There is a sadness that comes into each of our lives with the passing of one for whom we care, and that shows us that we cannot ever know all of the world. There are things that will be forever beyond our knowledge, and for the losses that we share, there will forever be questions.

Why now and not some other time? Why here and not some other place? Why me and not other person?

My sympathies and hope for a desirable future for those that survive, because survival is the key. A strength that we all share is survival from those whose lives have past and yet provided us their strength and their wisdom.

Thanks Steve.

As I see it, the price we pay for being able to feel in the first place, is that a lot of it is pain.

Regards,

John M

Peter, congrats on your yachting success and the "unbelievable number of wins". Must be great fun. Your 2-page summary is inaccessible online at http://https//www.academia.edu/6525547/Classical_reproduction_of_quantum_correlations_popular_summary_A_. Perhaps, the link has been changed. Please check. I want to repay the favour of reading my paper which has now been accepted for publication after peer-review.

Again, God bless you for the "Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?" page linked. I suffer confirmation bias so I cherry-pick and make some comments on what I took away from reading the page and the very useful links therein, including David Bohm's 1952 paper, A suggested interpretation of quantum theory in terms of 'hidden variables' and the experiment of Yves Couder and Emmanuel Fort, Single-Particle Diffraction and Interference at a Macroscopic Scale, published in Phys. Rev. Lett., with the abstract: A droplet bouncing on a vertically vibrated bath can become coupled to the surface wave it generates. It thus becomes a "walker" moving at constant velocity on the interface. Here the motion of these walkers is investigated when they pass through one or two slits limiting the transverse extent of their wave. In both cases a given single walker seems randomly scattered. However, diffraction or interference patterns are recovered in the histogram of the deviations of many successive walkers. The similarities and differences of these results with those obtained with single particles at the quantum scale are discussed.

My cherries picked:

"This new body of research reveals that oil droplets, when guided by pilot waves, also exhibit these quantum-like features".

"To some researchers, the experiments suggest that quantum objects are as definite as droplets, and that they too are guided by pilot waves -- in this case, fluid-like undulations in space and time."

"But de Broglie urged his colleagues to use two equations: one describing a real, physical wave, and another tying the trajectory of an actual, concrete particle to the variables in that wave equation, as if the particle interacts with and is propelled by the wave rather than being defined by it."

"Later, the Northern Irish physicist John Stewart Bell went on to prove a seminal theorem that many physicists today misinterpret as rendering hidden variables impossible. But Bell supported pilot-wave theory. He was the one who pointed out the flaws in von Neumann's original proof. And in 1986 he wrote that pilot-wave theory "seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored."

"Many of the fluid dynamicists involved in or familiar with the new research have become convinced that there is a classical, fluid explanation of quantum mechanics. "I think it's all too much of a coincidence,""

"The possibility exists that we can look for a unified theory of the Standard Model and gravity in terms of an underlying, superfluid substrate of reality,".

Biased inferences that can be drawn from the cherries.

1. From the bouncing drop experiments and the 'pilot wave' deductions therefrom, the medium, here the oil bath is an active participant in the phenomena of motion observed. The droplet disturbs the fluid bath and the fluid bath disturbs and guides the motion of the droplet. An action-reaction principle obtains, that is, that which can react can also be acted upon, and that which can be acted upon can also react.

2. If space can undergo undulations, that is, if space can move, then it is a substance, and can be the superfluid substrate of reality. As Newton says in different places in his De Gravitatione,"...it is clear that they (philosophers) would cheerfully allow extension (space) to be substance, just as body is, if only extension could move and act as body can";"...space is capable of having some substantial reality. Indeed, if its parts could move..., and this mobility was an ingredient in the idea of vacuum, then there would be no question about it - parts of space would be corporeal substance";"And my account throws a satisfactory light on the difference between body and extension (i.e. between a body and a region of space). The raw materials of each are the same in their properties and nature, and differ only in how God created them...".

