Search FQXi

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

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

songjoong df: on 12/27/17 at 7:22am UTC, wrote KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK...

Edwin Klingman: on 2/2/11 at 5:54am UTC, wrote For all of those who have decided that local realism is dead, you may wish...

Peter Jackson: on 10/26/10 at 19:47pm UTC, wrote Tom That's fair, but I hope you don't let it close your mind to...

T H Ray: on 10/26/10 at 18:38pm UTC, wrote Peter, The essential difference between the ways we think is that I never...

Peter Jackson: on 10/26/10 at 14:50pm UTC, wrote Tom You found my point - That version of mainstream says on acceleration...

T H Ray: on 10/26/10 at 11:38am UTC, wrote Peter, Potential energy and mass are the same thing. As potential energy...

Peter Jackson: on 10/26/10 at 9:59am UTC, wrote Tom, I don't recognise an object 'shedding energy' when accelerated a the...

Jason Wolfe: on 10/26/10 at 4:55am UTC, wrote Tom, If I take a laser-pen and shine it into the sky, theoretically, the...

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

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.

FQXi BLOGS
November 20, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: GRW vs Free Will [refresh]

Blogger Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Aug. 20, 2010 @ 17:21 GMT
This is my last post on key results that were presented during the New Directions in the Foundations of Physics conference in Washington DC. (You can see my other posts about building a black hole in the lab, how quantum mechanics isn’t as strange as it could be, and quantum effects and time travel.) Now I want to talk about advances by FQXi’s Roderich Tumulka in creating a relativistic GRW quantum collapse theory and the Free Will Theorem controversy.

To recap, the Free Will theorem, proposed by John Conway and Simon Kochen, claims that no deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics is compatible with the notion that humans have free will. So why does that hit up against Tumulka’s model?

Tumulka presented what looked like a consistent relativistic version of the GRW approach to quantum mechanics––that is, an approach in which quantum collapse happens spontaneously, rather than as a result of a measurement. (However, this result contained no interaction, and this is where the hard part lies in light of Haag’s theorem of the impossibility to have a strictly Lorenz invariant vacuum or a Hilbert space in the interaction picture in field theory.) GRW-type theories are stochastic; for an individual particle wavefunction, there is a probability of collapse, but no certainty. The clash with the Conway-Kochen Free Will Theorem arises because Conway and Kochen assert that any GRW-type theory is also proved wrong by their theorem. Randomness, they argue, is no better than determinism.

In light of the talk I re-read the original papers on the archive, and I watched a six part presentation by Conway recorded last year. It is really hard to say who is right and who is wrong––the arguments are very subtle on both sides. But I think I understand clearly enough Conway’s position on randomness to be able to attempt to present it here.

Here is what Conway has in mind: He starts with the “second running” argument for causality. You go to the movies and watch a very exciting story. You do not know the outcome and to you it looks like the characters have free will. Then the next day you take a friend with you to see the same movie. To him, the characters have free will, just as it did for you yesterday, but by now for you they no longer look like that because you know the outcome. This argument shows that it is logically impossible to argue against determinism with a believer in determinism; you would get no logical contradiction. But logical consistency does not guarantee agreement with reality.

A second Conway argument is based on how backgammon tournaments––with multiple pairs of players all conducting games at the same time––are conducted. The random rolling of the dice is done ahead of time and everyone plays the same rolls in parallel to ensure fairness among all players. It does not make any difference to the outcome of the backgammon games if the players roll the dice as they go, or if the random sequence is pre-generated.

To this, Tumulka had two counter-claims: (1) The Free Will Theorem is nothing new, and it was in fact proven by Bell in an equivalent form; and (2) This theory does not apply to stochastic theories.

In his talk, Tumulka specifically focused on the critical statement of the Free Will paper in which Conway and Kochen assert that randomness does not help. In Tumulka’s theory, collapse involves “random flashes.” Conway insists that just as the outcome of the backgammon games is not changed, whether the dice are rolled during the matches or ahead of time, it makes no difference to GRW predictions if the random flashes are given before the Big Bang versus being “computed” when needed, “on the fly,” by nature. This is just as bad as being determined.

Now back to Tumulka’s position. Why is “rolling of the dice” before the Big Bang so bad? Because of the meaning of non-locality. Conway and Kochen assume that the random quantum mechanical behavior can only depend on the past causal cone because one cannot signal faster than the speed of light. Is this bad? Yes, because Tumulka argues that quantum mechanics (and his relativistic GRW theory) accesses non-local information beyond the past causal cone while obeying the no-signaling condition. Moreover, the right way to understand Bell’s result is not in the popular understanding of choosing between locality and hidden variables, but as an outright rejection of locality. Without the incorrect confusion between no-signaling and non-locality, one of the three original assumptions of the Free Will Theory (the FIN, or its later modification to MIN) is wrong, and this opens a loophole allowing the existence of no-signaling, non-local stochastic quantum mechanical theories.

So who is ultimately right hinges on rejecting locality outright from Bell’s inequalities. I feel that the question is not settled one way or another. Take the Aharonov-Bohm effect. It surely looks non-local, until you notice that the vector potential in electromagnetism is the connection in its corresponding gauge theory and it does obey the micro-causality condition in field theory. Or take Bell’s inequality. Joy Christian managed to produce a local explanation at the expense of using geometric algebra instead of real numbers. While his interpretation of measurement is in minority among physicists, his result can be understood as a local theory in the sense of Conway and Kochen.

So here is the challenge: Does anyone have any conclusive proof that Bell’s inequality rejects locality? I would surely like to hear about it and debate it.

Corrected Post Script

After reading all relevant archive papers on this subject, the core papers are as follows: arXiv:0905.4641v1 for another presentation of Tumulka’s arguments, arXiv:1002.1392 for a nice solution of the puzzle of the dispute by Nicolas Gisis and arXiv:1006.2485 (and references inside) by Antoine Suarez for some relevant comparison with his “before-before” model.

The moral of the story is that the origin of the dispute stems from a different expectation about the degree to which a relativistic theory should be covariant. (Tumulka’s “flash ontology” requires a less stringent covariant condition.) Therefore Conway’s claim that FWT rules out stochastic models is false.

Suarez’s „before-before” model shows something more: SPIN, TWIN, and MIN does not prove the free will theorem because he managed to produce a counter-example (albeit logically inconsistent and ruled out by experiments). Instead, the FWT should be derived from full quantum formalism and the MIN axiom for deterministic models. Suarez’s toy model obeys SPIN and TWIN under the standard EPR experiment, but it is incompatible with the C* algebra (and in particular with Hardy’s 5 axioms) because it predicts violations of entanglement under certain conditions.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Aug. 20, 2010 @ 17:51 GMT
"...The clash with the Conway-Kochen Free Will Theorem arises because Conway and Kochen assert that any GRW-type theory is also proved wrong by their theorem. Randomness, they argue, is no better than determinism."

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 20, 2010 @ 19:34 GMT
Dear Florin,

I thought of an experiment that might help.

You have two labs A and B. They are at the same elevation (gravity), so there are no time dilation differences. They are both using atomic clocks that are correctly set to the exact same time. The Stern-Gerlach test apparatuses are precisely aligned and bolted down.

They are using a byte (8 bits), 8 quantumly entangled pairs of electrons S0 to S7, specifically their spins. The distance between the labs is distance L. From each measurement apparatus, there is a transmitter (cable if you prefer) that will transmit the measurement result to a third lab called M (middle). Lab M is halfway between the two labs A and B. Lab M will receive measurement results of spin from each lab, same bit, and compare them.

Lab A is scheduled to make ten measurements at 12:00:00 high noon on S0. These measurement will be spaced one minute apart, thus,

1. 12:00:00

2. 12:01:00

3. 12:02:00

etc...

Measurements of spin are like flipping a coin. If you don't like the result, you have to flip the coin again until you get the result that you like.

Does this experiment help to clarify the issue of locality?

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Aug. 21, 2010 @ 04:49 GMT
Unfortunately no. And also unfortunately I will travel next week and I will not be able to participate in the discussion for this post until I will return at the end of the month.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 20, 2010 @ 19:55 GMT
I predict that whatever lab A measures at 12:00, 12:01, etc., that lab B will measure the opposite. For example:

12:00 up -- down

12:01 up -- down

12:02 down -- up

etc.,

What happens if lab A takes its measurements 1 second later? 10 seconds later? 30 seconds later? 45 seconds later? 55 seconds later (5 seconds before the next measurement)?

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Aug. 20, 2010 @ 21:22 GMT
"...Randomness, they argue, is no better than determinism."

I said that: They are correct about that.

I should have said more. 'Randomness' should not be affiliated with meaning. If activity in the universe appears to be controlled by a general pattern, as is seen in probability interpretations, then references to possible 'randomness' certainly are not referring to true randomness. When meaning comes into play, randomness is completely eliminated.

A container of an ideal gas has activity that may appear to some to be random; but that motion is completely controlled so that it gives us reason to make reasonable conclusions about patterns that can be modeled by mathematics. There is no true randomness in this universe or any pre-existing meaning would have been destroyed. The universe is completely controlled for intelligent purpose and the goal of that purpose is to give rise to human freewill.

Theoretical physics has nothing to say about human freewill.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 21, 2010 @ 00:07 GMT
James,

You said: ""...Randomness, they argue, is no better than determinism." I said that: They are correct about that. "

The universe behaves the way it behaves. That's why we run experiments. I have no idea if there is

a. pure randomness;

b. some underlying pattern; or

c. pesky quantum critters that can disturb the pure randomness and skew the results.

If you're worried about determinism, just remember that its your choice to live a life of hard work or a life of leisure. You chose that by how much stress you are willing to put up with. You also chose your behavior by chosing what you believe.

Am I wrong?

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 21, 2010 @ 00:38 GMT
Jason,

"The universe behaves the way it behaves."

But why does it behave the way it behaves? The answer I see is that it is orderly. Orderliness cannot tolerate any randomness.

"a. pure randomness;"

Pure randomness is another way of expressing pure meaninglessness.

"If you're worried about determinism, just remember that its your choice to live a life of hard work or a life of leisure."

I am not worried about determinism. Determinism is what keeps the universe operating and us intelligent. The real question, as I see it, is: How does determinism give rise to human free will? If theoretical physics cannot answer that question, it is probably because it feels threatened by any possible answer. Theoretical physics cannot acknowledge fundamental properties of intelligence without undoing the mechanical fundamental properties that they depend upon.

"...You chose that by how much stress you are willing to put up with. You also chose your behavior by chosing what you believe."

How is it that I can choose? This is a physics question.

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 21, 2010 @ 21:03 GMT
From a couple of earlier statments I made:

"How is it that I can choose? This is a physics question."

In other words, if randomness exists (I do not believe that it does or even can exist.) how does this non-property lead to choice? Or, how does some other non-property of pure chance lead to choice?

"The universe is completely controlled for intelligent purpose and the goal of that purpose is to give rise to human freewill."

My point is that determinism does give rise to free will. The question is: How can determinism give rise to free will? I have a website dedicated to answering this question. However, my point here at FQXi is that theoretical physics must provide the means for demonstrating the eventual realization of human free will from fundamental properties of the universe.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 21, 2010 @ 02:24 GMT
James,

You said, "But why does it behave the way it behaves? The answer I see is that it is orderly. Orderliness cannot tolerate any randomness."

Why can't orderliness tolerate any randomness? It seems as if that is exactly what quantum mechanics is doing. Even the Uncertainty Principle disagrees with you. Haveen't you ever cleaned up your house, and locked the door to the spare bedroom because that's where all the chaos is?

You said, "Pure randomness is another way of expressing pure meaninglessness." Who are you to decide for anyone other than yourself what is meaningful and what is meaningless? There are people who look at mountains on Mars and see faces. There are technically oriented people who can look at schematics and see very complex systems while others only see meaningless symbols. Meaningfulness is in the eye of the beholder.

You said, "Determinism is what keeps the universe operating and us intelligent. "

I hate to sound like such a nerd, but have you ever played Dungeons & Dragons? That was a game that was based on dice rolls. What's the difference between a game whose events are determined by dice versus a physical universe based universe whose events are determined by quantum randomness?

I don't see why you're worried about intelligence or consciousness. Quantum systems might be totally random, or skewable by something.

You asked: "How is it that I can choose? This is a physics question. " Your behaviour is directly effected by what you chose to believe. If you chose to believe that ????? exist(s), that will determine what interests you, what books you buy, how you deal with problems, how you relate to other people, how you respond to moral dilemmas. I can give you examles if you wish.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 21, 2010 @ 13:28 GMT
Jason,

My points had to to with physics. Randomness in the universe is analogous to saying that the action of particles has no control. All of those macroscopic examples you give have nothing to do with randomness. Your comment about my deciding what is meaningful for others has nothing to do with my point. My question was a physics question. I do not need to have macroscopic examples listed. When I speak of meaninglessness, I mean at the fundamental level. My points have to do with a fundamental world that has no means of control. Mixing control and lack of control, if it actually existed, would destroy control because the laws that govern fundamental particles could no longer be relied upon for predicting results. My points have nothing to do with psychology. They have to do with fundamental physics.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 21, 2010 @ 18:40 GMT
James,

You said: "Mixing control and lack of control, if it actually existed, would destroy control because the laws that govern fundamental particles could no longer be relied upon for predicting results. "

Quantum mechanics is the very essence of throwing dice. It provides all kinds of possible eigenstates for a quantum system. You ask: what controls which eigenstate is chosen? You won't like the answer because it lies outside the range of what you are willing to consider. I can only say that the Uncertainty Principle is the last stop for physics and experimental science.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 21, 2010 @ 19:13 GMT
Jason,

"Quantum mechanics is the very essence of throwing dice. It provides all kinds of possible eigenstates for a quantum system. You ask: what controls which eigenstate is chosen? You won't like the answer because it lies outside the range of what you are willing to consider. I can only say that the Uncertainty Principle is the last stop for physics and experimental science."

Throwing dice is not an example of true randomness. There is complete control involved in the dice and their throwing. Also they always produce meaningful information. Insofar as control is explained by theoretical physics, I have yet to see it. The uncertainty principle is where you have me for now. I don't have anything to say about it yet. However, my interest is not in repeating what others have said, it has to do with understanding whether or not it is portrayed properly with regard to what it says and what it means.

All of the work I have done so far has produced results very different from mainstream theoretical physics. I expect that the uncertainty principle will also change. However, there is no interest yet shown here in my work, so I will continue to point to unanswered and weakly answered questions of theoretical physics. The question about the nature of control, for me, remains unanswered except that it is universally complete.

James

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti (www.digitalwavetheory.com) wrote on Aug. 21, 2010 @ 05:09 GMT
Hi Florin,

Bell: "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics."

This was aimed at Einstein who got tagged with saying that there is a hidden variable that will straighten out quantum mechanics. And of course one of the predictions of QM is non-locality. So, a hidden variable will not save QM from predicting non-locality. This is close to saying that Bell's inequality rejects locality, but not quite. I believe there is something that will save QM from "creating" non-locality and it is not a local variable.

You probably know where I am headed, I was very grateful to you for your review of my FQXi entry "Gravity from the ground up": "Just as good as string theory". Faint praise is OK with me (really). You are therefore a friend :)

I believe that QM shows non-locality, because it operates on objects (particles) that are intrinsically non-local by nature. The non-locality is not produced by QM but is in the stuff QM operates on. QM may modify the non-local behavior but is not the source of it. Check out the case I make for this at www.digitalwavetheory.com my latest update on "Gravity from the ground up".

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Aug. 29, 2010 @ 19:22 GMT
Hi Don,

Sorry it took me so long to reply, but I was traveling. QM is completely independent of relativity and the concept of distance (in the sense of the metric tensor) does not apply. (QM’s intrinsic distance concept has to do with the Fubini-Study metric and Born’s rule.)

So in this way, QM is not local, or to better put it, it is locality-blind (to paraphrase the “color-blind” saying). However, quantum field theory is not locality-blind due to the commutation relations of spatially separated locations. Arguably, non-relativistic QM is only a limiting case of quantum field theory, and I am yet to see a genuine non-local example of quantum field theory. So if Bell implies that local realism is false I am strongly inclined to say that the fault lies with realism, and not with locality.

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti (digitalwavetheory.com) replied on Aug. 30, 2010 @ 07:33 GMT
Florin,

That is my thesis, that reality is not local.

