrote the “particles relative +/- & up/down 'states' are conserved”. If two particles propagate from the source, the one has north pole left, the other has also north pole left. Since both particles are measured at opposite sides, their relative ‘charge states’ are always opposite, *if* no re-emission takes place before a measurement. The same should be true for the up/down state, right? O.k., but there are the experimenters who can indepdently change the polarizer angles from 0 up to 90°. So it can’t be that ‘relative’ in your sentence means relative between the two particles. I guess it means the curl/momentum pair for every particle is conserved and is always +/- 1 for one particle (for one particle +1, for the other particle -1). I conclude from this that the particle’s properties and architecture is completely conserved, only the space-like orientation of its properties is changed due to re-emission? Is this the correct way to think of it?
“Para5 is also wrong; For each property the max values +1 and -1 are at the opposing poles (for curl) and opposite 'sides' of the equator (up/down). So each is then 0 at 90o. We can only EVER interact with one 'side' at a time so can only 'find' one (curl/AM value pair) at a time. We don't 'add up' Bob & Alice's values. If we did we'd get 0 as one is + and one - !”
O.k., max. value + at one pole, min. value (zero charge) at the equator, max value – at the other pole. The same for the equatorial plane: max. value ‘up’ say at the front, min. value at the top/down and max. value ‘down’ at the back of the particle. Since both properties are continua, at every point of the sphere the curl/AM combinations are different from each other.
“The complimentarity of QM is the inverse relationship of curl/AM values with the angle. Add each of THOSE together and yes, you get 1.“
I conclude from this that you attach to the terminus technicus of ‚up/down’ also a kind of ‚charge’ with + and – signs. Is this correct? If ‘charge’ is +1 (-1), then the other value is 0, if ‘charge’ is 0, the other value is +1 (-1).
“The answer is then; at 90o.”
This should be the relative difference in angles between the two poarizers, is this correct?
“The answer is then; at 90o. But actually AT 90o there's around a 50:50 chance of either clicking (if set/tuned correctly).”
What prevents the two channels to both click simultaneously?
PS: 90o should be read 90 degree angle.
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 10:15 GMT
Stefan,
The problem is you're still defaulting to the old assumption that the particle pair momenta dictate output. They don't, apart from just the +/- which
IS still key, and that amplitude must be 'adequate'. The cosine value distributions come from the FIELD FERMIONS (interaction tangent point latitude).
Before we leave that; to save confusion I stated 'default' mode of...
view entire post
Stefan,
The problem is you're still defaulting to the old assumption that the particle pair momenta dictate output. They don't, apart from just the +/- which
IS still key, and that amplitude must be 'adequate'. The cosine value distributions come from the FIELD FERMIONS (interaction tangent point latitude).
Before we leave that; to save confusion I stated 'default' mode of propagation along the x axis. That's not true for elliptical polarity (see the redshift video) but is largely insignificant. For electron energies it would be more so except for the multiple interactions, so the old state ('wavefunction'') is rather beaten into submission! (in diffuse media even light has bi and trirefringence during that process, which is MORE THAN ONE POLARITY subject to how many interactions each re-emission has had. Your Para 3 then is about right.
Para4;
"The one channel is stimulated by ‘curl’, the other by ‘momentum’. Is this the right visualization? Not strictly, no. Remember EACH state is an inverse PAIR with + and -. The channels electrons are set opposite (+/-) (or electron/positron) and interactions are all again RELATIVE! So the
+ or - amplitude of each part of each 'tuple' is what's amplified. Indeed that CAN mean one channel is measuring weight of chalk and one intensity of cheese! NOT currently discerned by the maths.
Para5; Yes. But remember outcomes are
relative, so reversing the dial (+/-) then reverses the output (+/-).
Para7-8; Yes, "
Since both properties are continua, at every point of the sphere the curl/AM combinations are different from each other." and different by
Cos2 Theta (so angle) inversely (and orthogonally i.e. a 90
o angle to
each other) ..that's 'complementarity'. which is also Malus' Law (for 'Intensity' of light) from long ago!
Lastly NOTHING prevents both channels from clicking simultaneously, or BOTH channels clicking. They probably often do at around the 50:50 transition, particularly if the instrument isn't precisely tuned. Fact is we haven't known how many 'photons' are detected so it makes no difference to the abstracted statistics.
Also remember Aspect had to reject 98% of his data to make his results fit current interpretation due to an unidentified 'rotational invariance' problem blamed on his 'source'. Well I never! The new classical model predicts more like 98% of his data. (Weihs et al reported the same unknown problem from an electro-optic modulator simply stating it was "corrected for"!).
Bless 'em.
Peter
view post as summary
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 16:52 GMT
Peter,
thanks. I like to know what happens at the interaction tangent point you mentioned in your last post. How do the field fermions interact with the particles you describe? If your scenario is realistic, there must be a real interaction between the particle coming from the source with some particle of a) the polarizer and b) the photoamplifier. With which kind of particle(s) (electrons, positrons, photons etc.) does the propagating particle interact and how does this interaction takes its course until finished?
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 21:35 GMT
Stefan,
"
I like to know what happens at the interaction tangent point you mentioned in your last post" Yes, so would I! Of course the fact is it really doesn't matter insofar as demonstrating a classical mechanism is possible to reproduce the quantum predictions. THAT was the major task. We can only hypothesize physical interactions below observable scale. So lets do that!
To simplify we can say it's a transfer of momentum equivalent to the surface speed distribution (and, inversely, 'curl') and experiment at macro scale with a dynamometer. Job done. But if we want to understand actual physical process we must start from way back with Compton etc and absorption/re-emission. If we consider what momentum distribution is LIKELY to be transferred, then really the angular momentum and curl are our only option! What else is there? Of course the particle dynamics could be toroidal or any morphology, and somewhere there are some quarks floating around, but as we have a mechanism that produces precisely whats found then it seems we don't need to guess.
Do you think you now hold the process in your brain so it can all be recalled at will? If you do you've managed it a whole lot quicker than I did! Which is good.
Now all we need is a helpful mathematician!
Peter
Anonymous replied on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 05:13 GMT
Peter,
thanks. Now i understand, and i understand your understanding.
I think your are quite right that we can only hypothesize about physical interactions below observable scale. Since your framework does not predict something and especially does gives no elaborated interaction mechanisms, it is difficult to judge, especially whether it really does produce the needed statistics or not. But there is another obstacle to it. Since we don't have a clear vision what happens below the observable scale, we can't model it meaningfully with mathematics to check if it produces at least the violation of the inequalities.
I asked myself how a mathematician can precisely formalize your framework if the crucial mechanisms are unknown. I think if you further work with your framework, you eventually will figure out some suitable mechanisms and being able to formalize them mathematically and present it to the public. I wish you success with that and thank you for your extensive lines of explanation of your framework.
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 08:53 GMT
Stefan,
Thanks, Though you haven't quite understood what it is that QM is claimed to preclude. It's assumption is that there is NO POSSIBLE classical mechanism able to reproduce it's complex predictions. The precise details of such a mechanism in relation to what nature may actually do is of near zero import. Just like gravity, SR, and many things in physics, that can follow at some time in the future.
The major breakthrough is to show that some classical derivation is possible, so reproducing the (basically 5) complex parts;
1. Particle pairs with apparently indefinite 'superposed' states only determined on detection.
2. A weird 'orthogonal' relationship between finding correlations subject to detector setting angle.
3. Detected states which appear to require instant FTL causality between detectors.
4. A Cosine based 'Probability' distribution applicable to BOTH the orthogonal 'states'.
5. The
cosine2 distortion of the probability distributions or 'modulus' (Borns Law).
That job IS NOW ACHIEVED, is self apparent and it's a genuine breakthrough. There will of course ALWAYS be more unknowns, to ALL science, but don't be mistaken that all such details are somehow needed now to show a classical derivation IS possible.
There are a host of weird effects produced by the false assumptions currently underlying QM, ALL of which are removed and explained in the classical model. These are listed with more consistent definitions at the end of this (incomplete) paper;
Quasi-classical Entanglement, Superposition and Bell Inequalities. It all came from assuming the pairs had
only either 'spin up' or 'spin down' information.
Do you understand the point?
Peter
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 19:58 GMT
Peter,
thanks again. I understand your point, yes, the assumption is that there is only spin up/down information and your approach is coupled to Malus’ law and its inverse at the level of a single particle.
This circumvents Bell’s theorem i guess, but i nonetheless must disagree with what you wrote at the beginning:
“The precise details of such a mechanism in relation to what nature may actually do is of near zero import. Just like gravity, SR, and many things in physics, that can follow at some time in the future.”
For being a classical scheme, i would demand the details of such a mechanism. Because i would like to know more about fundamental reality and whether it is strictly deterministic (although maybe with some noise and untracable chaos within it) or whether there is something beyond determinism (means, beyond physical causality). Circumventing Bell’s theorem does not elucidate this question, because Bell’s assumptions may have been indeed wrong (and yours also). The only way to overcome this situation is to come up with an alternative to QM which is elaborated enough to make a crucial prediction which differs from QM and would be confirmed by experiment. This is the only way i would say one can gain more knowledge about nature in relation to our theories. I would be very surprised if such a theory that predicts something different than QM cannot be constructed in principle, since QM with all its wiredness was also constructed as a ‘circumvention’ of some problems and it works well and has predicted many phenomena.
Anyways Peter, i thank you for a thought-provoking discussion!!
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 20:02 GMT
should of course read 'weirdness'...
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 08:44 GMT
Peter,
i’m not quite through and need another answer.
I visualized the main ingredients on the unit circle. I found that there are two points on it where both the curl and the momentum are zero. This should be the case, if one visualizes the unit circle such that the north pole is up, the south pole is down and the equator is horizontally. The zero/zero locations then are at the left and right of the circle, both at the equator. At the north and south pole curl is max where momentum is zero. At the center of the unit circle (sphere) at the front and at the back (both located at the equator), curl is zero and momentum is max.
In between these relations of the both properties (curl and momentum) their respective intensities follow the phase relation of sine & cosine (as is also the case for the above presented relations).
Since these relations must have been fixed at the source (before interacting with some measurement device), i ask myself if the source does regularily send out only twin-particles with such a fixed architecture. By architecture i mean that if one particle has the north pole faced towards its propagation direction, the other particle will have its south pole faced towards its own propagation direction (and vice versa of course) and all the other relations follow due to internal particle arichtecture. Since curl and momentum for both particles are conserved, it has to be this way. What does this say about the sources properties? Isn’t this a strong hint that the source works strictly deterministic and without any randomness?
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 12:41 GMT
Stefan,
"
i would demand the details of such a mechanism. Because i would like to know more about fundamental reality and whether it is strictly deterministic (although maybe with some noise and untracable chaos within it).." Yes, so would I, and I assume
all would! Sure the model helps by narrowing the possible range of 'particle' dynamics that produce the observed...
view entire post
Stefan,
"
i would demand the details of such a mechanism. Because i would like to know more about fundamental reality and whether it is strictly deterministic (although maybe with some noise and untracable chaos within it).." Yes, so would I, and I assume
all would! Sure the model helps by narrowing the possible range of 'particle' dynamics that produce the observed outcome, but that's all anything is physics has EVER done and can ever do!
"Bell’s assumptions may have been indeed wrong (and yours also)." As a top QM statistics professor 'R' pointed out in a blog here recently Bell MADE NO assumptions! Of course where 'R' was wrong is that Bell stated clearly he used QM's assumptions, which he believed MUST be wrong somewhere. I simply show he was right, and where. The only 'assumption'
I must make an an axiom is if momentum exchanged on an interaction at different orientations is equivalent to it's distributions across the surface of a spinning sphere. It was in testing that hypothesis (as part of the ontology) that I found the ONLY classical model EVER that reproduces QM's predictions! Of course it's incomplete and may not model reality, but that last sentence remains true.
"I would be very surprised if such a theory that predicts something different than QM cannot be constructed in principle, since QM with all its weiredness was also constructed as a ‘circumvention’ of some problems and it works well and has predicted many phenomena." You misunderstand how 'QM' arose. Bohr & Co STARTED with a complex set of
findings. If any theory finds something different it would be WRONG as it doesn't correspond to reality! To paraphrase QM then; it gives a complex mathematical algorithym that works, but no physical analogy was possible so say's;
"all this weird unphysical stuff must happen to give these results".Now I've just shown there IS a physical analogy which can produce the findings!
"
I visualized the main ingredients on the unit circle. As in computing, one flaw in input and all that follows is nonsense!! There are NO 'zero' points! Nature is 3D so a circle CAN'T model it. Think
'sphere'. Now you missed a key statement; 'UP/DOWN' and 'LEFT/RIGHT' are equivalent arbitrary labels as the poles may ALSO be either. The key word is;
'ORTHOGONAL'(to the poles, i.e. at 90
o).
SOURCE: I discuss in more detail in the paper but the typical model for a splitter, i.e. Stern-Gerlach magnet will work viz. A particle inputs, possibly at any random angle and certainly with a 50:50 chance of North being left or right. The pair head off in opposite directions, one 'led by' N and the other by S, (but with some ellipticity of polarity possible due to orientation). However remember the big power player here is the FERMION FIELD! - so in the simplest case the only thing that matters is whether pos or neg states 'arrive'. And yes, +/- will tend to 50:50.
The point I made strongly in my essay is that it IS DIFFICULT to embed and remember more than 3 things at once, which you're finding, and there ARE FAR MORE than that in the ontological construction giving the solution, and some informed by recent science. That's why neither Bohr nor Einstein could find it in the 1920's so argued at Solvay in '27.
Peter
view post as summary
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 15:14 GMT
Peter,
i know that we talk about spheres. I only scribbled a unit circle first. For convenience, lets assume the north pole being up, the south being down. These are the maximum points for this ‘axis’. It follows that the equator is a horizontal line (the x-coordinate-line of the unit cirlce if you will). At the front of the equator (in the middle of it seen from the front of the unit...
view entire post
Peter,
i know that we talk about spheres. I only scribbled a unit circle first. For convenience, lets assume the north pole being up, the south being down. These are the maximum points for this ‘axis’. It follows that the equator is a horizontal line (the x-coordinate-line of the unit cirlce if you will). At the front of the equator (in the middle of it seen from the front of the unit circle) the momentum property is maximum, since at the other side of the equator it is minimum. Therefore at the front side (middle of equator), the curl is zero, since up and down it is maximum (+1, -1). What’s left are the both sides of the sphere (if we visualize the unit circle as a sphere what we want to do). So, left and right (in terms of the unit circle at 90 degree and 270 degree) both curl and momentum are zero (zero means half the way between +1 and -1).
If they wouldn’t be zero, how can you explain that for two subsequent polarizers (one for unpolarized light, the other for the result having went through polarizer number 1), orientated relative to each other at 90 degrees, no particle will go trough the second polarizer? But since your interaction mechanism is unclear, it could well be that the particle will go through (but this would be in contradiction to experimental findings). Nonetheless, at the other twin-particle with the same polarizer-settings, it then will not go through. So you need two points at the sphere, distinguished by 180 degree, for which no ‘intensity’ can interact with the field and lead to 're-emission'.
“"I visualized the main ingredients on the unit circle. As in computing, one flaw in input and all that follows is nonsense!! There are NO 'zero' points! Nature is 3D so a circle CAN'T model it. Think 'sphere'. Now you missed a key statement; 'UP/DOWN' and 'LEFT/RIGHT' are equivalent arbitrary labels as the poles may ALSO be either. The key word is; 'ORTHOGONAL'(to the poles, i.e. at 90o).”
I conclude from this that two twin-particles, produced by, say a down-conversion process, are ‘only’ complementary insofar as their complementary parts do always stand orthogonally relative to each other. Say, if the left particle has north left, the right particle has its south pole right. The latter particle then has its maximum momentum at one point of the sphere, the other particle 180 degrees away (but always on the equator, defined by the position of the poles!). If another particle(-pair) has its north pole up (from the same point of view of an ‘observer’), the other particle will have its north pole down, and again the latter then has its maxium momentum at some point on the sphere, namely at the equator, its twin 180 degrees away from that point, also on the equator. So the twin-particles can come in arbitrary spinning directions and orientations of their poles and equators from the twin-source, but always must conserve the above described relationships in relation to each other. If the equator plane is spinning up, the equator plane of the twin particle must spin down. Is this the correct understanding?
“If any theory finds something different it would be WRONG as it doesn't correspond to reality!”
I think this would be only true if we had discovered all the consequences of QM yet. How can we know that we already have? I mean, other causal mechanisms could well lead to other experimental findings. That these findings aren’t yet made has then its cause in the mathematics of QM, which does not predict or indicate such experimental findings. So nobody does look for them.
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 20:50 GMT
Stefan,
The best way to consider the sphere is that the energy level, or 'momentum', at any (latitude) orientation is the same, across the whole surface. The 'distribution' is only between what we've called AM and curl. To prove this, spin up a rubber sphere, then take a 2nd sphere (or a dynamometer) and hold it against the first. At the poles the 2nd will be made to rotate, but then at its...
view entire post
Stefan,
The best way to consider the sphere is that the energy level, or 'momentum', at any (latitude) orientation is the same, across the whole surface. The 'distribution' is only between what we've called AM and curl. To prove this, spin up a rubber sphere, then take a 2nd sphere (or a dynamometer) and hold it against the first. At the poles the 2nd will be made to rotate, but then at its equator there will be the same AM! Conversely; touch them at the equator of the first and the AM is transferred, but now look at the POLES of the 2nd and we find the same CURL amplitude as at the poles of the first! So there is NO POINT ON THE SPHERE WITH LESS MOMENTUM THAN ANY OTHER, but there are TWO
classes of momenta, distributed orthogonally.
As I said, If you try to reduce this to a (2D) circle it fails to reveal nature.
"If the equator plane is spinning up, the equator plane of the twin particle must spin down. Is this the correct understanding?" Yes. As I've written many times it's best to always remember there's no such concepts us up/down or left/right in space. Just orthogonal and opposite with 3 degrees of freedom. Anything beyond basic rotation is entirely observer dependent, even 'translation' is relative. Think on this; Who's to say Bob and Alice may not be floating upside down in relation to each other!
You're also in danger of becoming too focused on the pair. Don't forget that it's the relative relationship with the field electron that dictates output. It would then be far better to think of the relative outputs from interactions as simply either 'SAME' or 'OPPOSITE' directions.
In other words the findings and stats aren't really reporting on 'state pair' states but RELATIVE states at the interactions (that needs a little thought too!)
"..other causal mechanisms could well lead to other experimental findings. That these findings aren’t yet made has then its cause in the mathematics of QM, which does not predict or indicate such experimental findings. So nobody does look for them." That is a good point. So if you can think of any do test them or let me know! There ARE some, but purely seen as alternative solutions to well established interpretations, i.e. 'backwards causality'!. The problem is, because Diracs maths is essentially correct, any such finding is likely to be hailed as a "new implication of QM" not any proof that embedded assumptions are wrong. That's how physics seems to work; If there's disagreement on any theory, some unpredicted finding comes along and BOTH sides interpret it as a proof!
In this case however the very fact that some classical mechanism IS possible is the revelation. Certainly if it had been found at any time in the FIRST 50 years, from 1920 to Bell's era, it would have been recognized immediately and the nonsense all dropped. But now after ANOTHER 50 years the weirdness may be too familiar and deeply embedded to be overturned.
