Questioning Pre-Mathematical Intuitions by Eckard Blumschein

Hi Eckard,

Yes, I believe that physical reality does not depend upon the perspective of an observer, but 'physics', the map of reality, generally does to a large extent.

And in quantum theory this includes "counterfactuals" and perhaps other concepts that may affect theory.

Although logical structures in the brain are quite flexible, I do not believe that the structures that we use to map the world are 100 percent integrated or otherwise seamlessly overlapping. Certainly these maps differ from brain to brain, and I believe they are similarly dis-integrated in one brain. And I am not sure whether or not there are logical issues having to do with the way our brains process self-referential logic.

The point is that physics (per d'Espagnat) is based on realism, logic, and locality, and most Bell theorists have decided to forego realism and locality in favor of retaining logic. But to me, logic is the most mysterious and least understood aspect of the three, while both my theoretical model and my mind tell me that local realism is valid. I cannot prove that the problem lies with logic, but I do not consider that anyone has proved that local realism is false. If I'm forced to choose, based on incomplete knowledge, I choose local realism and fuzzy logic (not "the" fuzzy logic).

As for Kyle's topic, I had missed it until I saw Georgina's comments. The topic is not an easy one to discuss. I have written in past contests about the effects on perception which I interpret as 'suppressing' metric awareness of distance and difference in favor of topological awareness of connectedness and unity. It is, in general, not a topic that goes anywhere as most who have not experienced it have no idea what is being discussed, while most who have experience of it have not the physical or metaphysical concepts to make sense of the experience.

I hope this response addresses your comment.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Eckard

You again assume without thought that the detector itself, (ignoring the reflector) is not involved in the process. ("...the wave propagates in only one medium...")

This is the wrong assumption I'm discussing. In fact the Hutchinson essay also explains the relationship if not the massive implications quite well in another way, showing the detector cannot detect anything without the light negotiating a a refractive plane (i.e. frame change);

"...In every free space solution for a detector, either the detector has detected the quantum or it has not. After diffraction, the solution almost certainly converges to just one such set of overlapping free space solution because any other solution would be unstable."

This is indeed the precise situation for the KRR experiments. The detector (lens) is in lateral motion wrt the incident medium. So the KRR effect does apply, and all anomalies are resolved, and Snel's law is recovered.

It seems you perhaps tried to read the essay too fast and lost track of the complex logical consistency.

Peter

Peter,

The experiment described in my Fig. 5 is an acoustical one without any lens and with definitely only one medium (air) in which the sound pulse propagates between two rigid boundaries. There is no possibility for a refraction to be seen.

I guess, the astonishing directivity of the 220 kHz ultrasonic transducer used by Feist is not very well known.

You mentioned Hutchinson's essay, I looked in vain for his reply to what you wrote to him and quoted here. You did not even tell me what you meant with your Fig. 5.

Sorry, I do not understand why and how Snell's law is recovered. What is an incident medium? Isn't rather a wave possibly incident? Which KRrefraction experiments and which KRrefraction effect do you refer to? Do you really maintain that refraction matters in the Michelson Morley experiment?

Eckard

Dear Eckard,

"If physics does depend to a large extent upon the perspective of an observer then it might be wrong to a large extent."

I think that the essays here (more than one hundred of them) show that physics does to a large extent depend upon the perspective of the observer. And they probably come as close as possible to proving that physics is also wrong to a large extent. It's rather amazing how many 'fundamental assumptions' are being challenged.

And while I agree that our neural nets are plastic and hence can learn, I do believe that -- regardless of how distributed over the net -- logical concepts and other concepts are discretely organized and overlap only to a degree, if at all. It seems possible for many people to hold contradictory ideas in their head, and this shows (to me) that minimal overlap exists between such ideas.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Eckard

This link just for you

http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6044

All the best

Yuri

Thank you Yuri,

Having read such good textbooks as for instance Oskar Becker's, I will read Manin's paper like a weak attempt to defend some presently mandatory views, a paper that reveals intuitions behind mathematics but neglects due logic clarifications.

I would appreciate if someone did try and took issue concerning what I tried to make evident to everybody in my Figures.

You now, we are partially supporting each other. I cannot at all judge whether or not your intriguing claim concerning the fundamental constants is correct. What you wrote on 3+1 looks a bit speculative to me. It reminds me of Stiefel, a friend of Martin Luther.

By the way, the expression three plus one was currently used for a meeting between the foreign ministers of the three Baltic republics and Westerwelle. I would avoid such mistakable expression.

