Tom:

Karl Popper demanded more than just falsifiability, in order for a theory to be scientific, rather than pseudo-scientific. He stated that "Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions." In other words, low risk predictions, like predicting that "someone" will eventually win a big lottery, count for nothing. On the other hand, predicting the exact name of the winner, the exact amount won, the winning number etc., would be a very high risk prediction.

Predicting that there are many more than three spatial dimensions (string theory), or multiple universes (cosmology), coupled to the additional prediction that you will not be able to detect such things, any time soon, is a very low risk prediction. Hence, they are pseudo-science; something that gives the appearance of being scientific, but is not. On the other hand, predicting that, next Tuesday, two additional dimensions will suddenly appear, and the universe will henceforth have five, obvious spatial dimensions, would be a very high risk prediction.

Paul and John:

Waves and wave-functions are superfluous to QM. The probability function can be determined "in reality" without having to first determine any wave-function. Filter-banks can be constructed that are mathematically, but not physically, equivalent to the Fourier Transform based wave-functions. They simply function as a "histogrammer", of input particles counts, which is why it correlates perfectly with "probability".

Rob McEachern

Paul,

There has been a lack of differentiation between object thing with atomic structure, EM data reflected or emitted from the object, and output image which is an observed likeness of the object. Einstein's relativity -was- not about appearances but it -has to be- about appearances, to be compatible with quantum mechanics and to overcome all of the temporal paradoxes i.e. to make them perfectly logical and to be expected rather than somewhat counter-intuitive and difficult to accept as a real phenomena.I am giving an interpretation of the theory that works better for physic, without altering the mathematics. Returning to Einstein's exact words does not help physics to progress beyond the development of the theory that Einstein achieved. There do have to be changes to how it is thought about but that is not the same as declaring the theory wrong. It makes useful predictions about what will be observed.

Re your second paragraph. I refer you back to the diagram in my essay , which you have previously seen. The output, Image reality, does not feedback directly to the Object reality. Though memories are formed and behaviour, informed by the image reality output generated from external input, or internal memory, could feed back to the external object reality, affecting the material world. Which might also include the making of physical recordings of events.

Hi Henk,

RE: "I am sorry tot say, but people, who can solve the problems about all the indistinctness that surrounds reality, do not need help from anybody else. So why will they visit the site of FQXi and start a discussion with one of us? "

Very much they need help from anybody else. Certain I am they cannot solve.

Rob,

"Filter-banks can be constructed that are mathematically, but not physically, equivalent to the Fourier Transform based wave-functions. They simply function as a "histogrammer", of input particles counts, which is why it correlates perfectly with "probability"."

It seems to me that whenever they are detected as "particles" is when they are stopped, like a filter-bank. When they are still moving, as through the slits, they are waves. If light travels as a wave and only collapses to a particle/quantum, as it is absorbed/stopped, wouldn't this affect theory? Cosmic redshift is based on the assumption light travels for billions of lightyears as a point particle, but what if it really spreads out as a wave and the absorption is a sample of the wave front? There might be other explanations for redshift, than recession. I even devised one for my Analog vs.Digital contest entry;

" As the light from a star expands out to fill the volume around it, it necessarily grows

more diffuse, as the same amount of energy must cover ever more volume. The further

away that star is, the smaller it appears and the fainter its light gets. Since the smallest

measurable quantity of light we can detect is what will trip that electron, eventually it

reaches the point that barely enough is reaching our detectors to even trip one atom on

the detector. Beyond that and the duration between the detections start getting further

apart, so that the resulting wave pattern created by the continuing process of measuring

these photons will have longer wavelengths.

A possible analogy would be a running faucet. When it is fully open, the water runs in a

constant stream and as we start to close it, the stream is reduced and becomes smaller

in diameter. Eventually we reach the point there isn't enough water to maintain the

stream and the faucet is just dripping water. Since it is the surface tension of water, vs.

the force of gravity that determines the size of water droplets, these drops remain the

same size and diameter, as we continue to tighten the faucet, but the reduction in the

flow rate causes the time between each drip to grow longer. If we were to construct a

wave pattern from this process, it would get progressively longer.