And I go into detail on how it is not local.

report post as inappropriate

Plato replied on Sep. 18, 2010 @ 18:36 GMT
Florin and Don: Consider --

"Gravity and electromagnetism both pertain to distance in space, so it is critical to balance electromagnetic repulsion/expansion with gravitational contraction/attraction (in any theory of quantum gravity, as well)."

"When gravitational contraction is offest by/balanced with

electromagnetic repulsion, here we have the union of gravity and

electromagnetism as fundamental and balanced distance in space (with

balanced attraction/repulsion)."

Great ideas indeed. Are they not? If not, why then (and specifically)? What do you think?

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica wrote on Aug. 21, 2010 @ 05:09 GMT
After the measurement is performed, we find out that the states of the two electrons in EPR-B are, and were all the time, separated. Initially, when they appeared to be entangled, the initial conditions were incompletely specified. The measurement completes the initial conditions, with a delay. Eventually, the outcome is a separated, hence local, solution.

Choosing what to measure means to make a delayed choice of the class of possible initial conditions. The incomplete specification of the delayed initial conditions allows determinism to be compatible with free-will.

Locality, free-will, determinism, QM are all compatible.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 22, 2010 @ 03:30 GMT
Cristi,

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not sure I have freewill. My actions are governed by my passions, goals, responsibilities, ethical and moral restraints, and sometimes from things I've dreamed. There are times when I don't know what to do and I have to look for guidance from a higher power. I'm not sure what kind of free will we're talking about. I chose to live a spiritual life because it makes me happy. I chose all of my beliefs because they best match my life experience and my internal nature.

In what way do you or I have free will?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 22, 2010 @ 04:48 GMT
I've got the answer. I told my 6'10" 350lb brother and law that he did not have the free will to beat me down. Actually, after he brought out his BB gun, and his wife and best friend were ready to kick my butt, I backed down. But it's official. We really don't have free will. Our behavior is chemically driven. The chemicals themselves are subject to quantum mechanics. So we have neither free will nor is the universe determined, it's random as nearly as we can tell.

So don't worry about. Go drink a beer and have fun!

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Aug. 22, 2010 @ 05:56 GMT
Jason,

What I said is that determinism is compatible with free-will (and I gave a link detailing/explaining this), not that free-will exists. It is true that many (or maybe all) so-called choices people make are in fact chemical reactions in their brains, but to rule out completely the existence of free-will it takes more than this. Maybe we will someday be able to perform the free-will experiment, to really see whether there is free-will, or we are just automata, most of us programmed to believe that we are free.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Aug. 21, 2010 @ 09:54 GMT
There is a certain dichotomy between order and chaos, as expressed in Complexity theory. Infinites in math also show any ordered system is logically finite, while the reality it seeks to model is not.

The laws governing a process can be completely deterministic, but if the input cannot be quantified, the results are random and quantifying all input requires an omnipresent perspective, which is a contradiction.

As for free will vs. determinism, it's a two way street. If we were completely free of outside influences, we would be isolated from having any outside effects. Reality is a complex network of which we are part and there are aspects we are subject to, as well as those subject to us.

As Stephen Wolfram put it, it would take a computer the size of the universe to compute the universe.

And if that universe is infinite.....

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 21, 2010 @ 16:45 GMT
John, the structure and form of thought is reflected in the structure and form of experience. Eddington's statement: "When science has progressed the furthest, the mind has but regained from nature what the mind has put into nature.....At last, we have succeeded in reconstructing the creature that made the footprint, and lo! it is our own."

The natural and integrated extensiveness of thought, memory, being, experience, space, sensory experience, and the laws/forces of physics all ultimately/fundamentally go hand in hand.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 22, 2010 @ 01:51 GMT
Frank,

Our thoughts do reflect our experience, but goals, once attained, simply become foundation for further progress.

It's interesting that one of your main points of reference is dreams and that you use a lot of different identities. My experience with dreams is of multiple impulses/identities competing to be the focus of the consciousness. To the point it's difficult to see the conscious as singular. It seems the isolated awareness of being awake breaks down. In a sense, our mind is schizophrenically playing multiple roles, but then a line is drawn through the dominant personalities, creating our sense of individual perspective. I also think there is a very strong latent ability to read each others minds, but over the millennia of increasing population and reduced tribal relations, we have developed ever stronger defenses, ie. maintaining our own space, in order to protect ourselves from those who would take advantage of this.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 22, 2010 @ 14:38 GMT
John,

"There is a certain dichotomy between order and chaos, as expressed in Complexity theory."

I am not familiar with this point. I see no dichotomy. Order is existence and chaos is non-existence. If chaos is taken to be something that can exist, how would you describe it. I get the feeling that Complexity theory may have problems of its own.

"Infinites in math also show any ordered system is logically finite, while the reality it seeks to model is not."

I think that the infinities in math do not limit universal order. They may limit properties of models of one type or another.

"The laws governing a process can be completely deterministic, but if the input cannot be quantified, the results are random and quantifying all input requires an omnipresent perspective, which is a contradiction."

This looks very mechanical. Is it based upon the premise of mechanical modeling? "...if the input cannot be quantified, the results are random..." Why is this true? "...and quantifying all input requires an omnipresent perspective, which is a contradiction." Why is this a contradiction? What perspective are you referring to specifically by the word 'quantifying'? I know what quantifying means, I need to know what it represents here. For example, does it refer to counting 'bits'?

"As for free will vs. determinism, it's a two way street. If we were completely free of outside influences, we would be isolated from having any outside effects. Reality is a complex network of which we are part and there are aspects we are subject to, as well as those subject to us."

My approach to free will is to look to the fundamentals of physics. I do not see free will as being 'versus' determinism. Determinism represents the order necessary for meaning to exist. The question as I see it is to explain how determinism gives rise to free will? Is it your belief that determinism cannot give rise to human free will?

"As Stephen Wolfram put it, it would take a computer the size of the universe to compute the universe. And if that universe is infinite....."

Stephan Wolfram, as I recall, wants to represent the universe similar to a computer using bits of information. My opinion is that he is very much mistaken. The universe is not a computer and it is very misleading to model it as a computer. Am I misrepresenting his view?

James

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 21, 2010 @ 15:53 GMT
Order, predictability, or sameness and chaos, complexity, unpredictability, or differences generally increase together, or proportionately.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 21, 2010 @ 16:53 GMT
It's interesting.

The determinism in evolution as for all sciences is an essential.

The free will is an essential also.

And the free will can be deterministic.

In biology the determination is everywhere, in fact all is like that.

It's the same for the imagination, that can be deterministic when we speak about our reality and its intrinsic laws.

The Universe is finite, the spaces and the adds are of course infinites....and the irreversibility of the time is a pure foundamental of evolution.

The free will is important,this analogy seen above has any real sense in fact.

When I see my internal clock,I see the determinism,when I analyzes the genotypes, I see a determinism, when I extrapolate the entanglement and the pure fractal, I see a determinism, the reality is purely objective and deterministic.The ADN is deterministic...a water drop is deterministic, a human is deterministic, a maths equation must be deterministic,...all is as that...only the creativities without physicality loose their determinism, and there we are in pure imaginaries.Of course it's important but the reality of physicality is a pure system of determinism,as our universe in 3 dimensions.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 22, 2010 @ 03:43 GMT
On the subject of determinism, there are times when I am split between choice A and choice B. If it's an important choice, I really have to think about it. If its a trivial choice, I just make it at random. At random in a way similar to quantum mechanically random.

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti (digitalwavetheory.com) wrote on Aug. 22, 2010 @ 05:13 GMT
Omar Khayyám commented,

The Moving Finger writes;.............................The creative moment is a hop into the unknown.

and, having writ,..........................................It leaves a trail in memory external and internal,

Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit.................useful in consideration of the next creative moment.

Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,............This trail is all knowing,

Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it............And it is immutable and determined,

............................................................
.......held in place by all that went before.

.....................................................
..............That which is determined enables free will.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 26, 2010 @ 17:25 GMT
Thanks dear Don,

This person, Mr Omar Khayyam, is very interesting just because we see in his words, a big wisdom and intelligence.

Just because some people sees this determinism ...IMMUTABLE.

We are polarities, catalyzers of the environmenty wher the wisdom alsays is the sister of the consciousness, the universality as a torch of our hopes, it exists a physical aim...the hermonization is an evidence, the spherization is logic simply.Yeqs the Universe will be a perfect spheres with its center and all its intrinsics quantics and cosmologicals spheres... TURNING TOWARDS THE ULTIM SPHERE.

The determinism of all these coded spheres is an evidence, simple and rational where the mass is explained by these rotating spheres, the polarity between mass and light ....builds still and always ,it's like that the mass increases inside a beautiful sphere....the linearity and the gravitational stability ,evolving....seems just different in their foundamental sense of rotation.

If the numbers of the uniqueness is the same ....we see the quantum uniquity as the foto of the future universal spheres...logic and foundamental...

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 22, 2010 @ 09:10 GMT
"valid only for finite sets of data, but invalid for infinite sets". The word dissident reminds me of respectable critics of soviet doctrine. When a newspaper just celebrated 120 years since foundation, it reprinted an article "The atom driven car" by soviet "scientists". So you might understand my feelings. I do not appreciate calling all dissidents cranks. SR with its still paradox implications arose together with Cantor's naive and likewise paradox set theory. The journal Galilean electrodynamics was founded and is still maintained by respectable scientists, but it got nonetheless a victim of censorship in Wiki. Euclidean and Galilean foundations of mathematics were also arbitrarily declared outdated.

Galilei did not use the notion sets when he found out by means of bijection that the relations larger, equal to, and smaller do not apply for infinite quantities. So we have to be cautious already with the notion set. Are there really infinite sets? Strictly thinking, infinite sets are a possibly inadmissible extension of endless continuity to discrete numbers. Hilbert uttered himself in a manner that reminds me of Wilhelm II who was arrogant and did not learn from his failure. Hilbert denied the arrow of causality. Unfortunately, Hilber's successor Weyl did not have enough time for due corrections. I appreciate him for admissions: "We are less certain than ever about the ultimate foundations of (logic and) mathematics" and (concerning symmetries in QM) "at the moment there is no explanation in sight".

What the tempest about Free Will, I feel reminded of likewise pointless mistakes of diverse philosophers and in particular a booklet by Lamettrie. My free will has definitely roots that evade my ability to know them.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 22, 2010 @ 16:28 GMT
I have to say that I have a hard time becoming very impressed by this sort of development. This leans heavily upon the Bohm interpretation of QM, which is probably no more wrong than any other interprtation, but Bohm’s interpretation does not restore locality. Bohmian QM is an interpretation, and as with all the others these are not theories, for they are not empirically effective. There is also the prospect that quantum gravitation and cosmology extends nonlocality, in particular with the holographic principle. The root of the problem with quantum gravity is that given a field φ it is not in general locally gauge invariant, because in a general spacetime φ = φ(x) x is not gauge invariant. Conversely, for x a point in spacetime M, where M transforms under Diff(M) of GR, it is not possible in general to have a field that depends on x be invariant under the gauge-like symmetries of the spacetime. So attempts to unify the two notions are not amenable in a straight forward way. The approach which appears potentially workable is to abandon the notion of an event as having a unique point in spacetime.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 22, 2010 @ 17:46 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

You said: "The approach which appears potentially workable is to abandon the notion of an event as having a unique point in spacetime. "

If this were true, there would be some risk of FTL behavior. Potentially, it might even be possible to transmit information superluminally.

If that were to happen, then either

(a) time travel occurs which leads to a causality violation or

(b) FTL travel occurs which leads to shockingly fast transit.

Causality violations force into existence a whole new universe complete with

(1) a Big Bang's worth of energy;

(2) a perfect copy of this universe which is thermodynamically regressed to the past;

(3) A whole universe that has to be moved away from our universe before noticeable gravitational effects can occur.

(1) Is a flagrant violation of conservation of energy that is so severe that time travel can't be described mathematically;

(2) Time travel severely violates thermodynamics akin to hoping that the universe will, by sheer luck, evolve back into a previous state that occurred years or centuries ago.

(3) If there is a phenomena that can move an alternate universe 30 billion light years away before it is noticed, then that itself is an extreme example of FTL travel.

Since (1), (2) and (3) severely violate the laws of physics as we understand them, then choice (a) time travel, is probably wrong.

Choice (b): FTL phenomena, does not violate conservation of energy or thermodynamics; Choice (b) satisfies Occam's razor by only disrupting the tenets of GR.

Therefore, non-locality merely risks disrupting GR. If this were true, then quantum entanglement, potentially, could operate outside of the limitations of General Relativity, and outside the limitations of the Higgs field.

Does this make sense?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 22, 2010 @ 19:18 GMT
Jason,

Unfortunately this does not provide a mechanism for FTL travel or transmission of information. What it does is to extend the concept of nonlocality to the occurrence of field amplitudes. String theory is not exactly a quantum field theory, and it has these nonlocal features due to the extension of a string --- or the string length. As such it permits some generalizations of physics such as nonlocality. Early on this permitted scattering processes to be looked at as the topological extensions of string world sheets without point-like vertex processes in QFT. This has lead to certain ideas of nonlocality which removes the idea quantum events have to be associated with localities in spacetime.

So unfortunately the idea of FTL technology is not only permitted here, but actually rendered less possible.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 22, 2010 @ 19:42 GMT
Lawrence,

We agree that quantum events can be subject to non-local variables. That by itself is not a mechanism for FTL phenomena.

It is reasonably acceptable in physics that the Higgs field somehow gives particles their mass. So what kind of a field must exist in order to:

a. implement Conservation of momentum?;

b. cause gravity to work down to the event horizon even into the black hole, where light cannot escape;

c. propagate the flow of time (at different rates), but without violating causality;

d. conserve information within one coherent system/object; and

e. conserve energy itself within one coherent system?

I am arguing that there exists a single, malleable object that is intimately related to light, that implements gravity and evolution of time, and that causes all these other observations. For now, I am calling it the Higgs field (particle).

From here, FTL propulsion is "two doors down".

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 22, 2010 @ 19:25 GMT
The Higgs field (a.k.a. the field which gives mass),

a. permits Conservation of Energy to be operational;

b. results in General Relativity and gravity;

c. is also described as space-time.

While the Michelson Morley experiment seemingly disproved the existence of the Luminiferous aether, all it really proved was that the aether was not made out of point-like localized particles. The fact that quantum mechanics, quantum entanglement in particular, confronts us with the need for non-local variables, then it becomes unreasonable to expect the aether to manifest point-like behavior to which the earth can measureably move with respect to.

The names change, but the characteristics stay the same. You need a field to:

a. explain mass subject to E = mc^2

b. explain gravity and GR which are intimately related to the properties of light;

c. give a platform for Conservation of Momentum to operate within;

d. perpetuate the flow of time, often at different rates, but without inflicting a causality violation.

Whether we call it an aether, a Higgs field or some other kind of field doesn't matter.

What we cannot do is violate conservation of energy with MWI or time travel. To do so will destroy the foundations of physics.

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti (digitalwavetheory.com) wrote on Aug. 23, 2010 @ 05:37 GMT
Jason, I like your comment: "I am arguing that there exists a single, malleable object that is intimately related to light, that implements gravity and evolution of time, and that causes all these other observations. For now, I am calling it the Higgs field (particle)."

I think there is something intimately related to light that has much of what is assigned to the postulated Higgs particle. This something is "wavelength" a property that everything has and is most familiar to us via light (photons).

The Higgs effects everything, and wavelength effects everything.

The Higgs causes mass, wavelength can be thought of as causing mass via: wavelength=h/(mv).

Particle Wavelength and its corresponding Period can be thought of as the building blocks of space-time. The Higgs is thought of as the building block of space-time.

My viewpoint on this (if I may engage in some shameless self promotion) is via www.digitalwavetheory.com

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 23, 2010 @ 06:09 GMT
Hi Don,

I've checked out your website before. I definitely think you're on the right track. I had thought of wavelength as that which calibrates the meter stick and frequency as that which calibrates the clock. I relate mass to E =mc^2. If there are other interpretations that are easier to understand, then pursue those. But I think it's important to figure out how the laws of physics are being implemented.

A Higgs field/brane/space-time/aether as an infinite (very large) froth of wave functions provides an opportunity for light to energize the available eigenstates. Simultaneously, wave functions are too subtle to be said to really exist. Yet they also provide for the quantum vacuum.

