Lev, am I missing something? The link says no such page exists. The date (1947) could be right. I don't know, it was just a silly thing, a fleeting novelty I think.

Here it is again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_After_Time_(1947_song)

Hello Tom,

Just to share a few words of encouragement essay...

And I like that part of starting Schrödinger's experiment with a

dead cat! Never had that before.

Since superposition of a dead/alive cat has been advocated, I wonder whether dead cats can also be resurrected by Quantum measurement and Participatory observers since the probability of 'wave function' collapsing and cat in alive state is not zero.

Certainly, a riddle/ gedanken experimenten for Quantum mechanics and Quantum computing with Qbits to resolve.

You may wish to evaluate my essay, if you get the time. Criticism and disproof of my arguments are particularly welcome.

Regards,

Akinbo

    Hi Akinbo,

    Thanks for reading and commenting. You write, " ... I wonder whether dead cats can also be resurrected by Quantum measurement and Participatory observers ..."

    Sure they can, in infinite time. Frank Tipler examined this consequence thoroughly in *The Physics of Immortality.* All experiments, however, are conducted in finite time. Without the ability to make closed judgments, we really know nothing at all in any objective way.

    "... since the probability of 'wave function' collapsing and cat in alive state is not zero."

    If the probability of wave function collapse is zero, however, there is also zero probability that the cat exists either in superposition or in a perpetual state of "death." This is the principle (noncollapse) that supports Everett's many worlds interpretation of quantum theory -- I agree with Hawking's purported opinion that Everett's interpretation is trivially true, because it follows from what we do know, objectively, of quantum mechanical results, without adding the mysticism of entanglement, superposition and nonlocality.

    I'll read and comment on your essay when I can.

    Best,

    Tom

    4 days later

    Tom,

    The density and regularity of pleasant surprises was shocking and far greater than expectations, but I commend your deep and careful thought and logic as much as the consistent conclusions and clarity of style.

    But is it you whose evolved your views or just me Tom? Or perhaps it's 'just my magination running away with me', but the consistency of our conclusions, if from entirely different approaches, is not something I expected at all. There were a few nice original surprises of content too. 'It' was even a 'bit' like opening presents for all at Christmas, but with some for me too. Ever played Santa before?

    I also found the content eminently more readable than in previous years, but the nicest part, though I know we shouldn't be judging on such grounds, is that I could find nothing to actually dispute. Details perhaps, ..but life's far too short! (I was even blogging recently in APS (Theo.Phys) suggesting annihilation without radiation!)

    I do hope you find you can say the same of my essay, a little more (too?) dense perhaps in constructing an ontology to derive the same result. It's certainly written in a different dialect, but the world is locally real. You'll find Bill McHarris also agrees. I look forward to your always critical review and comment. Mind you, ..I'm now far less sure you'll object and reject so much!

    Congratulations on yours, and the genuinely important 'findings' you present. I hope and expect you to achieve a far higher place this year which, unless I've horribly misread it, will be richly deserved.

    very best wishes

    Peter

      Hi Peter,

      You silver tongued devil! :-)

      Actually, it's Lucien Hardy who's responsible for the idea of particle-antiparticle interaction without annihilation.

      The reason I didn't reference him in my essay is that Hardy's is a probabilistic argument, and I don't grok the measurement process. However, it seems to assume discrete particles, while my continuous function model (it from bit in one direction and bit from it in the orthogonal direction) assumes no particles in a discrete state, only conservation of angular momentum potentially scalable to infinity.

      Of course, I will read and comment on your essay as soon as I can. It will be fun, as always.

      Best,

      Tom

      Lev,

      Okay, I got to the link. No, the song I'm talking about is not the famous standard. It's just a continuous repeating of

      Time after time after time after time after time after time after time ...

      After time after time after time.

      (refrain)

      Time after time

      After time after time after time.

      :-)

      Hi Tom,

      I found the essay excellent, and I will have some comments. But since you talk about a condensate in the primordial universe I wanted to alert you to the essay of Royce Haynes, whose Zero K Big Bang model deserves inspection. Of course; he treats the bosonic case, where you are talking about a fermionic condensate.

      I first heard about a fermionic condensate from Phil Mannheim at CCC-2, in relation to his conformal quantum gravity, and Gerard 't Hooft commented about this work, in his recent F of P article calling for theories of particle Physics with no adjusting parameters put in by hand. Tony Smith also likes the idea of a fermionic condensate, but his reasoning is somewhat unclear to me. Your paper, on the other hand, makes a good case for why a fermionic condensate is a good spacetime model.