3. How can space move? If space can move, can there be more than one place in a place? If the latter is not possible, then the only motion or undulation space can undergo is between, "nowhere" and "somewhere". The universe itself moves this way, from 'nowhere' to 'somewhere' and from 'somewhere' to 'nowhere'. Big bang from nothing (nowhere), expansion (somewhere) and collapse to nothing in Big crunch. With this type of motion, Zeno's Arrow need not move and leave its place its place. Space is a participant in motion and the distance or 'extension', as Newton likes to call it between Zeno's arrow and its destination moves from "somewhere" to "nowhere" and that between the arrow and its origin moves from "nowhere" to "somewhere", the arrow therefore hits its target without actually leaving its own somewhere or place. Such infinitesimal undulations in extension, dx occur in time, dt and so time varies as well, making dx/dt workable in dynamics. Space is therefore an active and full participant in all motion, both classical and at quantum scale. When Peter therefore moves in his yacht from one end of a 10 metre room to another, you are destroying space in the direction of your motion, while creating it in the opposite direction. The 10m is however conserved, so that as you destroy 7m in the direction of your motion and move 3m closer to your destination, you have created 7m behind you from nothing since it never existed. You are therefore a creator, with small c.

Regards,

Akinbo

*Send me that 2-page summary, although I have challenges with electricity and internet connectivity.

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 03:53 GMT

"I'll tell you what. When I leave this world, I will personally haunt the physics community as a poltergeist."

Well, I certainly wouldn't want you to bother with haunting in your afterlife as you will likely be much more occupied by other important things.

Wondering if there is life after death really comes down to a question of how well science understands the quantum binding between a mind and consciousness into reality.To understand any kind of consciousness after death, that consciousness would still need to be a part of this universe and not a part of some other universe or dimension, i.e., supernatural agents or ghosts are by definition not part of the universe and are therefore just beliefs that people must simply have.

Science understands some of this quantum binding of the mind with other objects including other minds very well but most of that binding remains a mystery. Moreover, it is likely that science will never understand some portion of the binding of a mind and the world and science will need to simply accept this portion as axiomatic.

Science will eventually learn how to read long-term memory from brain matter and science will learn how to measure the connections of the brain that define feeling as well. Finally, science will learn how to sustain the aware matter algorithm of neural recursion that we call thought.

So you may be right after all in that if your memories and feelings get downloaded into an aware matter computer upon your death, your afterlife could very well end up haunting the physics community.

    Peter J wrote: "Spin' wasn't explainable as [orbital angular momentum] due [to] 'spin 1/2' and '2' etc. which took half or two revolutions to return to the start point. ... my Fig 1 ... shows that spin can be simply different 'scales' of orbital angular momentum".

    As well known, squaring a sinusoidal or exponential function doubles the value of its argument: 2[cos(wt)]^2=1+cos(2wt) and [exp(iwt)]^2=exp(2iwt), respectively. How carefully did those like Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Dirac introduce QM? The latter wrote what perhaps all other ones also assumed: Frequency (and therefore power too) is always positive. Up to now, the Hamiltonian is considered positive. They ignored that function of time corresponds via Fourier transformation with a complex function of both a positive and a negative frequency. Alternatively, a seemingly physically correct positive and real-valued function of frequency would correspond to positive and negative functions of time in complex domain. Schroedinger admitted in his 4th communications his heuristic way of thinking. To me it seems obvious that they altogether tacitly changed their perspective from a wave function of time to a function of frequency/power without being aware of all consequences. Because power equals to a squared function of time, the scales have periods that differ by the factor of two. Who can either confirm or refute my reasoning? Why were the experiments interpreted in terms of half integer periods? Let me add that Heisenberg (?) originally operated not with the complex wave function but in the sense of an inverse transformation eventually with its real part but they suddenly dropped that step back into real domain without explaining this trifle.

    Eckard

      Steve Agnew: "Wondering if there is life after death really comes down to a question of how well science understands the quantum binding between a mind and consciousness into reality.To understand any kind of consciousness after death, that consciousness would still need to be a part of this universe and not a part of some other universe or dimension, i.e., supernatural agents or ghosts are by definition not part of the universe and are therefore just beliefs that people must simply have. "

      To say that supernatural agents and ghosts are not part of the universe is unknown at this time. But then to jump to the conclusion that "ghosts are only a belief" is itself a belief. You skeptic atheists keep forgetting that big bangs coming from nothing is sleight of hand. We all know this. It is much more rational to assume that the big bang was an even that occurred in some larger existence that is undetectable at this time. You could say that the big bang was an event that occurred in the ethers, or you could just as easily say that Infinite Consciousness, aka God, created this universe in order to have something to explore, and that God created souls as extensions of His Consciousness. Ghosts are just souls that do not return to heaven (go into the light).

      You can be ask skeptical as you wish. You can even ignore a good solid haunting by a hard working ghost if you wish. Most of the scientific community is already doing this.

      Believing in supernatural agents or not believing in them are indeed both beliefs. The big bang is also a belief in the supernatural and so is the belief in an agent that created the big bang.

