Why Quantum?

Why quantum?

Here is why: http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.7610 Next puzzle please.

Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 29, 2014 @ 13:57 GMT

"We must all follow out own path Steve."

A fairly common occurrence when one tries to ask simple questions of any new model of the universe are that there do not seem to be answers to these simple questions. Invariably a series of increasingly complex explanations obscure rather than reveal any underlying truth associated with the model. The inability to represent any part of the model in simple terms coupled with the increasing complexity of successive explanations obscures any underlying simplicity.

Instead of an answer to a question, proponents often answer with more questions or a terse statement of self evidence or of a prior paper that ostensibly addresses the issue. When one goes to the paper in question, one gets even more confused with more of the same recursive discourse. The discourse evolves into a gibberish that is incoherent and unproductive.

I personally like to find out about other people's interpretations of the universe and find that they are very much like a religion. I then feel like I better understand my own beliefs, but I have not yet found one that fulfills the promise of better predictions of action and I search on for an improved prediction of action.

Steve,

The things it does best are predict, and explain fundamentals simply. Did you understand how it reproduced quantum predictions classically? or precluded the need for 'relative' time, allowing unification? It also predicts every one of the anomalous CMB anisotropies identified, and derives a physical mechanism for the LT. etc etc.

The problem is that we all have different 'expectations'. The simple new fundamental mechanism, continuous re-scattering to the new local c, uses more consistent foundations well below those you see as the 'basics' so is inconsistent with your view. 'Entropy' is a conceptually misunderstood and apparently redundant concept, and there is certainly no need for 'messenger' particles. But if you insist those are correct a priori, then the simpler answer can only look more complex.

But all avenues must be travelled Steve. I can't and shouldn't expect all to just abandon their beliefs and switch to some entirely different view that seems alien to them. I can only point out that it IS simpler, and works perfectly. Most to the point, NOBODY has yet found any flaw in testing it with the scientific method (objectively). That's a permanent challenge I've laid down. I wish more would try.

The problem is that we don't generally use the SM as habit, we 'pattern match' with the established pictures in our neural networks and if it doesn't fit something already there it's rejected. That's the current state of our intellectual evolution and we can only make the best of it. Perhaps we lead the universe! My guess would be probably not! so patience is a virtue.

Best wishes

Peter

Florin, here's your next puzzle:

Why the world appears invariant under all transformations in a coordinate free geometry.

Tom,

The world is relative, there are no absolute things (except death and taxes, ha, ha). It's a primitive principle of nature which cannot be explained using other things.

Here is a big puzzle: what is time? Is time a consequence of QM? I don't know yet, but I'll find out.

"The world is relative, there are no absolute things ..."

Other than the value of the speed of light in a vacuum.

" ... (except death and taxes, ha, ha)."

Taxes are our own contrivance. Death may also be, unless one can precisely and non-arbitrarily demarcate life from death.

"It's a primitive principle of nature which cannot be explained using other things."

Not that primitive. Relativity, as Einstein averred, is an unfortunate name for a theory that demands an absolute value. Regardless of how it's used in the vernacular, Relativity in physics does not mean, "Everything is relative."

"Here is a big puzzle: what is time? Is time a consequence of QM? I don't know yet, but I'll find out."

Good luck. My own finding is that time and information are identical, on the physical definition of 'time:' "n-dimension infinitely orientable metric on random, self-avoiding walk." Works for me.

If quantum waves exist as real but not material things, they can be dynamic, they can be the flow of time that flows through all particles and all energy. The speed of light is just a characteristic of these quantum waves of time.

" ... real but not material things ... "

Can one name anything that doesn't fit that description?

Virtual particles and photons, wave-functions, the infrastructure that imposes the Invariance of the speed of light, the space-time continuum itself (geometry), there are lots of things that exist but are not material. The Higgs field and Higgs boson can barely be thought of as material; I could argue that it's not material. Even light is not really material.

"Virtual particles and photons, wave-functions, the infrastructure that imposes the Invariance of the speed of light, the space-time continuum itself (geometry), there are lots of things that exist but are not material."