So how does this compare to redshift? Up to a certain distance, the light is like the

constant running water and while it doesn't start to redshift, the amount is less and

diameter gets smaller. Eventually it reaches that point where only the minimum amount

of light can be detected and after that, redshift starts to set in. Which is basically what

we see in the universe, as up through the closer galaxies, there is no measurable

redshift, but outside this local group, it gets proportionally greater with distance."

John,

It must be kept in mind that classical, all waves ARE particles. Sound waves are nothing more than air molecules (particles) pushing each other around in a highly correlated fashion. Water waves are nothing more that water molecules (particles) pushing each other around in a highly correlated fashion. Elastic waves are molecules (particles) in solids, pushing each other around in a highly correlated fashion.

In other words, classically, waves are merely an emergent phenomenon, that manifests itself (emerges) as a result of the correlations between individual particle movements.

It takes no great leap of the imagination, to hypothesize that light might be the same sort of thing - particles (photons) pushing each other around in a highly correlated fashion.

Just as an observer may choose to look at the individual trees, or may choose to look at the forest, an observer can also choose to look at the particles making up a wave, or may choose to look at (measure) the wave. But it is the observer's choice, not the entity being observed, that decides what aspect of these entities is to be observed or measured. The entity is neither and both. It is the observer that forces it to appear one way or the other.

Rob McEachern

Constantinos

"You think real knowledge exists independently of mind"

No. What we can know, as opposed to believe, exists independently. We receive a physical input, which is then processed within the sentient organism. The physical nature of what was received, and what caused it, are what physics is analysing (which I label physical existence-the closed system).

There are two issues with this process:

-the physical processes involved are not perfect. Whilst what is received is physically existent of itself, from the perspective of the sensory systems, it is a representation of the existential reality. In other words, certain physically existent phenomena have acquired a functional role with evolution. These phenomena have physical properties which impede fulfilment of that role to perfection. Also there are the limitations of the sensory systems themselves. So, validated direct experience has to be supplemented in certain circumstances with properly effected hypothesis. But this is not acquiring knowledge of what we cannot know, it is acquiring knowledge of what we could have known had the systems and processes involved been perfect.

-the subsequent processing of what was physically received enables the sentient organism to enhance it. This was my point about the 'interference' aspect of thinking.

The point about a closed system is what defines that. The only absolute reference there can be is the factor which determines inclusivity. In the context of existence the absolute reference is detectability (either actual or properly hypothesised). The absolute reference is 'of ', or 'not of' (proven to be experienceable/not so). Every statement has the same logical form, ie a comparison to establish difference, which necessitates a reference. But, an absolute extrinsic reference is never available, because that can only ever be the possibility of an alternative, ie if it 'is', then by definition it is not extrinsic. That is, given A (where A is 'is'), there is always the logical possibility of not-A, however, this cannot be defined from within A, as a reference from within not-A is required for that, which is not possible. So all that can be defined is A, from within A, and that that is not not-A. But not what not-A is. The corollary of this is that 'is' (A) must be definitive in itself (ie a closed system), and therefore possible to define, albeit only from within. We are trapped in an existentially closed system, and the physical processes which effect that are identifiable.

I will read the essays you highlight, but as above, would indicate now that the quote is incorrect, because you have confused metaphysical possibilities, with the form of existence which we can know. And in respect of your other reference, I will say, for now, my point about physically existent states is not metaphysical. We know two fundamental characteristics of existence as it is knowable to us: 1) it exists independently, 2) it alters. This means it must be existential sequence. To be existent, as knowable to us, involves a definitive physically existent state, which is then superseded by another.

Paul

Anonymousse

You said "let's leave it". But then come back with a comment and "But I'm not going to do that here". There is some double negative in your post, so I am not quite sure what you are for or against. There may be "very specific reasons" and "mathematical clues" for whatever is your stance, but such justification is not necessary for what I am stating.

We know that the form of existence knowable to us (ie as opposed to any belief we can create) has two fundamental characteristics:

-what occurs, does so, independently of the processes which detect it

-it involves difference, ie comparison of physical inputs received reveals difference, and therefore that there is change/alteration.

