If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**ree ree**: *on* 12/27/18 at 7:56am UTC, wrote This will be the new thing to know about it. Thanks ,for the information. ...

**John Cruise**: *on* 12/26/18 at 3:30am UTC, wrote I think the piece of information which you have provided here would be...

**ken koi**: *on* 11/29/18 at 9:15am UTC, wrote My favorite war game is bouncing balls, red ball

**chu pa**: *on* 6/29/18 at 4:10am UTC, wrote Good post, thank you for providing this great information http://vex-3.com

**songjoong df**: *on* 12/27/17 at 6:50am UTC, wrote cara menjadi reseller qnc jelly gamat Cara Menjadi Agen Qnc Jelly Gamat ...

**Joe Fisher**: *on* 10/27/17 at 14:46pm UTC, wrote Dear Vladko Vedral, You wrote: “Most researchers in the field of (finite...

**jenny han**: *on* 10/27/17 at 8:28am UTC, wrote I would regard the "parallel worlds" in a quantum computer only as "virtual...

**Armin Nikkhah Shirazi**: *on* 4/14/10 at 14:51pm UTC, wrote Hello Again, In my haste in trying to present a dimensionless version of...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Jason Wolfe**: "I wonder why there is no interpretation of QM that says the wave function..."
*in* Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Re.macroscopic objectivity: How an outcome is to be called, the method..."
*in* Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

**Jason Wolfe**: "Joe Fisher, I'm not sure reality is sensible. But the NDE/ghost stuff is..."
*in* First Things First: The...

**Joe Fisher**: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..."
*in* First Things First: The...

**Jahangir kt**: "A great website with interesting and unique material what else would you..."
*in* Our Place in the...

**Steve Dufourny**: "I am going to tell you an important thing about the aethers. I thought that..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**halim sutarmaja**: "dewapoker hadir untuk semua pecinta game poker dengan teknologi terbaru dan..."
*in* New Nuclear "Magic...

**Jason Wolfe**: "As for religious fundamentalists, I would rather deal with them, then with..."
*in* More on agency from the...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**First Things First: The Physics of Causality**

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

**Can Time Be Saved From Physics?**

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

**Thermo-Demonics**

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

**Gravity's Residue**

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

**Could Mind Forge the Universe?**

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

FQXi BLOGS

November 20, 2019

I am very happy that my recent posts have attracted attention and provoked response. There is certainly no point in wasting ink (in this case, computer memory) unless it stimulates a lively debate and an open exchange of ideas. I thus read the recent comment on my posts by Prof. Dieter Zeh with great excitement and anticipation. And I was not disappointed.

Dieter’s post, among other things, offers a beautiful discussion of different views on quantum mechanics and argues for the preference of Many Worlds Interpretation over other possible interpretations.

(Incidentally, for an amusing take on the Many Worlds interpretation, you can watch the superimposed fates of 86 parallel versions of Super Mario.)

In some of my recent posts, I may have given the impression that I am very critical of the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. However, in reality I am a big fan of this interpretation. It, for one, treats a measurement on an equal footing with other processes (and, indeed, why should a measurement be any different?). Secondly, there is a chance that it may please people like Einstein, in that it recovers determinism, since the whole universe evolves in a fully predictable way once measurements have been eliminated (or, rather, they are incorporated into dynamics).

Most researchers in the field of quantum computation, like myself, also tend to prefer the many worlds view (though to be very pedantic, there are many different Many Worlds Interpretations–but let’s not open that box). The advantages of a quantum computer are most clearly seen by thinking of each of the many worlds as performing a different classical computation. It is not an accident that the founders of quantum computing, Richard Feynman and David Deutsch (as well as Peter Shor, who discovered the first serious quantum advantage in computing), were supporters of the many worlds interpretation.

Many worlds is frequently criticized on the basis that it cannot explain the probabilities for various outcomes we observe when we measure things. In order to derive probabilities (if we get rid of the measurement postulate) it seems that we need to invoke some additional principles. David Deutsch has argued for some kind of a game theoretic approach and I think his arguments are very convincing. There is also a beautiful way of showing how classicality emerges due to entanglement between the system and the rest of the universe, something leading to decoherence in the system, a powerful approach pioneered by Dieter Zeh himself.

I am also happy to ignore what I think are some other minor problems of Many Worlds, such as the basis problem. There is then the issue of Bell’s inequalities, which become meaningless in Many Worlds. This is precisely because Many Worlds eliminates the notion of a measurement. So supporting Many Worlds would only add extra credence to my view that the language used when talking about Bell’s inequalities is archaic, it is a relic of a bygone era.

However, there is unfortunately one major problem with Many Worlds. I believe that this was first identified by John Wheeler (some might say this was already known to Bohr, but then there was no Many Worlds interpretation at that time).

John Wheeler supervised Hugh Everett, the inventor of the Many Worlds. Initially, Wheeler was said to wholly embrace the interpretation and he even defended it vigorously in a memorable Rev. Mod. Phys. Paper in 1957. A few years later, however, he converted to the Copenhagen view, a conversion whose dramatic element would justify calling it the quantum equivalent of a sex change operation.

Wheeler’s logic for conversion is this (I am only guessing here—it is difficult to know how exactly he changed his sex, I mean mind, some 50 years ago). Suppose we would like to push our scientific understanding of the world as far as possible, as Wheeler no doubt wanted to do. Then we always hit a barrier and this barrier is the laws of physics themselves, which cannot be explained from anything more fundamental. Take the Many Worlds version of quantum physics. We need to know the wavefunction of the Universe (to borrow James Hartle and Stephen Hawking’s memorable paper title) as well as the Hamiltonian of the Universe. Once we have this, we can predict the rest using dynamical laws. But where do all these three entities (the wavefunction, the Hamiltonian and the dynamical laws) come from in the first place?

If we are to understand everything in the Universe, we have to explain how the laws of physics arise from no laws of physics (“law without law” was Wheeler’s way of putting it). And this to Wheeler (and not only to him) suggested that there must be some random element, something spontaneous not governed by the laws, that predates and underpins everything we see around us. And once we make this statement, namely that randomness is crucial, we are then only one short step away from the Copenhagen interpretation. This is because Copenhagen puts a special emphasis on the random nature of measurement outcomes. The said step may be short, of course, but we still don’t know how to take it—Copenhagen itself cannot explain how to get “law without law”.

Most physicists, myself included, are opportunists. We use the view that works the best for whatever it is we need to achieve, calculate, explain, elucidate. In that sense Heisenberg’s “Machiavellian” philosophy is closest to us. In his classic analysis of the alpha particle going through a cloud chamber, Heisenberg clearly demonstrates his detachment from interpretation, or even, better, his fluidity in moving from one interpretation to another. (Incidentally, the American Institute of Physics has a sound clip of Heisenberg chatting about the development of the uncertainty principle, which is fun to listen to.)

I encourage you to read this directly from his 1930 book on quantum mechanics, but here is a summary if you don’t have time (or can’t be bothered!).

