Why Quantum?

Vladimir Rogozhin

I update: the primordial structure of space founded by the ontological structure of matter, ie of its absolute (unconditioned) states - in the triunity of states.

pjackson

John,

Bell did like deBroglie's "crafsmanship", and electron density based mechanics, pointing out; "our treatment of the electron gun so far is neither complete nor accurate."

also saying; "We are led...to include more and more of the world in the wavy QM system...(and) the eye of the observer.." (Speakable.. p.188).

JM and I have linked 'pilot waves' to light's 'spin/orbit' dimensional hierarchy, but as just two fractals of a sequence of 'dimensions'.

Re JM and Baltimore; Yes, father Jan Minkowski (descended direct from Hermann's family) studied under Pauli, moved to the US after release from a German PoW camp, becoming Professor Emeritus of Quantum Optics at Johns Hopkins. (I'd expect relatives lived in the area). John stayed with optics, which we've both studied, me moving on to astrophysics. We've collaborated on a number of papers.

Steve,

That's very helpful. Yes, I've been highly familiar with the; "very detailed explanation of Fraunhofer diffraction based on standard principles." for many years". I've even contributed. My point is that it's geometry and maths actually "explain" nothing about the physical process, a fact that's become long forgotten due to familiarity. That's the problem with the 'pragmatic' approach of just 'utility', precisely the problem Bell identified with QM.

Let's look at it afresh in terms of Maxwell's near and far field 'transition zone'. Some distance from an antenna an emitted signal's characteristics, mainly considered as wavelength and frequency, CHANGE! The mathematical terms fail and new ones are required. We can work out the 'distance' involved wrt each different wavelength, so have no problem.

In the pragmatic view we understand what's happening. Except we don't have the slightest CLUE what's actually physically happening to cause it! We've just got used to it, just like 'Maxwell's ether' which of course isn't real as we don't 'need' ether (except of course for Huygens principle, ..viz 'Fraunhofer radiation', stellar aberration, KRR, the kSZ effect etc!!)

So if a coherent mechanism emerges resolving all those issues, the 'utility' view dismisses it a priori as no 'solution' appears to be needed. Having seen how the solution works I'm suggesting it's that 'entrenched' view which explains why theoretical understanding is stuck in a rut.

Can you understand that argument? I'm rather at a loss as to how to overcome it.

Best wishes

peter

John Merryman

Peter,

Here is an earlier article on it, from Quanta magazine. The comments section is interesting.

Regards,

John M

pjackson

John,

Brilliant freeze-frame video. "Preposterous" current theory was blamed on "decades of indoctrination" by Goldstein;

Wired; 'The new quantum reality'.

I agree, but a problem is the critics are mainly right, it never was and still isn't a complete answer. However the far bigger one is that when a complete answer is staring them in the face it's invisible to them! I've shown how the fundamentals of the de Broglie Bohm hypothesis can apply at the quantum scale without needing 'travelling particles'! The 'spin/orbit' scale relation is equivalent to the big/small wave (the 'particle' in the video itself has spin.

The issue is that few now seem interested in classical mechanics. And as I say; those not fully au-fait with QM don't see the solution, and most of the rest have bought into the weird spookyness so are in Bell's words 'Sleepwalking'.

Of that 'complacent/pragmatic' philosophy he said; "We differ only in the degree of concern or complacency with which we view...the intrinsic ambiguity in principle of the theory."

Can you spot the strong consistencies between my description to Akinbo and the articles? My task here is to develop a widely understandable description. I seen unable to make any progress!

Best wishes

Peter

John Merryman

Peter,

I agree the actual physics is still much deeper. Obviously much of this is a function of surface tension, which raises the question of whether some surface effect is the basis of quanta, or what is operating at those scales.