Right. Actually, everything. If one takes "material" synonymous with "physical," all that is required for physics is space and time.

"The Higgs field and Higgs boson can barely be thought of as material; I could argue that it's not material. Even light is not really material."

Some years ago, Paul Davies and and John Gribbin wrote a book titled The Matter Myth. If you haven't read it, I think you would like it.

It is my hope that some day, maybe in a few centuries, that scientists will be able to unlock some mechanisms hidden deeper within this invisible space-time geometry and quantum vacuum. Perhaps some mechanism that sets the speed of light. I would love to see the day when physicists can learn to control the speed of light in a vehicular sort of way.

Akinbo,

If you're not familiar with the 'amplituhedron', it provides a close and (I find) compelling representation of the hierarchical 'fractal gauge' dynamics I invoke.

Amplituhedron.

It's based on much evidence. Can you see it's logic? Might it be a valid tool in describing hierarchical dynamics?

If you like stuff a bit more extreme, have you seen how central the top Lockheed Martin scientist considers the propagation of electrons with motion?

Boyd Bushman On Antigravity. There are other video's showing his theories experimentally confirmed, but mainstream theorists can't rationalise it so ignore it! (as the US government wants).

Best wishes

Peter

Peter,

I became lost in the argument, the moment you said, "Earth then has a 370km/s speed THROUGH THE LOCAL BARYCENTRIC (SUN) REST FRAME" and "The 370km/s is Earth's speed wrt our OWN star, NOT any others!", which I was hoping was a typo on your part but it appears it was not.

Take a listen..., p.4

"By far the largest signal in the microwave background anisotropy is the dipole, recently measured by WMAP (Bennett et al. 2003b) to be (3.346 В± 0.017) mK in the direction (l = 263o.85В± 0.o1, b = 48o.25В± 0.04) in Galactic coordinates. This is nearly two orders of magnitude larger than the root-mean-square (rms) anisotropy in the dipole subtracted sky, and so thought not to be of cosmological origin, but rather to be caused by the motion of the solar system with respect to the rest frame defined by the CMB. As shown by Peebles & Wilkinson (1968), the dipole induced by a velocity v is T(v/c) cos Оё, where Оё is measured from the direction of motion. Given T = (2.725В± 0.002) K (Mather et al. 1999), one infers that v в‰ѓ 370 kmsв€'1.

You or some other member in good standing may want to suggest CMB as an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, 2014 being the 50th anniversary of its discovery. It is worth celebrating!

Regards,

Akinbo

*I will see the Amplituhedron link. Has a nice picture and could be interesting.

*Tom appears to be chuckling offline at that error.

I don't have much quarrel with your post on Jul. 30, 2014 @ 17:28 GMT. In the paper you linked, "The heliosphere is situated near the inside edge of an interstellar cloud and the two move past each other at a velocity of 50,000 miles per hour. This motion creates a wind of neutral interstellar atoms blowing past Earth, of which helium is the easiest to measure,..". This may be a distraction. The 50,000 miles per hour comes to a mere 22.3km/s compared to the 370km/s if that is what you have in mind.

Do you believe in multiverses of the type that ours is moving with respect to another and that other os in turn moving with respect to yet another, etc? There must be some limit to absurdity on the smallest and largest of scales. At the smallest, we have the 'extended point or monad', at the largest a finite universe (with CMB as trace marker), not moving with respect to any other thing.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

Yes I see my error; Earth's speed is 30.3kps, but my point is valid despite the typo. Copi and most identified a CMB dipole from 'A' rest frame not 'THE ONLY' rest frame. The frame used is NOT valid from Earth, as we must add or subtract up to 30.3kps, then also add or subtract the orbital/rotational velocity of the telescope.

The 'Solar system' is considered, correctly, as a unique bulk 'system' with it's own rest frame, doing 370kps wrt the rest frame of the galactic region which a was picked at the nominal dipole rest frame.

The point is even clearer when considering greater scales. i.e. that selected CMB rest frame is itself travelling at great speed wrt The Andromeda galaxy, which has it's own based on it's centre of mass (unless you wish to claim they use ours!)

