Why Quantum?

Stefan,

"What do you think about expanding spaces?", "But where does this happen? Does it happen in the empty space near our moon, means in our direct neighbourhood, or somewhat only at the "end" of the universe?"

This is an issue worth looking at by the establishment. It may also be relevant to this 'Why Quantum' blog from which we have digressed. I had earlier asked Peter his favorite mechanism of what prevents the 'wedding' of the earth and the moon despite the longstanding affection between them of over a billion years. I was not altogether satisfied with his favorite mechanism. I suspect the same ghost, (apologies to Jason), may be preventing weddings on the quantum scale (e.g. between the electron and nucleus in an hydrogen atom) and not the improvised stationary waves, exclusion principle, etc. Most cosmologists who support expansion believe it is occurring at all scales. That is, matter is not just spreading out into previously non-existent space, but space is being created at least between galactic clusters, (even if there are still debate at lower scales).

Peter,

"Newton assumed no quantum vacuum, pair production or bow shocks. Each globe will have an ionospheric bow shock, as Earth's, so a detectable 'direction' in the 'ambient medium' frame (the ubiquitous description of the local QV rest frame)... ","No system of stars some distance away can change the rotation velocity of the spheres WHATEVER they do."

In other words, your description admits that it is not necessary to make reference to another body in order to have as a fact 'a direction of motion'. That is the true motion Newton is talking about, as opposed to the motion of Leibniz and Mach, which deny that there is such a thing as motion without reference to another body relative to which you are moving.

Paraphrasing Newton: "In contrast, because the parts of absolute space are not directly accessible to the senses (which was the case in 1687), it is very difficult but not impossible to ascertain the true motion of individual bodies and to discriminate them in practice from the apparent/ relative motions. That is, were I, Newton aware that 300 years later space would have properties and phenomena that would make parts of it directly accessible to the senses and instruments, there would have been no doubting the fact that true motion exists independent of any reference frame".[section 5.4].

His second error was assuming either clockwise or anticlockwise rotation. That's the simple 'self centric view' error. There's no such 'objective' thing. Go round to the other side of a pair apparently rotating clockwise to YOU and look again. NOW tell me which way they rotate!

When I went round to the other side there was no difference. They were still rotating clockwise!

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

Damn little arrow cut my post in half!; "Speed" is only limited to 'c' wrt the LOCAL background, so the only 'proper' speed is 'propagation' speed. The relative speed of light passing BY you in the opposite direction IS then c+v, as your intuition tells you (and as FTL quasar jets only 'measured' trigonometrically). Light only converts to YOUR max speed 'c' if it meets you and presents itself for 'measurement' (interaction and computation), but only if you or the lens are made of matter.

All that was in my prev 3 (finalist) essays - which you said you'd read! Your 'catch' then doesn't exist (oh ye of little faith!). You clearly cant measure a propagation speed until it's arrived and is propagating in YOUR rest frame! That's why you will ALWAYS find 'c', but Doppler shifted if you're also moving in the propagating medium.

That's a perfect example of my point about the 'ontological construction'. You forgot one central part so immediately jumped to the false conclusion that there was a 'catch'. Nature's like a jigsaw puzzle it needs ALL the pieces to reveal the coherent picture!

Can you see that picture yet?

Peter

Jason,

The mechanism has already been unlocked. Summarised briefly here lest you didn't understand the essay; It's essentially a hierarchy; spin within spin within spin, of quanta condensed from the dark energy condensate.

Classical reproduction of quantum correlations.

Let me know if it's clear and obvious. It seems the greatest problem with tripping over the bucket of grail is recognising what it is!

But the superluminal buses are still some time away it seems.

best wishes

Peter

Stefan,

A more consistent model than the big bang is described here, resolving anomalies instead of generating them. It's a cyclic process, eternally repeating, and more a big 'whoosh'.

A Cyclic model of Galaxy Evolution, with Bars. Accepted; HJ Vol.6 2014.

Expanding 'spaces' in the Smoot sense emerge as entirely superfluous in that model. Boundary transition zones ('near-far field TZ') of scattering particles between linear motions work just fine to implement all observations and the SR postulates (freed of nonsense and QM compatible). The TZ's are the astrophysical shocks (dense 2-fluid plasma) found around all matter moving through the local ambient medium. (preferred frames but LOCAL, so 'hierarchical' not 'absolute' as in 'one only'.) That's 'discrete field' dynamics, or the 'DFM'.

Best wishes

Peter

Peter,

You haven't heard? The aliens landed with their FTL capable spacecrafts! They use special crystals to change the physics constant, the speed of light, on the outside of their spacecraft to achieve superluminal speeds. They apply an electrical current into the FTL crystal to get it to generate a field that changes the speed of light.

