Why Quantum?

I keep hearing about these helical thingys and there are a lot of helical thingys already out there. Why are this thingys any different from the thingys that we already have?

Steve,

"Why are these things any different from things we already have?"

Aaahhhh... I'm very glad you asked that.

Answer: Because they aren't!

I'm not saying the analytic geometry isn't right, I'm saying; that's what it is. It is just Pete presents it as a model, which it could be if it were in a reference frame of Minkowski 4X4 matrix Blocktime, then the helix could physically operate like an apple peeler stripping off helixes of disturbed spacetime. But it only infers a physical model (the link sausage string made by the helix pudding machine) by projective trigonometry, the time and energy have to be put in by hand. In that sense it is not a model itself, and I dislike 'framework' unless it ontologically exists as the armature of a model of physical material properties. It is rather the same genus but different species as Einstein's GR construct. It's not a theory (though many theories might come of it) and its not a methodology; it is a mechanism, you apply your own method to it.

Pete, you might consider pitching it as a mechanism, and calling it the Discrete Field Mechanism. And here's is why, Steve..

As a mechanism it can project a physical model, while as an analytical geometric mechanism it can project vectors trigometrically without interaction physically, non-locally. But those vectors are relational to the helical parameters, the point on the helix incident to projection is the point at unity of coefficients between the helix parameters and those of the "Tiny spinning gyroscope" . Simple right angle induction, point at unity of time , physically it could amount to magnetic traction, but skids at 45 degrees. That sort of interface, its a mechanism. BUT TRANSLATIONALLY, that sets the vector given the proportions of coeffecients; the induced anglular attitude of the axis which is 'direction' (okay... you get to be the quarter, I'll be the twist-off beer cap with the horses head on it, both turn out the same unless we say so) and the size of the disc is 'magnitude' being equal in length of axial and diameter in proportion to helical diameter. It's a vector projector.

So what ontology might be had to relate those projective vectors as quantum vectors? I can think of a QTD = quantum time density, completely ad hoc. Relative inertial energy density, could be a parameter. Pete's prohibition against anything other than helical (or distortion thereof) being translational of wave mechanics is simply axiomatic, its a mechanism. Can it be Quantum as well as classical?

Peace out jrc

So the DFM is a model of the way the universe works, but it is not clear how it makes a quantum gravity. Once science has a quantum gravity, we should be able to create a gravity beamsplitter and prepare neutral matter into coherent quantum states.

These coherent gravity states will show interference effects, there will be an exchange force that adds to gravity just like exchange adds to charge force. Once we have a nice quantum gravity, a lot of things will become clear. Including the thermodynamics of a gravitational system like the universe. And a quantum gravity will do away with the messy business of black hole singularities and give us back an absolute or proper time.

As far a helices are concerned, there is a fundamental math that shows how the spiral form of our galaxy bound density wave with a pitch of 12° is a generalization of a line as pitch = -90°, hyperbolas, ellipses, and a circle as pitch = 0°. Spiral trajectories and forms show up a lot in nature and the creation of hydrogen atoms early in the universe must have been as pairs with complementary spin or angular momentum, up and down hydrogen.

This original pair represents the basic duality of complementary spiral action in the universe. Up hydrogens tended to get together as up galaxies and down hydrogens as down galaxies. Thus it is true that the angular momentum of our galaxy permeates our reality down to the spins of our protons and electrons.

Steve,

Very thoughtful insights. First let me address the quantum issue with a nod of approval to spiral trajectories, its in our DNA. But I think the route to proper time is through helical trajectory being a special condition of uniform linear motion, and so Maxwell's finding of the constant 'c' proportion of relative electric and magnetic field strengths provides a time dependent velocity gradient to drop down to spherical nil velocity.