Now look back to Smoot's Nobel paper and later Planck findings; The fact the solar system is doing '370kps wrt the CMB' is only LOCALLY relevant. The galaxy itself has a local velocity wrt the Local Group (LG) and the LG also has a velocity wrt the cluster and LOCAL CMB! Smoot found that ('vLG') as ~627kps. The cluster also has a speed in it's own surrounds, etc. etc. even the filaments 'move' and rotate! There are two ways of looking at everything but only one is logically consistent! - and it's 'hierarchical'.

I agree; "There must be some limit to absurdity on the smallest and largest of scales." Indeed. I thought you'd read the cyclic evolution paper which painstakingly presents the overwhelming evidence, consistent with the latest 'cosmic cartography' video I posted. The centre of this universe also has a centre-of-mass rest frame (possibly at the 'great attractor'). If you can explain infinity then the hierarchy may be infinite. If you can explain it stopping then it can stop!

The LT paper gives the lower limit for matter, which is the single quanta max density or min wavelength gamma (the plasma limit). If we accept dark energy as in the a standard model of cosmology we have to accept a condensate, so some 'sub' matter energy state (~70% of the universe no less!) but I don't propose then EM propagation speed can be modulated (to local c) by anything below it's min wavelength gamma.

So we need to talk of 'local' CMB dipole, and 'domain limits', as Scott & Smoot and the smartest in astronomy, even without the DFM's rationalisation of local

Peter,

To be sincere I see you as a honest toiler after the truth. Your nemesis is that DFM is in my opinion too ambitious a project. Seeking to 'join up' all of physics. In my view I think it better to take care of the small fundamental things and the big things will take care of themselves. But DFM wants to take care of quantum correlations and also explain astrophysical jets! I can only encourage you but to actually make impact it may be wise also to focus intensely one small falsehood in physics and resolve. I know this piecemeal method may not be to your liking.

Now to the matter at hand, from a reference book in front of me: The solar sysem is located about 25000 l.years from the galaxy center, it revolves around this centre at a speed 225km/s, making one turn in 200x10^6 years.

Then the solar system velocity relative to the microwave background radiation is 380km/s towards a point at RA = 18.5H, D = +30, in the Leo constellation.

What Copi and previous workers found is an anisotropy which was dipole in nature, i.e. red in one direction and blue in the opposite. Of course, this finding was from the earth's frame. If it is then assumed to be due to observer motion at 370km/s, and we transform to the CMB frame by masking out the dipole anisotropy, all other irregularities (anisotropies) were very small in comparison, hence the initial statement that CMB was perfectly smooth after the correction. As you pointed out however, this has now being found not to be absolutely so. Let us leave the explanation for another blog.

As to the ('vLG') as ~627kps, since we are part of the ship, it is irrelevant to us. We partake of it. The CMB-centric motion has already accounted for it (I may be wrong). W don't partake of the CMB motion, but we partake of the other motions. CMB is fom outside our ship and has not been tied to any ship in the hierarchy. But humans are moving on a ship called earth, the earth is moving in a ship called the solar system. The solar system is moving in a ship called the Milky way. The milky way is moving about the Local group and we also partake of all these. It is the NET that the CMB is showing us. And if our instruments are fine enough we may even be able to see the tiny anisotropies due to these our other motion in ships within ship.

From all indications so far the CMB sits at the top of the hierarchy as far as motion is concerned but I know you may not agree yet if the CMB is of cosmological origin at a beginning and is present in ALL of space, not 100% uniform but fairly close giving what your astrophysical jets keep shooting out, I think to a large extent it satisfies Newton's position. After all, in SR, it is fundamental that electromagnetic phenomena CANNOT, repeat CANNOT, tell an observer he is moving, (i.e. what speed, which direction, whether you are stationary, etc). That is the meaning of the CSL that most misinterpret. The CMB has falsified all of that. Back to Newton!