Heisenberg first assumes that the alpha particle is quantum while the atoms in the cloud chamber are classical. He then calculates probabilities for various trajectories that the alpha particle can take in the chamber (he concludes that the straight line is the most likely path). And now comes the cool bit. Heisenberg goes on to say (I am paraphrasing to make him sound really cool): “You may not like the fact that the atoms in the chamber are assumed to be classical. No worries! Let us assume that they are all quantum!”. So in one short paragraph Heisenberg changes with ease from what one would call a Copenhagen view (the system—the alpha particle- is quantum, but the apparatus– the cloud chamber- is classical) to what we would now call Many Worlds (everything is quantum, both the alpha particle and the chamber). And the punch line is that the fully quantum treatment leads to the same result as before.

We all know this should be the case as various interpretations cannot be discriminated experimentally. But, as I emphasized, different interpretations do lead to different attitudes, which may determine the future or our research directions (it is difficult to imagine that a Copenhagen “dogmatist” would ever come up with the idea of quantum computation). This is why I think it is advisable for each physicist to hold the multitude of different interpretations of quantum physics and be able to use them proficiently. Dogmatically holding onto one interpretation can only lead to the poverty of thought. Richness, as always, is in the diversity.

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

Dieter’s post, among other things, offers a beautiful discussion of different views on quantum mechanics and argues for the preference of Many Worlds Interpretation over other possible interpretations.

Many-Worlds Mario |

In some of my recent posts, I may have given the impression that I am very critical of the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. However, in reality I am a big fan of this interpretation. It, for one, treats a measurement on an equal footing with other processes (and, indeed, why should a measurement be any different?). Secondly, there is a chance that it may please people like Einstein, in that it recovers determinism, since the whole universe evolves in a fully predictable way once measurements have been eliminated (or, rather, they are incorporated into dynamics).

Most researchers in the field of quantum computation, like myself, also tend to prefer the many worlds view (though to be very pedantic, there are many different Many Worlds Interpretations–but let’s not open that box). The advantages of a quantum computer are most clearly seen by thinking of each of the many worlds as performing a different classical computation. It is not an accident that the founders of quantum computing, Richard Feynman and David Deutsch (as well as Peter Shor, who discovered the first serious quantum advantage in computing), were supporters of the many worlds interpretation.

Many worlds is frequently criticized on the basis that it cannot explain the probabilities for various outcomes we observe when we measure things. In order to derive probabilities (if we get rid of the measurement postulate) it seems that we need to invoke some additional principles. David Deutsch has argued for some kind of a game theoretic approach and I think his arguments are very convincing. There is also a beautiful way of showing how classicality emerges due to entanglement between the system and the rest of the universe, something leading to decoherence in the system, a powerful approach pioneered by Dieter Zeh himself.

I am also happy to ignore what I think are some other minor problems of Many Worlds, such as the basis problem. There is then the issue of Bell’s inequalities, which become meaningless in Many Worlds. This is precisely because Many Worlds eliminates the notion of a measurement. So supporting Many Worlds would only add extra credence to my view that the language used when talking about Bell’s inequalities is archaic, it is a relic of a bygone era.

Albert Einstein, Hideki Yukawa, John Wheeler, and Homi Bhabha |

John Wheeler supervised Hugh Everett, the inventor of the Many Worlds. Initially, Wheeler was said to wholly embrace the interpretation and he even defended it vigorously in a memorable Rev. Mod. Phys. Paper in 1957. A few years later, however, he converted to the Copenhagen view, a conversion whose dramatic element would justify calling it the quantum equivalent of a sex change operation.

Wheeler’s logic for conversion is this (I am only guessing here—it is difficult to know how exactly he changed his sex, I mean mind, some 50 years ago). Suppose we would like to push our scientific understanding of the world as far as possible, as Wheeler no doubt wanted to do. Then we always hit a barrier and this barrier is the laws of physics themselves, which cannot be explained from anything more fundamental. Take the Many Worlds version of quantum physics. We need to know the wavefunction of the Universe (to borrow James Hartle and Stephen Hawking’s memorable paper title) as well as the Hamiltonian of the Universe. Once we have this, we can predict the rest using dynamical laws. But where do all these three entities (the wavefunction, the Hamiltonian and the dynamical laws) come from in the first place?

If we are to understand everything in the Universe, we have to explain how the laws of physics arise from no laws of physics (“law without law” was Wheeler’s way of putting it). And this to Wheeler (and not only to him) suggested that there must be some random element, something spontaneous not governed by the laws, that predates and underpins everything we see around us. And once we make this statement, namely that randomness is crucial, we are then only one short step away from the Copenhagen interpretation. This is because Copenhagen puts a special emphasis on the random nature of measurement outcomes. The said step may be short, of course, but we still don’t know how to take it—Copenhagen itself cannot explain how to get “law without law”.

Most physicists, myself included, are opportunists. We use the view that works the best for whatever it is we need to achieve, calculate, explain, elucidate. In that sense Heisenberg’s “Machiavellian” philosophy is closest to us. In his classic analysis of the alpha particle going through a cloud chamber, Heisenberg clearly demonstrates his detachment from interpretation, or even, better, his fluidity in moving from one interpretation to another. (Incidentally, the American Institute of Physics has a sound clip of Heisenberg chatting about the development of the uncertainty principle, which is fun to listen to.)

I encourage you to read this directly from his 1930 book on quantum mechanics, but here is a summary if you don’t have time (or can’t be bothered!).

Heisenberg first assumes that the alpha particle is quantum while the atoms in the cloud chamber are classical. He then calculates probabilities for various trajectories that the alpha particle can take in the chamber (he concludes that the straight line is the most likely path). And now comes the cool bit. Heisenberg goes on to say (I am paraphrasing to make him sound really cool): “You may not like the fact that the atoms in the chamber are assumed to be classical. No worries! Let us assume that they are all quantum!”. So in one short paragraph Heisenberg changes with ease from what one would call a Copenhagen view (the system—the alpha particle- is quantum, but the apparatus– the cloud chamber- is classical) to what we would now call Many Worlds (everything is quantum, both the alpha particle and the chamber). And the punch line is that the fully quantum treatment leads to the same result as before.

We all know this should be the case as various interpretations cannot be discriminated experimentally. But, as I emphasized, different interpretations do lead to different attitudes, which may determine the future or our research directions (it is difficult to imagine that a Copenhagen “dogmatist” would ever come up with the idea of quantum computation). This is why I think it is advisable for each physicist to hold the multitude of different interpretations of quantum physics and be able to use them proficiently. Dogmatically holding onto one interpretation can only lead to the poverty of thought. Richness, as always, is in the diversity.

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

Glad to see a good old fashioned interpretations debate going on at fqxi.