      Since I believe in the supernatural agents of mother earth and father time, that means that I am not an atheist. My agents go back to the dawn of humanity and so predate all of the later agents that come from ancient stories. My supernaturalisms are consistent with the matter and time that are both within this universe so I just like you do not have to invent any others.

      Hardcore atheist-skeptic converts to belief in life after death. His name is John S. Weiss.

      http://www.johnsweiss.com/intriguing-quotes.html

      Article by skeptic and former atheist John S. Weiss.

      http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/column.php?id=239489

      Steve, you can believe whatever you wish. But I think the most likely explanation is that we survive death of the physical body.

      Akinbo,

      Could it all be turbulence at the subatomic scale? Basically that's how Peter's boat and the experiment you describe effectively relate it.

      Regards,

      JohnM

      Stern-Gerlach 1922 gave rise to Heisenberg's infinite Hermitian matrices and Schroedinger's equivalent representation as a complex wave function. Schroedinger managed to derive a non-relativistic explanation of the hydrogen spectrum. Then Max Born suggested to interpret the square of wave function as probability distribution of the position of a point-like object.

      Is this correct? I am not aware of a paper by Born that justified his detour from the musts of Fourier transformation.

      Peter,

      I decided to leave the overly long thread and focus on basic QM matters. Nonetheless, I am ready to deal with your other arguments too.

      Eckard

      Thanks John M. Concerning, "Could it all be turbulence at the subatomic scale?", I will like to ask whether what is smooth, that is, not made of parts, can be turbulent?

      The linked write-up dwelt a lot on fluid turbulence. Can water be turbulent if it was not made of numerous molecules of H20? Can a single H20 molecule display turbulence or does turbulence require a multitude?

      Is it still justified today that Space is excluded from Quantum mechanics and its Copenhagen interpretation just because Space despite its omnipresence is silent, uncomplaining, doesn't make a loud noise, transparent and cannot be seen thus appearing "hidden", when General relativity claims Space can be vibrated and be made "variable", which vibrations are propagated as gravitational waves?

      What is your take on the 'pilot wave', 'hidden variable' theories?

      Akinbo

      John,

      I approached it 'top down', so the big picture came first then the falsification; I understand what you're saying, but it looks quite different that way. The 'big picture' model I found simple and coherent said that QM should be derivable classically down to some far smaller limit. That's what my recent work shows.

      If you recall that SR is resolve in the DFM by simple electron scattering to c in the ELECTRON rest frame, not some other, then you can see how the QM solution resolves with exactly the same simple coherent model. The electrons impose their will (speed and spin direction) on each tiny bit of EM wavefront that meets them.

      Coming back up from the bottom I now seem to have it surrounded! But the real problem is it's entirely self consistent, which is so different to entrenched doctrine I can't see it ever being adopted! None the less I'll continue to try to find simpler explanations.

      Which bits still sound incoherent to you? if any?

      John C.

      It works all ways; wave, particle, wavefront, torus, or spheroid, photon or electron and actually IS 'all ways' subject to viewpoint and scale!!

      Perhaps best think of a 'speck' photon of energy on the surface of a causal Schrodinger sphere wavefront propagating on a helical path while also 'spinning'.

      It comes across this big powerful electron, as do it's mates each side, as well as those on the waves in front and behind. The electron may be spinning on ANY axis (so also either more cw OR ccw.)

      The speck of energy retains it's existence and axis (slightly 'rotated if the electron is moving sideways = KRR & aberration) but it's modulated to the ELECTRONS spin direction (cw/ccw) and speed subject to the 'latitude' (so spin speed/OAM) of the impact tangent point on the surface. So when it hits the photodetectors it trips only one, and with a 'probability rate' subject to energy.

      And that's it! It can be reversed, and it's energy varies by the cosine of the angle of the electron! Shockingly that's all that's needed to reproduce QM's predictions!

      Now I could run through a similar description with 'all particles' or 'all waves' to the same effect. The point is that the 'spin' is at many recursive size 'scales', and we've decoded the one at the 'scale of interest'. (that allows the 'noise in Shannon's channel to be decoded. as my previous IQbit essay).

      I'm sure we are progressing, but everyone in the world has a different picture! Does that description make better sense?

      best wishes

      Peter

      Akinbo,

      Thanks. The NEW rev.B 2 page summary paper is now lodged ans should be accessible here;

      Classical reproduction of quantum correlations.

      Do let me know how easy it was to make sense of, or which bits you stumbled over. Thanks, and heartiest congratulations on your paper's acceptance for publication. Do post a link.