That's one reason my essay identifies the need for humans to self evolve thinking methodology to allow understanding of nature to advance.
Peter
view post as summary
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 02:59 GMT
Peter,
„In other words the findings and stats aren't really reporting on 'state pair' states but RELATIVE states at the interactions (that needs a little thought too!)”
How can the sampling of many twin-pairs then reproduce the Bell-curve? Surely, one can analyze the measurements in terms of independent interactions at every measurement station and this of course must be done,...
view entire post
Peter,
„In other words the findings and stats aren't really reporting on 'state pair' states but RELATIVE states at the interactions (that needs a little thought too!)”
How can the sampling of many twin-pairs then reproduce the Bell-curve? Surely, one can analyze the measurements in terms of independent interactions at every measurement station and this of course must be done, since the two stations do independently choose with what angles they operate in each trial (either by the will of the experimenter or automatized).
But all this has to result in the Bell-curve at the end and the latter is a description of correlations of twin-pairs, not of some cosine-like distributions of some momenta at a single particle. If the twin-pairs are not send out from the same sample source in always the same spatial orientations (except for north and south interchangeable and therefore also for up and down), i would conclude that the Bell-curve cannot come into existence with your approach. If only spatial orientation is rendered at every measurement interaction, but no intensity of momenta, then the final photoamplifiers need no treshholds. If it is only the relative angle of the photoamplifiers field with the incoming particle which decides what channel does click and your statement ‘NO POINT ON THE SPHERE WITH LESS MOMENTUM THAN ANY OTHER’ should be true, then on the basis of what criteria can the photoamplifier then discriminate what channel should click and at the same time act according to QM probabilities which change with angle and are correlations that produce a continuous pattern, namely the Bell-curve. This can’t be done with only a digital description of two classes of momenta that have at no point on the sphere less momentum than any other.
I re-read your comment at 21.Mai 10:56
“The 'requantize' the energy by absorption and re-emission, and their angle DICTATES the new Cosine values of curl and AM.”
I think i understood this; the relative angle between incoming particle and the field of the measurement device.
The question for me is now whether the twin-particles produced by the source are produced with some cosine values of curl and AM (surely then due to the orthogonally- and opposite-rules you mentioned) or not. The second question is what triggers both of the final photoamplifiers to produce the Bell-curve over time if the sine- and cosine patterns are not existent on a single particle. Remember, perfect correlation can be explained classically, but there are cases where these perfect correlations (or anti-correlations) resolve more and more into a 50:50 chance. This behaviour must be reproduced by your scheme and for that it is necessary that the source’s twin-particles that are suitable to be sampled come always with the same initial orientations (except for the exchange of north/south and up/down). By ‘same initial’ orientations i do not only mean that the two particles must have ‘opposite’ initial orientations, but their common spin-axis’ for their two momenta must always be of the same orientation (relative to an observer with a fixed point of perspective towards the source) for every sample pair.
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 19:09 GMT
Stefan,
Hmm. you keep forgetting key bits so conclude wrongly. I can't blame you, I struggled for ages! But the video does derive this, or also see the end notes of my previous essay experiment using colours. Remember the x axis scale of the Bell curves is detector field angle, and there are TWO curves offset by 90o, so when one peaks & troughs the other is crossing zero (mid height), and...
view entire post
Stefan,
Hmm. you keep forgetting key bits so conclude wrongly. I can't blame you, I struggled for ages! But the video does derive this, or also see the end notes of my previous essay experiment using colours. Remember the x axis scale of the Bell curves is detector field angle, and there are TWO curves offset by 90o, so when one peaks & troughs the other is crossing zero (mid height), and vice versa. Now consider the finding not as 'spin up/down' but just as 'same/different' to the detector electron direction.
We'll say Bob and Alice can rotate their dials at will. When the SAME angle they get opposite results, when at OPPOSITE angles they get the SAME results. Now when they're at 90o relative to EACH OTHER (anywhere around the dial) the correlated results have maximum uncertainty. This is because; if the rate of clicks between Bobs two photomultiplier channels is say 60:40, then Alice's will be the inverse so CORRELATION ( a 'relative' function) will be at its poorest (50:50). Of course NEAR 90o it'll still be poorish, whereas near the SAME or OPPOSITE settings it'll be pretty certain. That reproduces the Cos curves of the interactions but this time SQUARED due to the value amplifications of the photomultiplier cascades.
In the colour experiment it was subjective. When asked how close red was to green it was NOT AT ALL (opposite) but then comparing red & orange, green & lime or buff & sand, in was CLOSE. So the distribution of 'sameness' was non linear. But now asked if yellow is closest to red or to green? (orthogonal switchover point ) Duh! the result was around 50:50.
That statistical non-linearity is tricky to get your head round at first then keep in there! But don't assume the correlations actually mean what many assume them to mean. The distribution is NOT the original particle momentum distribution itself but that simply repeats itself. The simple subjective essay experiment with a bunch of students gave a surprisingly good reproduction of the Bell curves from the correlations. (of course many just suggest, oh 'that's just proved QM'. Doh!)
Peter
view post as summary
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 20:56 GMT
Peter,
thanks again for your reply.
For not confusing each other, i have to ask again to what devices you refer in your latest post when you speak of Alice and Bob.
Are the ‘dials’ you spoke of the well known birefringent crystal polarization analyzers, or are they polarisation filters (the latter have no two output channels, no ordinary and extraordinary rays)? I asked this some post above and you answered you refer to polarisation filters. Do you still refer to polarisation filters? You also answered you refer to electrons when mentioning Alice and Bob and the term ‘spheres’. I only need to know what you refer to in your latest post, to understand what you are talking about.
In my scenario i use polarisation filters and the particles i refer to are photons. Do you refer to photons or to electrons? You mentioned the fermion field, but for me it remains unclear – or to say better, i got a little confused now – what your source does emitt for Alice and Bob, electrons (fermions) or photons (Bosons)? If you refer to electrons, do Alice and Bob experiment in your latest post with electrons and birefringent crystal polarization analyzers or with electrons and polarisation filters?
Could you please send me a reference to what experiment you refer when mentioning Alice and Bob? I have to be clear about what you have in mind and about what experiment you are talking when trying to understand what you want to show me. Thanks!
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 09:35 GMT
Stefan,
For consistency stay with polariser/modulators & twin channel photomultipliers (PM's). The important fermions are those of the rotatable polariser FIELD. Remember the main differences between travelling pair fermions and 'photons' is the former take more field interactions to be 'modulated'.
My last post was late Sunday so not as clear as it should have been! But it also...
view entire post
Stefan,
For consistency stay with polariser/modulators & twin channel photomultipliers (PM's). The important fermions are those of the rotatable polariser FIELD. Remember the main differences between travelling pair fermions and 'photons' is the former take more field interactions to be 'modulated'.
My last post was late Sunday so not as clear as it should have been! But it also seems you didn't check back to the Bob & Alice essay I directed you to. There are clear diagrams and a findings chart (end note). Human brains store visuals easier than numbers so study the figs and sketches.
Do Bob & Alice have a future?What I forgot was I also devised a way for YOU to experiment in 2D. Draw a circle and perimeter cosine number distributions from +1 to -1 between poles, then also in a different colour +1 to -1 orthogonally (so starting at 90
o = the equator).
Now draw a smaller circle with radians at say 5
o intervals from zero round 360
o (so 180 is opposite)
o, then cut it out and pin it concentrically on top of the first.
Now wherever 0 happens to be you can choose any angle on the top disc as the RELATIVE angle between Bob and Alice's detector dials. Now for ANY position going in 5
o increments plot (z axis) each colour Cos value onto a graph.
The outcome relationship from Bob & Alice's RELATIVE settings will then become clear and self apparent. All we then need to do is add the PM cascade amplification effect (as in QCD), so
square the Cos values (which means they now represent the PM 'click' rates) and do the plot again.
Now you've fully reproduced the experimental findings and 'predictions' of QM with a Classical mechanism. Something still considered impossible! What's more you've shown that so called 'superposition' and 'entanglement' effects purely emerge from the orthogonal TWIN momenta and maintained axial relationship between the pairs, NOT anything weird & spooky!
However DOING this is relatively easy compared to the near insurmountable task of getting doctrinal mainstream science to understand, accept and adopt it! But maybe that doesn't matter as (look around you!) we're probably not yet ready for a quantum leap in understanding.
Let me know if you run into problems with the experiments and I'll help.
Peter
view post as summary
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 18:12 GMT
Peter,
i read your essay ‚’Do Bob and Alice have a future?’.
It seems that both Alice and Bob experiment with electrons and use as ‘analysers’ Stern-Gerlach magnets. Bob did in fact use polarisers to experiment with electrons and seemingly also used photons with the Stern-Gerlach magnets.
You wrote
“So something was wrong. Whatever he did, half the spin...
view entire post
Peter,
i read your essay ‚’Do Bob and Alice have a future?’.
It seems that both Alice and Bob experiment with electrons and use as ‘analysers’ Stern-Gerlach magnets. Bob did in fact use polarisers to experiment with electrons and seemingly also used photons with the Stern-Gerlach magnets.
You wrote
“So something was wrong. Whatever he did, half the spin results were identical with the same settings, the other half with opposite settings!“
the figure 5 in that essay shows that there are 4 quadrants, 2 on the left, 2 on the right. The ones at the left are symmetrical to the ones at the right. For a ‘Bell believer’ this mirrors the classical and non-classical correlations. For a ‘Bell denier’ this mirrors that every twin pair comes into the experimental setup with a fixed symmetry and a common propagation axis.
But now assume that we first measure the vertical ‘spin-component’ of the spin half particles. For all particles that have spin ‘up’, we now measure the horizontal ‘spin-component’. Since we now measure an orthogonal variable, the results should arise in the well-known 50:50 manner at both sides. After that, we now measure the particles again orthogonally to the previous measurement. Again there should only arise values in the well-known 50:50 manner.
In other words, whatever we do after the first measurement (vertical component), ‘half the spin results were identical with the same settings, the other half with opposite settings!” for every further added measurement station (but now not as the Bell-curve, but linear).
The latter paragraph is not surprising in light of your approach, since you defined an increasing randomness towards the relative angle of 90 degree. What is surprising to me is that doing an analog experiment, not with electrons, but with photons, we can erase the very first measurement (vertical ‘spin-component’) by superposing the up- and down particles of the vertical measurement after the subsequent horizontal measurement and therefore forcing the twin pair to give always the SAME answers. Interrupting the superposition by blocking one path to its creation, and the 50:50 situation is restored again, independent of what is happening with the other particle. So what one does in one path (locally), does impact what happens in the other path.
You know these experiments. Interference on both sides of an entangled system can locally (on one side) be created or destroyed and subsequently this has an impact on the twin particles’ ‘behaviour’ (it does contribute to interference or not, dependend on what happens on the other side). This cannot be explained by subsets or ensembles, it is a very real correlation of action-at-a-distance, since for interference, the particle has to avoid certain regions more than for non-interference (so the probabilities change for that twin-particle due to what an experimenter does on the other side with the other particles).
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 20:35 GMT
Stefan,
I confess I'll have to read my own essay again to understand your commentary! Things have also evolved of course. One BIG No No in your description relates for instance to;
" we first measure the vertical ‘spin-component’ of the spin half particles. For all particles that have spin ‘up’, we now measure the horizontal ‘spin-component’." We famously can't do...
view entire post
Stefan,
I confess I'll have to read my own essay again to understand your commentary! Things have also evolved of course. One BIG No No in your description relates for instance to;
" we first measure the vertical ‘spin-component’ of the spin half particles. For all particles that have spin ‘up’, we now measure the horizontal ‘spin-component’." We famously can't do so, indeed it's a philosophical problem that Bell goes into that we can't 'check on' the state of a particle 'on the way' to compare it's state on arrival. Indeed even individual 'time resolved' particle comparisons have been tricky as the theory was only ever based on 'streams'. As I wrote, the analysis isn't really correlating what it's assumed it is, indeed the whole concept of applying mass statistics to individual occurrences is highly dubious anyway.
It would be very helpful to read Prof William McHarris's essay which I've just read, which agrees and quite brilliantly explains the background, set ups, limitations and issues in QM.
I also don't know what you mean by 'Bell deniers'. I don't know any exist! His theorem is undeniable. I certainly agree it.
Finally I can't see what you refer to in your last paragraph as it's incorrect, unless you're referring to so called 'delayed choice' type interferometer experiments which use the same flawed starting assumptions so end up with the same 'spooky' inferences. There is NO case where 'action at a distance' is required to explain the findings.
I can explain the quantum eraser etc but it takes some space. A key is, in the definitive experimental set-ups count how many mirrors (so state reversals and delays) there are on each side of the system! If your brain is locked in to the Classic QM mechanism (which I can see it mostly isn't yet) the solution may fall out.
The 'concentric circle' experiment I described above should let you prove it conclusively to yourself. But do read the McHarris paper first.
Best
Peter
view post as summary
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 17:42 GMT
Peter,
i think the experiment i spoke of was first meant as a thought experiment, figured out by Zeilinger and Mike Horne in 1985 and then presented at a conference in 1987, as far as i remember. It indeed was not a quantum eraser experiment, since i confused it with another experiment. So here it is:
Take a source that produces twin-particles which propagate in opposite directions....
view entire post
Peter,
i think the experiment i spoke of was first meant as a thought experiment, figured out by Zeilinger and Mike Horne in 1985 and then presented at a conference in 1987, as far as i remember. It indeed was not a quantum eraser experiment, since i confused it with another experiment. So here it is:
Take a source that produces twin-particles which propagate in opposite directions. At each direction from the source, place a double-slit barrrier. The source and the distances between two slits on a barrier is such that at the measurement screen behind each double-slit, there does not appear an interference pattern, but a homogenous gray.
Say, the twin-particle propagating to the left is called A, the other, propagating to the right, is called B.
Scanning the detection plane (with a detector B) of particle B (from left to right or vice versa) gives a random pattern of impacts which lead to the homogenous gray.
But repeat the experiment with the difference that now we also install a detector (photomultiplier or such) in the detection plane for particle A at a specific place. Now repeat the experiment by measuring the relative frequencies of impacts at the measurement plane B (while detector A is always at the same location) by again moving it (from right to left or vice versa). Now you get non-random relative frequencies of the impacts, they form an interference pattern.
For the relevant coincidence counts, detectors A and B together produce an intererence pattern in the plane of particle B. One can also once more change the relative frequencies of impacts at the detection plane of particle B by slightly shifting detector A. One can do this until the maxima and minima at side B for the placement of detector A in the first run and in the second run (the latter the one with the slightly shifted detector position) build up together a totally washed out ‘interference pattern’.
The fact that a detector is used at side A alters the relative frequencies of impacts on side B, irrespectively of how large the distances between the two detector planes are. Since nothing has changed at the source and at side B, one is forced to correlate the initial change of patterns with the use of detector A. But how can the use of detector A influence what detector B measures…
My term ‘Bell deniers’ is confusing. I should have written entanglement deniers, since you accept Bell’s theorem, but do not think that spooky-action-at-a-distance is reality, but only a misunderstanding. In a certain sense i do so, because i do not think that there is really an action at a distance in space and time. But i rationally think that there is a reason for the above described behaviour, although maybe not tracable with our usual notion of causality.
The above experiment was conducted and confirmed. In this experiment one can neglect the particles which did not hit the detectors or did not hit the double slits.
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 20:53 GMT
Stefan,
I know most of Zeilingers experiments but I've never seen that one. Can you provide a link? The starting assumption of a completely 'homogenous gray' from ANY configuration of two slits seems contrary to actual findings, and I struggle to believe that it was confirmed exactly as as conceived/described so need to look closely. Remember Zeilinger, though a top authority, was earlier part of the Weihs experimental team who, like Aspect, rather blithely just subtracted the inconsistent 'rotational variance' from their (electro-optic) modulator output data! (at least they quite properly admitted doing so in the paper).
I've studied many such experiments and ALL I've found are classically resolvable. (Mind you there IS another far more local and interesting similar effect in tomography often assigned to the same 'entanglement' interpretation). I don't 'deny' entanglement by the way, the particle pair certainly do conserve the initial relationship, I just identify a different interpretation not requiring spookyness but removing the fundamental incompatibility with relativity.
One of his latest findings at Vienna is well confirmed and is counter to most assumptions and rational analysis with most theory; Light having interacted with a polarizer has NO MEMORY of it's previous state (see his website). You'll recognise that as precisely what I derived from either 'photon'/electron or electron/fermion field interactions.
Have you done the concentric circle experiment yet? It's an eye opener and quite conclusive. But don't forget to use the +/- values and 180o
opposite Cos value reading of the disc for one (either A or B) detector.
Do also read Bill McHarris's important essay.
Peter
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 04:46 GMT
Peter,
the experiment is described in Zeilingers book ‚Einsteins Schleier’; i don’t know if there is an english version available on the market. I will google the paper and send you the link if i find that paper.
The starting ‘assumption’ of the homogenous gray is due to heisenbergs uncertainty. If you could use a twin-source to produce (at the left side, say) an interference pattern and conclude with the particle on the right side which slit the particle on the left took, you had circumvented the path/interference complementarity. Only a source of a certain size does produce the homogenous gray. Think of it here classically. The source must be approximately in size of the distance between two slits. This is analogous to a very small source which produces the interference pattern, but if slightly moved a little bit, the interference pattern on the screen will also move so that the moved and the unmoved patterns are inverse and result in the homogenous gray.
But by using a very small source, the twin-particles do not anymore propagate in exactly the opposite directions (but more or less randomly), what means that one cannot anymore conclude from the right side which slit the particle on the left side took. For a bigger source this is the case and therefore even by using a double-slit the result will be the homogenous gray. Remember, we use here a twin-source, not a stream (like for example coherent laser light) of photons onto the double-slit.
Only if you also install a double-slit for the idler and measure the impacts in the way i described before, you get the relative frequencies i spoke of, which are the signature of interference. I know, this is all spooky in light of your own approach. Could you send me the link to the Weihs paper where the group admitted to have substracted that ‘rotational variance’ data?
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 18:46 GMT
Peter,
here are three papers, addressing the experiment.
The first was presented at the conference 1985:
http://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/1985-03.pd
f
Another paper from 1999, so more in a popular scientific style, is this (page 232):
https://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/Aspelm_Ha
ppy_centenary_photon.pdf
Another more technical paper is this (page 289):
http://qudev.ethz.ch/content/courses/phys4/studentspres
entations/epr/zeilinger.pdf
A doctoral thesis with another realization of the scheme can be found here (also only in german language):
https://people.isy.liu.se/jalar/kurser/QF/assignme
nts/Dopfer1998.pdf
Note that it even does not need a second double-slit to produce interference at both detectors, denpending on what happens with the other detector.
Hope that helps.
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 11:34 GMT
Stefan,
Thanks. Yes I recall these now (from long ago). They
are 'quantum eraser' type set ups as I suggested. The findings of ALL these are fully as predicted by Classic QM, simply identifying wrong interpretation and analysis resulting in the flawed conclusions you described. No 'backward causality' or 'non-local communication' is then needed.
To simplify, just run...
view entire post
Stefan,
Thanks. Yes I recall these now (from long ago). They
are 'quantum eraser' type set ups as I suggested. The findings of ALL these are fully as predicted by Classic QM, simply identifying wrong interpretation and analysis resulting in the flawed conclusions you described. No 'backward causality' or 'non-local communication' is then needed.