I was not aware that Feynman and Shor endorsed many-worlds. Shor has always come across as an agnostic to me, although admittedly I have not raised the issue with him directly. Also, I always thought that Feynman preferred to avoid the question, since there are many quotes from him to that effect. In his later years he played with possibilities for understanding QM as an alternative probability theory. Although he is more well known for advocating complex amplitudes as the quantum replacement for probabilities, he also investigated quasi-probability distributions and (re)-discovered the spin 1/2 discrete Wigner function. Because of this I had him down as a non-specific alternative probability guy, which would seem to jar a little with many-worlds*. Of course, he may have changed his mind at some point during his career, so can anyone point to a source where Feynman endorses many-worlds?

Personally, I don't find that many-worlds gives any specific insight into quantum computation, at least not any more insight than I would get about probabilistic classical computation from taking a many-worlds view of classical probability. After all, we only have access to one of the worlds, and whether or not many other computations are going on in other universes would be completely irrelevant in the classical case. It seems that we need to invoke some quantum concepts over-and-above many-worlds in order for the explanation to carry any weight. Of course, the "what powers quantum computers?" question is controversial and probably unanswerable, but I imagine that concepts like interference, entanglement and the subtle way that measurement works have to appear somewhere in the answer, and I don't think that many-worlds has anything special to say about them over and above any other interpretation.

Finally, I think that many-worlds is not as commonly accepted amongst quantum information theorists as your post might imply. Although there are indeed a lot of many-worlders, there is a probably equally large component of Wheeler influenced mumblings about quantum theory being to do with information, which varies in specifics but generally has a sort of neo-Copenhagen flavor. I'd also add that the majority of qinfo people probably take the "please stop bugging me about interpretations and let me get on with my communication complexity/quantum optics/entangelement/... calculations" attitude.

* Modern approaches to probability in many-worlds (along the lines of Deutsch, Wallace, Greaves et. al.) also require a revision of the foundations of probability theory, but this is not the same sort of thing that Feynman was talking about.

report post as inappropriate

I was not aware that Feynman and Shor endorsed many-worlds. Shor has always come across as an agnostic to me, although admittedly I have not raised the issue with him directly. Also, I always thought that Feynman preferred to avoid the question, since there are many quotes from him to that effect. In his later years he played with possibilities for understanding QM as an alternative probability theory. Although he is more well known for advocating complex amplitudes as the quantum replacement for probabilities, he also investigated quasi-probability distributions and (re)-discovered the spin 1/2 discrete Wigner function. Because of this I had him down as a non-specific alternative probability guy, which would seem to jar a little with many-worlds*. Of course, he may have changed his mind at some point during his career, so can anyone point to a source where Feynman endorses many-worlds?

Personally, I don't find that many-worlds gives any specific insight into quantum computation, at least not any more insight than I would get about probabilistic classical computation from taking a many-worlds view of classical probability. After all, we only have access to one of the worlds, and whether or not many other computations are going on in other universes would be completely irrelevant in the classical case. It seems that we need to invoke some quantum concepts over-and-above many-worlds in order for the explanation to carry any weight. Of course, the "what powers quantum computers?" question is controversial and probably unanswerable, but I imagine that concepts like interference, entanglement and the subtle way that measurement works have to appear somewhere in the answer, and I don't think that many-worlds has anything special to say about them over and above any other interpretation.

Finally, I think that many-worlds is not as commonly accepted amongst quantum information theorists as your post might imply. Although there are indeed a lot of many-worlders, there is a probably equally large component of Wheeler influenced mumblings about quantum theory being to do with information, which varies in specifics but generally has a sort of neo-Copenhagen flavor. I'd also add that the majority of qinfo people probably take the "please stop bugging me about interpretations and let me get on with my communication complexity/quantum optics/entangelement/... calculations" attitude.

* Modern approaches to probability in many-worlds (along the lines of Deutsch, Wallace, Greaves et. al.) also require a revision of the foundations of probability theory, but this is not the same sort of thing that Feynman was talking about.

report post as inappropriate

How can you have unitary time evolution and not Many Worlds? Shouldn't it be up to the people who don't like the Many Worlds Interpretation to come up with theories that violate unitarity and suggests experiments that can test their theories?

B.t.w., my essay is about the MWI. It was written in a hurry (just a few hours) to meet the deadline. I thought that the deadline was Dec. 15, but I was wrong and found out a few days ago that it was due by Dec. 1.

report post as inappropriate

B.t.w., my essay is about the MWI. It was written in a hurry (just a few hours) to meet the deadline. I thought that the deadline was Dec. 15, but I was wrong and found out a few days ago that it was due by Dec. 1.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Vlatko,

nice to see that our differences are not quite as deep. However, comparing your new posting with the original one appeared to me a bit like a novel application of "complementarity". Is it a manifestation of the quantum brain ;-) ?

Pragmatism (or opportunism, as you say) is fine, but it should not be presented as a pseudo-philosophy (complementarity, quantum information and all those other empty words). I think the uncertainty relations just tell us that the classical concepts do not apply any more, and more specifically that they have to be replaced by a wave, for which the Fourier theorem holds. For example, Feynman was a pragmatist (for an exception see here, but as far as I know, he never used those empty words. He just stated his opinion that nobody understands QT.

Incidentally, I would regard the "parallel worlds" in a quantum computer only as "virtual words", since a specific criteria of "real" parallel worlds is missing: the irreversibility (FAPP) of their decoherence from one another.

One word about John Wheeler. I don't think he had to be converted from Everett, since he was always an admirer of Bohr. He distanced himself from Everett, when Bohr declared that Everett's proposal is not compatible with Copenhagen (as Wheeler had hoped). Watch out for a forthcoming book and articles by Peter Byrne!

Regarding your last paragraph: is Anton Zeilinger not working on concepts of quantum computing?

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

nice to see that our differences are not quite as deep. However, comparing your new posting with the original one appeared to me a bit like a novel application of "complementarity". Is it a manifestation of the quantum brain ;-) ?

Pragmatism (or opportunism, as you say) is fine, but it should not be presented as a pseudo-philosophy (complementarity, quantum information and all those other empty words). I think the uncertainty relations just tell us that the classical concepts do not apply any more, and more specifically that they have to be replaced by a wave, for which the Fourier theorem holds. For example, Feynman was a pragmatist (for an exception see here, but as far as I know, he never used those empty words. He just stated his opinion that nobody understands QT.

Incidentally, I would regard the "parallel worlds" in a quantum computer only as "virtual words", since a specific criteria of "real" parallel worlds is missing: the irreversibility (FAPP) of their decoherence from one another.

One word about John Wheeler. I don't think he had to be converted from Everett, since he was always an admirer of Bohr. He distanced himself from Everett, when Bohr declared that Everett's proposal is not compatible with Copenhagen (as Wheeler had hoped). Watch out for a forthcoming book and articles by Peter Byrne!

Regarding your last paragraph: is Anton Zeilinger not working on concepts of quantum computing?