I'm just having a little fun. I'll take a look at the Gerlach experiment and your paper this evening. Hope all is well.

Jason

Peter,

There was an Erratum in my reply on Aug. 5, 2014 @ 18:58 GMT. Yes, going to 'the other side' may see things differently, i.e. clockwise rotation can appear anti-clockwise, but it depends...

The situation requires more information to describe properly. If you were standing atop the rotating object (standing meaning your legs being nearer than your head to the rotating object, then going to the other side and ALSO standing, WILL NOT not affect which way they rotate! It is an important consideration though to the argument. In any case I think Newton was more concerned about the centre of rotation, in which case there will be 'no other side' in his argument.

Now that you appear to support the fact that there is true motion I think I agree more with that aspect of DFM. What CMB radiation is to motion in terms of a frame of reference is not different from what your 'quantum vacuum', 'pair production' or 'ambient medium' frame is doing.

So on both counts, the two flaws or errors attributed to Newton cannot be accepted.

As to your recent post, "Light only converts to YOUR max speed 'c' if it meets you and presents itself for 'measurement' (interaction and computation), but only if you or the lens are made of matter", I still say this is Galilean relativity. Not only light. Sound as well will do same. Even drops of water as Galileo pointed out will start to share in the motion of the ship when below deck. Your DFM only provides some more detail in the mechanism of speed conversion, but does not negate Galilean relativity. However, in trying to make DFM go further than its scope errors such as 'light changing behaviour when you measure it' will come up. Whether you measure it or not, when light encounters a lens, its behaviour changes. No observer is needed.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

That foundation is built on Popper's mud. You're entirely wrong about the rotation. It's called; "non-mirror symmetry of spin". If you stand on the 'other side' of the disc and look down you WILL find it spinning in the opposite direction!

Do you also believe the north pole spins the same way as the south pole? All planets and rotating bodies have BOTH states, and they are Yin and Yang - ENTIRELY equivalent, with no 'up'! You need to 'stand back' and look 'afresh'.

But it's clear I do have to give up with you Akinbo. If your logic tells you that the valid and consistent definition I give of 'Proper' motion is anything like Newtons flawed assumed 'true' motion, then you're not using consistent logic, or perhaps didn't read my description properly. Consistent logic is the first requirement for making ANY progress in understanding nature, as is careful reading. But it has been an enlightening and thus valuable lesson on beliefs, comprehension and descriptive methods, so a genuine thank you.

Best wishes

Peter

PS You were right about sound. But the only difference between GR and SR is the LT ('curve') at the domain boundary interactions. An 'observer' (with a lens or antenna) is ALWAYS required to obtain a physical measurement!

Okay, Peter you actually made me imagine myself on a disc, turn myself upside, twist my neck this way and that when you raised the clockwise-anticlockwise bit. I thought of apologizing immediately for my hasty comment and error. But this morning it occurred to me if you were standing looking down at the rotating disc, going to the other side and standing looking down as well will not change clockwise to anticlockwise. You can try it instead of appealing to "non-mirror symmetry". This also appears to apply to north pole and south pole.

As to 'proper motion', 'absolute motion' and 'relative motion' Standing at both places agree to the earth rotating anti-clockwise (prograde). Finally, travels at its chosen speed whether anyone is there to measure or not. Indeed, measurement can be done after the light has already reached its destination. Thanks also for the head scratching. Not so boring.

Regards,

Akinbo

Okay, Peter you actually made me imagine myself on a disc, turn myself upside, twist my neck this way and that when you raised the clockwise-anticlockwise bit. I thought of apologizing immediately for my hasty comment and error. But this morning it occurred to me if you were standing looking down at the rotating disc, going to the other side and standing looking down as well will not change clockwise to anticlockwise. You can try it instead of appealing to "non-mirror symmetry". This also appears to apply to north pole and south pole. Standing at both places agree to the earth rotating anti-clockwise (prograde).

As to 'proper motion', 'absolute motion' and 'relative motion', well physics has not finished digesting the latter two but you are free to add yours to the menu. Finally, light travels at its chosen speed whether anyone is there to measure or not. Indeed, measurement can be done after the light has already reached its destination. Thanks also for the head scratching. Not so boring.

Regards,

Akinbo

*(reposted due to mix-up in last post).

An astonishing new paper is just out reviewing neutron interferometry and QM.. Fundamental phenomena of quantum mechanics explored with neutron interferometers.

..including experimental confirmations of ALL the effects predicted and invoked in the discrete field model (DFM) natural classical derivation of QM predictions as anticipated by John Bell in circumvention of his theorem, as in my 2014 essay, but more simply summarised here; Classical reproduction of quantum correlations

In particular the single neutron 'spin/path' entanglement (see p25 onwards) is confirmed as producing violations of the Bell inequality. But as a 'review' what it doesn't do is put all those jigsaw puzzle pieces coherently together (with a few other established effects) to complete the the big picture.