To simplify, just run through each experiment carefully and armed with the classical mechanism (rather than using confused statements like;
"..projects the state of photon 2 into a momentum eigenstate"!). So here it is; BOTH 'photons' have BOTH momenta and states, and parts go BOTH (secondary) 'paths' (I can explain that more). If one is rotated, reversed or delayed, then when they're 'recombined' (on a board
OR statistically!) there will be CONSTRUCTIVE INTERFERENCE so an interference pattern. Don't forget that just one extra reflection can do this by leaves a state INVERTED.
Now look at say the
PR/Nature 2005 review article. Fig 4. As the filter (NDF) is gradually introduced it rotates the state so only DESTRUCTIVE interference results. Though things have moved on in 12yrs there were some interesting comments in the links, i.e;
"..many phenomena thought to be due to the quantum nature of light can actually be explained by using a classical electromagnetic field and by assuming that only the processes of absorption and emission are quantized." But then poor interpretation of other findings confounds! The links were then very interesting, thanks.
Also in there, after designating Bosons unexplained 'spin 1';
"Fermions would behave differently because their quantum state is antisymmetric, as reflected by a negative sign in their initial state. In this case the two amplitudes introduced above interfere constructively and the two particles are always found in separate outputs. Interestingly, this ‘fermionic’ behaviour can also be observed for two photons if the photons are prepared in an antisymmetric state with respect to their spin." (another way of putting what I explained, that they CAN for most purposes be considered in the same way).
Once you've read Bill McHarris's essay watch the IBM Q Charlie Bennett video (referred by Robert Groess below) for the latest analysis, far better than the confused stuff in these papers and even more consistent with ClassicQM, but still hitting QM's 'brick wall' and admitting little progress with Quantum Computers.
best
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 17:18 GMT
Peter,
Let’s recapitulate.
You know the experiment i mentioned in my previous post.
With your scheme, you can’t explain it (if you at all understood the results) and everybody who understood it knows that you can’t. Many words do not help here.
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 11:45 GMT
Stefan,
It seems you may have just slipped back into to the usual 'mode 1' thinking of the first part of my essay rather than rationalise what I wrote. That's not surprising. It IS tricky to get your mind round it and hold it there, so lets take it in stages; (It's worth doing, unless you can't accept there may be ANY alternative to 'backward causality'!)
Let's simplify to one state...
view entire post
Stefan,
It seems you may have just slipped back into to the usual 'mode 1' thinking of the first part of my essay rather than rationalise what I wrote. That's not surprising. It IS tricky to get your mind round it and hold it there, so lets take it in stages; (It's worth doing, unless you can't accept there may be ANY alternative to 'backward causality'!)
Let's simplify to one state and start with mirrors, parts of the system not properly addressed and accounted for in any of the experimental analysis! I'm not sure if you know this or not (if not just check) but reflection INVERTS the photon state (equivalent to electron spin flip). So for the same path length; if two parts from a splitter are brought back together and one has had
one more reflection, there WILL be destructive interference. This is what we find. All OK so far?
Now if the pair have the SAME number of reflections and the same path length (remember the delays from transmissions through glass, giving a slight 'phase slip, have to be adjusted for) then the OPPOSITE will found! You should see the fully consistent logic in that, Yes?
Now apply that to the experimental set ups and you'll see that assuming it's a 'which path' question is a misunderstanding leading to the confusion so only an illogical analysis is possible.
So called 'Parametric down-conversion' (a fancy name distracting from the fact it 'splits' photons, which is still assumed by most as impossible) is not a 'unique' case but de-rigeur in Huygens construction (recall my redshift video). That means some state and energy is ALWAYS taking both 'paths'. If you've now looked at Harris's (IBM Q cutting edge) video you'll see the confirmation that some of these assumptions from even 15 years ago are false. (and please, there's no need for insulting suggestions I 'don't understand' experiments I've studied dozens of over decades, and even done some.)
Now just take the Classical Hypothesis and carefully 'run through' each experiment step by step. You'll find IT DOES PRECISELY PREDICT ALL the findings! (including those 'once removed' by the statistical analysis). If there's anything specific you get stuck on or think it can't resolve, just ask!
A few others are now getting their heads round the classical derivation, which really is quite an intellectual test, including to overcome the cognitive dissonance you're struggling with (see below, and Bill McHarris essay) so I hope you can stay focused and get back the grasp of it you seemed to have earlier.
Best
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 12:22 GMT
Peter,
i didn’t wanted to insult you, but you simply refer to another experiment, not the one i mentioned. In the experiment i am refering to, i am interested in what your ‘interpretation’ thereof is. In this experiment there are no mirrors involved!
It would be nice if you would explain the experiment with the heisenberg-detector and the lense on page 232 of the paper you linked in your previous post. Since you haven’t done this, but refered to another experiment, i concluded that you haven’t understood it. It is now up to you to show whether you understood it by not skipping the crucial details of the experiment or switching to another experiment. But if your scheme meets reality, there should be no need for either.
Just let me know how your scheme interprets this experiment, that’s all i asked for.
Thanks in advance!
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 20:04 GMT
Stefan,
OK, that one's
real simple. Photon 1 has "no memory" (Zeilinger) of past state once past the lens, so it's arbitrary. 'Photon 2', requantized at both edges of each slit, obeys Huygens construction (as in present photonics). Now consider the so called 'scanning slit' as if it were backboard. It's
position and/or distance from the 2 slits
dictates the state interacting at that plane (and slit). If D2 were now ANOTHER backboard the pattern can be whatever you want (full or zero etc) entirely controlled by the position of the single slit plane.
Of course then sending that data off to a 'correlator' to compare with the D1 data will produce exactly the same 'apparent fluctuations', changing with the single slit position (remember me sliding the two Cos waves past each other in the video?)
All the assumptions about 'which path' information etc, leading to all the illogical nonsense, were simply wrong! They only ever were 'assumption' in the first place, assigning too much reality to 'billiard ball' photons. The IBM Q video absolutely confirms the classical assumptions, if not yet followed through to unravel the classical sequence.
Sorry about the confusion. You hadn't identified which Fig, and I'd assumed it was the more bizarre & complex Fig 4 (it took a few more years before that solution screamed at me!) Most are in various webarchived papers somewhere, including the Aspect and Weighs/Zeilinger re-analyses. Of course all far too scary for leading journal editors/reviewers to let by without the momentum of at least 3 nobelists!
All followed ok?
Best
Peter
Stefan Weckbach replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 10:14 GMT
Peter,
thanks for your reply.
I am not sure i followed all, cause the experiment has different outcomes for different places of the detectors. I do not know for sure to what places for the detectors your refer in your explanation and ask therefore.
I think i followed your picture of photon 2, requantized at both edges of each slit. What would one see, following your interpretation, if one would install a photo plate instead of Detector 2 in its plane? What picture would arise after many of the photons 2 did impinge the photo plate? I think the answer must be an incoherent superposition of the two slits, or in classical terms, a superposition of the light rays of many small sources, coming through the slits in different angles.
So, there is no interference pattern at the photo plate after sufficiently many runs here. Nonetheless i would like to know what a photon is in your approach. I considered it as a sphere, a particle, spinning in some special way around some axis due to your previous explanations. Following the latter, it gets absorbed at the double slit and re-emitted at both edges of each slit. So we have two particles, re-emitted at the double-slit, propagating towards the single slit. Since you say that the single slit plane entirely controls the pattern on the photo plate, i would like to know what happens at this single slit with the particles which are re-emitted at the double-slit.
Since in the original experiment (outlined by Dopfer) there is no single slit, but a lens (in the plane where you formerly assumed the single-slit to be). According to you, whatever passes this lense, has no memory of its past state. So what arrives at the photo plate at exactly which point is arbitrary, only the whole ensemble of 'photons 2' build up the homogenous gray.
Are these considerations of your view of the experiment correct? If not, please correct me for further discussion!
Thanks in advance!
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 18:35 GMT
Stefan,
"
What picture would arise after many of the photons 2 did impinge the photo plate?There will be an interference pattern, but varying with the plates position. To understand how and why you must understand Huygens construction in 3D. It's in active use in leading edge specialist physics and easy to find.
The 'photon' is a requantization at each interaction, but spreads from there. Only a peculiar morphology such as a Bessel beam (self focussing) or (less so) a laser can keep it focussed. Otherwise it spreads (ultimately forming a Shrodinger sphere surface which is almost a plane wave).
At the single slit it all starts over from the slit edges, (the position of high 'surface charge' electron density) going to a new (slightly different) pattern of 'self interference' if we had a new photoplate instead of D2, and subject to the position of that plate.
You can easily think of the correlations as Einsteins 'wave packets' with phase shifts. Only a precise lambda/2 shift would give full destructive interference. All other combinations give different 're-combination' patterns. Note there is no 'standard' fringe pattern specification! and also that say 2 and a half phase slips will give a similar pattern to just half a shift!
Peter
Stefan Weckbach replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 02:51 GMT
Peter,
i wrote
„I am not sure i followed all, cause the experiment has different outcomes for different places of the detectors. I do not know for sure to what places for the detectors your refer in your explanation and ask therefore.”
You answered
“There will be an interference pattern, but varying with the plates position.”
I cannot take you serious anymore cause you do not reply to crucial questions, but play a kind of 20-questions game. Therefore it makes no sense to me to further discuss with you.
“The 'photon' is a requantization at each interaction, but spreads from there. Only a peculiar morphology such as a Bessel beam (self focussing) or (less so) a laser can keep it focussed. Otherwise it spreads (ultimately forming a Shrodinger sphere surface which is almost a plane wave).”
I think a photon is whatever you want it to be in a certain situation. Reminds me of 'Barbapapa'!
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 09:01 GMT
Stefan,
You asked;
" I do not know for sure to what places for the detectors your refer in your explanation" I REPLIED; "...varying with the plates position. To understand how and why you must understand Huygens construction in 3D. It's in active use in leading edge specialist physics and easy to find."
YOU RESPONDED; "you do not reply to crucial questions, but play a kind of 20-questions game". The proper response would have been to study Huygens Construction (google it, or check back to the redshift video I gave you the link for). It's well developed in optical science but the pattern variation with density distribution of emission intersections at different ranges is far to complex to explain properly in a blog post!
You seem to want it easy Stefan. Research takes time. I can point where to look but I can't do it all for you! All I CAN tell you (in advance of you checking and understanding how) is the findings and implications, which I've done.
I've spent much time answering your questions but you seem entirely unappreciative and unwilling to follow the research trail as needed. That's a shame, but I'm not surprised or upset as it is complex and not an abnormal response in mans' current condition.
Nonetheless I remain happy to answer any questions I can, and confirm that all results found conform consistently to the predictions of the classical interaction mechanism.
Very best
Peter
Stefan Weckbach replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 16:52 GMT
Peter,
since there is no interference pattern if you take a photo plate instead of D2, you are simply wrong. Interference only shows up as two-particle interference, means in the case of coincidence measurements. These interferences cannot be viewed as just correlated by an observer via the proper subsets of some measured (or unmeasured) data.
The two-particle interference is a...
view entire post
Peter,
since there is no interference pattern if you take a photo plate instead of D2, you are simply wrong. Interference only shows up as two-particle interference, means in the case of coincidence measurements. These interferences cannot be viewed as just correlated by an observer via the proper subsets of some measured (or unmeasured) data.
The two-particle interference is a result of the correlation of particle 1 impinging on D1 with particle 2 impinging only on certain areas of the detector plane D2.
The detector plane was in the case of no interference an area where many particles impinged, is in the case of two-particle interference and area where almost no particles impinge. All measurement devices are at the same positions in both cases. Except D2 is scanning the x-axis for the interference pattern instead of the photo plate scanning this axis all at once.
You can’t explain this, even if you refer to D2 as only scanning a subset of what the photo plate does scan. Because if you would, you would contradict what you wrote so far. At D2, the photons must somewhat know that they only belong to interference pattern x, but not to its inverse. They can’t know with your mechanism, and you stated that the lenses let them take arbitrary states.
Moreover, you had 10 pages to explain it all in your essay. Instead you wisely switched in your current essay to explain that the reasons why your approach is not capable of meeting reality is due to the readers mind/brain/evolutionary deficits.
“You seem to want it easy Stefan. Research takes time. I can point where to look but I can't do it all for you! All I CAN tell you (in advance of you checking and understanding how) is the findings and implications, which I've done.
I've spent much time answering your questions but you seem entirely unappreciative and unwilling to follow the research trail as needed. That's a shame, but I'm not surprised or upset as it is complex and not an abnormal response in mans' current condition.”
You confirmed me. I was not the one who wrote
“OK, that one's real simple.” This was you.
You can easily tell your findings and implications, as every other scientist also can. 10 essay pages should be enough to outline all the ingredients and link them physically to each other. You didn’t and you didn’t also in your previous essays. I showed more willingness than every other participant to understand what you wrote. Regularily refering to what others wrote does not help you. You must give the precise linkages between what you assume to be fomerly overseen physical interactions. You can’t blame others to having overseen them, until you lay down the full picture, means, show that *you* at least see it clear. But you don’t, you only repeatedly claim it. That’s, if at all, is the real shame. Look what i have asked in the above posts and how you camouflaged your answers to precise questions.
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 20:26 GMT
Stefan,
"there is no interference pattern if you take a photo plate instead of D2" Maybe I don't understand what you're writing, or maybe you misread what I wrote, but I assure you the above isn't correct for the cases I describe. I've long studied optics and photonics and done the experiments myself. To be clear;
We find
'self interference' from single photons and a...
view entire post
Stefan,
"there is no interference pattern if you take a photo plate instead of D2" Maybe I don't understand what you're writing, or maybe you misread what I wrote, but I assure you the above isn't correct for the cases I describe. I've long studied optics and photonics and done the experiments myself. To be clear;
We find
'self interference' from single photons and a double slit, and ALSO an interference pattern build up (not 'gray scale') on a photo plate from photons passing through a SINGLE slit. All that is quite well established so if I'm right in understanding you're claiming it's wrong, then you're mistaken or confused! I can pass you numerous links on i it. i.e. (at random)
SINGLE SLIT DIFFRACTION PATTERN. When so called statistical 'correlation' is done (normally a histogram) against the D1 data we can, as I explained, get a whole RANGE of findings subject to how the diffraction pattern data is 'superposed' on the histogram. Remember this is NOT the 'which path' information current doctrine assumes it is!
There are then a number of ways to 'slide' the superposed wave patterns across each other to get constructive or destructive interference (build or cancel the pattern). One is by
changing the distance between the slit plane and D2. That's because the photon of energy is REQUANTIZED' at the slit plane, and the (Huygens construction) energy density (just simplify it to a wave works fine) changes with range.
It really
was very simple Stefan. It seems to be your cognitive dissonance that struggles to allow anything different past. That, as the first half of my essay was dedicated to explaining, is the more important issue in allowing advancement of understanding. The essay topic was about the mind NOT just about QM!
Now of course there a lot more subtleties, which would take a whole
book to explore, but if you still disagree with any of the above please identify precisely what and I'll post some links. If I've misundersood what you wrote, again please identify precisely where. I did find your last post difficult to unravel.
Peter
PS; Please DO read Bill McHarris's essay and watch the IBM Q video which it seems clear you haven't yet, like a student who clearly didn't do his homework! I think they may be important 'mind openers' for anyone with older doctrine embedded.
view post as summary
Stefan Weckbach replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 03:06 GMT
Peter,
„Maybe I don't understand what you're writing, or maybe you misread what I wrote, but I assure you the above isn't correct for the cases I describe. I've long studied optics and photonics and done the experiments myself. To be clear;“
You still not yet communicated what ‚cases you describe’. Wouldn’t it be helpful having done that?
Zeilinger surely has also long studied optics and photonics and done experiments. In the paper i gave you (http://qudev.ethz.ch/content/courses/phys4/studentspresenta
tions/epr/zeilinger.pdf) he states
“We note that the distribution of photons behind the double slit without registration of the other photon is just an incoherent sum of probabilities having passed through either slit and, as shown in the experiment, no interference pattern arises if one does not look at the other photon.“
Your link to the single slit diffraction pattern is irrelevant here.
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 10:08 GMT
Stefan,
The 'cases' I identified were those in the two experimental diagrams in your link as discussed, then I further clarified; "consider the so called 'scanning slit' as if it were backboard. It's position and/or distance from the 2 slits dictates the state interacting at that plane (and slit). If D2 were now ANOTHER backboard the pattern can be whatever you want (full or zero etc)...
view entire post
Stefan,
The 'cases' I identified were those in the two experimental diagrams in your link as discussed, then I further clarified;
"consider the so called 'scanning slit' as if it were backboard. It's position and/or distance from the 2 slits dictates the state interacting at that plane (and slit). If D2 were now ANOTHER backboard the pattern can be whatever you want (full or zero etc) entirely controlled by the position of the single slit plane. though I did mean controlled by the
longitudinal position (so 'distance') as clarified afterwards.
You then asked what would happen if we
"install a photo plate instead of Detector 2" Note that I referred to BOTH planes ('scanning slit' and D2) then you specified just D2, for a photographic plate. I answered clearly that we'd find an interference pattern, (also pointing out the pattern varies with distance).
Now you cite Zeilinger (whose confirmation bias in the Weihs 'rotational invariance' adjustment can be forgiven but none the less happens and
is critical!) who refers to the
"distribution of photons behind the double slit", note
NOT the distribution behind the SINGLE slit (so not at D2)!! He's also discussing the statistical 'correlation probabilities'
NOT any pattern on a photoplate in path 2!
So you interpreted wrongly, so compared chalk with cheese (blaming me for the error!) Admittedly Zeilingers poor description misled you so the error was easily made and indeed common. I agree he may have been perfectly correct for the case HE was considering, the statistical correlation (so one order 'removed') but that is not the case you specified, and he didn't actually PUT a photoplate 'behind the twin slits' to distinguish.
So just to confirm; you only have to consider normal twin slit refraction to realise that however photons or electrons are treated or (Stern/Gerlach or PDC etc) 'split', ANY impinging on a photographic plate after twin slits have always produced fringe shifts. But remember that is NOT the same case as pre-splitting and (post D2) statistical 're-combination'.
I stress the confusion stems from the assumption that experiments consider 'which way' information, as assume 'weak measurement' can find states without affecting them. Experiments then remained unable to confirm Zeilingers statement applies prior to 'correlation'. i.e.;
arxiv.org/pdf/0706.3966.pdf.
To explain more in 'barmaids' terms;
To get interference we must 'recombine' two fluctuations. But without (or after) recombination the is nothing to interfere with!Has that helped clarify the confusion?
Peter
view post as summary
Stefan Weckbach replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 17:39 GMT
Peter,
thanks for your reply.
there is no interference pattern behind the double-slit nor is there a diffraction pattern behind the single-slit in this experiment.
The interference pattern only arises when there is a coincidence measurement of the two-photon system.
For the case of such a coincidence measurement (and by interference pattern i mean a double-slit interference pattern, not a single slit diffraction pattern), only one Detector has to move in its plane, namely D2 for particles 2 to scan this plane.
The *distances* of the devices for particle 2 stay the same, regardless of which part of the experiment is executed.
