Societal Path Integral by Douglas Alexander Singleton

Hi Doug,

because you wrote "Also if one wanted a weightier question one could ask how one supplies clean drinking water to society" I found this article about drinking water it offers many kinds of contamination for consideration but does not mention, at all, that these sources of contamination can be avoided by collecting and drinking rainwater from roofs.Contaminants in drinking water In places that have a rainy season the water tank should ideally be large enough to contain all of the rain that falls on it, for use later in the year. The global groundwater depletion problem is also relevant Groundwater depletion a global problem,(click look inside)Instead of community bore holes or reservoirs open to contamination individual families could construct or buy their own covered rain water tank for private use. It could be under the house or nearby.

You wrote "The point of this mundane example of how to supply hot water to a society illustrates that when deciding on how to weight a particular societal path one needs to choose a set of criteria e.g. efficiency, convenience, safety, ease of implementation, etc. by which to judge any given path. This part of the societal path integral proposal is the most subjective and may lead to different groups choosing different paths as best or 'classical'"I think rainwater collection wins in efficiency, safety and ease of implementation in rural and suburban environments. The only problem being when it runs out.I don't have to pay any water rates, the rain is completely free. I think there may be the perception that the water is dirty because it has come off of the roof when it is less contaminated. I only have a rainwater tank, under the house. The water is filtered once for general use and a second time through a micro-filter for drinking.

Quote "The main thrust of this essay has been, that in so far as it is possible for humanity to steer a course, it can try to steer a best or 'classical' course by at first trying out, on a small scale, as many different paths as possible."You have also mentioned that some projects would not scale up. It is also the case that some projects only work if they are full scale. I don't know how it would be possible to try out on a small scale obtaining water from reservoirs, (such as this- Birmingham England is supplied from Wales,via an enormous endevour constructed during the industrial revolution Elan Valley water, Amazing!)( works brilliantly but is huge), for comparison with obtaining water from bore holes tapping ground water or rainwater collection or even desalination. It might be necessary to construct models to analyse the pros and cons and to compare and contrast, rather than being able to carry out a small scale trails of all of the possible projects.

A thought provoking question, Thank you, Georgina

Doug - Thanks for the QP primer and thoughtful essay. I was interested in your description of the process of small scale experiments and selection through a path integral process, and realized that it is similar to the mutation / selection / propagation process exhibited in evolutionary dynamics. The key, of course, as you point out, is the process by which options are chosen / fit to "the classical path." In evolutionary terms, this is analogous to selection in the fitness landscape. If you have a chance, I'd appreciate any comments on my essay The Tip of the Spear - we are dealing with a similar concept from different perspectives.

Cheers - George

Doug,

I replied (above and) on my blog but re-post it below for your convenience. I didn't explain entanglement; The only actual relationship required is that the common axis of the ('helical') paths of the particles is conserved. The equatorial plane of the sphere is then common to both. That's all that's needed. The Bloch sphere 4-vectors (setting angles) are than related ('entangled') allowing the classical cosine^2 curve. EM field electron 'spin flip' then completes the picture, entirely circumventing Bell's theorem. That should be a sensational 'outlying' finding, which if you followed your thesis would be noticed and analysed. Yes? Will you?

post.. ~

"Thank you. You didn't comment on the central point, the classical derivation of QM's predictions circumventing Bell's (tautological) theorem. I suggested that all will avoid even addressing this, because, despite your good words, current physics is based more in belief than the SciMethod. Good words then remain only words. Is that not a fair assessment? Just the predicted solution to the major anomalies found by Aspect and Weihs (first announced in last years essay discussing gauged helices) should make major lights flash and draw attention to the hypothesis. Do you guess it did so? No.

On specifics, I agree 'spin' has moved a long way since Pauli. I cited recent Planck institute and other work showing the recursive quantum helicity and spin/orbit gauges revealing the solution. I've seen Huang's work etc, but more important are the implications of invoking OAM. I read the Maldecina Suskind paper and find no evidence that wormholes are more than fantasy distracting from reality. (My joint paper on AGN's and galaxy evolution is accepted and in print using the same discrete field dynamics, but not in a major journal).

My classical derivation of entanglement (beyond local resonance) doesn't require spookyness. The simple mechanism of electron signal modulation, to the electron spin and rest frame (local) c, when consistently applied to both Relativity and QM removes the main barriers to theoretical convergence. SR's postulates are conserved in absolute time. Uncertainty retreats to the next quantum gauge down (see prev. 3 essays, all top 10 finishers but ignored in the judging!). The galaxy paper will also be ignored as it shows that modifications to the SM are required to produce the more coherent model.

The hypotheses is logical, predictive, empirically supported. Falsifiable but unfalsified. Is anybody in academia perceptive or courageous enough to actually evaluate it!? Even just review collaboration would be useful. All I'm interested in is advancement of understanding. However I suspect your own hypothesis may be pie in the sky because physics simply isn't done that way. Can you demonstrate that my analysis is flawed?