Eckard

Dear Eckard

Big difference between 3+1 and 3:1

Das war also des Pudels Kern ... "

Dear Eckard,

I agree that simply being challenged does not indicate that an assumption is wrong, and that most of the challenges are more likely to be wrong. Yet even if only a handful of fundamental assumptions are wrong, that seems very significant to me. On another thread some anonymous commenter claimed that FQXi was a waste of time -- that it was like looking for diamonds in a coal bin. But someone else pointed out that if the diamond is found, it make make the search worthwhile.

As for "fields of potentially infinite extension", that is an engineering approximation, but infinity is often chosen as the limit to force the value to zero at that limit. In my essay I deal with the 'extent' of the wave function and try to show that realistic orbital lengths may be hundreds of wavelengths long. In this sense the moon raises tides on earth at a distance approximately 30 times the diameter of the earth. So it seems both reasonable and far from "potentially infinite".

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Eckard,

I very much like Ernst Fischer's essay, and his conclusions, but I don't feel competent to judge his work. The problem is indicated by the second figure on page 4 of my previous essay, where I show Doug Sweetser's view of metric and potential maps. It seems to me that he has combined these maps to include both potential and metric, and that is unorthodox in my view. He also refers to "local mass density" which I understand to be ill-defined in general relativity. So I very much like his essay and would like to believe he is correct, but cannot justify certain of his assumptions. I'm glad to see his high ranking. Hopefully that means that more qualified reviewers also like it.

As for the wave function in my essay, the physical wave in not time symmetrical, although the analogous solutions of the Schrodinger equation can probably be considered to be so. The wave is left-handed only (not right-handed) which I think is associated with time asymmetry, and it has finite extent.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Eckard,

I hesitate to comment on Mark Newstead's essay, which I have read but not studied. Rather than try to translate his answer to you [Aug 23, 2012 @14:13] I would rather address the difference in an EM wave and the C-field wave that I postulate is the basis of the QM wave function.

I view a 'single' EM wave as a pure sine wave of 'infinite' extent. The scaled linear superposition of such components is of course the basis of Fourier analysis.

The key physical basis of such EM waves is their ability to propagate (through a medium or vacuum) far from the source of the radiation. In contrast, the wave that I describe is a circulating field (according to the weak field approximation to GR) induced by a 'mass current density' which has units of momentum density, mv where m is mass density and v is velocity. This wave is best viewed as a 'vortex' which has one field component, C, (versus two, E and B for EM waves) and does not propagate away from the source but travels *with* the source, soliton-like. There is no 'infinite' aspect to this wave but it does decay over a finite distance. Without the finite range of the 'trailing vortex' (analogous to aircraft wingtip vortices) the wave would not extend over the range of excited orbits and there would be no interference leading to quantized stable orbits.

You provided a link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization, to an article discussing circular polarization, that contains a nice animation showing a circularly polarized E-field wave. Note that this wave propagates far from the source, unlike the C-field wave and note also that the E-field is a radially directed field from the axis of propagation, whereas I picture the C-field wave as circular (or cylindrical) circulating about the axis of propagation, and centered on the inducing source current density. This is a quite different physical phenomenon.

As for the 'left-handed nature' of this wave, the GR equation is curl C = -p where p is the momentum density. I interpret the minus sign to indicate left-handed circulation. This is compatible with many left-handed aspects of particle physics, from neutrino to boson, and even shows up in biological molecules. The implications are too many to discuss in a comment, but I find them significant.

Finally, you say "You seem to add some temporal and spatial restriction which is entirely unknown to me". You are correct. I have combined de Broglie's wavelength-momentum relation p = h/lambda with the GR equation curl C ~ p to obtain: lambda (dot) curl C = h, where h is Planck's constant. This is interpreted as a quantized 'volume' and I show how an atomic orbit can be viewed as an integer multiple of such volumes. This is a new physical relation that has never been proposed before and probably takes some digestion from people who seem to think that everything is already known about quantum mechanics, and that we should just take their word and "shut up and calculate". In addition, I believe that there are other implications, based on a geometric algebra approach, which I hope to develop further in the future.

I hope that this comment has answered some of your question.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Eckard

Sound may not propagate as light, but I agree your Fig 5 is still relevant. To first deal with light; I'd posted the following to you on Petcho's blog.;

"All lenses consist of a medium, with a refractive plane separating the propagation medium (air) and the lens. The whole tenet of my essay is that we have never understood this, or wrongly assumed otherwise, which is why we cannot unravel observations.