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

Saibal,

It is not unitarity alone that gets you to many-worlds. You also need two other assumptions:

1. Realism about the wavefunction.

2. Minimalism, i.e. no other ontology should be added.

A Bohmian would accept 1 and deny 2, which leads to a theory that is unitary but doesn't have many worlds. That is enough to make the point. However, in my view it is also plausible to deny 1. Then the challenge is to come up with a compelling alternative ontology, although I admit that we don't really have one yet.

report post as inappropriate

It is not unitarity alone that gets you to many-worlds. You also need two other assumptions:

1. Realism about the wavefunction.

2. Minimalism, i.e. no other ontology should be added.

A Bohmian would accept 1 and deny 2, which leads to a theory that is unitary but doesn't have many worlds. That is enough to make the point. However, in my view it is also plausible to deny 1. Then the challenge is to come up with a compelling alternative ontology, although I admit that we don't really have one yet.

report post as inappropriate

Matt,

realism was indeed the initial question.

However, I don't agree that one may avoid many worlds in Bohm's theory. Most Bohmians may think so - even John Bell did (although he believed that the wave function must be real in this theory in order to "guide" the trajectories). In the seventies I tried to connvince him in a private correspondence that Bohm's wave function contains all the "extravagant" components which describe Everett's worlds - including the perfect wave functions of other observers. We did not come to an agreement, since he seemed to believe in some "more real reality" of the trajectories.

Some years later he switched from Bohm to collapse models (supporting Pearle and Ghirardi), where the other components would disappear, while the remaining one represents reality completely. I don't know if there was a connection between this change of mind and our correspondence.

Bohm's theory was historically important in proving that a hidden variable theory IS possible (although it required an extremely absurd mechanism - see the link given in my blog post). It works since it keeps the wave function untouched (the same as Everett's), while the trajectories remain unobservable by construction. So the theory cannot be confirmed, but many people decide to believe in it - a typical characterization of a religion rather than science.

report post as inappropriate

realism was indeed the initial question.

However, I don't agree that one may avoid many worlds in Bohm's theory. Most Bohmians may think so - even John Bell did (although he believed that the wave function must be real in this theory in order to "guide" the trajectories). In the seventies I tried to connvince him in a private correspondence that Bohm's wave function contains all the "extravagant" components which describe Everett's worlds - including the perfect wave functions of other observers. We did not come to an agreement, since he seemed to believe in some "more real reality" of the trajectories.

Some years later he switched from Bohm to collapse models (supporting Pearle and Ghirardi), where the other components would disappear, while the remaining one represents reality completely. I don't know if there was a connection between this change of mind and our correspondence.

Bohm's theory was historically important in proving that a hidden variable theory IS possible (although it required an extremely absurd mechanism - see the link given in my blog post). It works since it keeps the wave function untouched (the same as Everett's), while the trajectories remain unobservable by construction. So the theory cannot be confirmed, but many people decide to believe in it - a typical characterization of a religion rather than science.

report post as inappropriate

Matt,

Thanks for pointing out the missing "small print" in my bold statement :)

't Hooft has done some work on theories in which 1. is not true. I'm not sure if his approach is very promising.

About point 2, I think David Deutsch has argued that you could in principle imagine simulate a brain using a quantum computer. I'm not sure exactly how he set up his argument. But I guess it boils down to pointing out that you can have a superposition between two conscious states.

Then point 2 amounts to some pointer that points out that only one of the states in the superposition was really conscious, the other a sort of zomby state. So, then it becomes a little like soliphism: you can have a theory that says that only you really exist...

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for pointing out the missing "small print" in my bold statement :)

't Hooft has done some work on theories in which 1. is not true. I'm not sure if his approach is very promising.

About point 2, I think David Deutsch has argued that you could in principle imagine simulate a brain using a quantum computer. I'm not sure exactly how he set up his argument. But I guess it boils down to pointing out that you can have a superposition between two conscious states.

Then point 2 amounts to some pointer that points out that only one of the states in the superposition was really conscious, the other a sort of zomby state. So, then it becomes a little like soliphism: you can have a theory that says that only you really exist...

report post as inappropriate

Einstein is often quoted as having said "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

The Prime Quaternion model explains that "Wave function collapse" is due to the formation of subjective reality when information is received across the Prime Reality Interface.

Sub atomic particles are able to move within all 4 spatio-energetic dimensions including afore and aft along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension. Unlike macroscopic matter which has continuous afore-ward change of position along the 4th dimension without which it would disintegrate.

I agree that flexibility of approach is important and useful. However hanging onto ideas that obviously are obsolete can only slow the advancement of science. The intelligent person will be sensible enough to tell which models still retain their usefulness in relation to new insight and which ought to be relegated to an extended period of intellectual disorientation.

report post as inappropriate

The Prime Quaternion model explains that "Wave function collapse" is due to the formation of subjective reality when information is received across the Prime Reality Interface.

Sub atomic particles are able to move within all 4 spatio-energetic dimensions including afore and aft along the 4th spatio-energetic dimension. Unlike macroscopic matter which has continuous afore-ward change of position along the 4th dimension without which it would disintegrate.

I agree that flexibility of approach is important and useful. However hanging onto ideas that obviously are obsolete can only slow the advancement of science. The intelligent person will be sensible enough to tell which models still retain their usefulness in relation to new insight and which ought to be relegated to an extended period of intellectual disorientation.

report post as inappropriate

I used the quote above in the Acknowledgement of my 4th article. Take a look at five of my papers on leonardmalinowski.com and let me know if I have made some mistakes.

Len Malinowski

report post as inappropriate

Len Malinowski

report post as inappropriate

Went to your web site "Scalativity" it said under construction. would have commented if I could have found anything to comment on. Regards Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Check out Scalativity now.

Also, the golden structure of the periodic chart and the golden mean averages to the highest atomic orbital energies both are published and available.

Len

report post as inappropriate

Also, the golden structure of the periodic chart and the golden mean averages to the highest atomic orbital energies both are published and available.

Len

report post as inappropriate

The problem I have always had with MWI is that it seems to shift the problem from one form into another. The Bohr Copenhagen interpretation introduces a dichotomy between the quantum world and the classical (macroscopic) world. Wigner argued this lead to some primary role of consciousness with Schrodinger cats, for we could talk about Schrodinger people. Yet somehow in this recursive nesting...

view entire post

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence,

Maybe it's because the process of logic and all the models it constructs are inherently linear, but reality is fundamentally non-linear. No matter how effective our models are, there will always be loose ends sticking out in the most unhelpful ways.

report post as inappropriate

Maybe it's because the process of logic and all the models it constructs are inherently linear, but reality is fundamentally non-linear. No matter how effective our models are, there will always be loose ends sticking out in the most unhelpful ways.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Lawrence,

What is your interpretation of Len Malinowski’s Scalativity http://www.leonardmalinowski.com/ ?

His ideas seem to be at the intersection of Many Worlds and String Theory’s 10^500 parameters. We might see 10^120 particles...

Could Feynman’s Path Integral formulation of Quantum Mechanics connect these bizarre MWI “Quantum Worlds” with our Classical World? This statistical weighting of various quantum states may also be the theoretical foundation of Quantum Statistical Mechanics, and thus, Thermodynamics.