If there were a way to reject/compensate for/deplete or get rid of the Higgs field around a spaceship, then one could gain access to the hyper-space underneath it. The hyperspace functions as a (hyper) Higgs field whose speed of light is c' >> c. Time travel is still impossible, however it would be possible to reach superluminal speeds with very modest amounts of energy.

report post as inappropriate

paul valletta wrote on Aug. 23, 2010 @ 19:57 GMT
The concept of randomness itself is very problamistic? for instance the ordinary dice has only six numbers, although there are an "infinite" linear natural numbers, the dice determins that only numbers between 1 or 6 show up?

There are a vast amount of non random variables that also go into the determination of numbers revealed by a tossed dice.

The word and meaning of randomness = freewill?..randomness is just another word for "anything goes", if anything goes then there should be a likelyhood that any number can show up?.. because there are NO constraints, freewill = random is equal to Quantum = Random.

If freewill does equal anything goes = (any choice available), and anything goes equals randomness = any outcome can exist (for numbers there is nothing to determine outcome)then by a determined logic,if freewill does not exist, then randomness cannot possibly exist also?

P,S :I am therefore I is?

I am therefore I think I am is?

I am? therefore I am randomely Free to dtermine my existence!

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 23, 2010 @ 20:44 GMT
Dear Paul,

Free will really means that we can make choices. We can chose between what feels good versus what has to get done. We can chose to remain chained to our human limitations or we can resist our human limitations and do the right thing.

In comparison with QM randomness, it only looks random to us. We have no way of knowing, using science or physics, whether the randomness is mechanistic noise or some lazy consciousness that has not exerted its Will. I would be happy to give examples of a consciousness within the QM that exerts its Will.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Aug. 23, 2010 @ 21:43 GMT
Empirical physics, the unadulterated (I know this state does not really exist; but, I regret that it does not.) study of the operation of the universe, and free will are interrelated. Empirical physics is not to be confused here with theoretical physics. Theoretical physics avoids problems of intelligence and has nothing to tell us about free will.

I have more than once put forward the question: How do we discern meaning from the storm of photons constantly crashing into us? Even if that question remains unanswered, it should be clear that complex choices must be made in discerning information from that storm. This is the most fundamental level for examining free will.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 23, 2010 @ 22:08 GMT
You asked: "How do we discern meaning from the storm of photons constantly crashing into us? " Your nervous system is hard wired to search for patterns based on what will lead to pleasure and what will avoid pain. This answer the biological answer. Sometimes, who we are and what we're supposed to be doing is a directive that comes to us from an unseen source. It tells us what to look for in the "storm of photons".

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Aug. 23, 2010 @ 22:15 GMT
Jason,

"Your nervous system is hard wired to search for patterns..."

How does the nervous system know what patterns are? Where and how was that information acquired. I am not asking for free-bee type answers. In other words, answers of the type that 'Understanding emerged from lack of understanding'. My point is that discerning information from photons far predates any nervous system. How are patterns discerned and where does the meaning we attach to them come from?

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 23, 2010 @ 22:32 GMT
Jason,

Perhaps I should have made it clear that the programming of the nervous system and brain are examples of effects and not of causes. There was only the original cause. Everything afterwards is an effect unless it is proposed that a new cause (or causes), i.e. a scientific miracle, was interjected into the universe at a later time.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 23, 2010 @ 23:03 GMT
James,

There is a chain of causes all the way back to the Big Bang. Since Big "Bang" is misleading, after all, it takes (a) gas/air and (2) ears to get a "bang". Neither of those existed at the first moment of the Big Bang. We should call it a Big Flash of Light. If you're an atheist, then you will ignore this "minor" error. If you are looking for first cause, then you will call the Big Bang what it really was: Big flash of light. Coincidentally, there is a very famous book that mentions "Light" as it describes how the universe was born. It is what it is. Let me know if I'm being too mysterious. I will happily fill in the pieces.

Intelligence emerges from the nervous system figuring out what leads to pleasure and what causes pain. Physics is a subject that is mysterious to most people. Yet everyone knows what phallic and labic symbols are. Animals are very intelligent when it comes to where the food comes from. Hypothetically, you could teach a monkey or a dolphin physics if you could entice them with the right food. However, some patterns of thinking are inspired by supernatural, spiritual and/or religious sources/inspirations. Those are very strong motivators for certain kinds of people.

Consciousness goes down to the neurological pathways of the brain. These neurological pathways lead to neurons which are based in chemistry.

Chemistry is based in quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics is based on either noise/randomness or might be a crossover point to metaphysical realities that are laughed at and scorned by skeptics.

Does that help?

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 23, 2010 @ 23:14 GMT
Jason,

"There is a chain of causes all the way back to the Big Bang."

There is no chain of causes. There is the original cause followed by a chain of effects. If there was any cause interjected after the origin of the universe, then it is a scientific miracle.

"Intelligence emerges from the nervous system figuring out what leads to pleasure and what causes pain."

Nothing 'emerges' unless it was provided for all the way back to the beginning. The brain figures things out because it has been provided with the knowledge necessary through our DNA. Our DNA gained the necessary information from the combinations of particles of matter from which it is formed. The properties of those particles and their combinations were set from the beginning of the universe.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 24, 2010 @ 01:22 GMT
Dear James,

I don't wish to argue over semantics. But look at it this way. Line up ten dominoes in a row. Your finger causes domino one to fall. The effect of domino one falling causes domino 2 to fall. The effect of domino two falling causes domino 3 to fall, etc... But if you want to refer to a first cause followed by a chain of effects, then the Big Bang (big flash of light) was an effect that was caused by the Creator. If you don't believe in a Creator, then it was caused by random chance which means there was no cause which means that random causes create effects which means there is no orderliness to the universe which sounds like irrational nonsense to me.

You said, "Nothing 'emerges' unless it was provided for all the way back to the beginning. "

If you want to believe that consciousness (intelligence) is fundamentally built into the universe, then I am supportive of that idea. It means that consciousness/intelligence ultimately comes from God.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 24, 2010 @ 02:01 GMT
Jason,

Random chance makes no sense unless it can be shown to make sense. There is no sense to random chance if random chance means nothing. If it means something, then, it is certainly not disorder or lack of meaning. The dominos demonstrate nothing except a chain of effects. It is true that one domino causes, from our perspective, another to fall; but, the reason is buried in the beginning of the universe. That beginning may or may not have been a big bang. My point only has to do with recognizing that cause is the beginning.

"If you want to believe that consciousness (intelligence) is fundamentally built into the universe, then I am supportive of that idea."

This is not a matter of choosing to believe. Were the fundamental properties, that are responsible for all that followed, present at the beginning of the universe or were they not?

James

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 25, 2010 @ 00:44 GMT
James Putnam. You are improving in the development of your ideas.

THIS:

James Clerk Maxwell says: "The only laws of matter are those that our minds must fabricate and the only laws of mind are fabricated for it by matter."

IS COMPATIBLE WITH THIS:

The ability of thought to describe (including mathematically) OR reconfigure (as in dreams) sensory experience is ultimately/fundamentally dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience. Dreams fundamentally make thought (in general) more like sensory experience in general. (Especially consider that dreams make thought more like gravity and electromagnetism/light.) Accordingly, the known mathematical union of gravity (Einstein's general relativity) and electromagnetism (Maxwell's theory of light) must be plainly and significantly evident/manifest in our experience of gravity and electromagnetism/light in conjunction with what is the necessary and related/linked genesis of this extensive mathematical unification.

IS IT NOT?

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

"Time is ultimately dependent upon the integrated extensiveness of being, experience (and space), and thought. You can see how this applies to photons in relation to time -- consider how the words "integrated extensiveness" apply." -- DiMeglio

Accordingly, the Big Bang never happened -- nature prefers low energy/balance/completeness.

Dreams improve upon memory and understanding by increasing (or adding to) the integrated extensiveness of space, being, and experience (including thought, gravity, and electromagnetism/light) in and with time. (This effect is clearly evident in the works of genius, and also with the past/present/future extensiveness and superior predictability regarding the thoughts of genius.)

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 21:46 GMT
From Anonymouse,

"James Putnam. You are improving in the development of your ideas."

Oh gads! I must be quickly going down hill. Tom will agree with this state of affairs. :

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 26, 2010 @ 14:58 GMT
I'm starting to see a consistent theme emerge from the physics. By using the photon (virtual/real) as the basis for all physics phenomena, everything makes sense. Allow me to explain.

Photons don't choose which slit to go through; they will simply go through both slits as a wave (function). Free will is what chooses which slit. Free will is what collapses the wave function. The laws...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 26, 2010 @ 20:07 GMT
Jason, the fundamental interactivity of observer and observed is the bomb.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 26, 2010 @ 20:49 GMT
Jason,

The fundamental interactivity of the observer is observed to be fundamentally interactive. Quote: Graf Fitti.

James

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 26, 2010 @ 21:08 GMT
James Putnam, don't be so closed minded and petty/trifling. Have you read the other recent posts by "JAMES" and "Anonymous"? They are most excellent.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Aug. 26, 2010 @ 21:09 GMT
JAMES,

What is your position on positron positioning?

James

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 26, 2010 @ 21:13 GMT
Dear James Putnam,

Do you think that JAMES is the wooden dummy or the human one?

report post as inappropriate

Blogger Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Aug. 26, 2010 @ 22:19 GMT
Dear All,

I had finished reading and understanding all archive papers regarding this controversy and I had changed the Post Script section of the post. When I will be back in US next week I will start answering questions directed to me.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 26, 2010 @ 22:54 GMT
Florin, I have read the papers on the last blog posts of yours. On this one I have not read them so far. I suppose I am not a partisan of the hidden-variable-esque ideas they contain.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Aug. 29, 2010 @ 19:47 GMT
Lawrence,

They are not partisans of hidden variables at all. My gut feeling is that Conway considered Tumulka’s theory only a half-baked idea because it did not contain interaction and therefore he did not analyze it seriously. Much more damaging to FWT is Suarez’s model, but I don’t think people take his stuff seriously at all because of his wacky “johnbells” beings that live outside space-time. The valid part of his theory (developed in conjunction with Scarlani) was that at the moment someone looks at a slit in a double slit experiment and tells the “which way” information, the interference pattern is lost. From this he analyzed the possibility that the “which way” information could be obtained in and EPR experiment when the detectors are in various kids of motion and assuming that the collapse of the wavefunction is propagating at the speed of light. In the stationary experiment, his predictions are the same as QM’s, but in the “before-before” case self-consistency demanded a loss of correlations. All this shows that SPIN and MIN are necessary, but insufficient conditions for the FWT proof, regardless of the validity of Suarez’s proposal for a modified QM theory.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 29, 2010 @ 21:08 GMT
Florin,

The connection between Tumulka and S. Goldstein and what I read last year or so on these developments struck me as "odd." I will have to re-read you blog entry here to refresh my memory on things. Yet I will confess that everything leading up to this one was qite interesting, but this one sort of hit me with a bit of a thud. Everything about quantum mechanics and in particular the postulates of QM seem to be quite firm.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 27, 2010 @ 16:04 GMT
If the Higgs field can be repelled/dampened, the effective mass of the object will decrease. Can spinning superconductors repel the Higgs field?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060325232
140.htm

http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Pr
oves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 27, 2010 @ 17:48 GMT
Hi Jason,

The Higgs fields are few probables.Just because it's not the cause of the inertial motion,the mass.The hv in this logic is polarised by a specific code inside the gravitational stability, evolved.

In this line of reasoning,the electromagnetism is a cause due to the different rotations of the entanglement.

Thus the volumes and the speed of rotation, spinals and orbitals are essentials to encircle this evoluting increase of mass.

The W+ W- Z are logics respecting the standard model and its pure universal fractalization of mass and correlated fields of energy.

If the photon has no mass and the bosons have a bigger mass......thus it's the entanglemnt and the different sortings of evolution which implies these mass around us,these inertials motions...the rotations of these spheres and their specific number and volumes.All that implies an kind of impossibility for this scalar field.The function vectorial seems false simply.

Only the light is in this linearity,spherical furthermore ...where the system indeed can be fractalised due to superimposings of gravitational stabilities.

The Higgs fields and the bosons de Higgs seem just false just because the cause of mass is intrinsic in the gravitaional stabilities, evolving with their intrinsic codes.

The volumes of spheres are the key.

Ironical conclusion, Tevatron and LHC ....wake up please ????Oh my God ....they search in the false road, ....a lot of monney lost in the ghost competition.

Well well well perhaps the evolution of a simple flower can help with its intrinsic captors of evolution....in all case it's less expansive simply hihihihi wawww the actual experiments are a wind because the higgs doesn't exist simply thus ....wawwww

Cheers

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 27, 2010 @ 19:14 GMT
Hi Steve,

The LHC is never going to find a Higg's particle because the whole universe is a particle. The whole universe (space-time) is a Higgs field. How do I know this?

1. Casmir effect proves that virtual particles exist.

2. The Cosmological constant was incorrectly calculated to be 10^109 erg/cc. If all of those available eigenstates were energized, then maybe it would be. But empty space has only a tiny tiny tiny fractions of energized eigenstates. It's called the zero point energy vacuum.

3. Why do we have mass? Energy is conserved. m = E/c^2. The Higgs field is directly tied to the velocity of the photon, c. There exists a connection between the photon (virtual/real) and the mass of something. Mass is just a manifestion of energy according to E = mc^2.

4. You need a field, which I call the Higgs field, in order to make Conservation of momentum work. As a metaphor, you need a financial system to make Conservation of money work.

5. Causality cannot be violated. The Higgs field around us functions like a causal interface between you or I, and the rest of the universe. Isolation from the causal interface (Higgs field) results in NO WAY TO cause anything to happen.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 30, 2010 @ 08:59 GMT
Hi Jason,

It's always full of creativity.

Thanks for that.

PS ...IMPORTANT...you must differenciate and even elliminate the infinity ....because it's essential...the casimir effect and the link with fields is essential without infinity....thus the real number appears if the real serie is inserted.

The virtuals are reals .....and finite.The renormalization becomes an essential also.The determinism of numbers thus becomes essential also.

If you analyze a BB for example...and the temperature.....

Best Regards

Steve

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti (digitalwavetheory.com) wrote on Aug. 27, 2010 @ 21:34 GMT
The standard model is fabulously accurate and fabulously ad hoc. see link for a good history: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/brink/

Fo
r a simple but good description of Higgs see: http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/higgs.html

He
re is my two cents on the Higgs:

1. The good news, the Higgs will be found.

2. The bad news, It will not be the ultimate boson.

3. Up the energy of the collisions and further bosons will be found all the way to the Planck Mass.

4. There is an interesting symmetry between particles and bosons when they are plotted against mass. At low mass values particles are sparsely spaced and as the mass increases they become closely packed (neutrinos, electrons, protons...U235,U238 ect.), . With bosons the opposite is true. At low mass values bosons are closely packed (light frequencies are right next to each other) and as the mass increases they become sparsely packed (W, Z, Higgs, etc, etc, etc, ....Planck Mass).

5. The real good champagne should be saved for the "Planck Boson/Particle".

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 27, 2010 @ 21:54 GMT
Dear Don,

I agree that QED is fabulously accurate, but we should be careful not to include QCD (also part of the Standard Model) in that same category.

Best case scenario for modern Particle Physics Theory would be to find an SM Higgs (4 degrees-of freedom) or MSSM Higgs (8 dgf's) that explain the Z and W masses. But I seriously doubt that that this is enough dgf's to properly describe all of the Yukawa couplings - so there should be more to this issue of mass...

Dear Friends,

I wonder if this issue of the Dark Energy/ Cosmological Constant is due to a leakage of energy to and from Hyperspace. If so, then we may already have our proof of extra dimensions - we just haven't recognized it as such.

Perhaps Jason is correct and the Multiverse is a 'particle', and our Universe is a fragment of fractal dust of that Multiverse 'particle', and the atoms that comprise our reality are fractal fragments of our Universe. Scales within scales, realities within realities... Dr. Seuss' 'Horton Hears a Who' taken to the scale extreme...

I'll be out of town on business for the next week, so you won't see much of me.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 27, 2010 @ 22:36 GMT
Hi Ray,

When I say that the whole universe is a particle, I am echoing the concept of a particle-space. The idea of particle-space theory is this:

what is the difference between

(a) a particle somewhere amidst many eigenstates, AND

(b) an object somewhere in space?

An example of particle-space theory is that the whole universe is one really big Higgs particle (field).

What if space-time is a wave function with a bazillion zillion eigenstates?

