Hi Tejinder.

Bell carefully made no assumptions of his own but was testing QM's assumptions "..will use freely all the usual notions". Much of what he said is ignored by most in QM! In his own view he falsified those assumptions. “in our opinion lead inescapably to the conclusion that quantum mechanics is at the best, incomplete.” He just couldn't find which one and...

view entire post

Hi Tejinder.

Bell carefully made no assumptions of his own but was testing QM's assumptions "..will use freely all the usual notions". Much of what he said is ignored by most in QM! In his own view he falsified those assumptions. “in our opinion lead inescapably to the conclusion that quantum mechanics is at the best, incomplete.” He just couldn't find which one and how.

Basically I add the 'particle morphology' which QM didn't. The simplest one possible; a spinning sphere, and find by looking harder that it produces Maxwells two orthogonal coupling forces, one linear, one 'curl', both bidirectional.

Electrons, or rather 'Fermions', rotate with detector fields, all findings and values are 'relative' between the arriving and field particles (even Bohr said the detector is part of the 'system'!).

Because fermions re-emit at c in their own centre of mass rest frame physics is localised, exactly as Einsteins 1952 conception which I've discussed, and SR and QM are unified. It's that simple (plus a couple of other consequential matters identified which all melts away the great belt of interpretive 'junk' and nonsense.

I get lots of people looking, then looking up my profile, finding I'm not an emeritous professor so dismissing it. (My essay also identifies why).

Bell brilliantly anticipated all this. All quotes from 'Speakable...'; (page numbers available if anyone wants);

"It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal.”

“The founding fathers of quantum theory decided even that no concepts could possibly be found which could emit direct description of the quantum world. So the theory which they established aimed only to describe systematically the response of the apparatus.”

“...in my opinion the founding fathers were in fact wrong on this point. The quantum phenomena do not exclude a uniform description of micro and macro worlds…systems and apparatus.”

“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.”

“What is essential is to be able to define the position of things, including the positions of instrument pointers... In making precise the notion of position of things the energy density comes immediately to mind.” (but) We would have to devise a new way of specifying a joint probability distribution. We fall back then on a second choice – fermion number density.”

“...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.”

“...the ‘Problem of Interpretation of QM’ has been encircled. And the solution, invisible from the front, may be seen from the back..”

I just went and looked round the back. But it DOES need that "imaginativ quantum leap!" to first see.

view post as summary

The decoherence of aethertime is simply the assumption that the universe force expands and matter shrinks at a rate given by the action of the universe pulse. This means that gravity and charge force are just different manifestations of universe decoherence, what you call continuous spontaneous localization (CSL).

I am not sure why the CSL constants agree so well with aethertime, but it...

view entire post

The decoherence of aethertime is simply the assumption that the universe force expands and matter shrinks at a rate given by the action of the universe pulse. This means that gravity and charge force are just different manifestations of universe decoherence, what you call continuous spontaneous localization (CSL).

I am not sure why the CSL constants agree so well with aethertime, but it caught my eye. Aethertime came about from simply reconciling gravity and charge forces but still maintaining consistency with measurements and quantum principles along with mass-energy equivalence. The CSL length scale is also curiously close to what that from standard constants of dispersion and gravity forces.

Aethertime means an expansion of force along with a shrinkage of matter that confuses mainstream science. Much like Witterich's expanding mass and shrinking force, aethertime is consistent with the observed galaxy red shifts but results in a much different cosomology. It is interesting that criticisms point to the fact that there is no way to measure a change in mass in time.

This statement is peculiar since the IPK has actually been shrinking at the rate of 0.51 ppb/yr, which is twice the rate due to the fact that force expands even while mass shrinks and so the actual rate depends on the measurement technique. What Wetterich has not done is show how indeed to measure these kinds of things. however, measurements already exist that show mass shrinkage but are still at the edge of the noise of classical chaos. The shrinkage of the IPK, which is called an artifact in the first place, has also simply been called an artifact and not an indication of new physics.

Your approach is interesting to me since it seems to presume QM emerges from classical. Aethertime presumes that classical emerges from QM and it is clear that a truly unified approach would indeed shown this symmetry...

view post as summary

Professor Singh,

Thank you for sending me to this paper! I will read it many times. It clarifies for me that while I have been playing with "toy models" (at best, like the toy model of an airplane in a wind tunnel), you are working on the real thing (a test pilot flying the full size plane).

In addition to my essay in this contest, much of the following is in this text (as well as in...

view entire post

Professor Singh,

Thank you for sending me to this paper! I will read it many times. It clarifies for me that while I have been playing with "toy models" (at best, like the toy model of an airplane in a wind tunnel), you are working on the real thing (a test pilot flying the full size plane).

In addition to my essay in this contest, much of the following is in this text (as well as in a previous essay for the FQXI mathematics contest linked within this text):

https://leebloomquist.wordpress.com/

("An overall approach to the observer")

— A model of time that is not classical: In my world of toys I use nonstandard analysis and the co-algebra of streams to glue together a model of time that goes in one direction only.