Pete's DFM is as he often reiterates, is scale hierarchical. So quantum mechanically, superposing his mechanism over real space we can find an ontologic trigometric structure for vector space, thusly. At any loci there exist infinite possible dimensions, that is; lengths of directions. There are infinite possible loci. We can posit an arbitrary start state, magnitude at all scales at 'c' has an effieciency of a cylinder of equal diameter and length and the helix transits one full cycle end to end. So the size of that helical cycle is scale dependent at loci A, and the same size at another loci B will be a quantum equivalent magnitude. The pairs state is either orthogonally aligned (coherent) or anorthoganal (incoherent), coherence and decoherence relate as relative angular attitude and coherent obtains as noninterference, mathematically the algebraic sum will be a whole number. Decoherence is quantum interference which obtains an algebraic sum which is not a whole number, and resolves out of the scale hierarchy of different size 'gyros' with different vector special attitudes and magnitudinal proportion relating to spin. A coherent path of OAM influence simply connected through bifurcation will translate the original loci A parameters to the loci B parameters through a bunch of little gyros, we might retrace the path and find our loci inside a larger helix. But it becomes immediately clear that there are probably numerous other paths that would do the same thing of reaching a whole number algebraic sum for A @ B. All the paths of non-whole number sums are quantum interference. That's why it's good to have a cheap cooling pad under your laptop.

So I think (within my limits of ignorance) as a mechanism, Pete's DFM might fit the bill as a little hand-held, co-ordinate free, spherical mechanical device with helical parts that could compute both quantumly and classically. There is a probability of one OAM path being taken to a whole number algebraic coherent relationship of A @ B, out of probable others. And there is an undeterminant probability of wholesale dechorent non-whole number path bifurcations.

"...it's not clear how it makes a quantum gravity" - "And a quantum gravity will do away with black hole singularities and give us back an absolute or proper time."

That is the 'blind spot', the time and energy have to be put in by hand. I have suggested my own humble invention from beaucoup years ago, of a 'Postulate of relative inertial energy density' as the solution to the mathematically inherent singularity which emerges in GR. But classically human I am adverse to a universe of 'infinite string theory helical birdsnest' spacetime energy that matters. And entropy lies in the quantum interference.

This has been fun, jrc

Okay, that helps. DFM is one of the many multidimensional multiuniverse thingys that seek to explain everything by introducing a bunch of unknowables...like we don't have enough unknowable stuff already.

I like starting a universe off with very simple axioms: matter, time, and quantum action. Matter has two dimensions as mass and phase, time has two dimensions, proper and action, and a fundamental orthogonality between matter and time reduces to the three dimensions of matter, time, and phase.

That is all that seems to be necessary to explain the universe, so why make it more complicated?

Steve,

Yeah, I like to keep it simple too, and I have long thought that naivety is somewhat under-rated these days, but only if it is informed. And like an old Gordon Lightfoot tune: "I never came to borrow / I only came to learn." Tom Ray got through to me early on, and it took a while to see the method in Pete's madness, and people like Eckard and a number of others have been tolerant at least of my deficiencies of acquired knowledge, which I greatly appreciate. This forum is about as close as I might hope to get to august company. I guess, intellectually I'm in the School of Errorstotal - Alas, none but geometers may enter here! jrc

I just pummeled some atheists on a spiritual forum with this idea, but I wanted to share the idea with you in the physics community.

Basically, I believe that the physics constants and the laws of physics are written upon aether, an invisible substance, as if it were computer script. The invariance of the speed of light does not make sense unless there is some invisible substance that interconnects everything. I believe that wave functions really do exist, and that the physics constants and laws of physics are written or otherwise imprinted upon them. In principle, it might be possible to gain access to this invisible substance and alter the laws of physics and/or physics constants.

Basically, I believe that God wrote the first script, creating the physics constants/laws of physics. It resulted in the big bang. If we take a much closer look at wave-functions as something that really does exist, we might be able to alter the laws of physics and physics constants.

One point that I think is a mistake to make when people give examples on "entropy" (which by the way I don't think of as a fundamental law) is to single out things/states where a shattered mug doesn't spontaneously reassembles into an intact mug, or water doesn't reassemble into a perfect ice cube, or ...

Well EVERY single microstate is unique! Just because the reassembled mug has some meaning to people doesn't make it special. Saying it is special is a biased point of view, a human biased view. A shattered mug might not reassemble into an intact mug but it also doesn't "reassemble" into a 'gazillion' other states either.