Sincerely, Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

What is your interpretation of Len Malinowski’s Scalativity http://www.leonardmalinowski.com/ ?

His ideas seem to be at the intersection of Many Worlds and String Theory’s 10^500 parameters. We might see 10^120 particles...

Could Feynman’s Path Integral formulation of Quantum Mechanics connect these bizarre MWI “Quantum Worlds” with our Classical World? This statistical weighting of various quantum states may also be the theoretical foundation of Quantum Statistical Mechanics, and thus, Thermodynamics.

Sincerely, Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate

I just looked at Malinowski's website. It is pretty sophisticated. I pulled up one particle on 5-dim and fractals. I have no comment at this time.

I did an essay here on a scalability based on tessellations of AdS spacetime. The tessellations do give rise to branching patterns, so the paths from the conformal infinity through the space and back, or to a BTZ black hole, have a conformal scaling principle. Unfortunately I wrote the paper in too much haste, two days before the deadline, and there are a few problems as a result.

If the universe is conformally scaled, then renormaliation group (RG) flows are determined conpletely by the conformal scaling of the cosmology. This is a projective system similar to Zamolodchikov C-theorem in the two dimensional case. This system of RG flows ends at around 1TeV ~ 10^{-16}E_{planck} where there is the Higgs breaking, and even for several orders of magnitude above that the RG flows cease to apply completely as the Higgs field becomes appreciable. The occurrence of mass in the quantum field theories spoils the conformal structure. Then for energies around 1TeV to 100MeV, the domain of experimental particle physics, renormalization shifts to something similar to the Wilson-Polchinski form. These are based on scaling principles found with Feynman diagrams. Then for energy less than there the quantum physics of particles displays the zitterbewegung, or the zig-zag seen with the Weyl 2-spinor form of the Dirac equation. This occurs on a scale around the Compton wave length and might play a role in lower energy physics of Bose-Einstein (BE) condensates.

This is somewhat speculative, but in playing with it we might see that there are three domains of scalability. The lowest energy form might be a "mirror" of the high energy end. Assume this zitter-motion is due to noncommutative coordinate geometry that is a low energy (T-dual “like”) duality of the high energy conformal domain. This has connections to the effective negative heat capacity of spacetime, where large black holes are cold with high entropy. If this is the case, then maybe the classical end of the scale is some low energy decoherence process similar to the high temperature (high-energy) decoherence process with semi-classical black hole evaporation. If the zitterbewegung of a many electron system can be placed in a coherence this would lead to a BE condensate, which at the even higher energy scale would correspond to a pure state quantum black hole with ~ < 100 Planck units of mass.

This might be some parts of the puzzle on “why the classical,” or how it is the macroscopic world emerges from a quantum cosmology and holds on a large scale or for large actions >> hbar.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate

I did an essay here on a scalability based on tessellations of AdS spacetime. The tessellations do give rise to branching patterns, so the paths from the conformal infinity through the space and back, or to a BTZ black hole, have a conformal scaling principle. Unfortunately I wrote the paper in too much haste, two days before the deadline, and there are a few problems as a result.

If the universe is conformally scaled, then renormaliation group (RG) flows are determined conpletely by the conformal scaling of the cosmology. This is a projective system similar to Zamolodchikov C-theorem in the two dimensional case. This system of RG flows ends at around 1TeV ~ 10^{-16}E_{planck} where there is the Higgs breaking, and even for several orders of magnitude above that the RG flows cease to apply completely as the Higgs field becomes appreciable. The occurrence of mass in the quantum field theories spoils the conformal structure. Then for energies around 1TeV to 100MeV, the domain of experimental particle physics, renormalization shifts to something similar to the Wilson-Polchinski form. These are based on scaling principles found with Feynman diagrams. Then for energy less than there the quantum physics of particles displays the zitterbewegung, or the zig-zag seen with the Weyl 2-spinor form of the Dirac equation. This occurs on a scale around the Compton wave length and might play a role in lower energy physics of Bose-Einstein (BE) condensates.

This is somewhat speculative, but in playing with it we might see that there are three domains of scalability. The lowest energy form might be a "mirror" of the high energy end. Assume this zitter-motion is due to noncommutative coordinate geometry that is a low energy (T-dual “like”) duality of the high energy conformal domain. This has connections to the effective negative heat capacity of spacetime, where large black holes are cold with high entropy. If this is the case, then maybe the classical end of the scale is some low energy decoherence process similar to the high temperature (high-energy) decoherence process with semi-classical black hole evaporation. If the zitterbewegung of a many electron system can be placed in a coherence this would lead to a BE condensate, which at the even higher energy scale would correspond to a pure state quantum black hole with ~ < 100 Planck units of mass.

This might be some parts of the puzzle on “why the classical,” or how it is the macroscopic world emerges from a quantum cosmology and holds on a large scale or for large actions >> hbar.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate

Is Physical reality Fractal? Are stars cosmic scale nuclei in the process of beta decay? Is the solar system a cosmic scale neutron in the process of cosmic scale beta decay? Is neutrino energy quantum scale electromagnetic energy? Did I figure it out? Does anybody care?

Len

report post as inappropriate

Len

report post as inappropriate

Hi dear Lawrence and dear Leonard,

Lawrence you say ,

Then for energy less than there the quantum physics of particles displays the zitterbewegung, or the zig-zag seen with the Weyl 2-spinor form of the Dirac equation.

I didn't know ,could you develop a little please, it's interesting ,and if possible could you say a little about BE condensate too.

Leonard ,

Is the solar system a cosmic scale neutron in the process of cosmic scale beta decay?

It's a very good question ,I am going to see more about that ,

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence you say ,

Then for energy less than there the quantum physics of particles displays the zitterbewegung, or the zig-zag seen with the Weyl 2-spinor form of the Dirac equation.

I didn't know ,could you develop a little please, it's interesting ,and if possible could you say a little about BE condensate too.

Leonard ,

Is the solar system a cosmic scale neutron in the process of cosmic scale beta decay?

It's a very good question ,I am going to see more about that ,

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

The two Weyl 2-component spinor equations

tell us that a fermion is bouncing back and forth due to the mass term. So the fermion (electron) is a massless particle confined in a small region by this mass term. Ultimately this is due to the Higgs field, but I will ignore that for now. This is related to the zitterbewegung. The two component spinor equations fold into the full Dirac equation. Two spinors make a quaternion, as the Dirac matrices are pairs of spinors. The motion is then a circular type of motion inside the "bottle" or region defined by the Compton wavelength.

This physics might be a manifestation of noncommutative geometry, which induces a gauge-like potential on the particle. This would mean the Higgs field is a type of gauge field that appears scalar. Quark condensate models posit such a physics.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate

tell us that a fermion is bouncing back and forth due to the mass term. So the fermion (electron) is a massless particle confined in a small region by this mass term. Ultimately this is due to the Higgs field, but I will ignore that for now. This is related to the zitterbewegung. The two component spinor equations fold into the full Dirac equation. Two spinors make a quaternion, as the Dirac matrices are pairs of spinors. The motion is then a circular type of motion inside the "bottle" or region defined by the Compton wavelength.