This means that the physical existence we can know is existential sequence. The entirety of whatever comprises it can only exist within that sequence in one definitive physically existent state at a time, as the predecessor must cease to exist so that the successor can exist. In sum: to be physically existent, by definition, entails no form of change or indefiniteness in whatever is existent at any given time. Physical existence constitutes a specific physically existent state. And therefore, physical existence is a spatial phenomenon, which alters over time.

Paul

Georgina

"Einstein's relativity -was- not about appearances but it -has to be- about appearances, to be compatible with quantum mechanics and to overcome all of the temporal paradoxes"

Er, if the underlying conception is wrong, why do the objectives of the theory have to be altered from what the creator intended in order to make it right. Furthermore, why does this process have to be done in such a way that it then accords with other theories, which could also be wrong, albeit for different reasons?

"Returning to Einstein's exact words does not help physics to progress beyond the development of the theory that Einstein achieved"

!! It would help, for a start, to establish that his relativity concept was incorrect, rather than this torturous process of making it work by changing the goalposts. Which I suggest, would be of considerable help to physics.

Paul

JHohn

What is your point? The past is what was physically existent but has been superseded. Assuming measurements were effected properly, then they will be an accurate depiction of what occurred, but they are not physically existent. Or to be more precise, they are, but only as ink/paper/whatever.

Paul

Rob

OK, but my point was simpler than that (whilst backing up your comment), but probably all the more decisive for it. What physically corresponds with these concepts of wave, collapse, observation? If people tried to address that fundamental point, then they would find the only thing that collapses is the metaphysical theory currently masquerading as a theory about physical existence.

Paul

Read the standard view of time, coming out of SR. It has no change, no alteration. You and I both disagree with it, but as I'vr said, if you can't refer to it, then it's not worth discussing your disagreement with it, and I won't. For a century many of the world's thinkers have believed that what you describe is an illusion. For a few decades it has been seen as a psychological illusion. See the work of the philosopher Huw Price for instance, as in this introduction to his book on time:

http://prce.hu/w/TAAP.html

He argues that the difference between past and future is a result of our human perspective only. You can't talk about this stuff in a vacuum, you simply have to refer to existing work on it. Good luck on your reading holiday. I will be the waiter in the hotel, but ignore me.

Constantinos

For some reason I could not copy from your essay, but hopefully you can follow what I am alluding to in it.

The use of any representational device is not inherently metaphysical. And by the same logic, measurement and mathematical identity is not inherently non metaphysical. Whether something is a truism/tautological is also irrelevant, per se.

The key issue, and the fundamental flaw in your argument since you do not define it, is what can constitute physical existence, for us. As once that is done, then the mechanisms used to discern/represent it can be tested for validity. That is, what is the form of existence which we can know, why is this, and how can this physically exist? Whether there are alternatives is irrelevant, because we cannot know them. Science being concerned with addressing the knowable.

Failure to define this, and differentiate it from what are otherwise metaphysical possibilities, is the underlying problem with physics. In the absence of a definitive, proven base at to what constitutes existence, for us, there is no reference for validity and metaphysical presumptions can creep in, with the analysis becoming self fulfilling. Especially when the subject matter is complex, ie it is beyond direct experienceability. Though even when direct experience can contradict what is actually a metaphysical assertion, adherence to the theory can be so strong that arguments, which are effectively a form of inverted snobbery, such as 'counter intuitiveness proves it to be true', are deployed.

One of the fundamental mistakes in physics is that it has confused "object" with "observation" (your words). My words would be physically existent state, and physically existent state received which represents that. In the context of sight, for example, we receive a physical effect in photons (aka light) which represents what physically occurred. Failure to differentiate these, results in a number of misconceptions about physical reality, most notably the use of c in a number of explanations/equations concerning physical existence, whereas in fact, its relevance is only in the photon based representation of that. c may be the speed limit of light, but that does not mean that some aspect(s) of physical existence does not alter at a faster rate. What has the speed at which an effect in photons travel got to do with the physically existent phenomenon known as energy? Etc, etc.