~

I think your idea is good Doug, but like most here it seems entirely unimplementable so little more than hot air. You've so far confirmed that to be the case with yours, so real and important discoveries remain ignored and subjugated.

Oh that your thesis could be viable. Or do you think it may be for the best that it's not? Perhaps if man really understood more that the "1,000th of 1%" (AE) he almost does now he may become too dangerous!?

Best wishes

Peter

I think you're close to identifying the problem with the voting design, Doug. It's too isolated from its proper purpose = to decide a fair evaluation for each essay. For this, it would be better if peers rated the evaluations, not the essays. Picture an evaluation as a short, written review and (in summary) a numeric score, perhaps derived from a general rubric. The job of the peers would then be to compose, discuss and rate these in order to discover the single best evaluation of the essay, which alone would determine its "community" score. - Mike

PS - If we compose and rate the alternative evaluations dynamically, then it's kind of like quantum path selection, as you describe it.

Dear Douglas,

I think we may have to work out for the transformation of a path integral in Corpuscularianism into three definite line integrals in notation with three eigen-rotational states of a string-natter segment, while in accordance with the Principle of stationary action in calculus of variations.

Thus with this aspect, the probability of Societal steering in the right path may be more definitive while we work on a holarchial approach with the society.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Doug,

My anon reply to your anon post on mine is below, with attachments. I think nobody really understand all the spooky issues as, just like SR, there's a genuine failure of logic somewhere.;;

~

"Doug,

It took me a few years too. What Bell does is 'limit' the inequalities possible from random variables, so although the experimental results vary from QM (as they're subjective) they actually exceed the QM violations. The non subjective mechanism which the experiment models reproduces the QM (Cos^2) predictions precisely.

I think we've exposed the real problem which your proposals just stop short of addressing; If we're to try different viewpoints, so study 'outlying' propositions, then we can't judge them how we do now, which is against current doctrine. We must 'step back', disengage from our assumptions and return to fundamentals and 1st principles. So away from Bell/CHSH, right back to Bohr, Solvay and EPS.

Bohr said only 'what we can say' about particles; "superposed states collapse to singlet states on measurement". He never endowed that with any particular physical reality. Bell unknowingly did. My description agrees with Bohr and findings, but not what Bell assumed, i.e. If we can only measure the 'spin' direction of one hemisphere at a time we've satisfied Bohr, even if the other hemisphere spins the other way. Now add some modern joined-up-science; electron spin flip and angular momentum transfer and the jigsaw puzzle pieces simply all slot together; If we flip the DETECTOR electron spins round ('preparation') then the OPPOSITE photomultiplier will click!

The rest is simple geometry; The circumference at any hemisphere changes by the cosine of the angle with the equatorial plane (thus the 'cones' in the Bloch sphere). Entanglement is simply the fact that the equatorial planes are common, because they're orthogonal to the spin axis which is the propagation axis.

Now that answer is so beautifully simple (Occam) that it can't be even countenanced by those distracted By Bell and CHSH and using those to try to solve the puzzle. Though fully falsifiable, as you say, the experimenters are focussed elsewhere. I don't even get responses to Emails! Can you now help there?

So the EPR paradox is resolved without FTL or spookyness. And what's more, and even more shocking, the fundamental recognition of EM field electron absorption and re-emission allows SR to take an equal step towards QM with the simple definition that all re-emissions are at c in the rest frame of each electron. That is a eureka moment well beyond the brain of anybody stuck within present doctrinal 'brackets'.

The tests and proof are in my last 3 essays, but can we suspend reliance on current doctrine and beliefs long enough to study it? Not yet it seems. If your essay suggests we should work that way, and can implement that new view, then I suggest it's of inestimable value!

Peter

PS. I attach the 'classroom experiment' kit below, also a fig from a recent Planck Inst. finding agreeing the 'spin/orbit' - 'spin within spin' model."

~

PAttachment #1: 8_Kit._FIG_5.jpgAttachment #2: 1_Electron_Model_Max_Planck_inst..jpg

It's a pleasure to trade notes because we agree on so much that our differences in perspective are all the more interesting. We agree on the gross architecture of "try different approaches". We also agree on the validating function of the selector: how it reaches overhead of the subject, crane-like, so to speak, and picks out the best path without subjective interference. We also agree on the value of giving this crane access to a selection criterion that's objective. But I think you sometimes picture a selector-crane that's objective in itself, where I always picture one that's inter-subjective. I offer two points to help tease out this difference:

(1) The selector in nature's path integral might be objective or subjective, depending on one's vantage. It's an objective selector from our vantage because it functions out there in the objective world of nature, independent of us. But from nature's own vantage, it's subjective in that it operates on nature herself.