See also the 'Berry Phase' (p21) discovery consistent with the foundations of the DFM in hierarchical (spin/) helicities; established 30 years but comprehensively ignored! Quote;

"In 1984 Michael Berry realized that slow (so-called adiabatic) and *cyclic evolutions of quantum systems* comprise a so-far 'forgotten' phase factor. Unlike the usual dynamical phase factor exp(-iHt/), it only depends on the solid angle omega enclosed by the evolution path of a quantum state in parameter space as seen from the point of degeneracy [126]. In particular, the Berry phase is equal to -omega/2 for two-level systems. A first experimental demonstration was soon accomplished using photons."

Perhaps Neutron spin behaves quite differently to electrons and photons, but I hypothesise not. (see ref's to experimental confirmations).

I apologise if it's a bit technical but it is all real science, not the 'guessing games' free of logic and real data which we probably play too much here. In simplest terms; the wide range of specialist (and previously obscure) findings identified appear consistent with all the key DFM propositions! (Please do point out if my analysis looks at all flawed).

Best wishes,

Peter

Jason,

They may have landed but they keep taking off again! Even if they explained to us precisely how FTL worked it may prove a bit like describing celestial mechanics to a Rotweiler.

In any case it seems reasonably clear that we're still far too irresponsible and stupid to use any great advances in understanding safely or wisely.

Am I wrong? If anybody disagrees do please present the case.

Best wishes

Peter

I hope you grasped the summary? Simply; OAM of any point on Earth varies with latitude by Cos^2 of the subtended angle from the (Lagrangian point at the) centre of Earth. And at the equator OAM peaks but spin direction reverses (except for a few who believe it doesn't!) The converse is true at the poles (max directional certainly, min OAM).

If 'Entanglement' is of spin axis not 'particles', then try to find the 'weirdness' and uncertainty in QM! You'll find them only in 'hyperfine' spin, at the next 'fractal' spin gauge down. "Wheels within wheels". See paper I just posted below.

Peter,

I agree the clockwise-anticlockwise thing is a brain twister. I have figured it in various ways, literally somersaulted and still getting conflicting views for and against. I will leave it for a while.

You underrate Newton and if you read his Scholium IV perhaps you will not consider 'speed being wrt to earth' as a novel idea.

Akinbo

The lion and the electron.

Here's a thought, can we compare electrons and adult lions? Each exhibit behaviour though admittedly the lion, being more complex, is able to exhibit a wider range. Lets just consider position in space over time.I would like to argue that the lion has an associated probability distribution. There are some places with a higher likelihood of finding it than others. Close to the water hole where there is water and reliable prey has a high probability.In the proximity of shade trees has a rather high probability and in areas frequented by prey where his pride may be located also has high probability. Areas that have no water, food or shade are less likely places to find the lion though he may just be passing through on his way somewhere else. There is a very high probability that he will be found within his territory but there is not a zero probability of finding him outside. He could have been displaced or could be challenging a neighboring rival. In order to build up the probability distribution it would be necessary to sample the lion's position intermittently over years of its adult life while it holds a territory. It moves much more slowly than an electron. Unlike an electron it is possible to reuse the same individual many times as it is not removed by the act of sampling. Electron's however are similar enough that one is probably identical or as near identical as it gets. So different electron's can be used to build up the probability distribution.

What is building up the distribution is the intermittent sampling. It is not following the lion and marking the exact tracks that it took but lets say at any one observation taking one photograph as the sample.

Now there are two sets of data : Probability of finding an electron in various positions within an atom and probability of finding lion in various places within its territory. Each set of data could be represented as a probability cloud by plotting all of the found positions onto a map of the "territory". Is it now fair to say the electron only exists as a probability cloud, or the lion only exists as a probability cloud, until a sample is made, as no definite position can be given based on known behaviour alone? I would say of course not. Both have material existence and are somewhere but the act of "looking" gives a definite measurement rather than just a probability. It is not a case that macroscopic objects have definite positions and sub atomic particles don't but the way in which we "look" forms the impression we have. If a wish to locate the lion the probability distribution printed out is my best guide for locating it (especially if different ones were produced for different times of day) I will look first in those places with highest probability. It is the representation of the lion that is a probability cloud not the lion (Object). Likewise it is the representation of the electron that is a probability cloud not the electron object. Your thoughts?

I should have said it is the representation of the lion's behaviour that is a probability cloud not the lion (Object)...and, likewise it is the representation of the electron's behaviour that is a probability cloud not the electron object.