I am not sure how one has a time integral of energy. What, in terms of physical existence, is energy? And hence at what rate is it altering, and indeed what is altering and why. Timing is the rating of alteration, the physical occurrence is alteration, ie sequence of different physically existent states. Another way of putting this is that nothing distributes itself in space and time, as if these have a physical existence. Something occurs in a spatial relationship with something else, at the same time. Alteration then occurs, over time. And all those alterations may or may not be ultimately a function of energy. I do not know. Your bottom line (I think) being that energy if the fundamental driver in physical existence (ie that is how I interpret the paragraph-page 6-which states how a number of definitions can be derived).

Light is just a moving physical entity. Calibration of that requires, as with any calibration, a reference so that comparison can be made and difference identified. And to ensure comparability of measurements, that reference must be utilised throughout. Its utilisation in observation is irrelevant to this. How light moves, at what speed, and what affects it, etc, is one set of issues. But none of these affect SR, relativity, or physical existence. The supposed dichotomy between constancy and light speed is a red herring. Because light is not existence, and Einstein did not use light anyway. He called it light, but calling a cathedral a cow does not make it so. He had no observational light as he conflated light reality and existential reality, it was just a constant, invoked in order to measure duration and distance (and even then he could not do that properly because he neither understood the true nature of distance or how timing actually works). In simple terminology, explaining light does not explain physical existence.

Paul

Constantinos

Re your Planck essay. I do not have the background to comment specifically. I do seem to remember coming to the conclusion that whilst in principle this might be a correct notion, since again there was a failure to differentiate physical existence from the light based representation of it, then this concept refers to features of the physical phenomenon associated with light, not existential existence. Does that 'ring a bell'.

I do notice a comment on continuous/discrete. Physical existence must be discrete. Otherwise, how does it physically exist, what existed and then altered to something different? Continuousness, in the context of physical existence, results in no change, there is just one physical state which persists in existence. And that is obviously not what is happening. Again, the real point here being, once what constitutes physical existence is established, then these supposed problems, vanish.

"Planck's Formula as originally derived describes what physically happens at the source" Does it, or does it relate to light?

"There exists a time-dependent local representation of energy" How does this occur, physically, and what is the import of this statement, since by definition, anything that physically exists does so in a specific physically existent state, at a specific time and in a specific spatial location? Physical existence does not involve any vagueness or duplicity, the real problem is in our inability to decompose it to its existential level, and then instead of admitting so, attributing physical existence with strange and mysterious qualities which it does not have.

Paul

Anonymous (feb 23, 01:24)

Ok, I suppose you will discuss "the accidental universe" ;-))

In my opinion, the publication "the accidental universe" is interesting. It motivates strongly to think it over. And after that: I will forget it immediately... Sorry, I feel myself unable to discuss a hypothesis that lacks so many foundations. Questions that need to be solved before someone "can make his point" by publishing this hypothesis.

Henk

Rob,

Something to keep in mind is that light has no internal structure, since to form it would require internal activity and at c, this is all washed out, since the internal activity and velocity would exceed c. Particles are a form of internal structure and quite possible at less then c, like for molecules. So rather than light being a bunch of point particles, think of it as one giant, entangled, expanding particle.

Besides the whole wave traveling through particles really doesn't make sense in this context. Consider that with water, the wave travels outward, but the particles only go up and down, as it goes by. For light there is no propagating medium, no ether, no sea of particles through which the wave passes. The assumption then becomes light is these little magical particles that disappear from the source and reappear when received. Then you have the whole expanding universe thing, since they can only be redshifted by recession. If in fact light expands from the source, this would certainly "tire" it.

Here is an interesting interview with Carver Mead and his experiences with quanta;

"So how did Bohr and the others come to think of nature as ultimately random, discontinuous?

They took the limitations of their cumbersome experiments as evidence for the nature of reality. Using the crude equipment of the early twentieth century, it's amazing that physicists could get any significant results at all. So I have enormous respect for the people who were able to discern anything profound from these experiments. If they had known about the coherent quantum systems that are commonplace today, they wouldn't have thought of using statistics as the foundation for physics.

Statistics in this sense means what?