This physics might be a manifestation of noncommutative geometry, which induces a gauge-like potential on the particle. This would mean the Higgs field is a type of gauge field that appears scalar. Quark condensate models posit such a physics.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate

My attempt to texify failed terribly. They seemed to work in the preview. Maybe I got the tags wrong. The Weyl equations are (if this works)

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Hi ,

Thank you very much Lawrence .I see better now about this equation .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Thank you very much Lawrence .I see better now about this equation .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny,

Please look at Scalativity.com and let me know what in the five papers posted does not logically match reality.

Len

report post as inappropriate

Please look at Scalativity.com and let me know what in the five papers posted does not logically match reality.

Len

report post as inappropriate

Hello Leonard ,

I am going to go to your website .It's nice thank you .

You know Leonard ,have you seen the last datas of the Fermilab .

They have found the Omega-sub-b.

I try to search the link with cosmological dynamic and their spheres ,volumes and rotations but I admit it's difficult hihihih ,indeed the complementarity increases the speed of the evolution thus the search of truth ,constants and foundamentals .

The problem for me is the lack of tools to improve my links of spherization.Indeed if I had a visual 3D design,it 'd be easier to architecturate this universal model .The quantification for the quantum gauge is essential .

The last results of the Fermi lab are ,

The particle contains three quarks: two strange quarks and a bottom quark

(s-s-b). It is an exotic relative of the much more common proton and has

about six times the proton's mass.

It's very interesting .

The observation of this "doubly strange" particle, predicted by the

Standard Model, is relevant indeed because it strengthens physicists'

confidence in their understanding of how quarks form matter. In addition,

it conflicts with a 2008 result announced by CDF's sister experiment,

DZero.

The CDF physicists measured the Omega-sub-b mass to

be 6054.4 ą 6.8(stat.) ą 0.9(syst.) MeV/c^2, compared to DZero's 6165 ą

10(stat.) ą 13(syst.) MeV/c^2.

These datas can be correlated with mass gravity and rotations of spheres.

Those baryons and their quarks are relevant .

For more details

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3123

What do you think about this discovery dear Leonard .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

I am going to go to your website .It's nice thank you .

You know Leonard ,have you seen the last datas of the Fermilab .

They have found the Omega-sub-b.

I try to search the link with cosmological dynamic and their spheres ,volumes and rotations but I admit it's difficult hihihih ,indeed the complementarity increases the speed of the evolution thus the search of truth ,constants and foundamentals .

The problem for me is the lack of tools to improve my links of spherization.Indeed if I had a visual 3D design,it 'd be easier to architecturate this universal model .The quantification for the quantum gauge is essential .

The last results of the Fermi lab are ,

The particle contains three quarks: two strange quarks and a bottom quark

(s-s-b). It is an exotic relative of the much more common proton and has

about six times the proton's mass.

It's very interesting .

The observation of this "doubly strange" particle, predicted by the

Standard Model, is relevant indeed because it strengthens physicists'

confidence in their understanding of how quarks form matter. In addition,

it conflicts with a 2008 result announced by CDF's sister experiment,

DZero.

The CDF physicists measured the Omega-sub-b mass to

be 6054.4 ą 6.8(stat.) ą 0.9(syst.) MeV/c^2, compared to DZero's 6165 ą

10(stat.) ą 13(syst.) MeV/c^2.

These datas can be correlated with mass gravity and rotations of spheres.

Those baryons and their quarks are relevant .

For more details

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3123

What do you think about this discovery dear Leonard .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

I apologize for not posting sooner. I had to earn a living as a Chemist and let Physics alone for a year. I have money now and can speak. Every area I explore with my Fractal Physics paradigm yields provocative anserwes. There is no doubt that data supports this new paradigm. When will the scientific community come along? I do not know. I did it. I can die easy.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Len,

It's good to hear from you again.

Georgina and I were recently talking about how Fibonacci's sequence and the Golden Ratio were a good routine for filling all of two-D space with Golden Rectangles or spirals. I suggested that she should look up your papers. I lost track of the web address - I see that is Scalativity.com.

You expect too much of the scientific community if you think that they are going to wake up and recognize the achievements of us maverick scientists overnight. It will take time and persistence. It is not a battle for the weak-hearted.

What do you mean by "I can die easy"? I pray that you are well and don't succumb to any unfortunate accidents. We can only hope that we have distributed our ideas well enough that the ideas will live on even in our absence.

Take Care!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

It's good to hear from you again.

Georgina and I were recently talking about how Fibonacci's sequence and the Golden Ratio were a good routine for filling all of two-D space with Golden Rectangles or spirals. I suggested that she should look up your papers. I lost track of the web address - I see that is Scalativity.com.

You expect too much of the scientific community if you think that they are going to wake up and recognize the achievements of us maverick scientists overnight. It will take time and persistence. It is not a battle for the weak-hearted.

What do you mean by "I can die easy"? I pray that you are well and don't succumb to any unfortunate accidents. We can only hope that we have distributed our ideas well enough that the ideas will live on even in our absence.

Take Care!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Sorry Ray. I have been distressed because CS&F accepted the summary of the 5 papers of my life's work but because of El Naschie's fall from grace, Elsevier has postponed publishing my article for 1 year and 2 months. I am gainfully employed as a Chemist at BASF and will remain waiting for the world to see this new paradigm. I look at some fundamental mysteries to science & apply Fractal Physics & I always solve the problem. It won't be much longer until everyone looks up and sees that stars are cosmic scale nuclei in the process of cosmic scale beta decay and then look down and realize the moment of beta decay is quantum scale stellar emission. The Big Bang is just a Cosmic Scale 1 Megatonne Nuclear explosion occuring on a Cosmic Scale Planet. All the data matches.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Hello ,

What do you think if we speak a little about the Bell's inequalities.

The angles are the secret of the system in 3 composantes.

The orientations of the rotating spheres can have severals point of reference.

The centers are an other key, a pure superimposing of spherical systems correlated with the angles.Even the Universal center has a rule for the rotations and all these angles locals and globals.Of course the two principles are conserved, the locality and the light speed and their effects thus.

The centers are importants for the angles.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

What do you think if we speak a little about the Bell's inequalities.

The angles are the secret of the system in 3 composantes.

The orientations of the rotating spheres can have severals point of reference.

The centers are an other key, a pure superimposing of spherical systems correlated with the angles.Even the Universal center has a rule for the rotations and all these angles locals and globals.Of course the two principles are conserved, the locality and the light speed and their effects thus.

The centers are importants for the angles.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

In fact the inconpleteness of the quantum physics is just due to our evolution.

That's why the hidden variables are just a lack of capacity.

The EPR or Copenaghen,...taht is the quaestion.

The locality is difficult to perceive but the system doesn't change its foundamentals, it exists proofs about that.

Friendly

Steve

report post as inappropriate

That's why the hidden variables are just a lack of capacity.