The experiment demonstrates the difference between
1) a single particle, going through a single slit and
2) a single particle, being part of an entangled two-particle system, going through a double-slit and then a single-slit
“He's also discussing the statistical 'correlation probabilities' NOT any pattern on a photoplate in path 2!”.
Zeilinger knows what he will see if installing a photoplate instead of D2. I know what Zeilingers theory (quantum mechanics) says about his own experiment. But i wanted to know what your theory predicts for this case!
“Now you cite Zeilinger (whose confirmation bias in the Weihs 'rotational invariance' adjustment can be forgiven but none the less happens and is critical!) who refers to the "distribution of photons behind the double slit…”
Of course, since Zeilinger knows that he does not measure a single-slit diffraction pattern in this experiment, since there is none, neither during coincidence measurements nor during only measuring photons 2 with a photo plate! I remind you of the text of figure 2 in the link you gave (page 232) --> http://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/Aspelm_Happy_ce
ntenary_photon.pdf
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 10, 2017 @ 12:20 GMT
Stefan,
Sorry about the delay, busy reading & responding, then a weekend away.
I think we too often rely on assumptions and hearsay in physics. Those and poor descriptions leads to much misunderstanding. Lets just deal with actual results rather than what people may of may not think or 'know'.
The only 2 slit experiments I know not showing interference patterns on a backboard...
view entire post
Stefan,
Sorry about the delay, busy reading & responding, then a weekend away.
I think we too often rely on assumptions and hearsay in physics. Those and poor descriptions leads to much misunderstanding. Lets just deal with actual results rather than what people may of may not think or 'know'.
The only 2 slit experiments I know not showing interference patterns on a backboard are when actual states are changes or blocked. I've done the one removing it with twin orthogonal polarisers myself, similar to to the 3 filter case in my video and as my model predicts. The single slit after the pair in Fig2 just makes it a single slit diffraction case. Zeilinger was of course entirely correct in the (once removed) correlation of paths 1 and 2. If you can find any actual experimental results showing no 2 slit interference do please post them.
Also compare Zeilingers findings 15 years later that photons have 'no memory' of previous state with the analysis his 1999 paper, assuming the contrary at the path 1 lens! (s290 right hand para;
"..provides information about it's direction, i.e., momentum before entering the lens.") Sure understanding improves, so lets keep up with it!
The Key point here is more fundamental Stefan. In my schema there are TWO 'states' as opposed the the assumed one, and orthogonal, and thus no case of 'which path'. It's the false initial assumptions that cause all the confusion that follows. All have recognised there looks like something wrong or incomplete in QM, Einstein, Bell, Feynman,
and Anton Zeilinger!; (s292 bottom)
"Such a picture would imply a theory underlying quantum physics which provides a more detailed account of individual mechanisms". All I've done is identified it, allowing a coherent interpretation without needing the illogical nonsense!
If it were the other war round, if we HAD the sensible derivation and I was proposing an illogical one relying on wierdness and backward causality then I'd expect all to resist! I suggest the only problem here Stefan is quite normal cognative dissonance, as the first part of my essay identifies.
But do present any ACTUAL apparently contrary findings. I have searched for some time but perhaps not exhaustively.
Very Best.
Peter
PS; See also my blog ref to Pauli's important spectral lines solution, from which we got the periodic table. His strict condition was that the valance electron HAD to somehow have TWO-VALUEDNESS! He never did did find an explanation of what that meant so we've always assumed it's 'classically indescribable'. No longer perhaps as that's exactly what the 2nd state is.
view post as summary
hide replies
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 22:42 GMT
I can say that in many ways I hope you wrong. I published a paper last year on the categorical equivalency between Tsirelson bound on quantum mechanics and spacetime structure. My goal is to illustrate how divergences in quantum gravity can be absorbed into unobservable nonlocal hidden variables. It is a sort of renormalization procedure.
Your recent drop here is not due to me. I am tabulating plausible future scores on a copy of the FQXi essay page, and have graded rather few so far.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 22:14 GMT
Lawrence,
Oh dear. That's the exact inverse of good science! And that may be the greatest problem we have. If I derive a hypothesis I'll go to the ends of the earth to DISprove it! That's the 'gold standard' scientific method, (which I'm sure is why the pure triple filtered science I end up with works!)
At present if a non eminent academic publishes a paper or even just teaches students something he will feel WEDDED TO WHAT HE WROTE! That's the worst way to do science, and, I suggest, the biggest block we have on advancing understanding.
May I suggest you goal should be to find conclusively IF
"divergences in quantum gravity can be absorbed into unobservable nonlocal hidden variables" or NOT! the not being as valuable a finding. In fact may I also suggest it'd be useful to re-write that sentence in English (as arXiv now demand!) so it actually means something to your average ('Sci-Am level') reader!
I hold you in higher regard than to downmark essays Lawrence. Unfortunately it seems that doesn't go for all.
Best
Peter
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 23:51 GMT
I am not sure what you see as a problem. The goal is to see if this can be mathematically realized. As for disproving that this is the domain of experiment. You generally do not disprove a theory with a theory.
The idea is that the metric structure is categorically equivalent to the Tsirelson bound, then for Einstein spaces where R_{ij} = Ag_{ij}, for A a constant the quantized curvature or expectation is similarly bounded and divergence removed. This requires going beyond the Weyl tensor spacetime physics (which is where I have worked) to the full Riemann = Weyl + Ricc domain. This is rather tough as it is similar to gauge theories with sources that are notoriously difficult to work.
LC
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 11:24 GMT
Lawrence,
"I am not sure what you see as a problem"I suggest the need for us to attempt falsification of our theories is far
MORE important for theorists than experimentalists.
It seems using purely maths has led us away from that. Might that be a reason we're 'wandering' in such a dense forest of untenable and/or unfalsifiable theories!? Do you not also agree we need to remember at times that just because something is describable mathematically doesn't mean it can or does really happen 'physically'?
In experiments, it's invariably not the output data that's meaningfully important but the interpretation put on it, which is
theoretical physics and too often based on previous flawed assumptions and interpretations. I suggest then that DISproving those assumptions, mainly theoretical or mathematical, may be far MORE more important that showing something MAY be possible.
Is that not reasonable?
Peter
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 19:36 GMT
Again you can't disprove a theory with a theory. A theory is falsifiable, while information that falsifies a theory is not. Hence you do not falsify theory with theory. Of course you can show a theory is inconsistent and thus false because it is internally flawed. Experimental data does support Bell theorem which rules out local hidden variable or classical-like physics underlying QM.
LC
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 21:41 GMT
Lawrence,
I entirely agree with all of that. Very well put. We can only EVER reveal inconsistencies, which is the task, but never 'prove' anything absolutely (even with experiments come to that!) so my point remains. I agree 'disprove' wasn't a perfect word but that is a little semantic.
And I entirely agree
'experimental data supports Bells theorem' which was anyway self...
view entire post
Lawrence,
I entirely agree with all of that. Very well put. We can only EVER reveal inconsistencies, which is the task, but never 'prove' anything absolutely (even with experiments come to that!) so my point remains. I agree 'disprove' wasn't a perfect word but that is a little semantic.
And I entirely agree
'experimental data supports Bells theorem' which was anyway self evidently correct. And that same experimental evidence also entirely supports the model I identify, which in NOT a hidden variable theory, indeed is consistent with Bells predictions.
The only problem you have here Lawrence is Cognitive Dissonance. That's entirely to be expected. I'll give you a few more quotes of John Bell (which I didn't find till AFTER I derived the model and was trying to disprove it, including scouring every page of his; compilation; 'Thinkable and Unthinkable in QM')!.
“We are interested only in the possibility of hidden variables in ordinary QM and will use freely all the usual notions.” p.2.
"..fundamental obscurity in quantum mechanics. Our theorists stride through that obscurity unimpeded… sleepwalking?” p.170
"The quantum phenomena do not exclude a uniform description of micro and macro worlds…systems and apparatus.” p.171.
“I think that conventional formulations of quantum theory, and of quantum field theory in particular, are unprofessionally vague and ambiguous. Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better.” p.173.
“It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal.” p.172.
“...the new way of seeing things will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us. In any case it seems that the quantum mechanical description will be superseded.” p.27
“...the ‘Problem of Interpretation of QM’ has been encircled. And the solution, invisible from the front, may be seen from the back..” p.194.Bell was very wise. A
"radical leap that will astonish" is not one most readers of an essay contest are going to immediately be able to accept (for the reasons I identify in the essay). Indeed if anyone says; 'Yes' wow! I see; brilliant!' I'll most likely assume they're crazy! The mechanism none the less self evidently does what Bell predicted, which most people wrongly assumed he thought 'impossible'!
So did you actually watch the video?
Classic QM It's just that from what you write it appears you didn't.
Best
Peter
view post as summary
hide replies
Jack Hamilton James wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 00:05 GMT
Dear Peter,
Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. I have read and enjoyed your essay and just rated it highly. It was very informative. Unfortunately, my education in QM is not sufficient enough to break through the barriers I specified via way of Dennis Polis in my paper, but I am glad you are trying and may have succeeded. Describing life in this way well be an important part of the answer to consciousness, and indeed the question to which this contest is founded.
All the best with your future efforts in this and other intellectual regards.
Jack
Philosopher.io
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 16:19 GMT
Jack,
Many thanks. You're far from alone in not understanding QM, Feynman said effectively (I paraphrase) that those who claim they do are delusional! It may be a GOOD thing you haven't been educated on it as you'd have had to swallow it hook line & sinker to pass the exams! That's not to say the maths don't model the findings ok, it's the 'interpretation' that went off the rails from the start.
Just to advise you I'm now scoring your essay, in line with my positive comments.
Best
Peter
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 11:06 GMT
Hi Peter,
I have missed your intellectual contribution on the main forum but I don't blame you as many of the recent discussions have not been of the standard when you actively participated.
I am also happy you put in an essay despite not being fairly treated in the past. I also only decided to put in a contribution almost at the last minute.
You may wish to view and comment later although I see from one of your responses above that you may not be a fan of a single universe.
I see your continuing effort in this essay to demystify quantum mechanics. This is an area that still contains too much magic for my liking so illuminating contributions like yours are very much welcome.
All the best in your endeavors,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 14:42 GMT
Hi Akinbo
Great to hear from you. I only moved to QM as a test of 'discrete field' SR, and as the quanta ultimately drives everything. My SR solution passed the test, so exposing the error in the assumptions underlying QM, giving a unified description,
and much more!
An earlier test addressed the flaws, paradoxes, anomalies & unexplained in 'Concordance' (doctrinal) cosmology. That too surprisingly succeeded. The more coherent model free of all the anomalies etc united the Hawking & Penrose models into a single 'recycling' mechanism, at work in the galaxy evolutionary cycle (giving the mass function growth you invoke by pair production). I'll confirm your correctness on that in your essay blog.
Unfortunately significant evidence suggests that some of your adopted starting assumptions were unreliable and probably wrong. Not necessarily the 'bi-bang per se as that needs little improved understanding (and some logic) to be a recycling (re-ionizing) mechanism.
Did you know the only original 'evidence' for accelerating expansion was cosmic redshift? It was only ever 'one possible interpretation', but repeated often enough, like all lies, it becomes 'truth'. I've shown an irrefutable mechanical production of redshift over time which is rather better as it's less problematic. Will the gatekeepers let it surface? Your guess will be correct!
VIDEO; Time Dependent Redshift; http://youtu.be/KPsCp_S4cUs let me know if you understand it all.
So just correcting the expansion rate alone removes a host of issues and allows a more coherent picture to emerge!
I enjoyed your essay and it's original approach, and am sure you'll enjoy mine, though it may be more testing than many!
Very Best
Peter
Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 11:21 GMT
Dear Peter,
I highly appreciate the excellent essay in the quest for classical quantum mechanics. Your thoughts are very close to me.
And I strive to fully understand the mechanisms of the universe «We do know physical motion and interactions exist, but we won't know if any algorithm is correct until we fully understand the mechanisms».
And I'm using «Non-linear 'layered … ' architecture».
And for me the
main «a more important point on self organisation»
Few people are constructively trying to find the answer to this question.
You are considering neural networks, but how do think your how works self-organization at the micro and macro level in a dynamic universe?
By what mechanism «'matter' condenses from the sub-matter continuum condensate energy on perturbation»?
And why, as a result of chaotic collisions in accelerators, are formed exactly identical particles, atoms or electrons?
Kind regards,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 15:51 GMT
Vladimir,
Thank you for understanding and agreeing these important advancements in understanding. I look forward to reading your essay.
"You are considering neural networks, but how do think your how works self-organization at the micro and macro level in a dynamic universe?"I've identified fractal toroidal self organization, the largest local toroid (whithin oblate...
view entire post
Vladimir,
Thank you for understanding and agreeing these important advancements in understanding. I look forward to reading your essay.
"You are considering neural networks, but how do think your how works self-organization at the micro and macro level in a dynamic universe?"I've identified fractal toroidal self organization, the largest local toroid (whithin oblate spheroids) being our current the universe itself and the smallest in 'matter' as fermions (all the same but dipoles) then probably the same at quark and smaller as 'dark energy' continuum/condensate states. I've studied and published on the very visible example of galaxies (Active Galactic Nuclii) which has wide implications, including recycling cosmology, resolving a whole tranche of anomalies as well as allowing unification of relativity and QM.
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4540.5603 and www.academia.edu/6655261/A_CYCLIC_MODEL_OF_GALAXY_EVOLUTION_
WITH_BARS "By what mechanism «'matter' condenses from the sub-matter continuum condensate energy on perturbation»?" Most know it as the Higgs mechanism, but an additional macro 'spin state' as paired 3D vortices, which we know as electrons (wrongly thought of as different things 'positrons' when viewed from the other pole. The local concentrations of condensate energy cause a paucity in the vicinity which is maintained as an energy (or 'gravity') gradient or 'wave' until the 'matter' evaporates again.
"And why, as a result of chaotic collisions in accelerators, are formed exactly identical particles, atoms or electrons?" As above really, by 'shear' force, and all fermions, which also hold & dissipate (so conserve) the high 'input' energy. I discuss this is an earlier essay, indeed many important aspects in essays from 2010 onwards, mainly as 'discrete field' dynamics. I suggested it'd be 2020 before it was 'visible' to doctrine (I'm an optimist!)
Implicit derivation of Cosmic Redshift by local helical expansion without requiring accelerating inflation and other key aspects are in this video;
Time Dependent Redshift http://youtu.be/KPsCp_S4cUs.
There are many other papers on various aspects of the model. Last years here was seminal and scored top (but wasn't in the prizes). I'm not a mathematician and most do like their numbers and symbols!
I'll put you essay at the top of my 'read' list.
Peter
view post as summary
Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 17:34 GMT
Dear Peter,
Thanks for the excellent answers to the questions. I got your work on ResearchGate and saw a wonderful film. Now I need to process all the information received and see the old essay, it's not easy - I'm sorry that I'm not an English speaker.
I hope that the ideas in my essay will be interesting to you.
A direct link to the ResearchGate file in your message does not work. For download I must first copy the link, then remove the extra. I came across this, you need to erase all the gaps between [link and /link] when building links.
Kind regards,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 16:55 GMT
Hi Peter,
It is a pleasure to re-meet you in the FQXi Essay Competition. Once again, you wrote and intriguing and a bit provocative Essay, which I have read with pleasure. You deserves the highest score that I am going to give you. Good luck in the Contest!
Cheers, Ch.
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 01:39 GMT
Dear Peter
I have read through your essay wherein you weave so many concepts, each is rather specialized and beyond my expertise. It is impressive nevertheless and judging from the comments above has provided food for serious thought. In addition, unlike my essay, you have remained faithful to the fqxi essay question, so that in itself is something, as I and many others seem to have found "mindless mathematics..etc" somewhat baffling and ill-posed.
For myself of the three possible ideas you say a mind can take in at once, I have studies fermion number density, also Einstein's 1954 essay on space which I have read with interest.
The third item is still to be selected from the rich topics you have presented! Perhaps the spinning spheres - yes that is interesting for me.
Best wishes both in and off the contest!
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Kevin James wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 11:38 GMT
Peter, I am not going to pretend to understand the physics underlying your paper but the three points that stand out that (1) we are wandering in the dark; (2) there is no way for us to determine whether there is a supreme being; and (3)that further human evolution will be volitional.
The last point struck me as exceptional and resonated most. As Vladimir Rogozhin pointed out in his 2/16 post, thinkers such as Edmund Husserl indicate a way of looking at the world that simultaneously work from the I that witnesses and a subjective Self that seamlessly synthesizes in sync with a pulsating Chaosmos. Here, East meets West with Husserl's practices of bracketing and flattening, the Sufi Dhikr Allah (remembrance of God) Allah - Hu performed with each inhalation/exhalation, Deleuze's notions of immanence, temporality, and Univocity, as well as the full spectrum of various spiritual exercises that seek to still the mind in pursuit of truth, or as Prophet Muhammad supplicated, to be shown things as they are. This approach comports with Gödel's incompleteness theory and its variants.
If I understand you correctly, the next phase of human evolution will not consist of a grand unification theory that further alienates the mind from its character of embedded and embodied being, but in approaching Being through the direct vision of the pre-linguistic/pre-individual self.
Best,
Kevin James
report post as inappropriate
James Edward Beichler wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 00:37 GMT
Peter,
I appreciate your attention to physical detail and your physical analogies as opposed to the purely rigorous mathematical interpretations of nature as observed. You are a true realist. The question that we are expected to answer, "how do mathematical laws give rise to aims and intentions", is unanswerable without the reference to physical interpetation that you have so adequately demonstrated. And you rather diplomatically implied that such 'mathetical laws' do not exist without making a direct assault on the basic assumption of the question that they do exist beyond the material/physical reality of our world. Your most significant contributon is the conclusion that "We will keep wandering in a search for understanding until we decide to 'self evolve' to allow more complex rational thinking & logic and less default to primevally evolved fast decisions." Self evoltuin and only self evolution will provide the final answer to our deepest and most thoughtful queries about the naural world and how it works, not hiding behind the escapist strategy of declaring that reality is just mathematics or mathematical laws, just so we can look at nature and say that we don't need to do the real physics that is necessary to solve the ultimate problems of nature.
Keep up the good work, I give you a 10 rating
Jim Beichler
report post as inappropriate
Rick Searle wrote on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 23:59 GMT
Hi Peter,
I liked your essay a lot. It reminded me of a section in Frank Wilczek's book "A Beautiful Question" where he speculates that creatures as intelligent as humans, but with a different evolutionary history, would uncover nature's patterns differently. A species of intelligent birds would intuitively grasp Newtonian mechanics, super-intelligent spiders would stumble upon waves before grasping particles. We are limited by our cognitive evolution whose boundaries need to be overcome.
I hope I understood you as well as your barmaids. God-knows I've come across a lot of them more intelligent than myself in my time.
Best of luck,
Rick Searle
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 10:21 GMT
Rick,
Thanks. I like Wilczek too. I haven't read "A Beautiful Question" but that sounds spot on. I also appreciate your comprehension. Such responses have been well below my 'guesstimate' but you Jim & Neil (below) have got that back on track. Top job. (though non-reader '1' hits keep the score slipping down!)
But the real problem now is how to get flawed but embedded understanding & paradigms updated? Editors and professors seem to run a mile screaming at the concept!