Akinbo

Akinbo,

Newton's error emerges by splashing his bucket with water as it spins. If the drops fall off vertically he's correct, if they're thrown outwards the DFM is correct. Once the bucket and water within it spin in unison they are in the same frame and the 'background' to the contents becomes the same as for the bucket; It's the carriage of the train you're doing the experiment in.

Whether or not the train is moving (rectilearly) or the planet you're on is spinning, or orbiting, etc, is entirely irrelevant to the bucket and it's LOCAL BACKGROUND. Only the LOCAL background is ever valid for determining propagation speed. Neither Newton or SR were then complete. The DFM simply completes both them and QM. We now know the galaxy spins "in lockstep" (SciAm editors words not mine), so not as individual bodies but as a 'dinner plate' complete with the local halo and Interstellar Medium (ISM) rest frame through and wrt which light propagates locally at c. Thus the red and blue shifts.

Of course there's a centre of (finite) universe rest frame, but that has no validity as a basis to the LOCAL propagation speed of WEM fluctuations. That's exactly the same as sound. 'Speed' is only a local and relative concept.

I understand your view on increments. I tried that for many years and it didn't work. People just invoke current peripheral beliefs to dismiss the most solid evidence and logic. For each one knocked down 3 others pop up if no fundamental rationale stops them! An ontology can only defeat myth as an ontology. I agree it's too much of a step for most to countenance in our current state of intellectual evolution but it is what it is.

Your view that it's "too ambitious a project" identifies the comprehension gap. many realise that when we DO 'crack the code' of what's really going on, then the consistent physics will all flood out. That's what's happened. I'm not "trying to do" anything! - 'seeking truth' is the task any more, I'm landed with the task of 'explaining it' so just have to find the best way.

I am indeed overwhelmed by the coherent resolutions flooding out. I feel like the boy with his finger in the dyke. Nobody took any notice so I had to let some out, now it's a gaping hole and uncontrollable flood! Many will 'drown' if the fundamental rationale isn't understood.

Most of the papers do still only deal with small aspects. The 'master' paper is only being developed slowly, waiting for the right time and 'approach' once I find it. All the eminent's were right; A "new way of thinking" about the universe is needed. To me rationalising 'thinking' is a far trickier task then rationalising nature! I thought you were grasping it a few times, but slipped back to other assumptions. But there's no panic. I hope it's inevitable, if we survive our currently fatal stupidities!

Best wishes

Peter

Steve,

An interesting view here that plasma self organisation doesn't conflict with maximum entropy. The fundamental are consistent with the DFM dynamic so we may both be partly correct but possibly also a little too hasty and missing options.

Z. Yoshida and S. M. Mahajan. Self-organization in foliated phase space: Construction of a scale hierarchy by adiabatic invariants of magnetized particles. Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. (2014) 2014: 073J01.

Views?

Akinbo,

The hierarchical 'scale ordered' structure consistent with findings is invoked again.

Best wishes

Peter

Peter,

You brought up an interesting perspective that perhaps in Newton's bucket experiment the surrounding air could be a participant in the proceedings. It is food for thought. Nevertheless, if infinity exists only in the minds of mathematicians and the universe is not infinite then there must be an end to the hierarchy story.

What lies above the CMB structure? That is, is it moving and if it is with respect to what?

I will also want to know if you have counter-arguments point by point to Newton's arguments from properties, causes and effects in section 5.2-4 and in his Scholium, especially X that falsify or nullify his position.

To quote one paraphrase from the Stanford entry...

Reasoning: From the property, the [relative] motion of a body out of a given place is only part of the motion of the body if the place in question is itself in motion. The complete and true motion of the body consists of its motion relative to the moving place added vectorially to whatever motion the place may have. Should the place be moving relative to a place which is in turn moving, then the motion of that place must be added, and so on. Barring infinite regress, the sum must terminate with a motion relative to a stationary place.

Are you saying DFM advocates infinite regress? The assignment Newton has given you is to tell us what structure lies above the Galaxy clusters or whatever you have above that. If you don't know then the honest thing is to admit the possibility that there may be a limit at the top of your hierarchy ladder.

Regards,

Akinbo