I don't know where scale invariance might lead. But I do expect to find at least one coexisting hyper-space.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 27, 2010 @ 22:47 GMT
Don,

That fawning cluster of fans, which cause mass, are really incoming and outgoing information carrying wave functions (virtual photons). They're like advisers to the president. They are part of the "causal interface", the connection to the Higgs field. As virtual photons (wave functions), they don't have to disconnect/reconnect during movement. Of course, if the particle is running relativistically fast, then it takes more connections to transmit causality.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Aug. 27, 2010 @ 23:59 GMT
Ray and Jason,

Wow, I am very far apart from you two on the nature of mass. If I get a chance in this next contest, I will have a bomb of an essay. Well maybe a shell. Or, maybe I'll jump from high enough to cause the Earth to tremble. Or, maybe I will tremble. Or, maybe I will write an essay and see if it causes any tremors. Or, maybe I will write an essay. Or, maybe I will read an essay. Or, maybe I will just say ess.

James

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 28, 2010 @ 14:47 GMT
Dear James,

I'm glad to see that you are making progress. Mass is a very fundamental unknown quantity. None of us can begin to understand gravity without also understanding mass. I think that mass is rooted in my pentality symmetries, supersymmetry, and scale invariance. I know that the "E" word (M.S. El Naschie) isn't a very popular name around here, but scale invariance and the Golden Ratio naturally lead to some of "E's" speculations. The 'Higgs' only applies to the masses of W's and Z's. It is not the "God particle". In a way, Jason could be correct that the Multiverse is the "God particle" and everything else is a fragment of fractal dust of that "God particle". The Multiverse is infinite, as would be the "God particle", and we are all part of the "God particle". If "Religion" is important for introducing morals, then perhaps the collective fractal consciousness composed those morals.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 28, 2010 @ 22:18 GMT
Dear Ray,

Thank you. With regard to the mass question, that answer is years old and has been on the Internet for about 15 years as part of a detailed revision of the fundamentals. What I am looking at is the uncertainty principle. I received schooling on it; but, not even close to what I needed to decipher the various treatments put forward today. I am going to have to move from an introductory type approach cautiously toward more comlex views. One of the benefits of working with a fundamentally unified approach is that the ideas developed apply again and again and help guide forward movement. Still, even the 'definition' of the uncertainty princple seems to carry uncertainty with it. If the definition was definitely clear to me, things might progress more quickly.

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 28, 2010 @ 22:58 GMT
Dear Ray,