I've resorted to evolution for now. Any other ideas?
Very best
Peter
Neil Bates wrote on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 00:53 GMT
Peter,
This is impressive, You start your essay as a storyteller and interdisciplinary generalist, setting the table about the questions instead of just diving in with the argument. I like that. Could you clarify how the segue into angular momentum carries on to the end point, and per relevance to genetic change etc? I know how important the subject is in general in QM, what I ask is: how in particular, this aspect relates to other issues. Maybe looking at comments from others will help me understand your strategy here - and I need to brush up on "spin networks," spintronics and the like. The latter surely has relevance to neurology at the fine level such as in microtubules. There is something here to pursue. Best.
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 12:10 GMT
Neil,
Thanks. I'm impressed when any understand it. Sometime I do too! Yes, posts to Stefan (March 4) may help. If
'end point' is' QM predictions'; the
pairs of orthogonal cos values in 're-emissions' are simply
squared by the 'cascade' or 'avalanche' detector amplification, which we already know from QED! This is all part of the 'discrete field' model (DFM) where...
view entire post
Neil,
Thanks. I'm impressed when any understand it. Sometime I do too! Yes, posts to Stefan (March 4) may help. If
'end point' is' QM predictions'; the
pairs of orthogonal cos values in 're-emissions' are simply
squared by the 'cascade' or 'avalanche' detector amplification, which we already know from QED! This is all part of the 'discrete field' model (DFM) where fermions also
localise speed because re-emission is always at 'c' in their own centre of mass rest frame. So we get full unification!
In neurology the dual states provide the complexity needed to 'use memory' and run scenario's of likely outcomes, actually releasing biochemicals etc, so allowing feedback, informing more scenario's, leading to a decision ('Aim') which subsequent decisions serve; (I will/not jump from a plane with/without a chute).
Genetic Change or 'mutation' will naturally arise where quantum interactions are 'on the cusp'. If you or I can't decide if we're going UP or DOWN at a pole then the new particle may have to 'guess' too! with 50:50 odds (answering you question about randomness). Similarly left/right CURL exactly on an equator. Of course RNA proteins are complex but they're BIG! We're at the most fundamental 'matter' scale above dark energy where perhaps billions of such interactions recreate proteins. That doesn't exclude Darwin, but works WITH those larger scale effects.
All the 'spooky' effects of QM resolve into logic. It can explain each, even 'quantum erasers' and the nonsense of backward causality! But I'm not sure I 'have a strategy' apart from presenting findings and applying the fundamental mechanism to 'anomalies' to see if they resolve. They always do when I can find and understand the actual data. Much is in my many papers & essays. Can you think of anything in particular as a test? Or any other questions?
It seems to me that Woolfram's 'simple programme' is right, but leads to better clarity than just 'known' laws. Look also at plasma physics and photonics, both useful if a bit insular, and at the less fashionable work of Huygens, Raman, Lagrange, Heaviside, Stokes etc.
Do let me know how you get on.
Peter
view post as summary
Neil Bates replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 16:52 GMT
OK tx. Those interested in a more basic depiction of how entanglement increases effective order can also see my own essay:
Is Quantum Magic Behind ...
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 20:47 GMT
Peter,
Here's a 10 bomb for you. This is not vote collusion. I ask nothing in return, although a comment or question in my forum might be nice.
It's amusing, my first essay did not even receive 10 votes total, but this year's has had almost that number of 1 bombs.
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 13:06 GMT
Gary,
Thanks. I hope admin acts to stop the rot. I did read yours, and made notes which I thought I'd posted but apparently not! I'll do so. I recall I found it a bit more mathematical that I could digest, though that doesn't devalue it and unlike Lewis Carrol I have 'seen' the analogue of quaternions.
Did you read my last years essay identifying the importance of the rules of arithmetical brackets (and socks) to logic and nature? That was scored top, but scores really aren't as important as some may think. I've had others in the top 10 and one 2nd but NONE have ever got in the prizes!
Best
Peter
basudeba mishra wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 15:15 GMT
Dear Sir,
Your opening sentence is very interesting. We have partial knowledge about many things. Other have knowledge about some of it, part of which may be similar and partly different. Assuming all are correct, it implies that there is more to know and the limit on our knowledge of any subject can be boundless to include all knowledge on that subject. This can be said about knowledge on...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
Your opening sentence is very interesting. We have partial knowledge about many things. Other have knowledge about some of it, part of which may be similar and partly different. Assuming all are correct, it implies that there is more to know and the limit on our knowledge of any subject can be boundless to include all knowledge on that subject. This can be said about knowledge on all subjects. We find a pattern in physics, where the infinite complexities are sought to be explained by a few particles and we are searching for a GUT. On the same analogy, we can think of a 'creator', who is the repository of all knowledge. As you say: All have infinite recursion, in both directions. Yes. We call extending from one to multitude as “science” and the opposite effect as “knowledge”. For your “mathematical universe, physical and meta-physical universes and a creator”, we call it matter, energy and conscious interpretation.
Your description of Jimal Khalili's 'Shut up while we calculate' is in conformity with the above view. Measurement or calculation or experiment are dynamical processes involving some kind of energy. Result of measurement is a static quantity. A process cannot be measured. Only after the process ceases (even in an intermittent level), we can measure it another static unit through comparison to get some scalar quantity. The static quantity is information, which must be cognized by an observer through measurement again. This implies, observer is also static at conscious level, though the observation has a material (hence mathematical and physical) and an energy (including meta-physical) component.
To explain the statement further, let us see what is mind. Think of a system at rest. It implies, all the forces acting on it are cancelling each other and with reference to its environment, it is “charge neutral”. Now if one of the forces acting on it is disturbed, it will lead to a couple of motions: one in the direction of the force that was removed and the other the back reaction created by this motion on other parts at rest. It is like bringing a positive or negative charge near a charge neutral body. The point from where action starts is called mind. It acts like the sodium-potassium pump in our body. The external impulse starts a reaction that activates the mind both ways and the impulse is carried to the brain for processing.
We frequently compare mind with RAM and brain with HDD. Mind supports sensory instruments and reports to intelligence, like RAM supports applications (task). RAM has volatile memory and hangs from time to time if overloaded. Similarly mind goes to sleep if overworked. Intelligence is like CPU, which does the processing of all sensory inputs. Just like CPU cannot execute a program that is “not on the disc” and has not been loaded in the RAM, intelligence cannot act without mind. If memory speed is less than FSB, it takes too long to fetch an instruction or an operand. Similarly, mind shows dullness or brightness based on its species specific speed. Just like the CPU and RAM differ in processing capabilities (arithmetic dexterity) and storage capacity respectively even after the computer breaks down; different species show different levels of behavior. These are input, memory, processing and output related and not perception related (as “I know” or happiness, pain, desire etc.). Vital energy that starts breathing, which continues perpetually is like the power supply (electricity provided by a battery). The first breath is like the BIOS Chip, which boosts the computer and searches and loads the OS to RAM from ROM that cannot be modified, which is equivalent to memory content of the new born (such as to cry to draw attention of others when it is uncomfortable or to suckle the nipple when it is brought near its mouth when hungry and many such first time behavior, which has not been experienced by it since birth). First breathing is like first boosting of the computer. Like Consciousness, OS is same for all computers, but BIOS varies from computer to computer. Similarly, consciousness in all living beings exhibits itself through DNA coding, which is species specific. It is a program semi permanently stored into one of the main chips. The OS creates virtual memory in HDD by creating a page-file when the system runs out of RAM. Similarly, we recollect more recollections correlated with greater connectivity among different regions of brain. Sometimes “over-clocking” boosts up OS speed. Similarly, suddenly we have bright ideas.
More RAM directly increases the amount of applications run simultaneously, faster loading time, faster boot up, and overall greater boost through all aspects. Greater brain size and surface area (creases) does the same for living beings. The better the CPU, more information can be processed at a time. Similarly, better intelligence can take faster decisions. The better the HDD, the faster the information can be passed on to the processor. The bigger the HDD, more information can be stored. The bigger the brain surface area, the faster and better operations could be performed. The CPU processes information in computers using logic gates. Intelligence does the same thing through sensory agencies. CPU directs RAM to do what is important. RAM can provide inputs, but cannot directly take decisions. Intelligence takes decisions based on inputs provided by mind only. When switched off, RAM becomes empty. CMOS battery keeps the CMOS alive the chip even when the computer is turned off. Similarly, intelligence remains active even in deep sleep. This way, macroscopic phenomena are connected to the brain’s known neural activity. But when someone says “macroscopic quantum phenomena”, we are at a loss. If it is macroscopic, it cannot be quantum. If both are the same, both these terms are superfluous.
There are differences between brain’s software and computer software. A computer can simultaneously test for more than one condition or execute multiple commands. But the brain cannot do so. They follow sequence of logical efforts first and knowledge of such efforts later. Computers run on standard/special programs, which are soft, i.e., flexible to be instantly reprogrammed. These are put to the hardware to become operational. Similarly, the body matter including the bacteria, neurons, DNA, microtubules, etc., are hardwires that operationalize the life’s software. But who writes the program? Only conscious beings can initiate action based on freewill. It is different from motion, which is a mechanical reaction. Thus, we have to admit a super consciousness outside all mechanical devices including robots.
The rest of your paper is extension of this concept through illustration. A thoroughly enjoyable exercise.
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 10:43 GMT
Basudeba,
Thanks for the compliments. I agree most of you analysis and comparisons. However I do think, and have found, we can self programme our brains, so consciously self-evolve to think more habitually or intuitively in the 'rational analytical' not 'primeval instinct' response mode.
I've also practiced doing two things at once, like computers and find it CAN be done as one level is 'locked in' operational mode while another level computes. Even talking while driving is a simple example of this. I can helm a yacht to 99% efficiency while computing tactics or deriving and issuing instructions, or stir my tea while also putting the milk back in the fridge. Our brains do then seem to have potential capacity we rarely tend to employ.
On the other hand I also agree with Erik Hoel, that all such behaviours can arise from ever more complex lower level/higher order mechanisms with feedback loops. Not deterministic as we define it but mechanistic none the less. In that case it seems there may be no sound reason why 'robots' (AI) may not one day effectively match our own 'consciousness'. You ask in your essay "
why complicate things with unnecessary details which has no physical meaning" yet Occam suggests all MUST have meaning. Can you fault Hoel's analysis? Or his reference to Marco Polo's agreement; "Yes the Arch itself makes the bridge, but each stone is required with a particular form or there is no arch."
Thanks for your thoughts.
Peter
Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 22:27 GMT
Peter,
It is nice seeing familiar names each contest. I need to re-read your essay because I do not see some of the connections. You seem to be looking at the universe as a whole from smallest to most complex. I am just looking at intelligence as a thing, a very simple and common thing. Life is an intelligent system (with my view of intelligence being simple and common, this is not a statement about the state of the universe). I try to show that thermodynamics, in some cases, makes this development of life a little more likely than not being.
It is great seeing your essay is doing so well!
Jeff
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 20:05 GMT
Thanks Jeffrey. Yes it does demand a slow 'rationalisation' read to extract it's ontology and embedded value after a first glance over.
Peter
Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 04:21 GMT
Peter,
My worry was that you went beyond the topic of the contest. I now realize how foolish my worry. You addressed most (if not all) the topics which is by itself a wonderful thing. Where you want to go with spin states cannot hurt and might help.
Try to remember the little people after you win,
Jeff
report post as inappropriate
Peter Bauch wrote on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 20:39 GMT
Dear Peter,
Thanks for leaving that information and scoring my essay. Managed to bump you up a couple of ticks.
Cheers,
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Gavin William Rowland wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 02:46 GMT
Dear Peter
I read your essay and much of your conversation with Stefan. It is interesting to read your interpretation of QMs and it gave me the opportunity to brush up on a few things.
I wish you good luck with your project - you have taken on quite a challenge!
Gavin
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 20:13 GMT
Thanks guys
I'm inspired by Dan Schechtman, discovered of quasicrystals. He was ignored and decried by the elite and mass of journeymen professors, called a 'quasiscientist', lost his job and struggled for 40 years. Then finally got a Nobel! I don't want a Nobel, just to help advance understanding, but I see the task as similar to his. His advice?;
"Ignore those who point out new science isn't 'in the book', Keep going. make like a Rottweiler, bite and don't let go." Hmm. 99% perspiration then!
Anonymous wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 20:33 GMT
Peter, yours is a brilliant and fascinating investigation of the physics of learning, and of its potential for improvement, but being rooted in science, it lacks an appreciation of the meta-physics of transcendence, negativity, and creativity (not to mention teleology).
I’ll give brief examples, which seem so obvious and commonplace only because we possess these capabilities inherently: The concept of infinity cannot be learned, it cannot be defined (rendered finite), and yet we all have an intuitive (transcendent) grasp of what it means – we have a word for it! Negativity can involve a notion like “this situation is unacceptable, but an alternative can be imagined and may be possible.” Creativity can involve the imagination of something that doesn’t exist: The first hand-drawn representation of an animal, for example; we take representation for granted only because the original creative concept has been handed to us. (I go into these sorts of issues in more detail at http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/453 .)
This isn’t to disparage the brilliance of your creativity, only to criticize your lack of self-appreciation!
report post as inappropriate
James Arnold wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 20:36 GMT
Dammit again! The page said I was logged in -- that last post was mine.
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 12:56 GMT
James
Thanks for your kind words. I tried to deal with 'creativity' in terms of an Architect, handed a blank sheet of paper with just a context and sets of complex criteria and limiting rules. This goes beyond the normal 3-part analysis of conscious intent which STARTS with the blueprint. In fact it ALWAYS
'involves the recreation of something that doesn't yet exist'.The complex multi-level 'feedback loops' from imagined scenario's create the 'aims' and teleology in the same way as Erik Hoels essay, but the 'information channel' limitation is overcome by the additional 'spin state' identified in the classical reproduction of quantum mechanical predictions, effectively 'decoding' most of the so called 'noise' in the Shannon Channel (Also see the 'IQbit' in my It from Bit essay 'The Intelligent Bit'). However I also showed that randomness only reduces and is never entirely eliminated (at orthogonal interaction angles).
But I know (and warned!) it was too much to ask for all of the densely crammed elements of the ontological construction to be identified, remembered and put together on one read, and indeed each would have benefited from expansion and reinforcement were there space.
Your link isn't live. If you're not sure how, click 'link help page' above the reply box, copy & paste it in, then be careful not to include any spaces each end of the link address. I'll then take a look, but possibly after the contest!
Thanks, and very best
Peter
Peter Bauch wrote on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 17:52 GMT
Dear Peter,
I perused the paper you got published in the Hadronic Journal and can't find any inconsistencies, although I'm not nearly as familiar with astrophysics as you are. I found it interesting that you peg dark matter down to plasma from quasar jet activity that gathers around a galaxy. If your idea is right then it's no wonder they can't find any on earth since it would be restricted to the halo.
As to your chagrin that it didn't get published by the top mainstream journals I wouldn't feel that way if I were you. It must be difficult if you don't have the appropriate letters next to your name and besides, you got another paper published in arXiv which I would think is quite the accomplishment.
Cheers,
Peter
P.S. I hope your 2nd Minkowski doesn't see my essay.
report post as inappropriate
Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira wrote on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 12:11 GMT
Dear Peter
Quite interesting your essay – at least at the point I could follow it. And lots of common viewpoints.
Interesting to know that John Wheelers said "Never make a calculation until you know the answer”. When in a research work, I have similar rule: “never use an equation unless I am able to replace it by plain text”; or, in the other words, “I always have to know...
view entire post
Dear Peter
Quite interesting your essay – at least at the point I could follow it. And lots of common viewpoints.
Interesting to know that John Wheelers said "Never make a calculation until you know the answer”. When in a research work, I have similar rule: “never use an equation unless I am able to replace it by plain text”; or, in the other words, “I always have to know more than equations”.
Other important statement is “We aim for 'the scientific method' but
tend to use default response mode, so reject anything unfamiliar, which precludes advancement. Deciding truth on a who not what basis is a similar default error. Teaching only mathematical physics can't help expand capacity to 'understand'. Your “default response mode” is basically my “mind search-engine” and what you say here is exactly what I think, although I have not mentioned it in my essay because it was not about the mind.
After around section 7, I began to feel lost because of my limitations (and also my methodology). It’s a pity because it seems to be very interesting, but we have to choose our fields of concern, isn’t it? I am not qualified to follow your reasoning there. However, both your ideas and your writing style captured me until then.
Concerning your question about the role of gravity in promoting the ever larger connections between entities, surely it has a fundamental role; however, I would not say that its role is more important that any other – even the psychological ones, because without our social tendency the human society would not be possible.
Yet, if you want to know if there is one property responsible by all this, I would say “yes”. However, that property is behind all we know – behind matter, radiation, fields. We still conceive the universe as having “particles” and a “vacuum”, both with properties but being two different entities. We cannot model the universe differently. Yet, we begin to understand that particles shall be some sort of perturbation of the medium we call vacuum. We are just grasping this conception of the universe but it is only there that we can find a common cause for everything we know.
I want to thank your nice words about by essay. I am happy to know that it pleased you.
Good luck for the contest!
Alfredo
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 20:02 GMT
Alfredo
And thanks for your kind words about mine. I'm not surprised at anybody struggling with QM, but that's why I produced the video, to explain the simpler 3D classical dynamics that even Einsteins barmaids could understand! I hope you have time to look;
Classic QM or even at the 100sec glimpse
here. I suspect we must still advance in simple steps and the condensate is still a long way off!
Best
Peter
William L Stubbs wrote on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 15:46 GMT
Peter,
Yours is a very interesting essay. I am not going to pretend that I understood everything that you suggested in it, but I do see how you drew the conclusions given at the end of the paper.
I know there are many ways to interpret the contest theme; however, I am surprised at how many essays, including yours, try to develop direct links between the mathematical laws and higher brain functions and higher intelligence. I realize that that is a valid approach to the theme, but it seems like a very difficult undertaking.
As you know, in my essay, I suggest that when DNA can cause something in its favor to happen rather than have to live at the mercy of its environment, it has exhibited intent. Therefore, by merely offering a step from inert matter to that of DNA (and RNA), it seems the question of how the mathematical laws give rise to aims and intentions is fundamentally addressed (although I am not saying that I did a good job of addressing it). As living entities evolve into systems of higher complexity; of course, the sophistication of the aims and intentions grows.
Perhaps, in this situation, an incremental approach to ultimately understanding how the laws relate to higher intelligence is more useful than trying to eat the elephant all in one bite. Maybe we need to learn arithmetic and algebra before we tackle calculus and differential equations. I suspect, given the breadth of knowledge displayed in the essays submitted; we could probably come up with a good model of the initial jump from inert matter, driven by its surroundings, to living systems, manipulating their surroundings.
At any rate, good luck to you,
William.
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 20:24 GMT
William
Thank you kindly. Having studied many thousands of findings, papers (and essays) over many years the data points to describe that proverbial elephant finally allowed the 3D jigsaw puzzle to fit together. So I now have an elephant in the room, but still invisible to almost all! But wise words. I'm trying to describe it incrementally in bite size chunks. Of course it's still dismissed as it's nose is ridiculously long and ears are stupidly big, nothing like the backwardly causal mathematical quarkmonster of doctrine! Perhaps just bites of elephantburger for now then so as not to shock!