      (Pilot wave theory emerges coherently there as just one typical 'scale' relationship of a whole sequence of fractal scales, applicable to that scale).

      Best

      Peter

      Eckard,

      I agree, using 'frequency' was metaphysics as time is not an entity. The scalar wavelength was the tie to reality. The 'ground state' is then the wave median, so negative values are implicit. I think a new thread's a good idea. I'm happy to discuss sensible physics anywhere. I'll put down a **MARKER HERE WITH SOME BOLD CAP'S SO IT'S EASIER TO LOCATE IN THE COMING WEEKS!!**

      I think the 'probabilistic' description is a quite valid secondary one. But the failure to find a logical PRIMARY derivation of QM from classical mechanics left it as the ONLY one. I agree with Bell, "professional physicists ought to be able to do better." As I show in my IQbit essay, the Born Rule should simply allow a wave validity in 3D, which is a helix. Again missing this simple reality allowed physics deeper into the 'Wonderland' Dodgson created for Alice.

      But I think we should consider all that as 'water under the bridge'. I suggest the correct solution is before us so the sooner the old nonsense is retired to history and forgotten the better. I've now condensed more into the 2 page summary, including my new finding that John Bell agreed almost the EXACT solution I've proposed, but was tripped up by just ONE wrong assumption, and missed one dynamic cosine geometry (OAM distribution with spherical latitude).

      The assumption he made was that photons propagated as particles and not just their spin but their AXIS was random. That caused the problem. If the spin axis is also the propagation axis then the axis (and equatorial spin plane) are the 'entanglement', so the (Wigner'd'Espangnat) inequality he hit doesn't apply!

      I hope you'll give the short summary a very careful read and rigorous criticism.

      Classical reproduction of quantum correlations. Summary; B.

      Best wishes

      Peter

      Pete,

      Thanks, actually the 'speck' analogy makes more sense of your quantum/causal correlation in that it does become more mathematical than what I'd been looking for, which was more of a '3D+t' visual form. I do not think that being self consistent is a drawback, that is what is often referred to as 'bootstrapped' and lends itself to presentation as background independent or 'co-ordinate free', being that the co-ordinates can then be built within the framework of the model rather than placing the model inside a co-ordinate framework. That seemed to me to be implied in the first place. I'm becoming a bit overwhelmed again in the myriad complexity that evolves in an attempt to look inside the standard model, and even if a dynamic visual form were made theoretically possible we would probably have to track a multitude of trajectories of material points to have a 'snapshot' of inter-reactive fields. Break time, jrc

      Peter,

      I'm perfectly willing to go along with what you are saying, but I'm lost on a lot of it. We simply come from different situations and have different desires and goals in this quest. I spend my life dealing with large animals. They are both very conscious and very physical. That is my starting point and area of focus. They don't have religions and their politics are very elementary.

      I get so I can physically read their minds, by pretty much turning mine off. They are much more thermal, ie, non-linear, than temporal/rationally linear. You just can't get too far away from the basics of energy and form.

      Yet there is an incredible amount of nuance to everything about them and so trying to deal with detail is not possible. It is about surfing the wave, riding the wind and all the combinations thereof, not to mention that the wind you are riding really does have a mind of its own.

      While I've been doing this for 50 years now, I'm not a big detail person. Having started out around bossy people and usually finding myself in their company and working for them, I don't stress over all the details, as my talent is just being able to stay upright and stay on. I am not reaching for the stars, simply because there is way too much happening down here on the ground and since most people seem to have their heads up in the stars, or clouds, anyway, it gives me quite a bit of room to function. I'm happy in my ignorance.

      Regards,

      John M

      John Brodix Merryman replied on Jul. 4, 2014 @ 02:51 GMT

      "I would just like to point out black holes are nonsense as well. It's a vortex. What energy doesn't get radiated away, as it spins ever tighter, gets shot out the poles!! As usual, they are only looking at half the equation, obviously the condensing/reductionistic side. What is at the center is just the eye of the storm. That's why the 'physics breaks down."

      It is really not necessary to say what black holes really are, just what they are not. What black holes are not is a stopage of time and a place that sustains any outlaw theory. Black holes are simply the boson stars of the universe.There actually is a whole literature on boson stars awaiting our evolution...

        We both can believe whatever we wish because belief is very flexible and yet very necessary. Most likely is a different metric that has to do with probabilities and so is consistent with quantum action. It is very nice that you seem to follow the notion of probabilistic quantum action in the survival of the physical body.

        You will indeed make a great physics ghost.