How long will it take the physics community to figure out how the laws of physics and physics constants are implemented? A century? A millennia? An age?

I think we (Peter J, Eckard, JRC, Steve,...) are more less agreed that photons are divisible and that the Raman scattering pointed out by Peter J. rivals the Compton scattering very well without resorting to particle nature of light. Even in the particle picture, we see that based on the aim of Jon Barrett and Matt Leifer to "promote the second law of thermodynamics as an axiom and a compelling postulate", QM fails as I have suggested in an earlier post on Jul. 15, 2014 @ 14:40 GMT, using Penrose's analogy of the second law.

Another reason why there is difficulty letting go of QM, despite its many imperfections and oddities is the claim that it provides accurate descriptions for many previously unexplained phenomena such as stable electron orbits.

Going by the attraction force between the electron (-) and the proton (), the atom is supposed to be unstable and collapse. QM suggests a theoretical mechanism that prevents this collapse.

However, on the macro-scale, there is an attraction force as well between, e.g. between a planet and the sun. Yet this orbit too is stable. What we see is that a planet moves closer to the sun at perihelion and is seemingly repelled from further collapse as the planet starts moving in a direction opposite to that of the gravitational attraction force! How could this be? It is sometimes claimed that the increased orbital speed at perihelion makes the planet want to escape hence the moving away from the sun. But a little thought shows that this increased orbital speed cannot be the answer to orbital stability. The orbital speed can increase, yet the planet can keep moving inwards rather than outwards, so to speak, spiraling inwards at increasing speed eventually crashing into the sun. But this does not happen.

Again, if we look at orbits energy-wise, the total energy of a satellite or planet (both kinetic and potential) of mass, m in orbit about the sun of mass, M is given by

-GMm/2r,

(K.E. in orbit = GMm/2r, P.E. in orbit = -GMm/r). The minus sign shows that when orbital radius reduces and objects fall under gravity, total energy is lost like when a satellite crashes to earth). Objects speed up as they fall because K.E. increases as orbital radius, r reduces (K.E. = GMm/2r), while P.E. reduces (-GMm/r). Total energy (-GMm/2r) at aphelion is more than that at perihelion. When energy is therefore lost in one-half of the cycle from aphelion to perihelion, from whence is the energy regained such that the orbit is replenished? The QM orbit-preserving mechanism will not operate on this scale. Could the mysterious stabilizing agent in gravitational orbits therefore not be the same agent stabilizing atomic orbits, instead of resorting to QM which is giving rise to so many paradoxes and absurdity? Recall that Sommerfeld atomic model was elliptical as well meaning that like gravitational orbits, the electron would alternately oscillate about some equilibrium distance in the atom. What could this energy-replenishing, anti-attraction stabilizing agent be, since it would be more economical if it were to be the source of orbital stability at both micro- and macro-scale?

Akinbo

Akinbo,

A good point about the quantum assumption of stable orbits which expects the electron mass quantity to be somewhere, sometime, measurable. But also assumes that it is also always a discrete differentiated mass like a tiny moon orbiting the always differentiated nucleus. Vis-à-vis; the solar system(s) orbitals which while improved in accuracies by General Relativity, still frustrate attempts to solve the 'three body problem'. And of course there is the elephant in the room of both Newton and Einstein planetariums of, "so just 'why' is the gravitational constant 'that' empirical numeric value?".

In the podcast, SR was noted as essential to the developments of both QM and GR, and the two postulates are necessary to universal quantitative physical entropy. It has long bothered me that Lorentz is rationalized by Einstein's famous gedanken of riding a beam of light and recognizing that 'time stopped'. Impossible. Rather the subtle distinction should be made that light velocity is coincident with the greatest rate of propagation of time, it is not that it ends at light velocity or there would be no time for light. The variable rate of time 'flow' is at the heart of Bill Unruh's theoretics and he offers an application to Quantum Mechanics in general towards finding a rationale for quantum gravity. I'll post following this, the link to one such paper. jrc

Akinbo,

to follow up... The Unruh paper link was posted by Marcel-Marie LeBel on April 8, 2014 in the 'Time and the Nature of Reality' blog, as an attachment listed as: Unruh-Prob-time.pdf

MARCEL my apologies, I missed that and only came across it browsing last evening. Thank-you very much. How would Bill Unruh think your abstract to akin to Pilot Wave theory, other that 'unequal flow of time' can smooth a curve out into a linear function?