The EPR or Copenaghen,...taht is the quaestion.

The locality is difficult to perceive but the system doesn't change its foundamentals, it exists proofs about that.

Friendly

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Dear Friends,

Len - I understand the delays with CS&F - it took a year for my two small papers to get published. At least you have your web site. Do not expect paradigm changes to happen overnight - sometimes you literally have to wait for a generation to die off before you can change the scientific community - the FQXi blog on "Free Radical" somewhat touches on that idea. Don't take it personally, and don't lose your fortitude. Some may oppose you for a variety of reasons (jealousy, ignorance, etc.), but you still have some friends.

Steve - Hidden variables are hidden dimensions - it's as simple as that.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Len - I understand the delays with CS&F - it took a year for my two small papers to get published. At least you have your web site. Do not expect paradigm changes to happen overnight - sometimes you literally have to wait for a generation to die off before you can change the scientific community - the FQXi blog on "Free Radical" somewhat touches on that idea. Don't take it personally, and don't lose your fortitude. Some may oppose you for a variety of reasons (jealousy, ignorance, etc.), but you still have some friends.

Steve - Hidden variables are hidden dimensions - it's as simple as that.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Dear Len ,

Don't be in this state of the mind, you know for exemple I have had a difficult young life and afetr even a coma at the age of 20 ans 1 year after the death of my father.Afer the problems continue, and even some years ago I was 3 months in a hospital for a big depression, I would die in fact ,but behind the dark side it exists always a ray of light.

After this kind of life, and still I don't say you all my past problems because you are going to cry hihihihi.After you like the life, you love the wind, you love the colors.You are stronger.

Sometimes I say me , I am already dead and thus I live hihihih the flowers are beautiful, the humanity can solve, ....

Dear Ray,

I disagree ,it doesn't exist hidden variables or extradimensions, just a superimposings of mass, coded where the gravity polarise the light.

All is the result of the mass, all mass is the effect of the rotatings spheres, and all is in 3D and without infinity in the uniqueness.That has no sense dear Ray, that has no sense all that.All these non coherences are bizares.It is not the reality that, the determinism, the rationality.

If I take a thing, a water drop, a human, a cat, a flower, a mineral, a bacteria, a molecule, an atom or others...it is a mass with an intrinsic code and all is in 3D, the torus of our adn is in 3D and it doesn't exists hidden variables, just some steps difficult to see because we are limited with our technology.The external cause of mass has no sense, it is a error in my opinion.

Dear Ray, if the roads are confusings, thus it is not possible to arrive at the universal point.....there a balance about the physicality is necessary.

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Don't be in this state of the mind, you know for exemple I have had a difficult young life and afetr even a coma at the age of 20 ans 1 year after the death of my father.Afer the problems continue, and even some years ago I was 3 months in a hospital for a big depression, I would die in fact ,but behind the dark side it exists always a ray of light.

After this kind of life, and still I don't say you all my past problems because you are going to cry hihihihi.After you like the life, you love the wind, you love the colors.You are stronger.

Sometimes I say me , I am already dead and thus I live hihihih the flowers are beautiful, the humanity can solve, ....

Dear Ray,

I disagree ,it doesn't exist hidden variables or extradimensions, just a superimposings of mass, coded where the gravity polarise the light.

All is the result of the mass, all mass is the effect of the rotatings spheres, and all is in 3D and without infinity in the uniqueness.That has no sense dear Ray, that has no sense all that.All these non coherences are bizares.It is not the reality that, the determinism, the rationality.

If I take a thing, a water drop, a human, a cat, a flower, a mineral, a bacteria, a molecule, an atom or others...it is a mass with an intrinsic code and all is in 3D, the torus of our adn is in 3D and it doesn't exists hidden variables, just some steps difficult to see because we are limited with our technology.The external cause of mass has no sense, it is a error in my opinion.

Dear Ray, if the roads are confusings, thus it is not possible to arrive at the universal point.....there a balance about the physicality is necessary.

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Dear Len,

I see your interpretation about the Big Bang, this wonderful hypothesis.

Let's take 10 exp-50....like an universal mitosis...fractal of the sphere....finite serie,fist step(primordial quantum system)...10 exp-40...multiplication of all quantum system....afetr the rotations imply the mass..EVOLUTION SPHERIZATION...the system needs thermodynamic to be well understood ...What do you think ?

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

I see your interpretation about the Big Bang, this wonderful hypothesis.

Let's take 10 exp-50....like an universal mitosis...fractal of the sphere....finite serie,fist step(primordial quantum system)...10 exp-40...multiplication of all quantum system....afetr the rotations imply the mass..EVOLUTION SPHERIZATION...the system needs thermodynamic to be well understood ...What do you think ?

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve,

I do not understand the thermodynamic of evolution spherization.

I am somewhat excited lately. I "integrated" the scaling fractal unified field equation and obtained a unified field equation for a scale. The strong and week fields reduce to quantum scale electric, magnetic and gravitational interactions. The basic fields of gravity, electricity ane magnetism remain.

Absolute value of (gravitational field)(electric field) x (magnetic field)(permitivity of free space) = (energy)(frequency)/volume. This equation works for the fractal electron providing a spin velocity of ~ 6 million m/s.

Len

report post as inappropriate

I do not understand the thermodynamic of evolution spherization.

I am somewhat excited lately. I "integrated" the scaling fractal unified field equation and obtained a unified field equation for a scale. The strong and week fields reduce to quantum scale electric, magnetic and gravitational interactions. The basic fields of gravity, electricity ane magnetism remain.

Absolute value of (gravitational field)(electric field) x (magnetic field)(permitivity of free space) = (energy)(frequency)/volume. This equation works for the fractal electron providing a spin velocity of ~ 6 million m/s.

Len

report post as inappropriate

Hi dear Len,

It is very relevant that .

The similarities of the ratios are universals between spheres.

The proportionalities appear thus .

I wish you all the best in your researchs.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

It is very relevant that .

The similarities of the ratios are universals between spheres.

The proportionalities appear thus .

I wish you all the best in your researchs.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Hi Len,

You might want to read some of Edwin Eugene Klingman's ideas at

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/561

He uses the Electric-Magnetic analogy on Gravitation. He gives his magnetic-analogy gravity the name of 'Consciousness', but we could call it another force.

How do you plan to publish your papers in the future with the renovation of CS&F? At least you have a good website!

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

You might want to read some of Edwin Eugene Klingman's ideas at

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/561

He uses the Electric-Magnetic analogy on Gravitation. He gives his magnetic-analogy gravity the name of 'Consciousness', but we could call it another force.

How do you plan to publish your papers in the future with the renovation of CS&F? At least you have a good website!

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Hi Ray, A letter still in progress but almost complete.

