This is no joke! by Stefan Weckbach

Stefan,

I support of your position that suggestions that are "utopia-like aren't helpful." I get your point on "fiat money" and its impacts on the 1% and the 90%.

The confusion I have is on what you see as the remedy.

Are you proposing that the 1% do MORE philanthropy like investing in "energetical infrastructure"?

Also, is my solution here a practical one, for you?

Thanks,

- Ajay

Dear Stefan,

Very important and actual problem for Humanity and your suggestions. I think that this no joke problem associated with the modern scientific picture of the world in which too large "bubbles" and too many speculative "foam". Physicists have to "dig" deeper meanings , and the economists change then look at the problems of global economic. " Freiheit ist Einsicht in die Notwendigkeit" (Hegel ). For realizing this, we must enter the teaching of "Philosophy" in the school and for future physicists - in more depth to give "The Philosophy of Physics" and "The Philosophy of Mathematics". Nature confirms to us that the Philosophy - "the rigorous Science" (E.Husserl ), so it is important to better to economists listen the Voice of the Earth. Earth has long been crying from the economy of existential chaos. I also liked your responses to comments. You are absolutely correct emphasis on "openness" and "closeness". You are absolutely right that "Science has its responsibilities". New Generation tells us: "We start the path ". High score.

I invite you to read and evaluate my essay .

I wish you good luck!

All the Best,

Vladimir

Stefan,

Bizarrely I read and noted I'd commented on your essay a week ago and certainly rated it (highly) but now can't find the comment. Perhaps it's the quantum spooks! Did I mention the hierarchy of truth function logic (TFL) I generalised in my 2012 essay? I also loved your comment; ""Only via finding logical contradictions it is possible to leave ad absurdium the claim of pre-determinism" and most issues being due to wrong analysis.

But anyway, I've just noticed your additional question on my own blog, viz;

~

"You wrote

"A timed pair experiment with rotating analysers will falsify the hypothesis."

Just to make it clear for myself - of what hypothesis do you speak here? I ask you for explaining the hypothesis to understand what you mean in this context. Please also explain how that hypothesis is falsified.

You wrote

"The classical experiment in the end notes has been reproduced and can be again, by anybody."

What does the mentioned experiment say about the ontological status of your main theme, namely entanglement in QM? How is this saying then justified in physical terms?"

~

My hypothesis is that there are no real 'singlet state particles', or even 'collapse to' such states. That assumption is replaced by "the handed spin 'found' is reversed by reversal of the detector EM field and it's electrons (the opposite photomultiplyer then clicks)." The trajectory may not be 'real' but may be a wavefront, sum over paths, with the Non Linear Schrodinger equation and density description, but is none the less helicity. I show it simplified to a sphere, which then as BOTH spins (N/S poles) so which hemisphere spin is 'found' depends on orientation.

ENTANGLEMENT Is then simply the propagation axes being on the spin axis. The spin or 'equatorial' planes are then also the same. The setting angles are then subtended from that plane, the points on the surface giving the local latitude 'circumference' so speed, and speed change with latitude is a cosine curve. (measurement is then transfer of OAM anywhere on that circumference).

Essentially the states found are detector dependent, but always remain random up/down. The Experiment must use individual pairs to prove that. So called 'weak measurement' is blind to it. Does any of that NOT seem to make sense?

Best wishes

Peter

Stefan,

I'm sure you worked out that was me. Did I also mention;

"personal beliefs and ... emotions can trigger us to believe obviously inconsistent things."

Never a truer word!

Peter

John Adams letter toThomas Jefferson : "All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from want of honour or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation."

The Federal Reserve Bank is privately owned.

It first creates fiat money out of nothing and then loans it to governments and multinational corporations etc ~ mostly to finance wars which have been and continue to be, entered into without the consent of the governed ~ and then the Reserve requires repayment WITH INTEREST in the real blood, sweat and tears of the populace via taxation.

There was no income tax before about 1920.

If that wasn't bad enough the US hasn't been operating under its real constitution since 1871~ when with the Act of 1871 some European bankers set up the District of Columbia as a corporation in order to "manage" their new debt relationship with the newly incorporated UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The real constitution made provision for Congress to issue currency. JFK was assassinated because he was about to bypass the Federal Reserve Bank and issue some truly legal tender. These "JFK" notes are already printed, still exist, stored and merely have to be cut and issued !!!!!!!!!

This double barrelled "corporate//private banking" strangle hold on the US has gone viral right across the entire planet.

I for one am EXTREMELY GLAD Stefan has opened this ghastly, ghastly ghastly can of monsters.

Humanity will not make any progress until we rid ourselves of "corporations" and the big private banks who now control the world's wealth and via taxation have turned humanity into debt slaves ~ even our unborn children.