Very best
Peter
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 22:47 GMT
Hi Peter thank you for updated comment on my page. The links still do not work. This is an old problem with fqxi - I found that when formatting, you must strip http:// from any url you add after link: try it in the preview it should work.
Best
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 08:17 GMT
Vladimir,
Video links here, for all, but I'll also copy to yours, without http://.
Classic QM Full Video. 100second 'glimpse' on Vimeo or 100sec. version on Youtube tested and they all seem to work!
Thanks
peter
Vladimir Rodin wrote on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 12:34 GMT
Dear Peter,
Bravo, good work. The work, setting thinking and continue the analysis of the offered thoughts. The work which will be for my part highly estimated.
To tell the truth, I don’t carry myself to the big experts in the area of physics of consciousness, more likely on the contrary, but in my opinion the consciousness has other, thinner nature. Certainly, I don’t deny physics (more precisely - biophysics) of brain structure, but I’m almost assured that a brain it is simple a highly organized antenna realizing information interchange between individual intelligence (as the mechanism of implementing of the consciousness of an individuum), and a noosphere (as a “global information field” - prof. Vernadsky). All residual body of each person (also of all other live beings) is thought up only for this purpose, to provide optimum performance of this aerial (brain) in certain environment.
Believing that my thought, most likely is not new, I carry myself to supporters of those who denies possibility of the creation of artificial consciousness. The intelligence can be (possibly) to some extent simulated and realized.
Best regards and good luck in the contest!
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 18:39 GMT
Vladimir.
Thanks. I think you understood better than the auto-translate understood you! Perhaps there's much room for improvement in the artificial intelligence of translators. But I did understand your meaning, and thank you.
Peter
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 15:53 GMT
Piter, I have read all the laudatory comments about your essay and, therefore, expect the best. It is obvious that the authors wanted to get high scores to improve your ranking.
Most of the essays in the contest is 'Much Ado about Nothing', However, is their great work, and I can't give them low scores when they visited my topic and found out that there are New Cartesian Physic.
Peter, you have a talent to combine a lot of good words and a lot of writing. That you attract the attention of others. I do not exclude that you can be among the winners.
I ask you to remember the existence of the New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the identity of space and matter.
I wish you success!
Dizhechko Boris
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 18:47 GMT
Boris,
Thank you. I admire all who write science in a foreign language and make it valuable and comprehensible. I imagine what nonsense mine would be if I tried to write in Russian!
One question, (I'll post on both strings); I suggest that in reality Cartesian 'frame' systems are unreal so help confound much of science, and we need solid 'material', forming 3D geometrical shapes to then make proper sense of nature.
Thoughts?
Peter
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 00:11 GMT
Peter, thanks for the question.
I also criticize the Cartesian coordinate system for its long axis and on this basis to reject the special theory of relativity, as it is the basis of the inertial reference system, which prevent each other from moving due to the long axes. I believe that the Cartesian coordinate system takes place only in the infinitesimal sense. The place where we live is infinitely small relative to the entire Universe, so we can mentally use Cartesian 'frame' systems, assuming that space is at rest.
I wish you success!
Dizhechko Boris
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 01:13 GMT
Hi Peter,
I have replied to your post on my essay page.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 01:02 GMT
Hi Peter,
I have replied to your post again.
report post as inappropriate
Robert Groess wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 03:53 GMT
Dear Peter Jackson,
Thank you for your enjoyable and interesting essay. I especially enjoyed your foray into quantum mechanics and the perspective your give on the EPR paradox. We agree on many things that you say and I wonder if you know about Charlie Bennett's work (IBM TJ Watson Research Center, NY) on computational efficiency? In any event I wanted to wish you good luck for the contest and let you know I have rated your essay in the meantime.
Regards,
Robert
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 13:28 GMT
Robert,
Thanks. Few seem to see or understand the fundamental implications. My past essays (and papers) precurse this one. I've contacted many authorities and submitted to journals but of course QM is 'well understood' and there are plenty of 'off piste' views so no 'new understandings' get past the concierge!
No, I wasn't familiar with Charlie Bennett's work at IBM. Thanks. I'm just finishing listening to his IBM Q as I nistype (that's multi tasking!) He does seem very expert on current theory, interpretation and limitations, and agrees we've not yet
"proceeded very far towards a quantum computer" though he still does seem rather 'sold' on it so may not be receptive to fundamental review. i.e. he firmly says Einstein was wrong, but it seems BOTH were largely right!
The reaction of most academics here is the norm - ignore it and run a mile back to personal beliefs before any critical analysis. John Bells words about professional physicists ring in my ears! If you have any ideas how an approach Charlie or IBM without being 'bounced off' before they even look, or can help, do please advise.
I hope to read your essay and comment later today.
Peter
Robert Groess replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 17:35 GMT
Dear Peter,
The interesting thing about Einstein's disdain for quantum concepts is that his objections inspired other leading proponents to make great strides in their work. In any event I agree with you that "BOTH were largely right". As for contacting prospective collaborators, if they are profesional researchers they will be open to new communication. It is what helps us move forward. I will also reply to the comment you left on my forum.
Regards,
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 18:14 GMT
Robert,
Many thanks, I hope you prove right about professional researchers. No sign of it in the last 10 years but I won't give up hope.
Best
Peter
Koorosh Shahdaei wrote on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 18:06 GMT
Peter
I was an interesting and thought provoking essay, I have also studied computer science and also have special interest in physics, mathematics and algorithms. Have reading your essay and enjoying and I think your essay deserves a high score.
I wish you good luck with your essay.
Kind regards
Koorosh
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 18:11 GMT
Koorosh,
Thank you kindly. My earlier essays from 2011 identify a coherent STR solution in line with Einsteins 1953 conception consistent with Classic QM, which was effectively a test. I hope you manage to derive a test to distinguish the 1905 and 1953 concepts.
Two key things; Electrons are everywhere, far more than ever imagined, and 'all physics is local'.
Peter
Jouko Harri Tiainen wrote on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 05:18 GMT
I have to thank you Peter for your very generous words about my essay.
Your essay is very good, yes I DO understand what you are getting. And as you mentioned we have very similar ideas "I think you may be one of the few with enough imagination and logical understanding to follow the complex ontological (and dynamic geometrical) construction in mine".
Yes I love the cos
2...
view entire post
I have to thank you Peter for your very generous words about my essay.
Your essay is very good, yes I DO understand what you are getting. And as you mentioned we have very similar ideas "I think you may be one of the few with enough imagination and logical understanding to follow the complex ontological (and dynamic geometrical) construction in mine".
Yes I love the cos
2 idea especially and the general flow of ideas and how you have a credible story-line for how the "mind" works with the "QM" very intriguing. Yes I agree with how you look at how difficult it is to "integrate" too many "new" ideas at once and you mention it is best to viualise the problem since there are more "channels" open. And I really liked your red/green sock essay from last year which I have given some thought to.
I gave you a 10-bomb one of the better essays I have to said,since do don't give a "wishy-washy" answer to how a human "decision-process" seemed "attached" to "physical object(s) of the brain" using "OM" ideas --- will done.
You address some deep ontological questions as well --- how is it we know (in your case the "click") that the change of processes associated with the collapse of the wave-function to obtain an observable "state" has happened, and why has it happened as well, using a technique of "there is one" that gets chosen from a spectrum that is tied to the "epistemological" manifestations of the curl directions of a "unique" "pristine" pre-measured and post-measured wave-function-like cos relationship (boson QM) that gives rise to "inter-relationships like in a book's pages" (Ferimon QM) which then gives rise to QCD OM (your decision-process for observers of spin) and then you give an account of how all your different one-idea QM models or "basic units of ways-of-thinking" about reality (that is a classical=curl QM,a boson QM,a fermion QM,a QCD QM, ..., until we get
understanding) which you argue leads to an actual ontological manifestation of "a universal world-view-with-knowledge which has local "epistemological processing objects with understand within "change" as described by physical evolution". This single-idea Qm modules of thought deftly handles the temporal paradoxes about "causality" and "free-will", since one is epistemology and the other is ontological- depending on your point of view as defined by your curl decision.
Better to call your essay "The quantised epistemological steps needed to understand the ontology of quantum reality as survived and observed and understand by humans".
Well done, on doing so much with solittle inputs (of new ideas).
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jouko Harri Tiainen replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 06:49 GMT
sorry typo's
Better to call your essay "The quantised epistemological steps needed to understand the ontology of reality as survived and observed by humans"
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 18:05 GMT
Juoko,
Many thanks. An apt (though not brief!) title. You bring the % seeing Classic QM's solution to near my (low) estimate! The essay was much a demonstration of the cognitive dissonance problem of physics - even after the first part explained the problem! I find that extends not just right across physics but to logic. I fear only a longer 'duration' of evolution may overcome it, but that we must keep arguing better logic anyway.
I've commented on and scored your own excellent essay. Well done, and keep up the good work.
Peter
Daniel de França Diniz Rocha wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 09:56 GMT
Dear Peter Jackson,
I really think you view of spin interaction as something interesting. The spin of the electron, as described by the Dirac equation, belongs to the group su(2), which is a double cover of so(3). That is, we need 2 rotations of a sphere. But people forget that these are different things and end up trying to talk about an electron as it were merely ONE very small sphere, tending to radius 0, mysteriously shifting its position up and down. Stephen Hawking did this confusion in his famous book brief history of time. People confuse the algebra if the group with the actual rotation of the electron. So, an electron is a 4 dimensional entity, since the Dirac equation obeys Lorentz transformations. So, people visualize the wrong situation, where the actual situation should be a hyperbolic sphere SO(3,1). And SO(3,1) is isomorphic so SU(2)XSU(2). This is why you needed 2 spheres to correctly explain the spin phenomena. I think you clarified a great deal of things, even for me.
Plus, you have added some great stuff along the way, which may help understand intelligence. Look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eas2zOSKIaQ
What is happening here it is that the slime molde, when it expands and pulsates, it is mimicking a non perturbation integral of a path integral. When you do non perturbative, you appeal to combinatoric methods, which are very compute intensive for usual computer architectures. I think our brains works in a way analogous to a slime mold, but it needs its parts more fixed, and not too fall apart, like it would happen to a slime mold. So, I think the brain works by expanding "pseudopods", and tries to find the food (the idea), and when it finds, it creates a synapse. As you can deduce from the slime mold examples, things will be stored like loops in the brain (indeed this is the case, and this is more clear in the relation ship between brain cortex and thalamus)
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 10:42 GMT
Daniel,
Brilliant!; 'a hyperbolic sphere SO(3,1). And SO(3,1) is isomorphic so SU(2)XSU(2).' You have a better brain for algebraic representation than I do, so I agree we should stay in touch and hope we can collaborate.
I've just watched the excellent video and also agree most brains seem to work like slime mold (certainly many here!) and perhaps all do at the biological level. I still don't understand how the mold can avoid 'wrong' pathways without learning they're wrong. I'd surmise (not mentioned) that there was a morsel they were after at the end of the maze emitting signals, equivalent to smell?
Peter
peter wamai wanjohi wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 12:02 GMT
Amazing and very learned,how you define and discuss biological and AI consciousness as computational intelligence with both inputs and outputs (aims and intentions) based on mathematical principles (Propositional Dynamic Logic).
You suggest that outputs serve a goal (intention)and that evolutionary errors as well as inadequate RAM architecture in biological consciousness which disrupt rationalism and therefore efficient response to stimuli (inputs). And that upgrading to nonlinear processing is necessary. How can this be accomplished or is it an imperative of evolution?
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 18:59 GMT
Peter
A great pleasure in life and these contests is when others understand original consistent derivations. Thank you.
I suggest we can and must 'self evolve' our intellect, or AI will soon overtake us to maybe fatal effect (Hawking, Gates, Musk etc all suspect fatal). I've experimented and proved it's far from impossible. How? A simple schema;;
1. First recognise the need, generally and specifically (half the battle!)
2. Clarify the 2 thought 'modes' (1 low level 'instant', 2 high level rational).
3. Learn (from school age on) to identify & challenge assumptions not 'cram in facts'.
4. Cram in 'findings' for reference over a wide range of so called 'specialisms'.
5. Learn to filter 'data' from 'opinion/interpretation' and clearly categorize.
6. Practice using mode 2 NOT mode 1 and thinking outside
hierarchies of 'boxes'.
7. Use PDL & top relying on maths as a substitute for unbiased rational analysis!
My experiment was jumping off the training 'carriage' as the rails took it into the wonderland of Alice and the Mad Hatter. I watched it's progress carefully as I studied how Architects learn to think, qualifying and practicing. Yet I probably researched 10 times the papers etc an average PhD might, across ALL science; cosmology to QM. After 4 decades I found areas of the great pile of ill fitting jigsaw puzzle pieces slotting coherently together, some quite different to doctrine, all informing other areas.
I'm sure there may be other ways to do it but that methodology seemed quite successful. Of course it's useless unless others keep up! We may only be 10-15 years from AI doing that and deciding it doesn't need confused primates. Elon Musk thinks even with a 'kill switch' they'd kill us before we could throw it! Do you?
Peter
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 19:02 GMT
7. PDL was 'propositional dynamic logic' (also see my last years essay), and a typo, should read;
"stop" relying....
P
Francis Duane Moore wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 17:40 GMT
Your paper should win a prize if the referees give credence to the number of posts the essay receives. MY greater connection theory is a longer paper available when you email me for the much longer composition It is; fdmooredds@cox,net
the possibilities of the connections have very large permutations
Particle dynamics are a sector of changing connections
Thanks for your Post of my essay "Proton Three Plane Immersion Connection Theory"
Sincerely,
Francis Duane Moore
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 10:34 GMT
Francis,
Thanks. But judging doesn't consider post numbers any more than community scores, or even apparently than originality, importance, amount or quality of content. A very good piece in the APS journal recently identified that; 'who' you are, how close to doctrine your work is and how close to the reviewers opinions your hypothesis is what most influence judgement.
The 'Scientific Method' exists to theoretically aspire to rather than employ, the first half of my essay explains why. Daniel Shecktman's interview in the last issue confirms that (rejected by the foolish for 40 years then given a Nobel). The judges here have ideal opportunity to disprove that thesis or change things but haven't yet taken it. That gives important insight to human nature and our current evolutionary state.
Yes, please do send me the link or pdf. Thanks
Best
Peter
Steven Andresen wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 09:01 GMT
Dear Peter
I have taken James Putnams advice to read your essay, and although I havent finished, the opening is certainly very interesting. I will read on and return here with comment.
My essay has only received 8 ratings, which is two short of the ten required for prospectively qualifying finals, with few days till close. Would you be willing to review my essay opening, with a view to read on if it should capture your interest please? James seems to think you might find it of interest. It is certainly a unique and novel perspective, I can promise you this much.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2890
Thank you for your consideration
Kind Regards
Steven Andresen
report post as inappropriate
Tommaso Bolognesi wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 12:24 GMT
Dear Peter,
your essay is quite dense — a direct consequence of your Bio! — and, I believe, assumes familiarity with many concepts that you mention rather quickly, without finding space for more patient introductions. As a result, the reading for me was not as smooth as in a previous essay of yours (I seem to remember…). You wrote in my page that our approaches are compatible and complementary, but I could not (readily) find contact points that would trigger some meaningful reaction on my side. You expand on AI, and I can see the relation with the aims and intentions topic, but that’s an aspect of the Essay Theme that I no not dare discussing about... except for a question:
You claim (Conclusion 2) that it is possible to model algorithmic mechanisms implementing intentionality in an AI architecture, but a computer as complex as a biological brain may be required. When do you think this type of computer will be available (if ever)? I have been recently surprised to hear a reknown computer scientist (and Turing Award winner) declare that this is not going to happen…
Regards
Tommaso
PS
I usually avoid mentioning scoring. I’m making an exception here, telling you that I am not going to rate your text (not that you need my score! :-)
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 10:09 GMT
Tommaso,
Thanks. Compatible concepts were with PDLogics
"hierarchy of levels" each giving emergence, and so "goals" as just past 'decisions' at a 'lower' level leading subsequnt ;cascades; of decisions serving the first (via feedback loops), so
"just a narrative trick for describing, a-posteriori, features of mechanisms." So then; "All we have is mechanisms - interacting, computational mechanisms all over the place". We may then have sub goals and sub-sub goals ad infinitum. So;
"goals prosper as levels of emergence start to pile up,".On AI. Quantum computing is stalled, thus the Turing winners view. However decoding the 'Shannon channel' noise, which Classic QM seems to allow (you may also recall the 'IQBit') may accelerate that, so also AI development. Researching AI for the essay rather worried me! Hawking, Gates, Musk etc. are all worried too. Musk thinks even a kill switch would be overcome as they'd kill us first. They could certainly disable it! My guess? I don't like guessing, ..but 'not in my lifetime'. Then again I am retirement age!
The best answer I have is to self evolve our OWN intellect so as not to be overtaken. Not as hard as some may assume, but we first need to
recognise and address the problem! That means more Mode 2 (complex rationalisation) and less Mode 1 (intuitive/pattern matching) responses. I note your footnote, but consider carefull (in mode2), did that really emerge from a Mode 1 or Mode 2 response?
Best
Peter
Michael Alexeevich Popov wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 15:49 GMT
Dear Peter,
My answer for your question on AI & Kant could be found in my blog space " Kantian answers "
Respectfully
Michael
report post as inappropriate
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 20:38 GMT
hi peter,
a very accessible essay, which is great. some notes as i'm reading...
interesting to learn that training as an architect teaches how to think of the "what if's". of course it would need to be so, because of the cascading complexities of making sure that a building stays upright!
abandoning classical mechanisms... hmmm... i would disagree with that. dr randell mills demonstrates that the hypothesis that classical mechanisms are a dead-end is false. quantum mechanics is effectively a fourier analysis: mills uses fourier analysis *where needed* as opposed to moving the *entire* exercise into the frequency domain. it's a very very important distinction that is getting a lot of physicists into a lot of trouble.
howeever... ultimately... *both* approaches are going to have to agree. one approach will show the other what the "intractable" problems' solution(s) are.
i do find it very very interesting that you point out that the "3 concepts" could even push things beyond the limits of even the most eminent modern scientists' brain. that explains a *lot*.
section 9, you've just described *EXACTLY* the conditions which i outline in some of my recent papers. i'm currently exploring Jones Vectors and have encountered Castillo's work which i believe to be crucial.
.... ha! i love the conclusion - based as it is on a "catch 22" scenario, thus pointing out that it's humans who need to evolve...
i get the impression that you had to leave quite a lot out from this essay, i see hints of things that are not explored fully but you've clearly thought about a great deal.
yeah. interesting essay, peter. thank you.
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 11:17 GMT
Luke,
Thanks. Many professionals disagree it's 'accessible', which is the experimental confirmation I expected proving my hypothesis about thinking modes. If there's no embedded memory/pattern of something then the Mode 1 'reactive' response is to refuse it admission.
BUT! I'm not sure where;
"abandoning classical mechanisms" came from! Au Contraire Rodders! I agree that's FALSE! What I do is abandon the illogical QUANTUM mechanism. Which is easier to do as there
ISN'T ONE!, that's it's problem, there's just an imaginary 'superposed spin state' and a formula, which is classical and we essentially keep!