Also on Entropy & Superposition, google, Chladni Plate experiments and let your intuition transpose the macro harmonic resonance to the spacetime continuum. jrc

John, Steve,

"...it's not clear how it makes a quantum gravity" - "And a quantum gravity will do away with black hole singularities and give us back an absolute or proper time."

There's a link between the helical Gottfried-Jackson angle (Cos Theta GJ) (between the lab frame Higgs and a photon modulated to the resonance rest frame) and Quantum Gravity. But perhaps best read this first http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.3658.pdf and I'll just write about how (Absolute) Proper Time also simply emerges independently anyway. (I actually did that in the 2012 "Much Ado..." essay).

When inertial (rest frame K) systems meet the Higg's process condenses fermions (electron, positron proton pure plasma) in BOTH frames. From each rest frame the OTHER is considered 'virtual'. But they are both real, just as two cars are both real before they collide! 'Yours' is at rest in Maxwell's 'Near field' the other the 'Far field'.

The plasma meets and cancels across the Debye length (after a lot of hydrodynamic turbulent mixing!) but not before it's done it's job as a two-fluid plasma and converted all EM fluctuation crossing it (both ways) to the new local c (K/K') by absorption and re-emission. Ergo; One rule; Electrons only know ONE speed c. Their own! So c in K is the same as c in K' but wrt K and K' NOT each other! That's a simple Doppler shift (limited by the Lorentz factor as max plasma density approaches at K-K'

Pete,

That's digestible, though I'll need to learn enough to use chop-sticks to get a wrap on the Higg's mechanism. 'Two fluid' plasma is comprehensible from the condensed matter paradigm, and I think you are correct in examining the TZ for tracing how relativistic spacetime might determine the metamorphis of a continuous energy emission into a distinct quanta wavelength package in the far field. I think there is a linkage between Unruh time and the evanescent waves which reflect entirely back into the electronic energy volume, and which have an exponential rate of dissipation, where in the near field the electrostatic intensity follows a cube root dissipation rate while the magnetostatic intensity drops by the familiar inverse square. It suggests that the exponential rate prevails in the first half of the first wavelength distance in the near field, and governs the change of electro rate in the near field to the inverse square value in far field. The right angle relationship between electric and magnetic influence at 'c' might thus resolve into the far field, and Maxwell is found in the 90 degree out of phase relation (linear) at relative nil velocity, which is in phase at 'c'. Unruh time might be worth a look as that 'rate of time' phase shift would be exponential. At nil, 90*, the proper length is half again the proper length at 'c' where mag and elec fields are in phase linearly. What do you think?

Pardon my feeble attempts at interpretation of your discrete field dynamics. jrc

Okay, geez louise, let's see if we can do a simple mind experiment. Let DFM do a beamsplitter on a single photon, 50% to path A and 50% to path B. Now, we observe the single photon on path A...does that mean the photon was always on path A? Or was it a superposition of paths A and B and never on just one path? Do possibilites exist that are unknowable or is the universe deterministic?

These theories get so unwieldy that it is nearly impossible to tell left from right and up from down without simplicity.

Steve,

Fair enough! Pete, you're up. jrc

JRC, Thanks for your comments. Will check the Unruh paper.

Peter, The much I agree with you is that by some mechanism 'c' can be modulated to a local value and in essence this results in Galilean relativity. Your preferred mechanism is by electron absorption and emission of light. But what of electron-free media, or don't they exist? What's your take on the cause of stability in orbits we can see (i.e. gravitational orbits)? Insights from that may help us understand orbits we cannot see (i.e. quantum). To put it this way: Why has the moon not fall on our heads despite billions of years of the earth and moon tugging at each other? What keeps them apart?