That an electron is either here, or there, or some other place, and all you can know is the probability that it is in one place or the other. Bohr ended up saying that the only statements you can make at the fundamental level are statistical. You cannot grasp the reality itself, only probabilities related to it. They really, really, wanted to have the last word, and the only word they had was statistical. So they made their limitations the last word, saying, "Okay, the only knowledge that there is down deed is statistical knowledge. That's all we can know." That's a very dangerous thing to say. It is always possible to gain a deeper understanding as time progresses. But they carried the day.

What about Schrodinger? Back in the 1920s, didn't he say something like what you are saying now?

That's right. He felt that he could develop a wave theory of the electron that could explain how all this worked. But Bohr was more into "principles": the uncertainty principle, the exclusion principle--this, that, and the other. He was very much into the postulational mode. But Schrodinger thought that a continuum theory of the electron could be successful. So he went to Copenhagen to work with Bohr. He felt that it was a matter of getting a "political" consensus; you know, this is a historic thing that is happening. But whenever Schrodinger tried to talk, Bohr would raise his voice and bring up all these counter-examples. Basically he shouted him down."

"So early on you knew that electrons were real.

The electrons were real, the voltages were real, the phase of the sine-wave was real, the current was real. These were real things. They were just as real as the water going down through the pipes. You listen to the technology, and you know that these things are totally real, and totally intuitive.

But they're also waves, right? Then what are they waving in?

It's interesting, isn't it? That has hung people up ever since the time of Clerk Maxwell, and it's the missing piece of intuition that we need to develop in young people. The electron isn't the disturbance of something else. It is its own thing. The electron is the thing that's wiggling, and the wave is the electron. It is its own medium. You don't need something for it to be in, because if you did it would be buffeted about and all messed up. So the only pure way to have a wave is for it to be its own medium. The electron isn't something that has a fixed physical shape. Waves propagate outwards, and they can be large or small. That's what waves do.

So how big is an electron?

It expands to fit the container it's in. That may be a positive charge that's attracting it--a hydrogen atom--or the walls of a conductor. A piece of wire is a container for electrons. They simply fill out the piece of wire. That's what all waves do. If you try to gather them into a smaller space, the energy level goes up. That's what these Copenhagen guys call the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. But there's nothing uncertain about it. It's just a property of waves. Confine them, and you have more wavelengths in a given space, and that means a higher frequency and higher energy. But a quantum wave also tends to go to the state of lowest energy, so it will expand as long as you let it. You can make an electron that's ten feet across, there's no problem with that. It's its own medium, right? And it gets to be less and less dense as you let it expand. People regularly do experiments with neutrons that are a foot across.

A ten-foot electron! Amazing

It could be a mile. The electrons in my superconducting magnet are that long.

A mile-long electron! That alters our picture of the world--most people's minds think about atoms as tiny solar systems.

Right, that's what I was brought up on-this little grain of something. Now it's true that if you take a proton and you put it together with an electron, you get something that we call a hydrogen atom. But what that is, in fact, is a self-consistent solution of the two waves interacting with each other. They want to be close together because one's positive and the other is negative, and when they get closer that makes the energy lower. But if they get too close they wiggle too much and that makes the energy higher. So there's a place where they are just right, and that's what determines the size of the hydrogen atom. And that optimum is a self-consistent solution of the Schrodinger equation.

So much for the idea of the quantum world as microscopic...

Bohr and his followers had this notion that you got to the quantum world only when things were very small. Well that's because the only thing they knew that exhibited quantum characteristics was an atom. They said, "Well, an atom is so small, we'll never see one." Now, it turns out, people have put atoms in cavities and you can see a single atom perfectly well. That experiment has been done many times now. In fact, if you do it properly, you can make atoms totally coherent. Do that with a lot of them, and you get Bose-Einstein condensate--a bunch of atoms in phase that act like one big matter wave. It was first demonstrated in 1995 by Eric Cornell and Carl Wieman in Colorado."

Rob,

I'm not here to debate Karl Popper's philosophy, but your comprehension of it is superficial.

To counterexample your claim about "confirmations," Popper allowed that no theory is confirmed (verified) -- it was a watershed moment when he reversed himself on Darwin's theory of common ancestry, noting that because it is falsifiable over many other disciplines, it qualifies as a theory of science and stands as a unifying theory of biology. The same applies to string theory and other unfalsified foundational theories in physics.

To