On overview of Fractal Physics Theory was peer reviewed and accepted for publication by the Journal Chaos, Solitons & Fractals January 2009. To date the publisher, Elsevier, has informed me they are delaying publication until the new Co-Editors, Professor Maurice Courbage and Professor Paolo Grigolini accept it. This overview...

view entire post

On overview of Fractal Physics Theory was peer reviewed and accepted for publication by the Journal Chaos, Solitons & Fractals January 2009. To date the publisher, Elsevier, has informed me they are delaying publication until the new Co-Editors, Professor Maurice Courbage and Professor Paolo Grigolini accept it. This overview...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

I just glanced at it. But the idea sounds like a quantum Liliput.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

An overview of Fractal Physics Theory was peer reviewed and accepted for publication by the Journal Chaos, Solitons & Fractals January 2009. To date the publisher, Elsevier, has informed me they are delaying publication until the new Co-Editors, Professor Maurice Courbage and Professor Paolo Grigolini accept it. This Open Letter Part 2 paper presents for the first time a Unified Field Equation...

view entire post

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Len,

I just visited your website and I find its presentation is very pleasing. I have a comment

about one of the postulates of your theory. In your paper 'Fractal Physics-Scaling Fractals and the Fifth Dimension' you mention as a postulate of Fractal Physics that 'absolute uniform scale cannot be detected'.

But it seems to me that there is a way to detect scale in an absolute manner, namely, by comparing the ratios of different powers of scale to one another. For instance, the ratio of the area to the length of the side of a square of side length 1m is 10 times that of a square of side 0.1 meter.

If the fact that the ratios in this example are dimensionful bothers you, you can iterate this to construct dimensionless ratios. For example: the ratio of the volume to surface area of a cube of side 1m divided by the ratio of its surface area to side length is the dimensionless fraction 1/36, whereas the same ratio of ratios of a cube of side 10m is the dimensionless fraction 1/360.

I don't know your theory well enough to be able to say to what extent this causes difficulties for it. I realize that since you clearly put a tremendous amount of work into it, if this causes major or unsurmountable problems, then it will be very disappointing to you. I don't feel good about that; on the other hand, in science we should always be looking for ways to disprove our theories. To paraphrase Nietzsche, if objections like those above don't kill our theories, they can only make them stronger. I certainly expect others to treat my ideas this way.

All the best,

Armin

report post as inappropriate

I just visited your website and I find its presentation is very pleasing. I have a comment

about one of the postulates of your theory. In your paper 'Fractal Physics-Scaling Fractals and the Fifth Dimension' you mention as a postulate of Fractal Physics that 'absolute uniform scale cannot be detected'.

But it seems to me that there is a way to detect scale in an absolute manner, namely, by comparing the ratios of different powers of scale to one another. For instance, the ratio of the area to the length of the side of a square of side length 1m is 10 times that of a square of side 0.1 meter.

If the fact that the ratios in this example are dimensionful bothers you, you can iterate this to construct dimensionless ratios. For example: the ratio of the volume to surface area of a cube of side 1m divided by the ratio of its surface area to side length is the dimensionless fraction 1/36, whereas the same ratio of ratios of a cube of side 10m is the dimensionless fraction 1/360.

I don't know your theory well enough to be able to say to what extent this causes difficulties for it. I realize that since you clearly put a tremendous amount of work into it, if this causes major or unsurmountable problems, then it will be very disappointing to you. I don't feel good about that; on the other hand, in science we should always be looking for ways to disprove our theories. To paraphrase Nietzsche, if objections like those above don't kill our theories, they can only make them stronger. I certainly expect others to treat my ideas this way.

All the best,

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Hello Again,

In my haste in trying to present a dimensionless version of this argument I made an elementary mistake (and not having slept since yesterday didn't help). Of course both dimensionless fractions are 1/36. Pardon the error.

That still leaves the first part of the objection intact, namely that the choice of a scale fixes the relation of that scale to its higher powers. It seems to me that since mass scales with the third power of the linear dimension this would allow an observer to determine the scale just by the nature of the interactions of a massive object characterized by the scale in question with other objects. For example, if the interactions are predominantly of the kind we call "gravitational", then the observer could guess that the scale is "large" relative to, say, that which characterizes humans, whereas if the interactions are predominantly what we call "electromagnetic", then the observer could guess that the scale is "small".

A variation of this argument which puts this on a more quantitative footing looks at quantities which depend on the ratio of mass to a linear scale of power other than three. The ratio of the physical radius of a massive object to the Schwarzschild radius is one such quantity, and, although dimensionless, it clearly changes with the mass of an object. That ratio for the sun is 2.7 x10^5 and becomes smaller for more massive objects. Since the constituent particles of a massive object occupy a finite volume, the relation between mass and volume cannot be entirely arbitrary. So it seems to me that a knowledge of this ratio would, again, give at least a rough indication of scale.

Again, I am offering this argument in the spirit of constructive criticism. I am going to bed now.

Take care,

Armin

report post as inappropriate

In my haste in trying to present a dimensionless version of this argument I made an elementary mistake (and not having slept since yesterday didn't help). Of course both dimensionless fractions are 1/36. Pardon the error.

That still leaves the first part of the objection intact, namely that the choice of a scale fixes the relation of that scale to its higher powers. It seems to me that since mass scales with the third power of the linear dimension this would allow an observer to determine the scale just by the nature of the interactions of a massive object characterized by the scale in question with other objects. For example, if the interactions are predominantly of the kind we call "gravitational", then the observer could guess that the scale is "large" relative to, say, that which characterizes humans, whereas if the interactions are predominantly what we call "electromagnetic", then the observer could guess that the scale is "small".

A variation of this argument which puts this on a more quantitative footing looks at quantities which depend on the ratio of mass to a linear scale of power other than three. The ratio of the physical radius of a massive object to the Schwarzschild radius is one such quantity, and, although dimensionless, it clearly changes with the mass of an object. That ratio for the sun is 2.7 x10^5 and becomes smaller for more massive objects. Since the constituent particles of a massive object occupy a finite volume, the relation between mass and volume cannot be entirely arbitrary. So it seems to me that a knowledge of this ratio would, again, give at least a rough indication of scale.

Again, I am offering this argument in the spirit of constructive criticism. I am going to bed now.

Take care,

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Vladko Vedral,

You wrote: “Most researchers in the field of (finite invisible) quantum computation, like myself, also tend to prefer the many (finite invisible) worlds view…”

Please try to understand that the real visible surface of the earth existed for millions of years before man appeared on it and started guessing where earth may have came from.. It logically follows that Nature must have produced that visible surface.

The real Universe must consist of only one single unified visible infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking and all of the physicists and philosophers who have ever lived have only ever produced utterly complex finite misinformation.

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

report post as inappropriate

You wrote: “Most researchers in the field of (finite invisible) quantum computation, like myself, also tend to prefer the many (finite invisible) worlds view…”

Please try to understand that the real visible surface of the earth existed for millions of years before man appeared on it and started guessing where earth may have came from.. It logically follows that Nature must have produced that visible surface.

The real Universe must consist of only one single unified visible infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking and all of the physicists and philosophers who have ever lived have only ever produced utterly complex finite misinformation.

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

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.