(2) Science is an example of an inter-subjective path selector. The modern scientist does tend to employ the objective criterion of natural observation in selecting his path (theory), but it's always by his own choice that he does so. He also employs other criteria that are less objective (preferring simpler theories, trusted sources, etc.) which he weighs and balances against each other. Finally he selects his own favoured theory-path from among those on offer. All of this he does in the context of intercommunications in a public of peers where it's generally known which methods and theory-paths are favoured, and by who. So general relativity is a selected theory-path in science, for example, just because we observe that scientists have generally selected it. This public of scientists is the overhead selector-crane that, by and large, is removed from subjective interference. This is what I mean by an inter-subjective path selector. Even if it gave full weight to the strong objective citerion of empirical evidence, still the path selector of science would not be objective in itself. Always the subject-as-scientist remains free and sovereign, so to speak, in the realm of science.

If we followed the example of science, then, the path integral of future steering would be an inter-subjective humanity of peers with discretionary access to the strongest possible objective criteria. (It's been a while since I read your essay, so I may just be reiterating your own thesis in a round-about way. But I get it mostly from Habermas, who I cite in my own essay.) - Mike

Doug,

Again I replied to your interesting post on mine as below. We seem to agree then that words are quite powerless compared to action;

~

Thanks. Your findings closely fit mine. I have two '4th tier' acceptances from a score of submissions. I estimated penetration by ~2020 so I am an optimist - but tenacious. One referee rejected a paper as it identified 'quasar era' peaks from data. Within 3 months others noticed. Now they're ubiquitous, but still not coherently interpreted! 'Unfair' is certainly one of many valid descriptions! I burnt my bridges with maths last years essay, generalizing Godel to show maths as just 'good approximation'!

Back to physics (or rather 'nature', which is a bit different!) My model does cover 'photons' and all spin ½ cases, indeed even just a wavefront! The electrons and 'flip' discussed are the detector (polariser/filter) EM field electrons. The setting rotates and flips their orientation, so the interaction 'finding' is then reversed. There are then 2 ways of looking at it subject to the experiment; The electron reverses the photon spin. Or we could just consider the photomultipliers. If one is set clockwise, one anti, and both are reversed, then the OTHER one will click! But we still get random 50:50 up/down.

In Bohm's terms; The fact that a spinning body (i.e. Earth) has TWO hemispheres still means that total spin (between two opposite planets) = 0. Linear momentum conservation ensures they're found opposite if not rotated, but we CAN rotate Earth's poles on the y or z axis while CONSERVING it's spin angular momentum!! that is a MASSIVELY important new realisation (think of a gyroscope - we can rotate it's axis as it spins). So what was found clockwise from point A is now found anticlockwise. Anybody can repeat that experiment for twopence! Bell made the same error; excluding that valid physical description of "collapse to a singlet state on measurement".

Not only is classical QM really that simple, but the same interaction process with c being measured in the centre of mass frame of each electron, then constrains our common interpretation of SR's postulates to make them genuinely local and consistent with the QM description = Unification. That may be considered 'ambitious' but it simply is what it is. I can't help it. You may have thought a result like that would turn anybodies head! Apparently it does. It makes the indoctrinated and narrow visioned turn and look away!

I suspect what it needs is a 'list' of authors, mostly with 'credentials' and with various specialisms to overcome editor/reviewer fear. That or a 'superstar' sponsor. What thinks thee?"

~

I agree that an electron experiment would be revealing, but more difficult and not needed as photon/electron interaction is fine.

I'm working with my spade to move the mountain. It's moving already and there are spades for for all. Who'll help with action not words?

Peter

Best wishes

Peter

Thanks for the interesting exchange, Doug. And thanks again for reviewing my own essay. I'll be rating yours (along with the others on my review list) some time between now and May 30. All the best, and bye for now, - Mike

Hi Doug

Congrats, this is indeed an intriguing Essay. Here are my comments/questions:

1) I think you implicitly dedicated this work to Richard Feynman.

2) Has Kardashev's classification of civilizations any link with stellar classification? I suspect this because he was an astronomer.

3) I find the "Historical Path Integral" by James Burke which starts from the standardization of precious metals till nuclear weapons and energy very enlightening for clarifying what you point out in your Essay.

4) I agree with you that number of publications and citations are not great measures of actual scientific progress.

5) You emphasize that deciding on how to weight a particular societal path is very subjective and may lead to different groups choosing different paths as best or "classical". Is this the analogous of the probabilistic behavior of quantum mechanics in your nice metaphor?

6) I appreciated a lot the subtle irony that you used in some points of your Essay, in particular in the last discussion concerning the conflict between the non-scientific "cherry picking" of data which helps politician get re-elected and the scientific faceless data which, although being informative, will not help politicians get re-elected.

You wrote an very enjoyable Essay. I am going to give you an high score.

I wish you all the best in the Contest.

Cheers,

Ch.