Akinbo

Steve,

"Do possibilites exist that are unknowable or is the universe deterministic?"

I don't know. i.e. 'unknowable' in the model as it only resolves one order of the hierarchy at a time (parameters may change at smaller scales). Godel's fuzzy logic and Chaos theory always apply. But the bits logically resolved include QM non-locality, SR, (with the LT 'limit' mechanism) and GR.

Annoyingly the 2nd half of my post is lost in cyberspace as I used a 'more than' chevron. At least that made is 'digestible'! There is ONLY 'Proper Time' (absolute rate) because SR only banned a SINGLE 'ether' frame, not many hierarchical local background rest states. The SR postulates and AE conceptions survive, the paradox ridden 'interpretation' is junked.

BEAMSPLITTER

The probability of getting precisely 50;:50 are the same as you chopping a sausage precisely in half blindfolded or not. Now look at a 2D cosine 'wave', strike a vertical line blindfold, and check the probability of hitting it precisely at the peak. It's infinitely small (remember the red dots on my 2012 essay Fig 4 rings). So rule one is there's always an energy imbalance.

Now also consider in terms (almost whichever you like but they overlap) of re-emissions at the surface (mirror or glass), Huygens construction, QED sum-over paths, and the non-linear Schrödinger equation. There is NO 'photon' as such following any 'path'. Our preconceptions are nonsense. There are spreading fluctuating energy distributions. If something physically interacts at any number of spatial positions a 'quanta' will however only manifest at ONE position, where any constructive interference is highest. (in kiddies terms, the 'path' the original positive charge took, which DID have a 50:50 random probability).

If a 2nd splitter is introduced to 'recombine' the patterns the same thing happens. BOTH patterns are requantized/re-emitted at the splitter. But NOW they BOTH have 'peaks and troughs' (2D simplification) so phase can be 'tuned' to create the positive energy peak in EITHER direction! i.e. by changing transit time/distance. (A bit more precise to think of playing with two representative twin helices, but less familiar!).

That solution is pretty well as Wheeler anticipated. As usual it's only silly starting assumptions that make nonsense of all that follows. The ontology is powerfully predictive across the board.

I think I also posted the application to cosmology, which suggests a cycle of galaxies and universes. When we look for the specific evidence we find it all lined up for us, presently 'anomalous'. There were two more new 'anomalous' findings this last week which were predictions of the model (satellite galaxy orbits, and anomalous large morphologies in the early universe)

Velocity anti-correlation of diametrically opposed galaxy satellites. and

Anomalous Galaxy Formation and Evolution(finding not interpretation!.

It seems now that even the Higg's may be better described as the 'dipole' the DFM suggests!? Twin Peak Higg's anomaly!

The cyclic evolution paper also derives galaxy bars. It's in print but preprint here (with other papers). None will of course get accepted by a 'big' journal as I'm not an academic, and they're on the 'big picture' not minutii. www.academia.edu/6655261/A_CYCLIC_MODEL_OF_GALAXY_EVOLUTION_WITH_BARS.

The model is as Freeman predicted, incomplete, imperfect and apparently confusing (as it's unfamiliar) but the basics couldn't be simpler (see my prev 3 essays, all top 10 scorers). It's open for all attach and falsification, as well as help to tidy up and help 'describe' in current doctrine terms!

Akinbo

Free protons also scatter EM energy, and provide most of the gravitational mass of pure plasma (dark matter). Parts of space with few electrons are big to compensate. There will always be a kinetic state and radius for any mass where centripetal and centrifugal forces balance. But electrons are not 'orbiting particles'. They may better be seen as an additional wider 'spin state' when 'bound' to a proton. It seems they then can't 'annihilate' with free positrons. Further evolution is then to the more complex bound molecular gases.

Best wishes

Peter

Good, DFM has prepared a superposition state of some sort to represent a beamsplitter. So it sounds like DFM is a lot like QM with a new basis set.

Next problem: What does DFM do with the inside of a black hole? Does time stop? what is the meaning of displacement inside of a black hole?