The 'TWO STATE' electron was demanded by Pauli etc decades ago (Bohr rather dismissed it) but I show it's
REAL! Could you find 'clockwise or anticlockwise' by touching an equator? or up/down by touching a pole? yet BOTH are momenta!, and both present in m Maxwell's equations!!
Of course as it's not already embedded as a memory in physicist brains the common 'Mode 1' thinking means it won't be admitted by all but the most intelligent thinkers (using Mode2 rational analysis).
And yes, I explained in an earlier essay how 'frequency' is not 'real' but a time derivative and is abused. As an astronomer I know we HAVE to use lambda (wavelength) as fundamental to make sense of the universe.
I can't remember section 9 but do please use/take up that department in collaboration if you wish and if helpful.
Yes, I jammed it full but left a lot outside the boxes. Very perceptive. Much is already written elsewhere but far from all as it flows out rather overwhelmingly. All collaborations welcome!
I just checked, I did score yours earlier, one of just a few 10's.
Please do stay in touch.
pj.ukc.edu@physics.org Very best,
Peter
Steven Andresen wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 01:04 GMT
Peter
I very much enjoyed reading your essay. They are complex views of a complex subject matter, I had to read very slowly to attempt follow the lesson you would teach. I feel that for the most part I understood what was being shared, but understanding a theme and being able to verify it in ones mind, are two different things. I would need to rationalize a large body of your work before I could have a useful opinion on its correctness, even if I do already generally agree the conclusions. Because I too do not believe in magic, and the quantum confusion will one day yield to a sensible resolution given with a compete set of the variables, non remaining hidden. This is part of what you claim to have done, and I will be delighted to learn this is what you have achieved.
You make the point of peoples ability to process visual information better that text. This is how I would appreciate being introduced to your ideas, as Henry has done in the following video. Will you consider preparing something like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adrCLSTn9mI&t=3s
You have a highly rated essay and I will contribute. I wish you through to the finals.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 09:04 GMT
Steven
Thanks. Yes there IS a video showing the visual dynamics
Classic QM Video.
I've posted the link many times here but clearly should do it more. I hope you'll be delighted! My essays in 2014 and last year are helpful in precursing this, but only this year did I identify the final piece solving the puzzle; Interaction Cascades squaring the cos values in fields, consistent with QCD.
I watched Henry's video. Very professional graphics. He's largely right but missed identifying exactly what John Bell did, and
didn't prove! (which recognized identified and stated!) He did NOT exclude a classical solution, in fact he pointed to it without being able to tie it down. He only excluded normal 'local hidden variable' theories, which ClassicQM is NOT!.
The problem is most beliefs about Bell are heresay (and ignoring the heresay is heresey!) Few have actually read the compilation of his works so it's widely poorly and 'mis'understood.
After seeing the video read the 2nd half of the essay again and it should all come to light. Let me know.
Best
Peter
Peter
Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 15:10 GMT
dear Peter,
thanks for voting (I also gave you a 10 but you don't need it).
About QM, I have to write you but I need more time.
Best Torsten
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Keppeler wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 16:33 GMT
Dear Peter,
thanks for stopping by at my page. I think I mostly agree with the general views expressed in the early sections of your essay. In later sections I'd probably need some more explanations before I could add something valuable - if at all. In Sec. 6 you write that "to adopt QM we must abandon causal logic" and that QM is "'spooky' and incompatible with Special Relativity (SR)". I'm not sure I understand that. QM is non-local in a sense, but to the best of my knowledge not at variance with SR (no signaling). Marrying QM with SR, I think, has led to relativistic quantum field theory, which is not only one of the best-tested theories but also causal. Can you relieve my confusion?
Cheers, Stefan
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 20:58 GMT
Stefan,
QM and SR were never comaptible, right from the big row between Bohr and Einstein at Solvay in 1927, leading to the EPR paradox issue etc. Penrose recently reminded us they use totally different concepts of time! No. They certainly haven't been unified or 'married' yet, and so called 'relativistic QFT' is not only not a solution but is still highly untested and unproven despite the odd (very odd!, even desperate!) claim! Penrose recently called unification the 'Holy Grail'. 'Spooky' was Einsteins word!
Did you spot the 2nd (Maxwell) momenta on a spinning sphere that Bohr missed off in formulating QM? If not, do read the last bit carefully, and watch the
Classic QM on Vimeo. video;
best
Peter
Stefan Keppeler replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 09:17 GMT
Dear Peter,
many people call unification of QM and general relativity (GR) the 'holy grail', probably also Penrose. Do you have a reference for Penrose calling unification of QM and special relativity (SR) the 'holy grail'? SR vs. GR matters a lot here.
I know EPR and that Einstein coined the word 'spooky' in this context, but not in order to claim a fundamental incompatibility of QM and SR.
QFT has it's issues, I'm happy to agree on that.
Do you have a good example which illustrates the alleged incompatibility of QM and SR?
Please don't take this as criticism, I'd really like to understand your point.
Cheers, Stefan
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 09:41 GMT
Stefan,
No probs. I think should challenge everything! QM & SR incompatibilities are fundamental. QM contradicts the central Principle of Relativity and needs 'absolute' time, and non-locality, both anathema to SR. Many essays here note the issues, including I recall Beichler, Yousef, Kraklaue, Roychoudhuri etc. Penrose called them 'twin pillars of science', which can never meet. I...
view entire post
Stefan,
No probs. I think should challenge everything! QM & SR incompatibilities are fundamental. QM contradicts the central Principle of Relativity and needs 'absolute' time, and non-locality, both anathema to SR. Many essays here note the issues, including I recall Beichler, Yousef, Kraklaue, Roychoudhuri etc. Penrose called them 'twin pillars of science', which can never meet. I discussed in detail in 3 finalist essays from '2020 Vision' in 2010 (2011 contest).
But more helpful may be a coherent solution appearing when the 'jigsaw puzzle' seemed to fall into place, but needing slightly new views of both. Lets say an electron re-emits absorbed light at the only speed it knows, 'c' in it's own local 'centre of mass' rest frame. Now consider Maxwell near/far field Transition Zone (TZ) as the surface charge free electrons of ALL matter. Light then changes speed to the LOCAL c on arrival (not quite instantly in diffuse plasma & gas). Brains into Mode 2 please! Then if you and a pal in space wait for some light, you head towards it and he heads AWAY from it, when you do so it has no effect on the light, apart from the different Doppler shifts as it changes speed by different amounts on arrival, so does c/n through BOTH your lenses.
That 'discrete field' model (DFM) meets Einsteins conceptual description in 1953 and is very simple once embedded. It also happens to be exactly what resolves all the wierdness in QM! Bob and Alice can rotate that fine structure TZ field direction to change and even REVERSE the 'spin states' ('re-quantized wavefunction' if you like). QMs predictions emerge with so called 'non-locality' effects produced entirely classically. Uncertainty doesn't disappear but reduces in fractals, so we have complete causality but NOT complete determinism!
(You may need to take that in 3 times a day for a week to stop your embedded pattern's rejecting it). Please do challenge any of it (but also read the previous essays to save me rewriting them here!)
Thanks for the interest.
Peter
view post as summary
Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 22:14 GMT
Dear Peter,
I found your essay to be interesting, well written, and you seem to make a good case for a missing OAM state. Is your idea refutable; have you spoken to appropriate theoreticians and experimenters for their various opinions about it?
But I would query what you say about (so called) “Artificial Intelligence”. Because, despite all the advances in what is misleadingly...
view entire post
Dear Peter,
I found your essay to be interesting, well written, and you seem to make a good case for a missing OAM state. Is your idea refutable; have you spoken to appropriate theoreticians and experimenters for their various opinions about it?
But I would query what you say about (so called) “Artificial Intelligence”. Because, despite all the advances in what is misleadingly called “machine learning” and “AI”, the highest-level decision making processes they contain are written by human beings. The controlling algorithms control other higher-level human-written rules and make (so called) “AI” and “machine learning” possible. The human-written highest-level algorithm ensures that there is a pre-decided type of response to every possible “learning” input the program allows; and if it doesn’t ensure a response, then the program will just sit there and produce no response. You could hit it with an axe and it wouldn’t respond, unless it was programmed to detect and avoid attack.
“AIs” and computer programs are pre-thought-out artefacts: they didn’t just happen – they require a pre-existing conscious intelligence to consider, at a higher level, how to handle, in a general way or a specific way, every possible pertinent type of input that might occur in the future. This is why algorithms can have no counterpart in nature: instead there are law-of-nature rules.
When it comes to living things, or even particles atoms or molecules, there are quantum, multiple choice aspects to seemingly every outcome, as well as the deterministic aspects due to laws-of-nature. And while there is information and constraints to possibility provided by molecules, cells, organs and body structure, and constraints provided by the environment, the constraints themselves cannot do any choosing of single outcomes from multiple possible outcomes, and the constraints themselves cannot narrow the possibility to one, despite what the brave, new emergenteers might imagine.
Best wishes,
Lorraine
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 11:56 GMT
Lorraine,
'Is your idea refutable; have you spoken to appropriate theoreticians & experimenters for their various opinions." Yes. The process with new findings still seems to be;
"First it's ignored or rejected, then misinterpreted and argued over, then trivial, then entirely self apparent anyway." It's had all those responses, because once properly studied and assessed it actually is "entirely self apparent". Indeed it's consistent with Maxwell where QM isn't! But most are at stage 1, with no response at all.
That's not a surprise and supports the first thesis of my essay; in Mode 1 thinking if a memory doesn't already exist then a new idea won't match anything so is rejected a priori.
I understand your point on AI, but it's now being overtaken as AI learns in ways not anticipated. Indeed experiments are run to FIND OUT what it can and can't do! (Take a look at Larissa Albantakis 'experimental analysis' essay for a very simple current example). Sure we make rules and set conditions, but often we have no idea what's possible within those. In advanced deep learning & fluid AI it may then reasonably become possible (with more layering, 'RAM' and 'feedback loops' etc) for the 'brain' to overcome the initial rules and set it's own! That's what Elon Musk found and is worried by; even if we have 'kill switch' it may kill us first or disable it.
Is that reasonable? Also look at my response to Ulla's question on qualia here, and at Danial Dennett's work.
I owe you a response on your blog, also a rating, which so's you know what's cumin I'd noted as provisionally 8 but I'll re-{speed} read it). I'll pop up to see you shortly (I know most think of South as DOWN but I think it should really be UP as its +, and I do insist on looking fo ALL ways to look at things! - Is it UP to you?)
Very Best
Peter
David Pinyana wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 23:32 GMT
Peter,
I have read your essay but it makes me difficult to understand given its depth and complexity, but I agree with you that our essays are complementary and that in the future we can discuss them more in depth.
I understand that your proposals are centered on the smaller scales (between the quantum scales up to the Planck scales (10 ^ -20 to 10 ^ -35 m).
These scales are still a mystery and different concepts (strings, KK spaces, loops, ...) and theories (CDT, DSR, ...) are being dealt with ... and also Fractal Theory can be an alternative.
For me, the fact that the processes that occur on these scales, then can generate other processes on higher scales as different as simply an immaterial being, or an intelligent being, makes the concept of emergency so important.
Where can we say that the separation between the two occurs? ... evidently it seems that it begins in the biochemistry, that is, from the scale point of view to the 10 ^ -10 m.
I will send you my book that best explains my proposal ("THE FRACTAL RAINBOW") and I trust that we may be in contact in the future.
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 15:05 GMT
David,
Thanks. I did state it needed to be read slowly! (Thinking Mode 2) but English being a foreign language (and not brilliant for science!) makes it worse. I speed read most essays first. I penetrate to between 90% & 10% (& often read again in mode2) With mine It'd be less than 10%!
"
Where can we say that the separation between the two occurs?" Not just two in my book! Literally; like interleaved pages, and exactly as (in logic) the infinite (indeed 'fractally' structured) number of possible bracketed functions within
bracketed compound functions/propositions(2015) in arithmetic. So at EVERY 'scale'.
I'd be delighted to receive your book. (I'm thinking about mere effective ways of getting info embedded into our networks but only video's beat reading so far!)
I just checked, I did score yours (highly). Can you tell me why you think the condensate itself is also fractal? No reason why not, but any evidence or reason why?
Tanks
Peter
Alexey/Lev Burov wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 00:09 GMT
Dear Peter,
Since I am not sure that will be able to read your text entirely and with full attention before April 7, I am limiting myself so far with a brief remark on just a single statement: “Maths or matter may imply a creator, who must be created.” The causal source is required for special things, but not true for totalities. You might be interested to see how we deal with that problem in our previous fqxi essay
Genesis of a Pythagorean Universe .
All the best,
Alexey Burov.
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 15:57 GMT
Alexey,
Yes I recall the essay, scoring well & close to mine. I was intrigued by, but recall finding no convincing argument or evidence supporting, the starting proposition;
"The wide range, high precision and simplicity of the fundamental laws of nature rule out the possibility for them to be randomly generated or selected. Therefore purpose is present in their selection."Indeed as everything is relative I think could make a good case that our current laws are quite the opposite; Limited in range, incomplete and often approximate. Of course that can't rule out;
'purpose in selection' but I didn't feel that
'rule out' randomness.. or
'therefore' purpose.. were proven to be the best choice of terms.
You note I wrote
'may imply a creator'... because I agree it is indeed uncertain. My point is that 'agency' is an inescapable infinitely recursive concept UNLESS we step over to the metaphysical. I noticed someone else made that point better than me, and agree with Alan Kadin who argued
'Humans see agency and intent everywhere, because we are programmed to do so". Also agreeing with Dennett, who points out essentially that all such concepts and matters of 'totality' are emergent concepts.
I can't recall, did you have another 'non metaphysical' definition of a 'totality.'?
I also can't recall what intelligence you assigned the 'purpose' to?
I did rate this years higher, but think you've missed some excellent work and derivations here in saying of;
"connection between thought and matter... attempts so far turned out to be futile." I hopy you'll study carefully when you've time as I think it's become clear some now look well beyond that!
Very Best
Peter
David C Cosgrove wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 02:33 GMT
Hi Peter,
Lots of interesting concepts raised in your essay – and I will have to spend some time contemplating their bearing!
I have also started looking at some of your related material on QM.
Regards,
David C.
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 16:03 GMT
David,
Thanks, great! I look forward to discussing further. Of course QM was just a test of a coherent adjustment in understanding of SR allowing unification (see earlier finalist essays from here on)
2020 Vision fqxi 2010 It's seemed to pass! (Shocking I know).
Peter
Akinbo Ojo wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 09:15 GMT
Hi Peter,
Having another look at your nice essay as the competition draws to a close. A commendable effort...
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 13:35 GMT
Hi Peter,
This is easily the most overwhelming essay in the contest.....in a good way! And you conclusions are logical and enlightening. I looked at it in chunks now it is time to vote.
Thanks for your epic work,
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 16:08 GMT
Akinbo, Don,
(sorry, but lets save posts!) Thank you both. Much appreciated. I think you both did very well too and (just checked!) scored both accordingly.
Very best
Peter
George Gantz wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 13:49 GMT
Peter - Thank you for the comment on my essay. I have responded, and include my remarks here as a matter of convenience:
"Thank you for the careful read and excellent comments. Yes, I did read your essay – I found it difficult to follow but I am in general agreement with key points. Specifically, I would agree that “Nature may meet the conditions for a mathematical universe but it...
view entire post
Peter - Thank you for the comment on my essay. I have responded, and include my remarks here as a matter of convenience:
"Thank you for the careful read and excellent comments. Yes, I did read your essay – I found it difficult to follow but I am in general agreement with key points. Specifically, I would agree that “Nature may meet the conditions for a mathematical universe but it also does so for most physical and meta-physical universes and a 'creator'. All have infinite recursion, in both directions.” An excellent and profound observation. I did stumble on the following sentence – “Maths or matter may imply a creator, who must be created.” This implies infinite regress, which of course one is free to follow – although a single infinite (recursive) first creator is a much simpler speculation.
I cheerfully agree as well with your final conclusion: “No conclusion is possible as to whether or not a cosmic architect created our or any universe.”
In your comment above, I am struck by a thought I had not articulated in my essay. Perhaps the undecidability of the nature of cosmic architecture (random vs. specific) that I discuss in some detail extends down to fundamental QM events at the point of interaction. A billiard ball (simple model of a spinning moving sphere) connects with another billiard ball --- is that precise interaction exactly the one required to send the second billiard ball into the pocket? As we conceptually dive down past the macro-particles to the QM level where the contact is instantiated, do we perhaps not find a choice point --- a single quantum interaction, fundamentally indeterminate, where a 50:50 probability ultimately decides the fate of the second billiard ball? By such interactions the fine tuning constants may have emerged in our universe.
It is a pleasure to converse with you! Perhaps through more conversation we will be able to meet Einstein’s criteria – “we should be able to be explain physics to a barmaid” – or bartender as we should say in the 21st century…"
Cheers – George Gantz
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 16:47 GMT
George,
Great response. On; "
do we perhaps not find a choice point --- a single quantum interaction, fundamentally indeterminate, where a 50:50 probability ultimately decides the fate of the second billiard ball? By such interactions the fine tuning constants may have emerged in our universe." Good point. I suspect there must be a direct link.
In fact the NEW PHYSICS I identify contains TWO such 50:50 probability 'crossovers', PHYSICALLY producing the twin inverse 90
o curve crossovers of QM.
On the (Bloch) sphere (maybe think 'sponge' rather than 'billiard' ball) the ZERO MOMENTUM tangent points are at the Poles and on the Equator (so orthogonal). So the latter has 50:50 +/- charge ('curl'), and the poles each 50:50 UP/DOWN angular momentum.
These are
real, as a dynamometer will tell us, but they've been in the hiding place every spy known is best, in plain sight, and on the very surface of eyeballs, lenses and antenna! That surface becomes Maxwell's near/far field transition zone if we're in motion in the local background, so implementing LOCAL SR as well as ClassicQM! (well you do did manage the 'difficult to follow' essay - so just read that 7 times in brain Mode2 and it'll start making make perfect sense!)
Let me know if it does. Now about those barmaids....
Best
Peter
PS; Lots of other stuff flows out as may be expected, but to keep interpretation on the rails; god MAY still exist, the model is entirely causal (ok 'quasi'.. as Gell Mann) but NOT entirely deterministic, and uncertainty does NOT go away, it just reduces as a fractal with scale (as heliospheres are bigger than planets, beach, balls, peas etc. & electrons).
Ulla Marianne Mattfolk wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 14:07 GMT
Hi Peter.
Qualia as a result of a PROCESS ?? How?
Ulla.
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 16:30 GMT
Ulla,
We must see through the fog & myths to what Qualia are; fine differences between memories, all interlinked. The smells of 5 different roses can be distinguished, each recalled on seeing a colour or form, hearing a name, even feeling a petal.
Decoding half the quantum noise in a Shannon channel with Classic QM allows far more information storage and a more Intelligent Bit or
'IQbit' (fqxi2104), though, with last years red & green (reversible)
socks and now finding Cos
2, only now complete. This may then allow multi trillions of memories/cm
3 deep within our neural RAM architecture.
Dan Dennett found he only needed trillions, and called qualia simply "the ways things seem to us". How could anything "seem" to be anything without being memories? Infinitely small distinguishable patterns. As a cosmologist I can conceive the enormous 'room at the top' we have, and as Wheeler said - there's also
"plenty of room at the bottom"! Humanity finds that similarly hard to conceive (a bit like Classic QM!) but only as we have no memory of it!