The proof is not only implicit in all optical science but is in the consistent explanation it brings to observations."

The same new fundamental truth applies to sound. If there is no 'matter' then it can't be 'detected'. If there IS matter, then there is an interaction, and transfer of energy, BEFORE transmission to the brain at a given constant speed for analysis. We must consider and absorb that because it is oft forgot in application.

So sound needs an ear drum, or membrane of matter (a 'medium') to vibrate to be detected, agreed? If so, then if the medium is approaching the source, the frequency within the medium (once entered) has increased because the distance between wave peaks has decreased. The speed of propagation within the medium is CONSTANT (precisely as Fresnel's refractive index n is constant for any medium).

Ergo, though we 'measure' the 'observable' which is 'frequency' the frequency has only changed because the WAVELENGTH has changed from air to detector medium.

To REALLY now test your intellect to the limits, there is a second factor apart from relative media v which ALSO changes wavelength, which is relative media refractive index n. If the media are at rest with each other, then only n has an effect. If n is the same then only relative v has an effect.

This brings an entirely new understanding to science which, when consistently applied, resolves all the paradoxes. Unfortunately the familiarity of other assumptions still blinds most people to the true mechanism, so also to the solution.

Feist could not detect the returning signal without a detector made of matter. My figure 4 (sorry for typo, not 5) shows a close-up of the essential asymmetry of charge at the new medium surface electrons where there is lateral motion of the electrons with respect to the waves.

But ponder all the above carefully, and I'll respond fully to your other queries in a new post below.

Best wishes

Peter

Eckard

EB; "I do not understand why and how Snell's law is recovered. What is an incident medium? Isn't rather a wave possibly incident? Which KRrefraction experiments and which KRrefraction effect do you refer to? Do you really maintain that refraction matters in the Michelson Morley experiment?"

1. M&M. Yes. I've found that probably nothing matters more in unravelling the paradoxes than the process at refractive and reflective planes, and it's effects. I have a paper just accepted for publication discussing this and explaining the Kantor and B&B interferometer anomalies. The Maxwell near/far field 'Transition Zone' (TZ) fine structure at the surface of all matter controls the process. I's equivalent to Earth's EM 'shock' (see Kingsley essay Fig of 'Cluster' findings), and Feist's detector discussed above, where light changes speed by relative v to the new local medium c/n. Which is why it's found to be c in all media.

2. Kinetic Revere Refraction (KRR). ALL experiments find the same. (Ko, Chuang 1977, Mackay, Lakhtakia 2006). When observed from an incident frame, light at near normal incidence passing into a co-moving medium appears to be 'dragged' by the medium (Grzegorczyk 2006). Snel's Law is then famously violated by the relative media motion. But when the light 'path' in the medium is observed from at rest in the MEDIUM frame, it's found that the REAL path is REVERSED.

It is this acceleration by the observer into the new frame (and thus at rest in the propagating medium) that recovers Snel's Law from his new frame.

3. Now put the two together. In the bizarre 'non linear optics' effects Snel's Law is similarly violated at the TZ, Fresnel refraction becomes what is termed 'Fraunhofer refraction', and frequncy changes. The TZ position is wavelength dependent for aerial emitters, but within 1 micron of the surface of refractive and reflective planes.

The solution explains why moving mirrors reflect light at c wrt the incident medium NOT wrt the mirror. In fact the initial reflection off the protons is at c wrt the mirror, but the electrons form a magnetohydrodynamic shock (as Kinsgsly graph) with the 'air' side of the turbulent TZ at rest in the air frame, so re-emitting at c with respect to themselves, as may be expected. All then falls into place.

The 'incident medium is the 'approach' medium, which may be a near vacuum, but none the less the 'outer layer' TZ electrons are propagated in that frame (explaining photoionization) and re-emit in that frame.

When I test that model on the dozens of astronomical anomalies in existence, they all fall into place like a giant jigsaw puzzle; re-ionization, aberration, ellipticity, IFR, Pioneers/Flyby anomalies, galaxy recycling, lensing, kSZ effect, intrinsic rotation, singularities, quasar jets, frames last scattered, CMB anisotropic flow, curved space-time, the LT, twins paradox, the list is almost endless. My essay gives the simple kinetic logic. It may at first seem complex, but the only issue is unfamiliarity.

Do ask about or query any part.

best wishes

Peter