I hope that message didn't come across sounding like unohoo. I simply meant that 'my' answer for mass has been on the Internet for that long. I have received only a couple of positive feedback messages from qualified people, at least they said they were, in all those years. I move forward mainly because I am impressed with the results. I gave some in my first essay, and, that essay just sort of sat there. I have many more to present. We will see if interest develops.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 28, 2010 @ 00:24 GMT
The weak force is mediated by W and Z particles which, for some reason, are far more massive then the neutron itself. Now I believe in conservation of energy. I also believe in conservation of money (I don't want to hear about Obama and the treasury). Have you ever noticed how, upon very rare occasion, somebody who is financially very poor, suddenly comes out of the lottery office with a check for $10 million dollars? That's why they call weak force particles W+/W-. W stands for winner! report post as inappropriate John Merryman replied on Aug. 28, 2010 @ 01:38 GMT Jason, You are overlooking the energy field of lottery players L-, whose losses vastly out weigh the gains of lottery winners, L+, so there is no conservation of money, only a concentration of it. report post as inappropriate Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 28, 2010 @ 02:20 GMT I hope you won't mind if I talk about something fun. Hyper-drive physics is fun! It's a little hard to explain, feel free to ask questions. I build a spaceship. It sits in space-time (no surprise there). I have to get it into hyper-space. In hyper-space, I can make my space-ship travel faster than c with very little energy. Step 1: create a hyperspace field around my spaceship. You wonder, what's a hyperspace field? Answer: it's the absence of a Higgs field. How do I create that? Step 1a: Develop shift photon technology. What's a shift-photon? Well, let's just say that a shift photon decays into a graviton. It carries a force by virtue of its shifting frequency. Step 1b: Create a frequency shift pattern that parts the vacuum energy. Huh? Step 1c: Create panels that can generate frequency shift photons. Step 1d: Panel the whole outside of your spaceship with frequency shift panels. When you activate the panels, they will create a force field around the space-ship. This force field will "part" the Higgs field. That is equivalent to creating a hyperspace field. Doing this will decrease the mass of your spaceship by a factor (c/c')^2. Step 2: Engage thrusters. You will go fast and you will go far. Step 3: Make sure you can navigate home again. Any questions? report post as inappropriate Constantinos wrote on Aug. 29, 2010 @ 01:48 GMT To TH Ray In an earlier post to Georgina some weeks ago you described the Universe as 'self-organizing'. That stuck in my mind and have wanted to engage you in a discussion on that. This idea fits well with my own views, but have not been able to give it a mathematical formulation. The belief in immutable, fixed and universal laws that can explain the World feels to me as if God has chiseled into cosmic dust Commandments on how the Universe is to Be -- setting forth into motion all that Is and all that will Be. For me this is just not fulfilling, philosophically speaking. For one, it leads to Determinism. I strongly believe in Freedom and see it as an underlying 'self-organizing' principle! Constantinos report post as inappropriate Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 29, 2010 @ 08:39 GMT In the third and forth post of this topic, I described a quantum entanglement experiment. I'm trying to get a better understanding of quantum entanglement by looking at the experimental data. Does anyone here have experimental knowledge of Q entanglement? report post as inappropriate Florin Moldoveanu replied on Aug. 29, 2010 @ 20:25 GMT Jason, Entanglement is really easy: it means that the whole is larger than its parts. Therefore take any 2 quantum systems, let them interact, and then separate them. Because of the interaction the whole state can be no longer described as a product of individual states as before the interaction (the whole is larger than its parts). That is all there is to it. The really strange part comes when measuring one subsystem can have a correlated effect on the other subsystem. So what you may say: if someone looks at my right sock can immediately make an accurate prediction about my left sock without actually seeing it. So here come Bell’s inequalities (there are many). One pedagogical inequality is the following: Consider 3 measurable quantities A, B, and C. Then the probability to measure A and NOT B + probability to measure B and NOT C is larger or equal with the probability to measure A and NOT C. For example consider statistical sample to be actual students in a classroom and A to be: “the color of the eye is blue (or not)”. B is: “the height is larger than 5-5 (or not)”, and C is “the weight is larger that 140lb (or not)“. First, let’s prove this particular Bell’s inequality: “P(A, not B)+P(B, not C) larger P(A, not C)”: P(A, not B) = P(A, not B, not C) + P(A, not B, C) P(B, not C) = P(A, B, not C) + P(not A, B, Not C) P(A, not C) = P(A, B, not C) + P(A, not B, not C) After simplification, the original inequality becomes: P(A, not B, C) + P(not A, B, Not C) larger or equal than zero which is certainly true because probabilities are all zero or positive numbers. Now here is the rub: this inequality is violated by QM (for example by considering A = spin detection on a vertical axis, B = spin detection on a 45 degree axis, and C = spin detection on a horizontal axis). And those violations are all possible because of entanglement. In the students in the classroom example, the full classroom description is completely given by completely specifying each student’s properties (eye color, height, weight) and no additional information was given by correlations between them. In this case the whole is NOT bigger than the parts. report post as inappropriate John Merryman replied on Aug. 30, 2010 @ 01:08 GMT Jason, Florin, What if we are simply looking at the classical world wrong? Consider the equation 1+1=2. If we actually added two things together, say piles of sand, we would then have one larger pile of sand, so 1+1=1. When you entangle two quantum particles, they are more like piles of sand than apples, so what you are really doing is creating one larger quantum particle and then dividing it back up. The assumption is that quantum particles must exist as discrete entities because they carry specific charge, but isn't sort of like drips of water all tend to be the same size, due to surface tension against the force of gravity and if you increase the flow, the drips come faster, but they don't get bigger, until it does become a continuous flow? Now consider how light can be both particle and wave: When there is a lot of light, isn't it effectively one big entangled expanding bubble of light and not just a bunch of photons and it washes over everything like waves of water, until we try measuring it and then we just get these drips of light. It seems to me that thinking of light as being lots of photons is like looking at an ocean and thinking it is just a bunch of drips of water. Sometimes a forest really is much more than just a bunch of trees. report post as inappropriate Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 30, 2010 @ 14:19 GMT Dear Florin, I very much appreciate your explanation of quantum entanglement. I'm still digesting what you wrote. What I'm trying to understand is if classroom A and classroom B are entangled AND their orientations are identical (fixed), can I swap out kids in room A in such a way that I can send the teacher in classroom B a signal (e.g."Is little Sarah wearing her red dress?"), even if she's really far away? Can I get a reply by looking at the kids in room A and seeing their eyes change? Do you know what I mean? report post as inappropriate Anonymous wrote on Aug. 30, 2010 @ 21:25 GMT Florin, I agree with your statement: "Entanglement is really easy: it means that the whole is larger than its parts." I will take this idea to a crazy conclusion. You will like it. Now in mathematics 1 plus 1=2 is true but the numbers are massless. In physics (using real mass) the plus sign indicates a grouping together, one apple and another apple are brought together. And one apple and one apple are now greater than 2 apples by a mass value that is given by: G[m(apple1)^2 plus m(apple2)^2/(dc^2] G=gravitational constant, d= distance, c=speed of light, Editor will not do "plus sign"? See: http://www.zenophysics.com/DWT/11d__Gravity_Visualized.html http://www.zenophysics.com/DWT/11c__Classical_Gravity.html http://www.zenophysics.com/DWT/11g__Dark_Matter.html http://www.zenophysics.com/DWT/11e__Dark_Energy.html and for the ultimate in "alternative" physics see: http://www.zenophysics.com/DWT/18__Thermodynamics.html report post as inappropriate Florin Moldoveanu replied on Aug. 31, 2010 @ 21:55 GMT Hi Don, I have to admit, I got lost in your argument. Care to restate it? Thanks. report post as inappropriate Don Limuti (digitalwavetheory.com) replied on Aug. 31, 2010 @ 23:38 GMT Hi Florin, 1. I did not mean to post as anonymous, but you figured it out. thanks. 2. 1 plus 1 = 2 is something that is taken for granted and is held to be true in both math and physics. I do not believe it is true in physics, and if the upcoming essay is on the math/physics boundary it will be my topic. I will try to explain, here goes: 3. How do you add things that are physical? The grade school teacher will demonstrate by taking an apple from far away and present it to the class, then she will bring another apple from far away and put it close to the first apple and say "One apple plus another apple is two apples." This is the physical interpretation of addition. It is very useful and essentially correct but it needs a minor correction when considering the apples as real objects with mass. I will explain at the end. 4. How do you add things that are mathematical? The math instructor will say consider an apple (an ideal object in the imagination) and call it a 1. Now consider another apple and call it a 1. The 1 and the 1 can be added to produce 2 which can be considered to be the sum of the two idealized apples. This 1 plus 1 =2 is completely correct for idealized apples. The math is perfect when there is no real mass and no space-time. 5. What is wrong with the physical 1 plus 1 =2 ? The answer is the space-time that the apples exist in. When the apples are brought together to demonstrate their sum they have to move thru space and time. 6. It is my position that the mass of the apples is a function of their proximity. When they are close they have more mass via the equation I provided. And this is what GR shows when correcting Mercury's orbit. This is not very complex but beyond the scope of this post. I hope I explain it better on my web site. Thus in the real world 1 plus 1 > 2. I hope this helps, thanks. report post as inappropriate John Merryman replied on Sep. 1, 2010 @ 02:03 GMT Don, Interesting point. report post as inappropriate T H Ray wrote on Sep. 1, 2010 @ 10:58 GMT Hi Constantinos, You wrote: "In an earlier post to Georgina some weeks ago you described the Universe as 'self-organizing'. That stuck in my mind and have wanted to engage you in a discussion on that. This idea fits well with my own views, but have not been able to give it a mathematical formulation." I'd be happy to engage in dialogue on self-organization. The broad category that encompasses the topic is called complex systems. Subdisciplines include chaos and complexity, self organized criticality, random structures, emergence, self organized maps, self similar structures and much more. You can find technical papers and books at such sites as SFI and NECSI, and even among papers and discussion here at FQXi. Good non-technical introductions, IMO, include Paul Davies' _The Cosmic Blueprint_, James Gleick's classic _Chaos_, Per Bak's _How Nature Works_ and a more recent book by Steven Strogatz, _Sync_. My own publications and preprints, here "The belief in immutable, fixed and universal laws that can explain the World feels to me as if God has chiseled into cosmic dust Commandments on how the Universe is to Be -- setting forth into motion all that Is and all that will Be." Possibly. Have you visited the FQXi topic, I think it's called "The Destiny of the Universe," where Paul Davies presents a more scientific case for predestination? I think that is a more appropriate place to continue our dialogue. "For me this is just not fulfilling, philosophically speaking. For one, it leads to Determinism. I strongly believe in Freedom and see it as an underlying 'self-organizing' principle! Constantinos" Sure. Personally I don't have much interest in free will vs. determiniam; however, the physical evidence is strongly for self organization, which would imply cooperation over control. All self organized systems share properties of self limitation and self similarity. Tom report post as inappropriate Constantinos replied on Sep. 2, 2010 @ 01:58 GMT Tom, … pleased with your response ... and the many references! Can't say that I will have the time or energy or be in the right 'multiverse' to plow through so much of Physics (I am having enough trouble with the 'simple stuff'). But that will not stop me from sharing my naïve thoughts, whenever I think I have something sensible and meaningful to contribute. I have read the FQXi article “The Destiny of the Universe” that you suggested. Can't say it added much to my understanding. I can say more about that, but I wont. I'd rather spend the time exploring this idea of a 'self-organizing' Universe. Tom, if the Universe is self-organizing then do you agree that there are no 'universal laws'? That these laws also evolve? Constantinos report post as inappropriate T H Ray wrote on Sep. 2, 2010 @ 10:34 GMT Constantinos, Excellent question. :-) Tom report post as inappropriate Anonymous replied on Sep. 3, 2010 @ 19:08 GMT Tom, ...while you are thinking up an answer to the question in my last post, perhaps you can reflect on the following result (to be found in Entropy and 'The Arrow of Time'): ΔS = kνΔt , where ΔS is 'thermodynamic entropy', k is Boltzmann's constant, ν is the frequency of radiation and Δt is duration of time. This relation directly connects thermodynamic entropy with duration of time. Constantinos report post as inappropriate Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 2, 2010 @ 13:02 GMT Florin, I guess I missed your post on Bell theorem. The case here is how classical logic does not operate with quantum mechanics. The corresponding case classically involve projecting onto subspaces of an entangled state |ψ> = 1/sqrt{2}(|+,-> + |-.+>) for the singlet state configuration. So the Pauli matrices for the two are σ_i τ_i, the set of projector operators on the 1 and 2 states are employed P(1)_z = (1/2)(1 + σ_z), P(2)_z = (1/2)(1 + τ_z) and for the 45 degree case P(1)_{45} = (1/2)(1 + (σ_z + σ_x)/sqrt{2}), P(2)_{45} = (1/2)(1 + (τ_z + τ_x)/sqrt{2}) and P(1)_x = (1/2)(1 + σ_x), P(2)_x = (1/2)(1 + τ_x). The projections onto the entangled state which correspond to the classical probability rules is Prob(|, /) = P(1)_z*P(2)_{45) Prob(/, _ ) = P(1)_{45}*P(2)_x Prob(|,_ ) = P(1)_z*P(2)_x Some calculations with the matrices and the states leads to the Bell result that this does violate the inequality. In effect the classical inequality is derived from union and intersection rules U, ∩, with OR and AND logical meaning, while the quantum analogue involves additions and products of operators to construct “spans” on a vector space. I thought I would include this part for those who might not understand how the quantum logic explicitely violates the classical inequality. Cheers LC report post as inappropriate Florin Moldoveanu replied on Sep. 3, 2010 @ 03:14 GMT Lawrence, Thank you for your explanation. I would like to clarify your formula: Prob(|, /) = P(1)_z*P(2)_{45) for the probability to measure the spin up and not at 45 (P(A, not B)). The left and right particles are totally correlated in a total spin zero state. When particle 1 spin is measured on one direction, the particle 2 spin is always opposite on the same direction. Therefore spin of particle 1 not up on direction B = spin of particle 2 up on direction B. Hence the probability that the particle 1 spin is “vertical and not on 45 degree axis” is P(1)_vertical*P(1)_not_45 = P(1)_vertical*P(2)_45, or equivalently: Prob(|, /) = P(1)_z*P(2)_{45) where “|” and “z” stands for vertical or “z axis”, “/” and “45” stands for 45 degree axis, “1” stands for particle 1 to the left, and “2” stands for particle 2 to the right, and “Prob(|, /)” stands for Probability(vertical, NOT 45) of particle 1. report post as inappropriate Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Sep. 3, 2010 @ 19:47 GMT Florin, It turns out of course that with the entangled spins that not-B meaning not at 45 for spin 1 means the opposite for spin 2: meaning at 45 deg. I think I have that right above, but one can get mixed up with all of these counter positives. As for what you state below with quantum logic, it is the case that substituting intersection and union with + and * means one is operating on spaces, not sets. There are those who engage in quantum logic to try to illustrate set-theoretic quantum logic. The notion of a set is somewhat generalized. Cheers LC report post as inappropriate Florin Moldoveanu replied on Sep. 3, 2010 @ 23:41 GMT Lawrence, you got it right, I was trying to spell it out in detail. In (too) many words I was only explaining your statement that: "not-B meaning not at 45 for spin 1 means the opposite for spin 2: meaning at 45 deg." report post as inappropriate T H Ray wrote on Sep. 2, 2010 @ 18:01 GMT I think a less technical way to speak of the difference between quantum and classical logic is that quantum configuration space cannot map into physical space without a nonlocal model. A real quantum event manifests with probability 1.0. The analysis is always on the real interval [0,1]. The Hilbert space of quantum probabilities is much larger and the probabilities are not localized on the interval but are in superposition over the configuration space. Often, one hears from those who aren't used to working with it, that this configuration space is some kind of mathematical trick, i.e., there must be a definite field of probability on the real interval that makes possible a non-unitary result; if the result could have been different, they argue, then the fact that it is never different only supports a hidden cause, an unseen hand guiding the outcome. One who doubts, however, neglects the geometric meaning of Lawrence's explanation above. To use an analogy, the square peg of Hilbert space is about a meter square, and the round hole of the real interval about a centimeter in diameter. One can't pound the peg in the hole; only the real part will fit, 0 or 1. Tom report post as inappropriate Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Sep. 3, 2010 @ 01:46 GMT The system for forming proposition on a purely local basis involves sets in the standard sense. Quantum mechanics has a logic outside of this, a sort of quantum logic, which is based on addition for or and multiplication for and. The action of the two projection operators to get the two probabilities is a quantum AND, while the addition of states is the quantum OR. Cheers LC report post as inappropriate Florin Moldoveanu replied on Sep. 3, 2010 @ 03:34 GMT The logic of classical physics is based on set theory, while the logic of QM is based on subspaces and violates Boolean logic rules. Take for example the Boolean distributive rule: p and (q or r) = (p and q) or (p and r). In QM (or geometry) consider p to be a plane and q and r to be 2 intersecting lines not in the same plane with p. Then “q or r” is a plane, and p and (q or r) is the line at the intersection of plane p with plane (q or r). Now (p and q) is a point, and (p and r) is also a point. This means that (p and q) or (p and r) is the union of 2 points and because 2 points are not the same as a line: p and (q or r) IS NOT EQUAL IN GENERAL WITH (p and q) or (p and r) But why is the logic of QM based on subspaces? Because propositions in QM are projections or results of measurements (the projection postulate). In classical mechanics, states have a well defined ontology and they are points in phase space, while in QM, the uncertainty principle can “enlarge” the classical mechanics ontological phase space points into lines, planes, n-dimensional Hilbert subspaces. report post as inappropriate Cristi replied on Sep. 3, 2010 @ 05:55 GMT Florin, two intersecting lines span a plane, but two points don't span a line? The definition of 'or' for lines should be consistent with that for points. If 'and' is vector subspaces intersection and 'or' is vector subspaces sum, I would consider another counterexample to the distributivity law instead. Consider the basis (i,j) in the 2D space. Take two lines "a=span{i}", "b=span{j}", and a line "c=span{i plus j}". We have that "a or b = span{i,j}" which is the entire plane. Then, "(a or b) and c = c". But "a and c = b and c = {0}", so the distributivity fails. report post as inappropriate Cristi replied on Sep. 3, 2010 @ 06:02 GMT Quantum logic is a non-distributive lattice, which by itself obeys the classical logic. Quantum mechanics and quantum logic can be axiomatized, and when we infer propositions from the axioms, we use the classical logic. I consider this remark necessary, because many people when heard about quantum logic as opposed to classical one take it as a proof that the phenomena are a kind of magic, beyond logic. This would be a mistake. Quantum logic is a way to speak about states and outcomes of measurements, useful if you insist to use classical variables like position and momentum. If you use quantum states, you can apply the classical logic. But in both cases, the deductions are subject to the classical logic. report post as inappropriate Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Sep. 3, 2010 @ 19:31 GMT Florin, I have wanted to ask you about the following: In another blog Marcel LeBel said: "QM is the probability of finding something in some place over some time. This probability is equivalent to the actual time spent by this something in that place. .. [and] requires my presence to measure it." Florin you responded: "This is actually flat wrong. What you describe here is standard Kolmogorov probability theory, and you are in the realm of obsolete hidden variable theories for QM. QM is much more complex than this; the properties we measure do not really exist until they are measured." Florin, is it your understanding that *all* hidden variable theories have been discredited? In particular, have non-deterministic hidden variable theories been analyzed and rejected? If a non-deterministic hidden variable theory reproduced quantum probabilities, this would go a long way to restoring 'realism' and would lead to rejection of the idea that "the properties we measure do not really exist until they are measured." I look forward to your response. Edwin Eugene Klingman report post as inappropriate Florin Moldoveanu replied on Sep. 3, 2010 @ 23:59 GMT Eugene, You ask: “Florin, is it your understanding that *all* hidden variable theories have been discredited? In particular, have non-deterministic hidden variable theories been analyzed and rejected?” The answer is no, only non-contextual hidden variable theories are ruled out by Bell, Gleason, KS, GHZ theorems. Non-deterministic theories do not have to have hidden variables, because the purpose of hidden variables is to restore determinism to an otherwise indeterministic QM theory which predicts only probabilities and not actual results. “If a non-deterministic hidden variable theory reproduced quantum probabilities, this would go a long way to restoring 'realism' and would lead to rejection of the idea that "the properties we measure do not really exist until they are measured."” Actually, this is the purpose of the GRW and Tumulka’s approach showcased in the current article. Those theories do restore realism, but they pay two prices. First, the GRW theory is =NOT= QM as it has different predictions than QM, but it approaches QM asymptotically. Second, it is still an indeterministic theory, and its ontology is nothing like the ontology of classical mechanics. For something much less bizarre, take Bohm’s theory which restores determinism and the usual ontology at the price of superluminal, yet no-signaling movement. (In Bohm’s interpretation of QM, QM is not strange, what it is strange is the origin of the limitation of the transmission of information when motion can occur at any speed.) report post as inappropriate Constantinos wrote on Sep. 3, 2010 @ 23:14 GMT Lawrence, I have an intellectual curiosity! In an earlier post ( topic #618 on Jul. 16, 2010 @ 21:27 GMT ) you wrote, "Constantinos theory is food for thought. This did actually force me to consider the relationship between temperature and quantum decoherence or fluctuation time in a way which does seem to lead to a connection between quantum mechanics and thermodynamics. However, as I see it now Constantino’s concept of entropy is not a standard one." How does this result change were you to use the definition of entropy I propose in Entropy and 'The Arrow of Time'? ΔS = η/Eav, where η is the 'accumulation of energy' (the time-integral of energy) while Eav is the 'average energy' over the same duration of time. Constantinos report post as inappropriate Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Sep. 4, 2010 @ 01:00 GMT Constantinos, I will have to return to this. Yes I do remember this matter, but I am about to close up. The entropy you define is maybe somewhat related to Shannon entropy: bits per word. It is unitless and the conversion factor k = Boltzmann constant, coverts the definition into energy/temperature. Cheers LC report post as inappropriate Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Sep. 6, 2010 @ 23:19 GMT Constantinos, Based on your bit "notation" with η = ∫E(u)du, E_{av} = 1/(t – s)∫E(u)du the definition S = η/E_{an} gives the time interval t - s as the entropy. This is not quite an appropriate definition of entropy. Of course in doing this you appear to be equating an arrow of time with entropy. Yet the time interval here is then not time in a strict sense, but is time as defined by some heat flow process. Cheers LC report post as inappropriate Constantinos replied on Sep. 8, 2010 @ 02:14 GMT Lawrence, please define 'appropriate' ! I know that this definition of entropy is not the usual one in thermodynamics. But if we start with the usual definition of thermodynamic entropy, ΔS = ΔE / T , some results in my papers (see Entropy and 'The Arrow of Time' ) naturally reduce to the definition I propose. As you point out, this definition leads to a connection between entropy and time. But here time is in the sense of 'duration of time' that a process takes to happen. Not the more problematic 'nature of time'. This definition of entropy does not tell us what 'time is'. Most interestingly, this definition leads to a rewarding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as saying that 'all physical processes take some duration of time to occur'. That this is so self-evident and simple should not take away from its significance! For one thing, thermodynamics then would confirm what I have been assuming all along in my papers: that there is an 'accumulation of energy before manifestation of energy'. My explanation of the double-slit experiment (A Plausible Explanation of the Double-slit Experiment) depends on this being so. It's the reason why I keep coming back to this matter! What I was curious about is: if you use this definition of entropy, how does the result ( " ... seem to lead to a connection between quantum mechanics and thermodynamics") you referenced in earlier posts change? I wonder where else this simple and intuitive definition of entropy can lead to. Parenthetically, from several conversations with some physicists it struck me that 'time' does not enter into physical formulas much yet entropy is pervasive. Could it be that entropy is time masked in sheep's cloths? cheerfully curious, Constantinos report post as inappropriate Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Sep. 4, 2010 @ 01:04 GMT Florin, Thanks for your response. You may recall that my definition of consciousness is awareness plus volition, and my theory of the consciousness field satisfies Yang-Mills equations. The equations describe the interaction of the field with mass (including the 'self-mass' of the field.) There are no equations for the internal field dynamics that can be associated with the awareness and free will aspects of the field. The Yang-Mills-type non-linearity implies that a vortex in the field will condense to a massive neutrino (left-handed). The interaction of such a neutrino with a sufficiently strong field can lead to an infinitely dense point, unless there exists a limit to the curvature of the field. If this limit exists, then an electron is created, and the fine structure constant falls out of the analysis. The fine structure constant is not explained by any other theory that I am aware of. The vortices play the role of W and Z bosons and produce the basic particles, neutrino, electron, and up and down quarks. The C-field also provides the 'quark confinement' mechanism. The particles are real and have mass without the necessity of postulating a Higgs boson. Analogous to the way that a moving charge induces a magnetic field, a moving mass induces a C-field, and thus the associated C-field is always present with its associated unpredictable free will. This field provides an explanation for both the unpredictability of quantum phenomena and for entanglement of two real particles. The mystery of non-locality essentially vanishes for real particles. Although Schrodinger's equation can be derived relatively simply from my equations, I have not yet proved that the C-field would produce exactly the correct QM probabilities. I mention this because it is relevant to the blog topic of "free will" and because I believe that non-deterministic hidden variable theories should not be written off. If we had not been subjected to almost a century of brainwashing on the "collapse of the wave function" no one would possibly take seriously that "properties we measure do not really exist until they are measured". Thanks again for your answer, and thanks to FQXI for a forum in which non-institutional theories can at least be stated. After I digest your answer I may have more questions or remarks. Edwin Eugene Klingman report post as inappropriate Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Sep. 5, 2010 @ 19:49 GMT Florin, I've attempted to read several of the papers you linked to, and while the math may be correct, the concepts seem poorly defined. Is there a common meaning to "free will" in these papers? Consider a non-deterministic Bohmian 'pilot wave' as the instantiation of 'free will'. If the non-deterministic Bohmian 'pilot wave' guides a 'real particle' this would seem to be compatible with locality, as pilot waves can become entangled and essentially 'remember' (ie, conserve) the state of the entangled system. What is the problem that you see in such a conception? [I'm trying to start as simple as possible, and see where this leads.] Edwin Eugene Klingman report post as inappropriate Florin Moldoveanu replied on Sep. 6, 2010 @ 20:31 GMT Eugene, Free will is a very fuzzy concept. If we go with Conway’s argument, free will is the ability to choose what questions we are to ask a quantum system (or equivalently how to orient our detectors). (Also equivalent is the freedom to choose a basis decomposition in a Hilbert space.) About Bohmian pilot wave, this is not “non-deterministic” at all, in fact it restores locality and determinism in QM. However, there is a problem with it. The quantum potential changes faster than the speed of light whenever one changes the experiment. And while determinism may be at odds with free will in general, Bohmian determinism is very “brittle” because the pilot wave changes with our whims of what we want to measure. Wingardium Leviosa. report post as inappropriate Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 6, 2010 @ 21:32 GMT Florin, Thanks for the definition of free will as used herein. As for your comment that "About Bohmian pilot wave, this is not "non-deterministic" at all, in fact it restores locality and determinism in QM.", I suppose you are technically correct, since that is what Bohm intended, but that is not my intent. As you may remember, I believe that the gravito-magnetic field, postulated by Maxwell and investigated by Maxwell, Heaviside, Lorentz, Einstein, and others, exists and is orders of magnitude stronger than Maxwell believed (on the simplest of assumptions). It "solves" many current problems in cosmology and, in my theory, explains numerous mysteries in particle physics. But if the field does exist, then the field equations tell us that a 'mass current' will induce a circulation in the C-field analogous to the magnetic circulation that is induced by a charge current. It is this C-field circulation that I refer to when I speak of the 'pilot wave' accompanying every massive particle. Moreover, if one accepts (for purposes of discussion) my contention that the C-field is the abode of consciousness (awareness plus free will) then it is inherently non-deterministic. That is what I mean by 'Bohmian' pilot wave, not what Bohm meant. Edwin Eugene Klingman report post as inappropriate Florin Moldoveanu replied on Sep. 7, 2010 @ 01:09 GMT Eugene, I do recall your essay and I recall having a discussion about it, but I don’t seem to find the thread. I re-read your essay, and I do not know how to define consciousness or self-awareness. Also, your G, C equations suffered from two problems: (1) G has only static solutions depending only on the distributions of “m” which means that whenever “m” changes, the changes on “G” propagates with infinite speed, and (2) there is a sign error on either div G or the mass term in curl C which would violate the continuity equation on “m”. report post as inappropriate Steve Duduf wrote on Sep. 5, 2010 @ 20:58 GMT It would be useless to attempt to unravel the secrets of non-locality by artifices stripped of meaning. Violations of "Bell inequalities" are fundamental bases for our rationality???? WELL copenaghenit .belgian translation...small disease about rationality.hihii And the words are of course still not definable(s) withn a s I think. How do we arrive to add to this theory of De Broglie Bohm with these hidden variables and locals??? still ??? STILL ONE ????? It is the substance, essence, nectar of our determinism that swings between irrational thoughts free will without any limits. Should I say without any consideration for what the universal laws. If a wave is associated with the particle, and Schrödinger agrees to the spheric concordance in a spherical harmonic oscillator equally. It becomes easy, simple to find the actual synchronization. And if these rotations involve these oscillations and vibrations, it becomes just as easy to identify the wave function rationally without superfluous details. The determinism is not a free will but a strict road of experiments and datas. The fractal always will be deterministic. The bell inequalities are essentials. Force of potential ...quantic ...false ...as the entropic force...as strings...as multiverses....as extradimensions....as .....COPENAGHEN IS THE BEST AHAHAHAH AND THE SPHERIZATION THEORY 5QUANTUM SPHERES....SPHERISATION....EVOLUTION....HARMONIZATION...COSM OLOGICAL SPHERES.....ROTATIONS....UNIVERSAL SPHERE....HERE IS THE REAL TOE .MY FRIENDS WITH HUMILITY OF COURSE HIHI BEST REGARDS STEVE report post as inappropriate Anonymous wrote on Sep. 6, 2010 @ 15:17 GMT "Mass", "energy", and "matter" are all sensory experience. These terms are all aspects of what is better understood as sensory experience. Conscious and unconscious experience are combined and interactive, as this necessarily allows for our growth (of thought too) and our becoming other than we are. report post as inappropriate Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 6, 2010 @ 19:09 GMT I need a little help from a real physicist. I've been developing my argument that there exists an all pervasive field throughout space/time. I'm calling it the Higgs field, and making it a catch-all for the Cosmological constant, vacuum energy and the Casimir effect. I want to make this field responsible for gravity by saying that the Higgs field is a vast infinite froth of wave functions. Yet, somehow, unexpectedly, when I summarized my argument, I realized that this all pervasive Higgs field is responsible for "dark energy". Dark energy is just a gravitationally repulsive force (pressure) that causes the universe to expand. Can such a Higgs field explain gravity AND dark energy? report post as inappropriate Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 6, 2010 @ 21:13 GMT So what's wrong with attributing dark energy to the effect of a vacuum energy (pressure) that occupies all space? Vacuum energy produces pressure, the pressure can push galaxies apart. Can this be true? report post as inappropriate Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Sep. 6, 2010 @ 21:16 GMT Jason, It has not yet taken the world by storm, but my essay on the consciousness field as the gravito-electro-magnetic field first proposed by Maxwell, then investigated by Oliver Heaviside, Lorentz, and finally Einstein, provides just what you are looking for. Forget the 'consciousness' interpretation (which only comes into play when 'free will' is required). The field is real. Maxwell through Einstein believed that it existed, but decided that it was too weak to have any significance. It falls out of either Maxwell's equations or General Relativity, take your pick. Because Maxwell postulated the field on the basis of the symmetry between Newton's Law and Coulomb's Law, he assumed no new scale factor applied. Apparently everyone else stuck with that unjustified assumption. Believing that I had discovered the relations myself, based on an entirely different assumption, I assumed that a scale constant *did* exist, and computed it to be about 31 orders of magnitude. Much to my surprise, within a year two things happened. First I found that all of the above had already analyzed the equations, and second I found that Martin Tajmar had experimentally found that the field was 10**31 times stronger than Maxwell et al assumed. I explain the reasons for this discrepancy elsewhere ("Gene Man's World" and "The Chromodynamics War"). To see that the field automatically leads to the inflationary force required for 'dark energy' I refer you to my essay: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/561 To gain some insight into the nature of 'vacuum energy' I refer you to another ongoing blog on "Ultimate Reality": http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/649 I have not done much with the Casimer force, but I believe you will find that the other issues you are concerned with are well accounted for by the GEM field. As I said, the field is real and has been known since Maxwell. Only recently has it been realized that the field is many orders of magnitude stronger than Maxwell assumed, based on nothing but his simple assumption of symmetry. The reality of the physical field, and the relevant field equations are not that subject to dispute. Of course my interpretation of consciousness associated with the field is very subject to dispute. So I suggest you consider the field as physical only, and see if it solves the problem you have asked about. Edwin Eugene Klingman report post as inappropriate Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 6, 2010 @ 21:38 GMT Dear Edwin, Uh, WOW! I am trying to make the argument that the all pervasive Higgs field is a quantum wave function field. Wave functions provide available energy slots, momentum slots and position slots for quantum systems. When these available slots span the whole universe, it's the same has having available "space", with momentum and energy included. There is another side to wave functions. Wave functions lead to eigenstates which are very similar to choices. When a choice (or a measurement) is made, it collapses the wave function. The availability of choices is the very definition of free will. Although you might have to wrestle for control over the dice. But if choices are available, then what does the choosing? The availability of quantum states mandates free will. It also requires some natural phenomena that will make the choices/collapse the wave function. Can you think of anything that might do that? report post as inappropriate Anonymous replied on Sep. 7, 2010 @ 13:35 GMT Jason, you need to include gravitational feeling AS IT IS EXPERIENCED BY THE BODY as a requirement of any complete or unified theory/description of gravity and/or electromagnetism. report post as inappropriate Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Sep. 6, 2010 @ 21:51 GMT Jason, My earlier comments above indicate that "real" particles fall out of my theory and the unpredictability of quantum physics is due to the 'free will' that is located in the field, not to any mysterious Schrodinger's cat type of 'mixed states' that do not *really* exist until the 'collapse of the wave function' restores them to reality. After Fourier discovered that any continuous function can be represented by an infinite series of waves, it was a foregone conclusion that many would take the waves as the reality. In the extreme, these oscillations are conceived of as particle annihilation and creation operators, and in other extremes they are 'strings'. But in my mind they are simply mathematical decompositions that allow manipulation of portions of the solution. Clever dogs that we are, we find that some situations, in which the system can be placed in an almost "pure" state, lend themselves very well to this wave function perspective. Unfortunately, it comes with the cost of believing in "unreal" particles that only become real when the wave function "collapses". After almost a century of such foolishness, most physicists have settled for the fact that one must pretend that this makes sense if one is to be respectable and therefore get a paycheck and have a chance at a career. Edwin Eugene Klingman report post as inappropriate Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 6, 2010 @ 22:29 GMT Dear Edwin, I remember reading your paper. Please correct me if I've misunderstood, but it sounds like you are trying to argue that consciousness emerges out of Max-well's equations/gravity and explains why complex nervous systems (called brains) experience consciousness. Just to better define your position, if you kill the brain, then the consciousness is killed. To quote you, "Unfortunately, it comes with the cost of believing in "unreal" particles that only become real when the wave function "collapses". " Which tells me that "unreal" particles (unreal anything) is unacceptable to you as a physics solution. I have to admit that Fourier Analysis impresses me as well. But things like two slit diffraction experiments and Casimir experiments support the idea that wave functions fall square in the middle between (Don't Exist) and (Do Exist). Things that don't exist are not supposed to produce interference patterns. But if I measure it, "pop" all of the other wave functions mysteriously vanish, leaving me a real particle. Wave functions produce very real and observable results which don't qualify as mathematical artifacts. Yet, there existence is fleeting. Wave functions tell us that nature has a semi-existent quality. Some things are real, other things are only semi-real. I like to use Occam's razor. Maxwell's equations will owe there existence to quantum mechanics. Although there are probably zero professional physicists who realize this, I can see how wave functions are responsible for gravity as well. Wave functions have energy levels. Wave functions provide the pathway for light (photons). Gravity fields directly redshift/blue-shift photons. Very strong gravity forces will slow the flow of time through time dilation. Red shift is closely symmetric to time dilation. There is a very close connection between gravity and light. As a consequence, gravity will inevitably owe its existence to quantum mechanics; which will satisfy Occam's razor. If this is so, then your proof of a "consciousness field", which is based on Maxwells equations and gravity, will also emerge from Quantum Mechanics. The conclusion is that organic matter is not a requirement for consciousness. report post as inappropriate Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Sep. 6, 2010 @ 23:03 GMT Jason, May I say that I usually enjoy your comments. It's difficult to describe my position in a comment. It was hard enough in a ten page essay, and was elaborated on in the associated blog and some other blogs in the contest. The essential question is whether consciousness is fundamental or an artifact. The consensus is 'artifact' with absolutely no proof or theory to back this us.... view entire post report post as inappropriate Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Sep. 6, 2010 @ 23:14 GMT Correction. In the above comment, while referring to Florin, I meant to say "in the same way that a magnetic field is induced by charge flow." Not gravitation. I've been maintaining a two-blog conversation today with a one-blog mind. Think I'll sign off for today. Edwin Eugene Klingman report post as inappropriate Anonymous wrote on Sep. 7, 2010 @ 00:08 GMT Inertia is the key to unifying gravity and electromagnetism. Resistance to acceleration can be understood as an electromagnetic binding energy that is also associated with gravity. report post as inappropriate Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 7, 2010 @ 00:37 GMT Dear Edwin, When you said that it takes a decade to iron out all of the details of a theory, my jaw dropped. However, you sound like someone who can help me with a problem I'm having. It's my theory. There is so much conceptual information that has to be translated into logical/mathematical format. Some of it gets so complicated that I wonder if there is anyone who could even understand it. Here is the specific problem. I know how to develop hyper-drive technology & artificial gravity. Both of these technologies require the technical ability to generate "Shift-photons". I got the idea of shift photons from reading about gravitational redshift. We know that gravity CAUSES photons to red/blue-shift. But does this relationship go both ways? If I output the frequency profile of a red-shifted microwave from a satellite dish, can I get back the "gravity" field? I can use a Bertscope BSA260c to generate the shift photon. The only problem is that I don't have an extra$200,000 laying around to buy it. I've thought about applying to DARPA for a grant. But here is where I'm stuck. I have to convince them that shift-photons are equivalent to gravitons. The proof/argument is mind numbing; even I don't understand it all. I have to prove:

1. gravity is caused by the wave functions that make up the Higgs field.

2. Wave functions exhibit gravity energy levels that are separated by a shift in frequency. This frequency shift is equivalent to time dilation.

3. The effect of time dilation coincides with a length contraction.

4. This length contraction is equivalent to Ricci curvature which warps the Higgs field.

To get a grant, I have to successfully prove these four points.

Any suggestions?

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 7, 2010 @ 22:51 GMT
Jason,

If I understand your ideas, you are thinking of something between a phased array radar and a voltage controlled oscillator. As for the things you have to 'prove':

1. I see wave functions as 'describing' not 'causing'.

2. I would have to review your arguments here.

3 and 4. The equivalence should be shown mathematically.

Jason, several points... While my 'search' has lasted decades, my C-field theory is only five years old, and I worked out most of the relevant details in one year (albeit a busy year!) My impression from fqxi comments is that most players have been developing their theories for many years. The process involves filling in some holes and possibly learning to ignore other holes.

I don't wish to discourage you, but neither do I wish to give you false hope. The deck is stacked. Those who hold power and money do not part easily with either, and when they do, they like to "keep it in the family". I don't think you're one of the family. fqxi is setup to wring a few ideas out of the great unwashed, but you'll note that very few 'family members' waste time here.

On the other hand, you can hope for a miracle.

I wish you all the luck in the world.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 8, 2010 @ 00:41 GMT
Jason, great work does take very long lengths of time and extreme effort. That's obvious. However, men who have the true/ideal/highest form of genius are super, super rare. Many thinkers underestimate such indiviuals, as they cannot think at their level. A man who cannot know the truth cannot know his limitations, as a man who cannot know his limitations cannot know the truth.

You must, moreover, be open to where the truth leads -- whether shocking, disturbing, and/or inconvenient or not. Genius requires strength/courage. The deepest truths require the greatest development of the mind, AND THAT MEANS GENERALLY. THAT IS NOT DONE BY ONLY STUDYING PHYSICS. IN FACT, MANY OF YOU HAVE INSTALLED EXPENSIVE BLINDERS ON YOUR BRAINS BY BEING OVERLY AND NARROWLY TRAINED/EDUCATED IN PHYSICS AND/OR MATHEMATICS. THIS PRECLUDES ORIGINAL AND EXTENSIVE THINKING TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT. Indeed, one must have great intelligence to know who to read, as certain "geniuses" are far smarter than others who are also considered "genius". If you can't figure out who to listen to, you will not get to the top of the game. If you are not willing to grow and make sacrifices, you will not get to the top. You must be very disciplined.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 8, 2010 @ 02:00 GMT
Dear Jelle,

I agree with everything you've said. You are absolutely right about being open to where the truth leads. Yes, it can be very shocking at times; other times it's exhilarating. In a weird way, the very problems that seem to wound us, those are the very signals that speak the truth to us. Physics is everywhere around us; it upholds reality and casts a shadow across our comforting beliefs.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 7, 2010 @ 19:06 GMT
Edwin, gravity is repulsive and attractive depending upon the manifestation of gravity as inertial/electromagnetic binding energy. This ultimately does balance scale/distance and attraction/repulsion.

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti (www.digitalwavetheory.com) wrote on Sep. 8, 2010 @ 02:06 GMT
Hi Jason,

I think you are being overly constrained by standard model fan boys. I do not think everything you are aiming for is doable, but it shows a lot of creativity. Let me though out some crazy ideas for you.

1. Anytime you are generating photons from your antenna it is an indication that space-time is being bent. But the bending is inside the antenna caused by the accelerating charged particles for the most part. The space-time outside the antenna has not been effected. I think you would want the shift photons to bend the space-time outside the antenna, but you actually cause them via accelerating charges within the antenna. These accelerating charges really do indicate that you have caused gravity. This additional gravity is an increase in weight of the antenna when transmitting. This increase in weight is always accompanied by photons.

2. I certainly would want a personal hyper-space drive, but if that is not possible I think an experiment on electrically controllable masses and their light mass relationships would be good science.

Ref: http://www.zenophysics.com/DWT/18__Thermodynamics.html

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 8, 2010 @ 04:10 GMT
Hi Don,

I'm just an electronics technician with an imagination that is quantumly entangled to the law of physics. I can tell you how to calculate the force per shift photon.

$F_{SH} = \frac{h\Delta f}{c \Delta t}$

Delta f is the shift in frequency. Delta t represents how long it takes to generate the photon.

You said that you don't think it is doable. In reality, I could do the experiment with a VERY FAST frequency generator, perhaps around 24 Gigabits/second.

But do the cost/benefit analysis. The maximum risk would be the cost of frequency generator and microwave dish. If it doesn't work, then its still worth looking at.

If is DOES work, then the United States will have access to:

Artificial Gravity Propulsion.

With additional research and development, you can get Force Fields, gravity bottles for nuclear fusion power generation and Tractor Beams.

You can also create short distance worm holes which are nothing more than cylindrically shaped acceleration fields. Forget teleporter technology! You can just snatch an astronaut off the ground and pull them up to your space station.

With additional research, there might be a way to push back the Higgs field from around a spaceship. If you do that, you can check to see if a hyper-space exists underneath. If this is true, then a very reasonable amount of energy can be used to exceed the speed of light.

I will explain the FTL technology if anyone is interested.

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti (www.digitalwavetheory.com) wrote on Sep. 8, 2010 @ 06:55 GMT
Hi Jason,

1. I agree with your equation

2. I believe your shift photon will produce the force in the equation.

3. This force does represent a curvature of space-time.

4. Thus your phase shift mechanism will generate a gravitational field.

5. This is interesting and should be studied further.

However, it is not much different than doing the following:

1. take a free electron in a metal and oscillate it to produce light frequency f1. It will take energy e1 to do this.

2. Now oscillate the electron to to produce light frequency f2. It will take energy e2 to do this.

3. The difference in energy between the two frequencies will manifest as a mass difference in the antenna.

4. This mass difference will be very small as per your equation.

5. Perhaps it is my lack of imagination, but it is difficult to envision a hyper-space drive from this.

It would be better if your theory did not involve faster than light phenomena or "dreams". I would certainly consider reading it.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 8, 2010 @ 14:31 GMT
Dear Don,

Shift photons only require two assumptions:

1. Causality is fundamentally upheld because Time Travel is impossible.

2. Photons and wave functions implement the laws of physics.

Hyper-drives are my goal and my fancy; I won't belabor the idea. But I do think that shift photons can push and pull space-time (Higgs field/vacuum energy).

The only reason that you get "mass" is because of the Higgs field/vacuum energy. You won't find a Higgs particle. What you will find is a field made out of wave functions whose primary characteristic is that they uphold the speed of light/SR/GR. They uphold momentum conservation and m = E/c@ (E =mc2). Energy conservation is independent of the speed of light. If you change the speed of light, the energy content of an object remains the same; but the mass content changes by a factor of (c/c')^2. Pushing the Higgs field out of the way with Shift photons might reduce the mass, but not the energy content.

Your thoughts about accelerating electrons (which generate photons) have merit and are part of a more generalized way of looking at space-time. It works something like this:

1. Photon energy: E = hf ---> dE/df = h (Planck Constant) Light

2. Gravitational potential U --> - Grad U = F_Gravity

I'll have to get back with you about this. I gotta go to work, sorry. But there's a cool symmetry here that I can't quite recall.

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti (digitalwavetheory.com) wrote on Sep. 8, 2010 @ 20:26 GMT
Hi Jason,

Here is the experiment:

SETUP:

1. Select a cubic centimeter of space (the space) near a gravity source that you can turn on and off.

2. The gravity source "on" would be a massive object near the space, the gravity source "off" would be the massive object far away from the space.

3. The space has a sensor that reads out the wavelength of light.

TEST 1:

1. Send a fixed wavelength into the space (W1) with the gravity off. The sensor will read W1.

2. Send a fixed wavelength into the space (W1) with the gravity on. The sensor will read W2.

Test 2:

1. Send a fixed wavelength into the space (W1) with the gravity off. The sensor will read W1.

2. Send a fixed wavelength into the space (W2) with the gravity off. The sensor will read W2.

Does TEST 2 show that sending two frequencies of light change the space time in the space?