Peter
Kigen William Ekeson wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 14:57 GMT
Dear Peter,
Thanks for the fine essay. Very insightful and well written. I've commented about it as part of my response to your comments on my essay.
Best of luck.
Kigen
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 10:48 GMT
Thanks for your kind words. I've responded to your post on yours. I also scored yours earlier.
Peter
Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 18:08 GMT
Peter: I have read your article. It is a scholarly article with strong bent towards intellectual logician. We have both agreements and dis-agreements. I can learn a lot from you; which means we can collaborate and complement each other, if you want. Chandra.Roychoudhuriatuconn.edu. You can also download some of my selected papers from http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/. Specifically, I would suggest down load the paper "2014.2". It explains my methodology of thinking in more detail.
"At present we're wandering in the dark. We do know physical motion and interactions exist, but we won't know if any algorithm is correct
until we fully understand the mechanisms."
AGREE.
My methodology of thinking is that we must implement Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E) over and above the prevailing Data Modeling Epistemology (MDM-E).
"Our brains themselves are part of the system as part of the observer."
DISAGREE.
Human brain is only the interpreter. It is physically separate and independent of the data-generating instrument where the interaction processes are going on (invisible to us; and that is the problem. Counter example: Unless, of course, you are analyzing your own brain. Say, you inside an fMRI machine and interactively trying to interpret the images while the images are dynamically changing as your logical brain is WANDERING to find the intellectually most pleasing solution.
Again, thanks for writing an excellent article.
ChandraSekhar Roychoudhuri
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 17:44 GMT
Chandra,
Fantastic, thanks. (Chandra.. Raman was a hero of mine).
Yes, I agree. I'll have to check the context of my 'brain' comment as I've pre agreed your description. See;
fqxi 2012 7th. to see how it matches up.
I've also hit your link and the 2014.2 button, (live here);
www.natureoflight.org/CP/ Anybody reading this please look at Chandra's essay and score it up as it really should be a finalist! Empower Mathematical Equations Using Evolution Process Congruent Thinking.
I'm away at a wedding this weekend so I'll read 2014.2 and we can talk next week. I'm sure I have much to learn from you too.
Very best of luck in the run-in
Peter
John Edward LaMuth wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 19:34 GMT
Hi Peter
I agree with your statement that the REAL start of conscious intelligence is when;
A BRAIN IS ABLE TO ORGANIZE AND ARRANGE STORED INPUT TO 'IMAGINE' FUTURE SCENARIOS, TRIGGERING MOTOR NEURONE RESPONSES, WHICH THEN LEADS TO CREATION OF WHAT WE TERM 'INTENT' and 'GOALS'.
Also pattern matching
Best
John laMuth
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 09:03 GMT
John,
Yes, thanks. I mention the key role of pattern matching in the essay, but also identify it the main basis of our 'primevally' evolved 'auto response' Mode 1 thinking mechanism (mainly called 'intuition') which I suggest we need to self-evolve AWAY from (to Mode 2 rational thinking mechanisms) in physics if we're to truly advance our understanding of nature (and stay ahead of AI!)
In practice; Anything that's not already installed as a memory (pattern), like new physics or understandings, is 'auto rejected' by Mode 1 thinking.
Peter
Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 21:04 GMT
Dear Peter,
now I had a chance to see your video (nice socks) and read also the old paper about classic QM. That was really hard work for a non-native speaker....
Did I understood you right: you derived the cosine expression by geometric arguments (I was able to follow). Then you argued that an interaction term will produce the cosine square (in agreement with QM as you correctly stated).
But here you supposed many instances but there is only one wave function. Ok if you will argue like Bohm then there is a non-local self-interaction. Seondly the wave function is not a real wave.
Also you mispoken in the video: you described spin 1/2 (instead of spin 2) which needs 720 degrees to identity (in general 360/s degrees with spin s)
All the best and good luck for the contest
Torsten
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 08:43 GMT
Torsten,
Thanks. I derived BOTH Spin 1/2
AND Spin 2 (720
o) in the video. But like the essay it was all packed in rather tightly! For ease I post the 100 second version here so you can see it again (just different relative rates of z axis rotation).
And yes, the rest was correct, the cosine distribution with Latitude well known in Geophysics and known in marine...
view entire post
Torsten,
Thanks. I derived BOTH Spin 1/2
AND Spin 2 (720
o) in the video. But like the essay it was all packed in rather tightly! For ease I post the 100 second version
here so you can see it again (just different relative rates of z axis rotation).
And yes, the rest was correct, the cosine distribution with Latitude well known in Geophysics and known in marine navigation. The new realization was the inverse and orthogonal relationship of 'curl' (or +/- charge), so also Chiral.
The 3D cascade mechanism squaring the values dawned on me slowly. I'd already looked at QCD and knew the
'squared by a field' effect from there, and experiments, so l knew it existed. The only question was how it was produced. Maybe also training as an architect honed 3D visualization skills - 'seeing' real 3D bodies from 2D images.
In all it was just like assembling a jigsaw puzzle. With all the pieces related in just one of infinitely many possible ways it all suddenly fits together.
On the 'wavefunction' I don't understand
"only one". There is one for each emission, or 'photon' (or many very similar ones) and NOTHING is really 'non-local' (leaving the special case 'tomography' out for the moment). As Zeilingers experiments confirm, each 'particle', wave or wavefunction, is modulated on interaction (i.e. a polarizer or modulator) which is a total collapse, to be re-Born (lol) as a NEW function, with NO MEMORY of the old!
I prefer to say "requantized" as a new/re emission'. (It may also be looked as as a local part of a plane wavefront - so we get 'bi/tri(etc)refringence' in diffuse media until the whole wavefront has been modulated - as Raman found long ago). Huygens construction then works fine, and is very much alive and well and central to cutting edge Optics and Photonics, and that's why.
I hope that helps tie up the many apparent loose ends (and sweep away many wrong jigsaw puzzle piece positions and orientations!)
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 08:45 GMT
That ghost in the machine logged me out again!
Peter
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 23:00 GMT
Dear Peter Jackson,
Thank you for the nice explanations…!
So these "You mean both blue and redshifts are simultaneously present in a single Galaxy" are visible in a Galaxy that stays edge on and both the Astronomical jets are visible. Dynamic Universe Model also explains the existence of such Galaxies. These are classified as Galaxies which are not redshifted as well as NOT...
view entire post
Dear Peter Jackson,
Thank you for the nice explanations…!
So these "You mean both blue and redshifts are simultaneously present in a single Galaxy" are visible in a Galaxy that stays edge on and both the Astronomical jets are visible. Dynamic Universe Model also explains the existence of such Galaxies. These are classified as Galaxies which are not redshifted as well as NOT Blueshifted.
…………………..Your words……………… Overall galaxies are bluer or redder. Open spirals are bluest (youngest) and large sphericals reddest (oldest), There are 2 other Blue/Red distributions of lower magnitude; First within each, which is complex and for various reasons (my papers explains) and including a 'dynamic' shift due to rotational velocity each 'side' *See Sauron, Atlas 3G etc.)………………. Reply……………..
Correct
…………………………
… your words……………………Second there is the 'Distance' (so time) distribution. Light from further away has higher redshift. Popular theory can only think of assigning this to accelerating expansion but I show that's not required Redshift Video. ………………. Reply……………..
Very nice Video
……………………………… your words…………………… There's also an underlying 'epoch' pattern of galaxy evolution, with peaks in quasar activity, which may paper also coherently explains as a recycling mechanism, into a new blue open spiral. ………………. Reply……………..
Good
……………………………
your words……………………
46c Yes, You got it. The pulse speed inside a collimated (layered) quasar jet See the NASA finding citation in my papers references. It doesn't need 'nutrino's or anything exotic. Look at Martin Rees's work going back even to the 1960's, and floods of data now available. No theory is considered worth a bean unless it confirms to the latest data! ………………. Reply……………..
Real Hard to believe…. Can you please give some references?
Best wishes Peter for your paper.
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 18:53 GMT
snp
Both jets aren't always 'visible'. Often near full power the receding jet is too fast so the light is redshifted out of optical range. many are found in the IR, but nay not 'seen' at all! (The 'approaching' jets are then severely blue shifted).
I think the Sauron Galaxy rotation shift etc stuff is here;
http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/sauron/publications.html The HST 46c finding is here; Meyer, E.T. et al. Optical Proper Motion Measurements of the M87 Jet: New Results from the Hubble Space Telescope. ApJ, 2013 774, L21. I can't find a link for the mo but Google will. Nothing PROPAGATES faster than c, but from here Hubble 'see's' the
inner pulses at 46c. It only takes a bit of mode2 thinking to work out! Most physicists seem to use mode 1 so dive for cover screaming rather than even look at it! It's simply angular change over distance, so only 'apparent' speed. See my earlier essay;
2012 2020 Vision fqxi. Also look up Rees's may papers, like; Rees, M.; Cosmic Jets. 1985. NASA. Goddard Space Flight Center Nineteenth International Cosmic Ray Conference. Vol. 9 17 p (SEE N86-31483 22-93)
But read, read, read, snp. Don't 'believe' a word of it but store the actual findings away upstairs ready for coherent interpretation! (or read & test mine!)
Best
Peter
PS try to never write 'Correct'. Nothing is fact or proved wrong, it just has more or less consistent evidence. You should just 'Agree' or explain why not!
Dan J. Bruiger wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 23:06 GMT
Hi, Peter
A whole paper (or maybe book) could be written just to unpack the first paragraph of your essay!
I think what you meant to say in the first sentence of the second paragraph of your introduction is “Nature may meet the conditions for a mathematical universe but so also do most physical and metaphysical universes…” ? After all, there is only one nature. Great point that math implies a creator.
If you are interested in the “hard problem of consciousness,” I have some thoughts on the “Homunculus Fallacy”
.
I am afraid I cannot comment on QM, which I know little about, except to say that (along with the different statistics) the fact that “light always has the polarization state given by the last polarizer” strikes me as one of the keys to what makes quantum different from classical. I could add that the idea of “spin” (QAM) is really a metaphor, based on the macroscopic notion. Other metaphors could work to describe the experimental findings, based on wave harmonics, for example.
I like your conclusion that “We will keep wandering in a search for understanding until we decide to ‘self-evolve’ to allow more complex rational thinking & logic”. That strikes me as a profound insight and a springboard to more writing…
Best wishes,
Dan
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 18:26 GMT
Dan,
Thanks. I need to learn from Amazon; Use a shoe box to send a copy of Nature! It's all that thinking outside boxes! Yes, I agree that's what I meant in sentence 2.
Ah that was it; 'Humuncous fallacy'! I was trying to think of that term in answering Alexey Burov above. Did my reply re his 'Totalities' cut it? Do step in, ..and give your thoughts there and/or here.
Was I right dismissing the agent? (his % was too high!)
Best
Peter
Peter Leifer wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 09:50 GMT
Dear Peter, I gave a good score!
I think that ``classical" should be replaced by ``rational".
Best regards,
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 17:08 GMT
Peter.
Thanks. Good idea. What to call it was tricky, but there's a popular UK radio channel 'ClassicFM', so ClassicQM just sounded natural!
I thought your own essay revealed deep understanding of QM and scored it 10. Some key extracts/quotes for others who may believe the 'folklore' of QM's mystical; 'superposed spin states';
"
Heisenberg [4]: 'I pointed out that we cannot, in fact, observe such a path; what we actually record are frequencies of the light radiated by the atom, intensities and transition probabilities, but no actual path.'
....there is a motion of the superposition state of spin AND electric charge (Dirac describing spin and charge of the electron) ...how naturally such quantum invariants as spin and electric charge independent from a quantum setup may be included in the geometry of complex projective quantum state space."The two 'states' were always right there, but one just ignored!. Even more shockingly they're also equivalent to the orthogonal E and M of EM!
Best
Peter
Peter Leifer replied on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 08:04 GMT
Dear Peter, thanks again!
I cannot understand what literally means ``they're also equivalent to the orthogonal E and M of EM!". I just now checked that the scalar product vec(sigma)vec(pho) is not equal to zero, where vec(sigma) and vec(rho) the matrices of Dirac. What do you mean? I will try to understand you nice pictures.
Best regards,
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 10, 2017 @ 12:33 GMT
Peter,
I mean that from Maxwells equations and in standard electrodynamics (EM) electricity and magnetism have an orthogonal relationship, exactly as the two states; 'curl' (peaking at the poles) and 'angular momentum' (peaking at the equator) - so 'orthogonal', or acting at 90 degrees to each other.
Then their inversely proportional complementarity and cosine distributions, (which we've now reproduced classically), also reproduce the predictions of QM (once the cos values are squared by the photo-detector cascade). All we then need is to agree electrons DON'T all re-emit absorbed energy at 'different' speeds wrt their own 'centre of mass' rest frame, and Special Relativity fits naturally into the whole 'Discrete Field' model as well! (see my essays from 2011 on).
That IS a lot to take on at once, but does it now make better sense?
Very best
Peter
Georgina Woodward wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 10:37 GMT
Hi Peter I have read your essay. I think it is good that you start out relating your answer to the essay topic. The second half seemed to me to be a different essay from the first part. It is clearly something you feel is very important and wanted to discuss. Kind regards Georgina
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 18:08 GMT
Thanks Georgina.
Yes, the 2 parts (really 3) are directly as well as indirectly connected which 'reverse engineered' the ontology, but I had to trim a few of the words that that clarified how. (And a few too many others!)
Essentially; The fine structure complexity required to produce 'Qualia' (Ullas excellent word) and 'intent' from the architecture and 'mechanisms' in our cortices simply wasn't adequate. However decoding all the 'noise' (in a Shannon information channel, - see my It from Bit IQbit essay) by revealing the second Cos
2 momentum distribution on the surface of an electron easily allows it.
We then 'loop' back' (as the neural architecture does) to thinking modes, which shows why, because physicists have no 'memory' (patterns) embedded in that complex RAM, that all such new concepts are rejected a priori when thinking in Mode1 (primeval evolved intuitive response mode). So once you see the link you should see a massive elephant sized Catch 22! (some smaller scale ones have been identified!)
I actually announced a medium sized one; Anyone 'skipping over' the essay (mode 1) would miss most of it's true value. You'll see I guesstimated ~20% would 'get' the BIG and important (ClassicQM) discovery (many aren't interested in QM) that's just been surpassed, which is great progress!
I hope that helps. I hope that didn't feel too much like decoding Shakespeare in English Lit!- but I AM saying we need to self evolve to more Mode2 analytical thinking to understand nature better after all!!
Very best
Peter
Conrad Dale Johnson wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 17:05 GMT
Dear Peter,
I want to thank you for your very kind comments on my essay, and generally for your energetic, cheerful and open-minded participation in these contests. I've postponed responding to your essay, though, because I seem unable to process more than three sentences before my brain freezes up. Skipping to another paragraph doesn't help, because it feels almost like I'm starting a new essay each time.
The problem isn't that you make no sense; that would be easy to handle. It's that there's too much knowledge and intelligence packed into each line. I can almost always work out what you're saying, a sentence at a time, but it would take me a paragraph to say it, along with some footnotes. (I thought I had a problem myself with writing too densely, so you've helped relieve me on that score).
So even though I feel I agree with all your conclusions, at the end, I can't say I've done a good job following the argument. I will say that I've been impressed in the past by the complex spherical symmetries of quantum systems, and will take a look at your videos to see if they help me there. But I'm not hoping for a "classical" resolution to the quantum puzzle; I would be disappointed if there's not a deeper level of understanding to uncover in the quantum domain.
Thanks again,
Conrad
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 10, 2017 @ 12:41 GMT
Conrad,
Thanks. What I've identified is that a classical explanation of QM's predictions can help REVEAL a deeper level of understanding to the quantum domain. There's a fantastic amount still to discover but I suggest we can never do that if we're making the wrong 'starting assumptions'.
Very best
Peter
James A Putnam wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 18:56 GMT
Dear Peter Jackson,
The judges neglected to comment to you about your work on their first opportunity. Your essays have built up a series of presentations of solutions to stubborn unexplained physics problems. The judges will now have another opportunity to perform their role of reviewing one of your essays. Anonymous judging makes sense to me; however, it also makes sense to me for judges to forward, either publicly here or privately to the author, explained main points of their evaluation. They, you and everyone profits from evaluation whether it is for or against. Good luck to you.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 10, 2017 @ 12:54 GMT
James,
Thanks. I agree. Secret judging, like peer reviewing, is reasonable and acceptable as long as you get some degree of feedback from those doing the evaluation. I have suggested it but (again) had no response. Form an evaluators viewpoint there will seem many reasons not to.
I'm not concerned about the prizes, just advancement of understanding of nature. However as my essay identifies we seem to be far slower than we could be at intellectual evolution, perhaps as Hawking, Gates, Musk and other suspect, too slow to stop AI overtaking & eradicating us in the foreseeable future!
Very best
Peter
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Apr. 12, 2017 @ 16:03 GMT
Hi Peter,
After seeing your comments to George, and noting that the conversation quickly ground to a halt, I decided to take a look (at your essay's references and the comments page). It appears you are unaware of a new effort by the experimentalists to explore Chiral Quantum Optics. A web search of that term should get you a half-dozen leads to run with. My guess is that these folks have gathered some evidence that directly impacts your theory. I can't tell you whether it supports or conflicts with your ideas, but I am fairly certain it does offer perspective on what you are trying to prove.
Warm Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 13, 2017 @ 09:54 GMT
Jonathan,
Thanks. Yes, it does. I'd actually tried to make contact with the Vienna lot but had the usual (no!) response. The raw data all agrees with the causal model (as do ALL experiments) but their analysis is 'one dimensional' (they note they aspire to two in future!) so they're some way behind other work and Nature, which is 3D!
I'd only speed read most of it so went back, which was worth doing. The 2nd (orthogonal) 'state' is actually identified but they say (as it's still not understood) that they're only "concerning themselves" with the one! (that's rather like trying to solve a Rubic cube from a picture of one side! A few other labs are ahead of them with 3D work (i.e. Allen, The Planck Inst. etc.) See also my prev 3 essays and refs etc on the helical paths they 'discover! The hype may have been as much about funding as anything.
They also rely on old doctrinal assumptions which gives rise to the 'surprise' findings etc and makes their limited analysis even less useful. - Indeed most analysis focuses on an anticipated range of possible practical applications (consistent with a funding motivation).
Thanks for flagging it up. It should indeed have been relevant, but like most current experimentation, though the data all fits the 2nd, orthogonal, momentum state I identify it remains simply
'invisible' to most minds beyond Maxwell's 'theoretical construct' and a bit of lip service!
Have you managed to 'hold' it in your mind? (I assume you watched the video - short version here;
100sec 'glimpse' video. )
Very best
Peter
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Apr. 16, 2017 @ 23:41 GMT
Thanks for responding Peter..
Agreed they are looking for funding, and probably will keep some findings to themselves until they have a (read: their own) congruent explanation for what they are observing. Which may mean that if the experiment greatly supports your work, but is not in affirmation of 'accepted' Physics, it may be a while before they do report anything meaningful objectively. And yes; of course it is worthwhile to contemplate and the visuals help. FWIW; I remain an agnostic, but I acknowledge that a major overhaul might be needed because a lot of researchers are plugged in to an answer that remains a cul de sac, rather than an open road to progress.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.