      More later,

      Jonathan

        Hello again,

        You may also find of great interest the essay of Colin Walker about quaternion spectra, and related topics.

        All the Best,

        Jonathan

        Hi Tom,

        I rated your essay. Much of it was over my head. I rated it according to how much it agreed with my world view. I appreciated the references to I Ching and Tarot. You do have this radiance of "enlightenment", this spiritual intelligent quality that comes through your words and arguments. I appreciate that you see that QM is about available STATES for quantum particles.

        On the down side, you (and most of the physics community) are focusing too much on the BIT, not enough on the IT. It's an ethereal IT, not a mathematical IT. It's an IT that you can't observe directly, yet this IT has intrinsic characteristics of the physics constants c, h, permittivity/permeability. The physics community is, overall, avoiding this distinction like the plague.

        On the brighter side, I gave you a score much higher than 1. :)

          Thanks, Jason! That's very kind of you.

          I'm not a physicist, though most of my research is at the intersection of physics and mathematics -- the origin of an organic continuum, as I like to call it.

          I regret that you didn't take away from the essay that it's only the continuum of IT that enables mathematics constructed of BITs. I could have been clearer.

          All best wishes,

          Tom

          Hi Tom,

          I'm trying to gleen what you mean by, "it's only the continuum of IT that enables mathematics constructed of BITs." The more I think about it, the more I see that the IT is literally beyond human understanding, beyond our ability to measure and interact with. Given this state of affairs that the physics community doesn't know what the IT is, I feel emboldened in believing some of the new age, occult teachings about spirits, a spirit world, astral planes, and etheric planes. Basically, since physics constants are the result of some invisible thing beyond human understanding, why can't there be other kinds of invisible things that would fall under the category of occultism?

          Hi Jason,

          "The more I think about it, the more I see that the IT is literally beyond human understanding, beyond our ability to measure and interact with."

          Then IT doesn't have anything to do with physics, does it? You can't have it both ways -- a non-interacting something we can't possibly understand, and a physical phenomenon.

          Tom

          Hi Tom,

          "Then IT doesn't have anything to do with physics, does it? You can't have it both ways -- a non-interacting something we can't possibly understand, and a physical phenomenon."

          Well, such an IT is going to have characteristics and mechanisms that set the physics constants c, h, G, etc. In that sense, it still is physics. One day, we'll have to try to figure out how to change those values, particularly c and G, if we ever hope to travel faster than c.

          It is still my contention that wave-function phenomena is part of the IT and part of consciousness as well. Neurons firing in sync is supposed to cause consciousness. More like neurons firing in sync allows consciousness to experience the brain and nervous system, as if consciousness was an all pervading field that can slip into the physical universe through the brain, using the brain as a conduit. This is nature, but not 21st century physics.

          Mr. Ray,

          really, I enjoyed Your work. Symmetry breaking in sub-nuclear mechanisms.

          Positions that I share. I, in my essay I went a little further and I would appreciate an opinion.

          I greet You cordially.

            Thomas,

            "We tend to think that only numerical implementation is a precise fit to "reality," and more" scientific" because it is constrained by the rules of arithmetic -- we neglect the fact that we created the (self consistent) rules of

            arithmetic, as surely as generations of shamans and intelligentsia created the

            self.."

            

            In non-mathematical and more simplistic terms my "It's Good to be the King," attributes the Anthropic Principle to man's anthropomorphic tendencies, somewhat akin to building our own rules of math. I am impressed with your open realization that human subjectivity could be involved with our theories and beliefs.

            A good read, having the complete absorption of a black hole's matter, along with its density, without the evaporation some pose.

            Jim

              Dear Thomas,

              I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

              Regards and good luck in the contest,

              Sreenath BN.

              http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

                Hello again Jason,

                I'm afraid that if you mix your belief system with science, you're going to be disappointed in the limitations of both.

                The physical constants don't need a creator; they are merely measured values that we insert into theories to make sense of the numbers. There's no controversy about where they come from; we don't base our scientific conclusions of the nature of reality either on what we measure or on what we believe nature to be. We base our conclusions on correspondence between the theories we construct and the measurements those theories predict.

                Best,

                Tom