I may be wrong but It seems to me that this is what you are attempting to do.

I agree with your analysis but I have difficulty with the conclusion. I think there is a space-time change but it is not in the space but in the "oscillator" (antenna) that produces the light.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wofle wrote on Sep. 9, 2010 @ 01:10 GMT
Hi Don,

Your experiment ideas are spot on. Since getting completely away from any gravity source is hard to do, I would invoke the Equivalence Principle. I would call "free fall" a sufficient condition for "gravity off". If I want to increase the "gravity", I should be able to use either a rocket (very expensive) or a centrifuge (very cheap).

I was looking at Larmor's Formula for an accelerating charge. Power is really just #photons per second. I will need to dig deeper into area. But basically, a constant angular velocity will generate a constant photon frequency. A changing angular velocity will generate a changing photon frequency. If many different frequencies of photons convert into a shift photon, that shift photon will transmit a quantity of gravitational force.

I'll take a closer look to see if I can either find an error or else clarify my explanation.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 9, 2010 @ 14:58 GMT
By the way, I think that photons implement the measureable physics and causality; photons are limited by the speed of light. However, I think that photons follow the "design" of wave functions. Wave functions are themselves unlimited by velocity. Wave functions, which are related to quantum entanglement, can span galactic distances. They are limitless in what they can ask for, either at the quantum level or at larger scales. However, photons still have to implement the designs of the wave functions. Photons can only get to where they need to be at the speed of light. Wave functions rely upon photons to follow the design. Wave function in and of themselves are only causal in the sense that they tell the photons what to do and where to go.

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti (www.digitalwavetheory.com) wrote on Sep. 9, 2010 @ 21:13 GMT
Jason,

I believe that wavefunctions are so ill defined because they are the child of Schrodinger and Heisengerg. This child was born with the uncertainty gene and a well behaved math gene that insists on the continuity of particles.

Because of these genes the child insisted that Alain Aspect's experiments showing non-locality are explained by "superposition" and faster than light phenomena.

I think these genetic defects can be remedied with a dose of Digital Wave Theory.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 00:48 GMT
Don,

Physicists want to predict the behavior of physical systems. In the case of quantum systems, the laws of physics spoke very clearly. They said that quantum systems are predicted by the probabilities of eigenstates. Eigenstates are built out of waves functions. Physicists will swear on a stack of Linux bibles that wave functions don't really exist. But then, physicists will watch two slit interference patterns, photon by photon. Embarrassed, the physicists will act surprised and amazed and swear that they don't understand what is happening. The photons will whisper to them: "wave functions really do exist!"

I like your idea of digital wave theory. The idea of a Lambda-hop basically says that a particle "exists" when its measured; after that, it withdraws into some semi-existence as a wave.

It bothers me that physicists turn a deaf ear to what the laws of physics are very clearly telling us. There is a real space and an imaginary space, both of which exist. The universe has a physically real existence plus another part that is semi real. It is shadowy and ethereal. What bother me is that physicists will dodge the truth. They will hide the facts behind layers of incomprehensible mathematical physics.

Stephen Hawking is the pinnacle, the grand glorification of misguided theoretical physics. In order for Hawking to make God unnecessary, he has to utterly eradicate the fundamental pillars of physics. He has to destroy conservation of energy by convincing us that huge amounts of energy can just "pop" into existence.

I think someone should strap a perpetual motion machine to his wheel chair and let him drive off a cliff.

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos replied on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 18:19 GMT
Jason you write,

"Physicists will swear ... that wave functions don't really exist. But then, physicists will watch two slit interference patterns, photon by photon. Embarrassed, the physicists will act surprised and amazed and swear that they don't understand what is happening."

In my paper, The Meaning of 'psi': An Interpretation of Schroedinger's Equation I show how the 'wave function' can be understood to be one and the same as the space-time distribution of the 'accumulation of energy' quantity eta. This quantity eta has real meaning. It is the time-integral of energy and is in units of 'joule-sec'. Planck's constant h is such a quantity.

From previous posts Jason, you may recall my explanation of the Tonomura (1989) single-emissions double-slit experiment A Plausible Explanation of the Double-slit Experiment. At the heart of this explanation is the idea that there is an 'accumulation of energy before manifestation of energy'.

This is perhaps what you may mean when your write,

"There is a real space and an imaginary space, both of which exist. The universe has a physically real existence plus another part that is semi real. It is shadowy and ethereal."

I believe our views on this are likely the same though differently expressed. But I don't share your attitude about driving Hawkins off a cliff!

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 19:27 GMT
Hi Constantinos,

I'm suppose I'm being a bit melodramatic and inapropriate about driving (pushing) Hawkins off a cliff.

The Hamiltonian is the total energy, T+V (kinetic + potential), differential operator for a quantum system. The Shrodinger equation is the time evolving version of the Hamiltonian. Wave functions are all of the possible solutions that will solve the Shrodinger equation. These solutions are of the form,

$e^{i\pi} + 1=0$

The wave function tells us all of the possible energy levels (hydrogen atom), momentum (for electrons), energy (for photons), spin, etc., and provides the probability of measuring that particular eigenstate (for what we're measuring). Beyond that, quantum mechanics can't predict the exact location/momentum/etc.

Wave functions are similar to going to the dog races, reading about the dogs in the race and reading about the odds given for each dog in the race. Wave functions are not much better than trying to scry the future based upon potential energy conditions. They are possibilities. When we take a measurement, we collapse the possibilities into one definitive outcome. Yet these wave functions produce interference patters with or without energy. In other words, wave functions are possibilities that do not have a full energy associated with them. When you take a measurement, you might not find the particle. But if you do, you get all of its energy.

Does the "future" have a tangible existence? In a way, the "future" consists of these wave functions, these possibilities that can be chosen or attempted.

They are possibilities.

"Accumulations of energy" is akin to saying that a wave function is the choice that your waiting for to become energized and therefore, physically real.

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos replied on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 22:10 GMT
Jason, regarding your last post ...

Do we really need one more typical meaningless explanation of the 'wave function'? I thought you were criticizing just such view and called on physicists to provide real 'physical meaning' to the wave function and so to Schroedinger's equation and QM generally. This is what I am attempting to sketch out in the paper I referenced in my last post to you. The quantity 'accumulation of energy' eta (which is just the time-integral of energy in units of 'joule-sec') fits well such an interpretation.

But more than that, eta naturally comes up in many varieties of physical settings and provides intuitive sensible explanations. I only mentioned one, the double-slit experiment, since you mentioned it in your post and since we already had elaborate discussions on this just a few months back. It is meant only as a reference point to illustrate that our views on some of this may be coincident.

But I wont go as far as your 'shift-photons' and your attempt to create gravity by red-shifting photons. We have a 'cause and effect' dilemma here. To append my response to this on an earlier post to you ... the idea that you can create gravity by red-shifting photons feels to me like changing the temperature in the atmosphere by lowering the temperature settings of a thermometer. But I could be wrong.

I like you inquiring free spirit! I too feel such spirit is much needed in the modern community of physics. We need to be courageous and doubt everything and ask anything. Nothing is written in stone. Not even Universal Laws of Physics!

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 07:03 GMT
Hi Jason,

I like your work because you actually try to make experiments.

It seems that so much of physics is based on the fact that the math is beautiful thus it must be so. There is also a tendency for some physicists to turn their pet theories into religion, they then pit their true religion against other false religions. I think Hawking falls into this camp along with an anonymously posting dreamer. Both should take the advise of an english nursery rhyme: Row, row, row your boat, Gently down the stream.Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,Life is but a dream.

I have to admit I like my digital wave theory and try to promote it where I can, so I do worry that I may be a fanatic also. I have tried to mitigate this by outlining a bunch of experiments that would give the theory some validity, but they are beyond my ability to carry out. Thus I am also looking for some experimental help (or any help).

In short theories are cheap good experiments are where it is at.

Wishing you the best!

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos wrote on Sep. 12, 2010 @ 20:35 GMT
Jason,

Pleased that you like the papers. But more pleased that you appreciate their significance.

The quantity 'eta' (in units of 'joule-sec') is not quite 'action', according to Ray and others. But very close to it. For me, 'eta' is more naturally occurring and plays a central role in the results outlined in the papers.

Thermodynamics argues I believe for just such physical quantity 'eta'. The Second Law simply assures that any physical process takes some duration of time to occur. In blackbody radiation, for example, we can ask what is happening at the 'sensor' during that (short) interval of time required for a measurement interaction to take place.

The answer I provide (and Thermodynamics assures) is that there is an 'accumulation of energy' eta that takes place. When equilibrium is attained between the average energy of the 'source' and the average energy at the 'sensor', that energy becomes 'manifested' in discrete lumps. We have 'accumulation before manifestation'. Also, while energy propagates 'continuously', it is manifested 'discretely'. This is how these ideas resolve the 'wave-particle duality' and the 'collapse of the wave function' problem.

One result that merits mention: Boltzmann's famous entropy equation can be shown to be equivalent to Planck's Formula for blackbody radiation. Both of these are really mathematical results, rather than physical laws! (which they are also).

There are many other relevant and interesting results that flow out of these ideas, Jason. But I can't discuss these in a post. Instead, I ask that you read my very short and simple papers. And if you should have further questions, I be happy to discuss these further.

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 12, 2010 @ 20:57 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

I wanted to thank you for making me go back and look at Quantum Statistical Mechanics more closely. I haven't proofed your ideas very closely, but it did encourage/ force me to go back and look at my own ideas again. In the past few days, I made a major break-through whose consequences should rock the physics community.

Dear Jason,

You want experimental evidence for your ideas, and I agree that is a noble/ Nobel goal. I think I finally have sufficient experimental evidence for some of my own 'crazzy' ideas...

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 12, 2010 @ 22:24 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

I have more ideas that I'd be happy to share with you. If you want to keep them "under the radar", my email address is wulphstein@gmail.com. I have some ideas about equating gravitational redshift with gravitational time dilation.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 12, 2010 @ 22:34 GMT
Dear Ray,

I'd like to write a proposal for my shift photon idea, but I need a better theoretical basis for it. In the mean time, I am wondering if a centrifuge can generate time dilation effects? I just bought a green laser on Amazon. I'm thinking about sacrificing one of my fans and using the motor to spin the laser around. If I blow some water vapor at it, I am hoping that the laser will trace out a light circle whose frequency decreases on approach to the radial center. I can find anything online about such an experiment. Have you heard anything?

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 13, 2010 @ 11:32 GMT
Hi Constantinos

"..deeper and more profound connections can be made."

I believe you are correct, and have the correct duality solution, with 'discrete manifestation' the key. I've posted on your twin slit link, including with this; http://vixra.org/abs/1007.0022 which includes some original experimental evidence.

I'd appreciate your views on comparisons.

Many thanks

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos replied on Sep. 13, 2010 @ 16:47 GMT

I took a quick look at your post left under my knol on the double-slit experiment, and read your abstract of your vixra.org paper. Your many references make your paper interesting and relevant. But I may not be the ideal person to comment meaningfully on the subject, however. In all honesty, I really have not considered Relativity and all the issues and controversy associated with it in any of my papers.

However, Eckard Blumschein has given much thought to just such topics and is very knowledgeable on this subject. He often posts in fqxi blogs and can be very helpful. I think you will benefit greatly by his insights on Relativity as I believe he has similar qualms about the physics of it.

I have very recently been considering a plausible non-relativistic explanation of galactic red-shift and of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Once I am motivated enough to put these ideas on paper I will share these with you.

Best regards,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 13, 2010 @ 17:55 GMT
Hi Constantinos

Thanks. I demonstrate the the SR Postulates are correct, and the paradoxes only arise from a wrong assumption removing the field. If EM wave energy, propagating local 'particles', is correct, which is essential for my model, then your theory will be criticised and dismissed for conflicting with SR without recognising that! Penrose has derived that particles can't be conserved if physics is to be unified.

Huygens actually first derived localised oscillators, before Newton! Ewald -Oseen Extinction explains precisely how it works classically. You'll be more at home with their integro-differential equations than me. I do need to do some simple proving work with a mathematician, so if you feel any resonance do please follow this up.

I've just found some on the GRW blog and done a comprehensive post there.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Eckard replied on Sep. 13, 2010 @ 23:02 GMT
Hi Peter,

The original 1905 paper does not speak of postulates but in §2 of two principles: 1. relativity and 2.: "Every ray of light moves in the "resting" coordinate system with the particular velocity V, regardless whether the ray of light is emitted from a body at rest or from a moving body" (my translation). Einstein agreed with Ritz to not agree on that.

You wrote: Postulate 2: The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light.

I found the reason for the twin paradox already in Einstein's interpretation of the at hoc Fresnel(?)/Voigt/FitzGerald/Lorentz's factor sqrt[1-(v^2/V^2)]:

Synchronism is still correctly defined in §1 as t_B-t_A = t'_A-t_B but incorrectly applied with the back and forth consideration (t_B-t_A)(V-v)=(t'A-t_B)(V+v) starting in the past at A and returning after reflection at B to A' in the future.

I do not see the fallacy related just to light but likewise to other PDEs of second order, e.g. sound, cf. Voigt. Integro-differential equations might possibly provide a way out. Is it reasonable to integrate once again over all past after having just done this?

We seem to agree that Doppler effects are measurable while Lorentz contraction is not measurable. You wrote: "Relativistic transformation equations would still be needed to describe energy input to accelerate any mass to 'c',"

Hm. Is this possible at all?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos replied on Sep. 14, 2010 @ 01:41 GMT
Hi Peter,

Nothing in any of my papers relates to or depends in any way on Relativity. All the ideas are equally valid with or without any such consideration. But if their be some unknown connection, then it possibly will have the same significance as with QM generally.

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 16, 2010 @ 17:08 GMT
Hi Constantinos

I agree your ideas are valid, but they necessarily conflict with the mainstream understanding of Special Relativity, because it is incorrect.

Eckard has joined the throng proving that understanding to be incorrect, but we do not yet have that elusive alternative solution. We simply need a better way to explain the constancy 'c' "irrespective of the speed of the emitter or receiver", without having to get rid of quantum fields, dark energy, Higgs field, or whatever other description of ether we may invent! That is where the logic was lost.

Einstein and Feynman correctly implied the solution may be too simple for us to initially understand. Like EM waves changing speed via a quantum process (FM) to always do 'c' locally. My own guess is that, if we survive, at our current rate of development it may be another 20-30 years before the solution can be recognised and physics unified. Do you think that's fair?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos replied on Sep. 16, 2010 @ 23:13 GMT
Peter you write,

"I agree your ideas are valid, but they necessarily conflict with the mainstream understanding of Special Relativity, because it is incorrect."

Perhaps I am wrong, but I just can't see where any of my ideas conflict with SP. They don't involve 'particles in motion', nor 'mass and gravity', or the 'constancy of c'. If you see a conflict, please explain.

You also write,

"We simply need a better way to explain the constancy 'c' "

I agree! There must be some sensible explanation why the speed of light is constant, other than just postulating it.

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 00:27 GMT
The speed of light is constant in order to establish position and distance in space in keeping with the size, force, and energy of space.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 18, 2010 @ 17:05 GMT
Constantinos; "I just can't see where any of my ideas conflict with SP. They don't involve 'particles in motion', nor 'mass and gravity', or the 'constancy of c'. If you see a conflict, please explain."

SR as current interpretation depends on zero ether. Two astronauts in relative motion in space must both have the right to say they are at rest and it's the other in motion. i.e. neither can have any measurable velocity with respect to anything other than each other. i.e. no 'background'. It's not a postulate, in fact he called it a 'stipulation', but actually also said 'space without ether is unthinkable'. Yes, he recognised the paradox, but none the less had to do it. (read his 1927 Leyden address).

But he was wrong. It divorced relativity from reality and QM. You say; "There must be some sensible explanation why the speed of light is constant."

This is, if little recognised, the key to future physics. The 'Holy Grail' as Penrose calls it. Bringing unification with QM and allowing fields back.

But when the solution is found it will be simply unbeleivable, as we are unbeleivably simple and cannot recognise it. Do you think you could recognise it?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 16, 2010 @ 17:20 GMT
Eckard

"We seem to agree that Doppler effects are measurable while Lorentz contraction is not measurable. You wrote: "Relativistic transformation equations would still be needed to describe energy input to accelerate any mass to 'c',"

"Hm. Is this possible at all?"