Hi Peter,

Honestly, I don't know if humans are too stupid and/or dangerous to be given the means to use FTL technology. The older I get, the more I feel like being human is a competition of who is more powerful (smarter, faster, has more endurance, better adaptation skills). I yearn for those days in my early 20's when I believed there were advanced alien civilizations out there who wanted to help humanity grow spiritually. They may yet be there, watching us; but I just don't feel as spiritual as I used to. It's not that I want to shoot down a UFO nor do I feel that it is morally justified. It would be an act of war if we did shoot an alien spacecraft down. Only then would the skeptics be convinced that we are not alone. I hate that unavoidable fact; I wish we could go back to the time when we could believe in grey aliens, etc., because it was inspiring to do so.

As for FTL technology, I don't think it's a failure of intelligence on our part (even though it would be complicated). I think it's an access problem. We just don't have access to the kind of physics and technology that allows us to alter physics constants or pull energy out of thin air using the energy+gravity=0 loophole to conservation of energy. At this point in our cultural/technological evolution, we may as well just pretend there are magic crystals that can do things, as a place-holder. It is probably better to have our little Star Trek fantasies, then to become so hyperfocused on reality that our species becomes... boring.

Now we can see why quantum outcomes are probabilistic rather than completely predictable. Lion ( behaviour ->location ) outcomes too are probabilistic. Having done the field work we can divide up the map of the territory into areas and mark it with probabilities for finding the lion in each, that can then be used in future for locating the lion.

The probability distribution that will be found can be represented by all of the factors that play their part in giving outcomes in the different areas. In the case of the sub atomic particle its the non relativistic time dependent Schrodinger equation. For a lion the factors affecting its position would be things like hunger, whether feeding or not, thirst, external body temperature, whether or not the lionesses are sexually receptive or if there are cubs to protect and whether there are rival males in the neighborhood.

If all the factors affecting behaviour are amalgamated it should be possible to match probabilistic expectations of location to probability distribution of actual positions found by sampling. Then there is an accurate formulaic description not of a lion but of lion behaviour over time giving accurate prediction of probabilities of locations.

Does the behaviour->location probability distribution, wave function, for the electron exist as a real thing in space? I'm going to say no because at any instant in time the electron has only one location. For a macroscopic object such as a lion can we say the same? There is a big difference. We do not detect the lion by direct interaction but via electromagnetic signals or as I've been calling it potential sensory data (s.d.). The lion (Object, an actualisation),aka a-Lion has only one position at any one instant. However the potential sensory data from which a lion Image reality can be produced, IE the experience of where the lion is, is spread over space as electromagnetic waves. So s.d.lion encodes many potential positions in space simultaneously.

The observed lion position will depend upon where and when the observer takes the sample and what data is at that position then, giving singular lion position m-lion (manifestation) output.That sequence of events does not happen with the sub atomic particle because it is detected by direct interaction.

Now I must reiterate that an aspect of what we call lion can be represented as a probability distribution of its locations resulting from its behaviour which is a phenomenon over time not an attribute of the lion object at any instant. However its behaviour and consequent locations are also spread out within space as electromagnetic data only becoming a singular manifestation upon receipt of that sensory data and processing into experienced output.

Does the electromagnetic data in the environment collapse, no a sample is taken from it and the rest continues on its way. Upon collection of the data there is a switching from considering many possibilities (the probabilistic view ) to observation of one fabricated manifestation. That is from an imaginary view spanning many iterations of the Object universe to one Image reality manifestation.

Can the lion be both alive and dead simultaneously. Yes if you are referring to s.d.lion rather than a-lion or m-lion. Have a near and a far observer, shoot the lion. Near observer sees lion dead before far observer because they are receiving different sensory data from the environment in which there is data encoding both dead and alive manifestations.

That makes me think a singular wave function for a macroscopic object is inadequate as a description as it does not take into account the trinity of things. That are all called by the same name but are fundamentally different, in The actualisation, aka a-x, the potential sensory data, aka s.d.-x and the manifestation aka m-x.

Having said all that, the sensory data spread out in the environment is why I really like what Julian Barbour has been doing with his Shape space. Not because of where he is taking it,which is interesting in its own right, but because there has to be in the environment, not just imaginary shape space, data to give all of the possible spatial transformations and changes of scale that could become manifestations if just that sample of em data is received and processed. The maximum size being the same as the actualised object unless a magnifying glass or microscope is being used. His process of finding closest matching transformation could be a way of finding how the manifestation would alter as the observer is placed in a different position with different viewpoint.

Has anyone here studied the Fine Tuning data? I'm looking at this website: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

They seem to be saying that if the physics constants were not exactly what they are, then either chemistry wouldn't work, or there wouldn't be materials available for complex organic life forms. Or biology wouldn't have enough time to evolve, stuff like that. Does anyone here know just how much error is allowed in the physics constants before biology is no longer possible?