If you didn't already know, corporations are by their very constitution EVIL due to the fact that they cannot be sued for failure to perform as stipulated.

Although I am Australian I have been following humanities gradual awakening to this most heinous of evils ~ the global bankers ~ as it unfolds across the planet.

Thank you again Stefan for broaching this subject.

Stefan, thank you for writing your essay. A really upsetting best-selling book could be written combining fiat money with concepts in The Coming Generational Storm and "The Crash Course: The Unsustainable Future Of Our Economy, Energy, And Environment". US National Debt 73% of annual GDP, Taxes 34% of annual GDP, Underfunded Social Security, Underfunded Pension Funds, Rising cost of Medicare as percentage of GDP, Rising cost of energy, rising cost of dealing with global warming.

Thank you for insightful physics comments on a different essay.

Brent

Dear Stefan Weckbach,

I enjoyed your essay quite a lot. In general I agree with your view of fiat money, although I do not agree with your zero-sum idea of the free market economy. In general the most productive end up with more of the pie, but the pie tends to get larger, in my opinion. This does not apply to inherited wealth or non-productive rent-seeking behavior, which are both problems.

I found most interesting your proposal that "those 10% of the worlds population should not furthermore invest their money in further money (it's senseless), but in things that are really needed..." The key of course is to design a system where this will work.

Your point about the thermodynamic gradient is very well taken, but I believe you incorrectly tie this to "investing in contracts that promise the highest depository rates." I believe the thermodynamic gradient to be a law of nature, whereas the "money chasing more money" is the result of a system which requires redesign. I hope we can redesign it. It will not entail getting rid of "thermodynamic gradients". For a different take on thermodynamics as a tool, please read and comment on my essay.

My best regards to you,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Stefan,

As you note, there is the problem of redesign, and then the (hard) problem of installing the new system. I am not optimistic that such can happen without first experiencing a system crash of terrible proportions.

Like you, I do not see why a nation must pay interest to private banks.

Although I have not put enough time into this contest, I have noted that John Merryman seems to be the best informed in general on money topics. Have you communicated with him?

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Stefan Weckbach

This year you changed a topic from consciousness and quantum physics to economy.

It is a real problem, because money is so virtual, so dependent from psychology of people and from their greediness. But at the other side is a synonym for energy. Your proposals seem OK, but we people need to search new proposals still more.

I think that we people have enough brains that electric cars should already exist in majority, but they are not. I am afraid that your proposals for investment in green technology will stopped somewhere or that money will disappear. But, I hope that I am wrong.

My essay

Best regards

Janko Kokosar

Stefan

You highlight a major problem in the operation of society without taking into account that services provided by technological systems that enable these financial decisions to be carried out. In my essay I focus on the inevitable deterioration of these technological systems, so the inevitable decline in the ability of society to engage in the activities you describe. ELAM can lead the way in meeting the challenge to steer the future of the aging technology.

Regards

Denis

Hi Stefan,

Interesting observation. I studied economics all of my life, I proposed the Scientific Outlook Free-Lunch Economics System to address the fiat money effect you described in your essay. I found the existing global economics system is as advance as our science on Newton's physics as well as thermodynamics. Therefore, this system although not perfect is excellent. You must compare it with the economic system of say 500 years ago. We are much better off. Having said that our economic system is still based on classical Newton's physics and Thermosynamics. I proposed the Free-lunch system powered by KQID's free-lunch engine. Then we can tacle the problems you mentioned in your essay. Yes, with KQID, we can have a free-lunch system for the rich as well as the poor equally. Not about redistribution system of zero-sum game but based on a win-win basis. The outcome is simply no more poor people. No more poverty. However, we will still have unsatisfied people.

Best regards,

Leo KoGuan

Stefan,

I'm safely back from interacting with natures elements. I posted a response on the "Quantum" Blog, under your Aug 11th post, which I hope fully rationalises the logic of my 4 propositions, valid for the domain specified but evolving with each interaction. I thank you for identifying that required 'qualification'.

The detector influence is consistent with Feynman's identification that; "..information is not lost by the 'separation...' but by the 'blocking masks'... Where each and every interaction is equivalent to a 'measurement' (transfer of OAM) whether it allows the modulated state to continue or 'absorbs' it.

I also notice above that I didn't see your May 20th response and question about single photon cases. Yes. I've analysed the representative Aspect and Weihs experiments in great detail, as you may subsequently have seen, and the actual data entirely matches the mechanism proposed. But please do identify any questions, or other experiments where you're not certain it does so. I assume you're familiar with Caroline Thomson's analyses?

Best wishes

Peter