It should be read as; "...towards 'c'. No, above 99.99999999% is not possible, except temporarily with consequences!

I've been studying those consequences, which are interesting. The Lorentz transformation seems to have a limited validity observing massive objects with length moving between frames, but only with an opposite length expansion! - subject to relative motion.

We really must get used to considering inertial 'fields'. Do EM waves exist with no relation to EM fields? Are EM fields not inexorably attached to mass in relative motion? Do they not strengthen with increased relative motion!?

The solution lies in a proper understanding of relativity, inertial frames, and the differences between observer frames, not just SR.

Christian Doppler told us Frequency balances Wavelength to conserve energy and always produce 'c' locally. Did you understand refraction?, and Lodges error?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Eckard replied on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 06:29 GMT
Peter,

When you mentioned Lodge you referred to stellar aberration. Lorentz credited Lodge for the factor gamma because he was not aware of Voigt and also not of FitzGerald. What error did you ascribe to Lodge? Having not yet managed to read the 1893 paper by Lodge, I guess he speculated on ether dragging. I imagine stellar aberration an observed periodic seeming motion of stars which was perhaps correctly attributed to the motion of the receiver perpendicular to a very very distant source of light. If I understood it correctly, it does not at all depend on the longitudinal velocity between source and receiver. Therefore Lorentz has adopted pure nonsense.

While I usually abstain from speculations, I feel obliged to look for new variants how to explain apparently contradicting results from stellar aberration experiments or MM experiments. My first idea is: We have strictly to distinguish between transversal or longitudinal motion and stellar aberration or Doppler effect, respectively.

Incidentally, you seem to share the rather mandatory among physicists belief that there is no ubiquitous now. Would you mind replacing the notion observer by receiver? An abstract observer like God can be believed to cause and see anything at a time while an emitter and receiver like you or me has just one location each moment. I understand that my now is also your now for symmetry reasons while we receive the same sound or light signal at the same time only on condition of equal time of propagation. Yes I do not share Einstein's view in this matter.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 17:28 GMT
Hi Eckard

Lodges error was using the wrong observer frame when 'disproving' Stokes/Planck (S/P) 'ether drag' solution for CSL, which was the only one left by M&M. With refraction into a moving medium he used frame n1 to derive refraction angle, not frame n2, which is that of the Earth when considering stellar aberration.

Lorentz also missed the error, and 'gave up' on logical...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Eckard replied on Sep. 18, 2010 @ 13:50 GMT
Peter, "Lorentz adopted pure nonsense". In order to compellingly reveal the far reaching consequences, we should try to explain as understandable as possible. I do not know what CSL stands for. M&M clearly refers to experiments by Michelson and Morley and maybe it is either clear to experts or it does not matter to which one. I appreciate attribution of S/P to Stoke/Planck.

Admittedly, I was ignorant of stellar aberration, but found a very plausible comparison with vertically falling rain droplets below a moving umbrella. Of course, since I am trained as an EE, I also understand the phenomenon as refraction in case of light is entering into a moving lens, or even in case of a moving in orthogonal direction mirror telescope. In so far, I do perhaps not need your optical approach invoking rather strange to me considerations including Hyugens, Fresnel, and Ewald-Oseen. In sonar technology we are familiar with ray as well as wave acoustics.

We certainly have to further clarify the matter of frames, sender, and receiver.

Let me ask you for avoiding any use of unfortunately affected terminology. In the first sentence of your abstract you wrote: "We uncover a relativistic error influencing physics at a critical moment." Shouldn't we already understand that the term "relativistic" has been attributed to Lorentz transformation (LT)? To me "relativistic error" merely sounds like an error that somehow relates to LT while hopefully we both clearly understand that LT itself is on error. I do not see any reason for cheating referees in vixra. A spade is a spade, and FQXi must not evade central foundational questions.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 00:47 GMT
Constantinos and Ray:

Constantinos said: The answer I provide (and Thermodynamics assures) is that there is an 'accumulation of energy' eta that takes place. When equilibrium is attained between the average energy of the 'source' and the average energy at the 'sensor', that energy becomes 'manifested' in discrete lumps. We have 'accumulation before manifestation'. Also, while energy propagates 'continuously', it is manifested 'discretely'. This is how these ideas resolve the 'wave-particle duality' and the 'collapse of the wave function' problem.

Quantum gravity and dreams may be understood along similar lines -- constant energy, and variable manifestations at/of the same basic energy level.

Thought is quantum mechanical in nature, and gravito-electromagnetic as well.

Gravity and electromagnetism both pertain to distance in space, so it is critical to balance electromagnetic repulsion/expansion with gravitational contraction/attraction (in any theory of quantum gravity, as well).

Moreover, the contraction and stretching/expansion of space, consistent with generally balanced attraction and repulsion creates distance in space and would generally incorporate quantum mechanical phenomena -- that is, consistent with space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic energy. When space/energy is substantially more the same, then quantum gravity, electromagnetism, and gravity would then be able to manifest in variable, yet equivalent, forms.

When force/energy is balanced with regard to BOTH resistance to acceleration/inertia AND gravity/acceleration THERE WE HAVE THE UNION OF GRAVITY AND ELECTROMAGNETISM AND SCALE INVARIANCE (BALANCED/NATURAL DISTANCE IN SPACE).

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 12:46 GMT
Dear Anonymous Frank,

I think I recently made a significant breakthrough in our understanding of scales. I think that Constantinos' interpretation of a continuous 'accumulation of energy' is correct at one scale, but the Hegelian opposite discrete interpretation is correct at a different scale. We must be mindful of the differences between scales.

This is all predicated on the assumption that there are multiple scales - sort of like Dr. Suess' "Horton Hears a Who" - scales of existence much smaller and much larger than ours. In addition, each scale has multiple (either infinite or near-infinite from our finite perspective) possible Universes within its scale's Multiverse. I imagine that in at least one of those Universes, we probably get along with each other.

Is it possible that the dream is a transfer of information from one scale (or alternate Universe) to another (via tachyons that travel faster than light - perhaps even instantaneously)? Or is it possible that the effect that we call consciousness is a collective effect of all of the scales and/or alternate Universes in communication/feedback with each other?

Please call yourself Frank. I am disgusted with all of this Aristotle and Play-dough silliness.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Plato replied on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 13:38 GMT
Ray, we will be back to you later today to reply in full. Until then, a clue, seek the middle between gravity and no gravity -- there we find inertial and gravitational balance/equivalency. Completeness and balance.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 13:50 GMT
Dear Plato Frank,

You are going to collect your thoughts. Good! I appreciate higher quality material on this site. If you want some extra web research material, you might also look up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurent_Nottale

http://en.wik
ipedia.org/wiki/Horton_Hears_a_Who!

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Sep. 18, 2010 @ 00:58 GMT
Dear Ray,

"I am disgusted with all of this Aristotle and Play-dough silliness."

Those were my messages. I am sorry they disgusted you. I thought they were funny and certainly not personal attacks on Frank. It was a play on sock puppets. There were three of them. It will not happen again. I choose to not post message that disgust.

James

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 18, 2010 @ 01:25 GMT
Dear James,

It was sort of funny. Its just that we seem to be lowering this site's signal-to-noise ratio. I thought that was (at least partially) Frank's sock puppets, and he was monopolizing the site by himself.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 18, 2010 @ 20:27 GMT
Fancy footwork Ray -- but, just tell the truth, and do not block or belittle others who have very helpful and important ideas.

report post as inappropriate

FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 14:39 GMT
I thought it was hilarious.

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos wrote on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 17:27 GMT
Dear Ray and Anomymous Frank,

Sorry about my delayed response! I have been preoccupied with my daughter's wedding the past few days which took place on the 18th. It was a wonderful celebration, a life's milestone that brought me to tears!

The physical view I am proposing I believe accounts for both the 'continuous' and the 'discrete' ! The 'accumulation of energy' η (that I...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 20, 2010 @ 19:06 GMT
Dear Constantinos,

Congratulations on your daughter's wedding. That is time well spent.

Your eta/ether idea sounds perfectly reasonable.

Can your model explain gravity and time dilation? I assume there are no time travel mechanisms or multiple (identical) universes (MWI)?

You said that you can derive conservation of energy from your model. Can your model provide an answer to Stephen Hawking who believes that conservation of energy can be violated?

report post as inappropriate

BEST PHYSICS replied on Sep. 20, 2010 @ 21:01 GMT
Force and energy fundamentally relate to distance in/of space. That is the first fact.

Gravity/acceleration is ultimately a binding energy/force which involves and relates to both position AND distance in space.

When force/energy is balanced with regard to BOTH resistance to acceleration/inertia AND gravity/acceleration THERE WE HAVE THE UNION OF GRAVITY AND ELECTROMAGNETISM AND SCALE INVARIANCE (BALANCED/NATURAL DISTANCE IN SPACE).

Force and energy (constant, that is) equal balanced and equivalent resistance to accel. AND accel. That is the most fundamental law in physics. Gravity/acceleration is ultimately a binding energy/force which involves and relates to both position AND distance in space.

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos replied on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 01:40 GMT
Dear Jason,

Thank you for your good wishes. As to an explanation of gravity using the ideas in my papers, I can't say for sure since I have not seriously dealt with this issue. Too preoccupied with other connections to basic laws. My sense is, however, that it is possible and I do have some rough ideas how that can be. But I don't know about 'time dilation' or about Steven Hawkins. Both totally mystify me.

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Jon Trevathan wrote on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 14:34 GMT
In quantum mechanics, the initial quantum state of any system evolves over time into a probability distribution of all possible states consistent with the initial boundary condition. If an initial state is assumed in which all possible states and spacetime geometries are subsumed, a probability distribution of possible states, including all observable states, will necessarily arise. Applying time...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 15:10 GMT
Dear John Trevathan,

Apparently you are sharing the common belief that differential equations are basic to nature. I am perhaps the only one so far who considers reality correctly described by superimposed (integrated) quantities. At the level of abstract quantities the immediate link to reality has been lost. There we can manipulate e.g. time at will. My credo might elucidate a lot: Theorist decided to ignore their obligation to distinguish between theory and reality. If e.g. there are two particular solutions of an equation they feel entitled to ascribe reality to both. I got the impression, engineers did as a rule better understand what they are doing.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 19:13 GMT
Dear Jon,

The present is the initial quantum states of the universe. The present reality is where all the energy is. In the present, there are those eigenstates that were chosen, and have all the energy. All of the other eigenstates that were not chosen, they do exist, but not physically. From the moment of the Big Bang to the end of eternity, what you really have is one prominent time line with a bunch of un-chosen wave functions dancing around it.

Those un-chosen wave functions can be used to fuel the imagination.

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos replied on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 01:35 GMT
Dear Eckard, you write

"I am perhaps the only one so far who considers reality correctly described by superimposed (integrated) quantities."

You are not alone! Fundamental to all my work is 'accumulation of energy' which also is an 'integrated quantity'.

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

PLATO wrote on Sep. 22, 2010 @ 19:51 GMT
Constantinos, it is impossible to have such matching unifications -- (such as the two prior/last posts by BEST PHYSICS -- and not have a corresponding physical/sensory correlate (or basis) therefore.

Gravity and electromagnetism both pertain to distance in space, so it is critical to balance electromagnetic repulsion/expansion with gravitational contraction/attraction (in any theory of quantum gravity, as well).

Moreover, the contraction and stretching/expansion of space, consistent with generally balanced attraction and repulsion creates distance in space and would generally incorporate quantum mechanical phenomena -- that is, consistent with space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic energy. When space/energy is substantially more the same, then quantum gravity, electromagnetism, and gravity would then be able to manifest in variable, yet equivalent, forms.

When force/energy is balanced with regard to BOTH resistance to acceleration/inertia AND gravity/acceleration THERE WE HAVE THE UNION OF GRAVITY AND ELECTROMAGNETISM AND SCALE INVARIANCE (BALANCED/NATURAL DISTANCE IN SPACE).

When an inherently larger and smaller (on balance) space are combined, inertia is increased, thereby proportionately lessening gravity. This happens in dreams.

Dreams are the linked physical/sensory manifestation and process by which we grow and become other than we are. Dreams are the fundamental manifestation by which the other physical ideas/understandings/mathematical descriptions are linked, integrated, and generated/extended.

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos replied on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 01:29 GMT
Being Greek, it's hard to address PLATO in this blog without feelings of irreverence and disrespect! But I'll hold my thoughts about that!

Though I can't say I really understand you, I think I do agree that any 'theory of creation' concerning the physical universe probably also has validity for any 'act of creation', including the 'self'. Simply, my conviction is that the fundamental laws of how 'things come to be' are the same, regardless of 'what comes to be'.

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe wrote on Sep. 27, 2010 @ 20:18 GMT
For all of you who have physics problems you can't solve, try plugging a property of photons into the problem. Try using:

-Maxwell's equations;

-the definition of a second as 9.1billion cycles of a hyperfine Cesium photon;

-the transition in frequency of a photon from one inertial frame to another;

-the transition in frequency of a photon from one gravity potential to another;

-try relating frequency to time dilation.

Remember that a group of photons are called ... electromagnetic radiation.

Photons and electromagnetic radiaiton can be visible light, radio waves, X-rays, microwaves or gamma rays.

Photons are considered quantum mechanic "particles" that carry packets of energy and momentum.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 27, 2010 @ 21:13 GMT
Jason, another way to describe this is to say that gravitational contraction

must be balanced by/equivalent with electromagnetic repulsion, or

[relatively] stable and fundamental distance in space, with

[basically] constant energy, is not possible. This is done by

stretching and flattening space (as the successful addition of the

fourth spatial dimension indicates). This fundamentally balances

repulsion, attraction, inertia, gravity, and electromagnetism/light.

Increased inertia offsets/balances decreased gravity. Quantum gravity

occurs in dreams.

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos wrote on Sep. 29, 2010 @ 20:19 GMT
James, Ray and All

Can 'intelligence' exist in a vacuum?

It seems to me that what we call 'intelligence' (and have some vague notion of what that might be) needs 'mind and environment' to coexist. I don't see 'intelligence' as a 'commodity' that can be built up 'bit by bit' or arise from either 'mechanics' or 'dumb matter'. Rather, I see it as a dynamic interaction between 'mind and environment' driven by 'life' and sustained by 'energy'. Such interaction becomes more 'intelligent' to the extend that it produces a 'unity' between the two. But were this interaction to collapse (as for example by removing the environment) then 'mind' and 'intelligence' degenerate too. The question, "Can intelligence arise from non-intelligence" mystifies intelligence, imho.

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Sep. 29, 2010 @ 20:23 GMT
Constantinos,

You gave credit to something you call energy. What is energy?

James

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 29, 2010 @ 20:44 GMT
Dear Constantinos and James,

OK - If scales are true, then we could consider everything we know to be a fractal fragment of Cantor dust. The Multiverse is the complete (possibly infinite) collection of Cantor dust. The Universe is a fragment of Cantor dust, and we cannot "see" beyond "our Universe" because of limitations from the speed of light (perhaps definitional of a scale). We and our Earth are smaller fragments of Cantor dust. Sub-atomic particles are yet smaller fragments of Cantor dust (and are thus not truly "fundamental", but rather are "hollow but not empty" just like everything else), and we cannot "see" within those "fundamental particles" because of limitations from Planck's constant (perhaps definitional of yet another scale). But within those "fundamental particles" may exist yet another scale of Cantor dust - perhaps a scale containing less complexity and less energy (complexergy in Nottale's terminology) than our scale, but containing "complexity" or "information" and the "sub-particle basis of intelligence". In this respect, the origin of "intelligence" may be the same as the origin of "consciousness" that I presented on this thread on Sep 28 @ 18:30 - a feedback mechanism from all of the various scales and alternate Universe via tachyons. So we are "intelligent" because the Multiverse, "our Universe", all Solar systems, and all "fundamental particles" REPRESENT A COMPLETE SET OF CANTOR DUST, ARE CONNECTED, AND ARE "INTELLIGENT". In one alternate reality, I chose not to answer this question. In another alternate reality, I won the Nobel Prize for this bit of insight. But in most alternate realities, I probably wrote more or less the same thing as this with no great prize at the end of the tunnel...

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Sep. 29, 2010 @ 20:51 GMT
Dear Ray,

Well I can't argue against that proposal unless 'cantor dust' has a definition that restricts it to being a purely mechanical property.

We're having fun!

James

report post as inappropriate