— The incompleteness of quantum mechanics: I start with Schrodinger's study of the Greeks to arrive at an equation where the particle is not an object, but a process: "particle = (physicalExtension, particle)". Incompleteness means that the Schrodinger equation does not model the existence of the particle, only the possibilities for the elements of its stream. "Particle = (physicalExtension, particle)" models the existence of the particle.

— The collapse of the wave function: This is in my essay for the current contest. I follow Samson Abramsky's "Big Toy Models…". Using Wigner's theorem he obtains a "three valued Chu space," which I then use to show the collapse of the wave function.

— An underlying Universe: Although I don't show it anywhere, a stream representing Bohm's holomovement can be "zippered together" with the stream "particle = (physicalExtension, particle)".

— Derivation of the Born rule: In the world of learning algorithms, when the wave function is installed in the nonStandardFuture of the monad of properTime, and the associated probabilities in the nonStandardPast, there exists the signature of a learning algorithm. What is it learning? The laws of physics. Who is teaching it? The underlying Universe.

— The connection to relativity: Using an informorphism to make this explicit, because ordinary space-time emerges from an underlying Universe, properTime of the particle (as above) maps to a set of possible coordinate times.

Now the question becomes like that in software engineering: There are formal languages for specifying and analyzing software which are quite different from the languages used to write the actual software. For example, to specify and analyze software, one can use Petri nets, streams, and/or Chu spaces. But to write the software, one would use, say, C++.

But is any software written like this?

Very little. It's rare to find a software engineering organization where coders in C++ follow the models or listen to the analyses given to them by other engineers writing specifications and analyses in, say, Petri nets. Probably the only application where you do see this kind of cooperation between specification and coding is where human life is at stake.

By analogy we now have questions like these:

Professor Singh, could any of these toy models possibly be useful to you?

Are there any difficulties for your languages that might be easier in these specification and analysis languages?

Very Best Regards,

Lee

view post as summary

Dear Rajiv,

It is indeed a great pleasure to hear from you!! :-) My apologies for this delay in replying, and thanks so much for carefully going through my essay. I had browsed through your interesting essay when it appeared, and I will read it again next week.

>I see impressive arguments at places, but wanted to know if you have clarity in your mind as to what those mathematical...

view entire post

Dear Rajiv,

It is indeed a great pleasure to hear from you!! :-) My apologies for this delay in replying, and thanks so much for carefully going through my essay. I had browsed through your interesting essay when it appeared, and I will read it again next week.

>I see impressive arguments at places, but wanted to know if you have clarity in your mind as to what those mathematical arguments in fact map to in reality? That is, do you have physical insights for every step in the argument?

At the level of the underlying non-commutative special relativity, it is difficult for me to form a visual picture. But I think physical insight is there: our conceptions are being prejudiced by thinking of quantum mechanics on an ordinary space-time background. We have trouble understanding what the wave function represents. But the wave function makes a lot of sense on a non-commutative background.

>From 'stochastic element responsible for randomness', can one infer that CSL is an indeterministic model If so, then can one identify the source of stochastic behavior even if one cannot have a definitive formulation for the process?

CSL is a phenomenological model which assumes a stochastic process to exist, without specifying where that process is coming from. It might come from gravity, or from Trace Dynamics (statistical fluctuations about equilibrium) - we have ideas, but we do not know for sure.

> One thing I liked most is that in CSL the space-time emerges from collapse. But, I could not figure out how the collapse would choose the values for (t,x,y,z), I mean when to appear and where to appear. I am sure, you do not depend on probability field, do you? You have also given a fundamental constant rc=10^-5 cm; so there is a sense of relative distance and location within the span of emerged universe. Moreover, after the collapse if there is a measure of space and time, then why is it called 'illusion'?

When to appear and where to appear: it is random indeed. By illusion I meant that if you examine microscopically you realise there is no such thing as space ad time.

>The collapse rate seems to be about a few times in the whole life time of the universe. "Between every two collapses, the wave function follows the usual Schrodinger evolution." So after a collapse, how does it regain its global configuration quality to be able to collapse again causing relocalization, or does it remain confined to the space? And why does a collection of N nucleons, or let me suppose M atoms function like unified object to acquire the amplification factor of N.lambda. Then can one consider some arbitrary distribution of N neucleon, not necessarily bound?

The collapse rate is of the order of the age of the universe for a nucleon. It increases linearly with mass [the rate] becoming very very rapid for macroscopic objects. After a collapse, a particle does not remain confined - it expands again, because of ordinary Schrodinger evolution. So it is a repetitive cycle of collapses and expansions. But for a macroscopic object collapses happen so very rapidly that it appears confined at one place.

Amplification: Consider two particles A and B, with A in a superposition of two position states A_1 and A_2, and B in a superposition of two position states B_1 and B_2. If they are bound, then their states are entangled:

(A_1 B_1 + A_2 B_2)

If they are not bound, they are in a product state: (A_1 + A_2) * (B_1 + B_2)

If they are bound, the collapse of EITHER A or B causes the state of both to collapse: say to A_1 B_1.

So any one of them collapsing causes both to collapse. Hence the amplification.

But if they are not bound, collapse of one does not cause the other to collapse: say if A collapses, the state goes to A_1 * (B_1 + B_2). B is unaffected..no amplification.

My best wishes to you in this contest,

TP

view post as summary