The real issue we face is the 'surface tension' of the status quo and how does one penetrate that structure. Certainly the force of logic alone does not overcome the momentum of current assumptions. I don't know if you followed my debates with Tom on the subject, or my current exchange with Steve, but they are unwilling to accept that one cannot logically argue space expands, based on the redshift of light, when the speed of that very same light sets the stable units this expansion is necessarily denominated in! When different features of the same property are the factors, then they are not different frames.

Now this is far less complicated than trying to extract descriptions of sub atomic, quantum behavior, but it is evident they are not going to question the creed over issues of mere logic. Not to mention that no one else even seems interested in a simple observation that seriously undermines a main tenet of modern cosmology. So I can certainly see this issue of whether fluid dynamics can give a window into a logical physical description of quantum behavior going on for decades. The likely resolution will probably be generational, in that future physicists will necessarily be forced to choose sides and over time, more will see opportunity in studying actual physical behavior, than in concocting ever more elaborate theoretical structures.

People are human.

Regards,

John M

[deleted]

John,

I explain the ontology and dialectic constructing of my model of the Universum. Ontological basis, framework and carcass of the triune Universum ("Absolute generating structure") is the absolute (unconditional) triunity of states of matter: he absolute rest (linear state of matter, the continuum), its "opposites" - the absolute motion (vortex, discrete state of matter discretuum) and the absolute becoming (absolute wave as the transfer of states). Each state has its own way (vector of the absolute state of matter).

Dialectical triunity of the absolute states of matter - the primordial generating structure of the Universum, the ultimate ontology of the Universum, which generates the "beginning", "simplicity of complexity", the source of all strengths of the Absolute field of the Universum, all the strength and energy of the Universum. The modern picture of the world ("In the beginning was the big bang ...") there is no ontological basis, there is no primordial generating structure, it is poor meanings. To construct the ontological basis of the Universum , it is important to use extremely sharp "Occam's Razor", which cuts off the excess concepts to avoid conceptual weaving lace and coming out the philosophical ontology into psychology. And only when constructed the ontological basis, framework and carcass, only then begins the process, begins "flow" of time - "arrow of time", then is created the hierarchy of the Universum.

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Zeeya Merali

Just alerting you to a new dedicated thread for discussing Pilot Wave Hydrodynamics.

John Merryman

Zeeya,

Thanks. This topic may start off slowly, but I suspect it will continue to be a major issue in the field.

It will be hard to propose theories to top multiverses, so the likely momentum will be toward a serious review of the field and many of those issues which have been bubbling under the surface are going to start getting more attention. The tide will turn.

Regards,

John M

John Merryman

Vladimir,

I try to get away from any top down explanations, so I tend to view anything physical as relational and only the logical parameters of neutrality and infinity as being non-physical properties. This is because I start from a primarily physical, not scholastic basis. The need to explain the world around me and that I function in keeps getting complicated and then I have to consolidate it back down because I am all too aware of my own limits and have to function within them.

Regards,

John M

Vladimir Rogozhin

Yes, John, it is on the limit values of being and thinking. More Parmenides concluded about the identity of being and thinking, and Heraclitus that «The way up and down, one and the same.» I do not think that the conclusions of Lee Smolin about "meta-law" - is scholasticism. Each way to the truth in fundamental science must lead to specific ontological structures that represent the underlying processes in nature . «The truth should be drawn and should be presented to "an unlimited circle"of spectators.»( Alexander Zenkin Science "Counter-Revolution in Mathematics").

Right that FQXi is holding a contest «Show Me the Physics!» and in Moscow in October will be the conference "The ontology of quantum mechanics."

Today the fundamental physics is in deep semantic "crisis of interpretation and representation"(T.Romanovskaya). Overcome the crisis without philosophy is impossible. "In our time, physicists have to deal with the philosophical problems to a greater extent than is necessary to do the physicists of the previous generations. Forced physicists to this the difficulties of their own science" (Albert Einstein)

Sincerely,

Vladimir

John Merryman

Vladimir,

I still think part of the problem lays in our intellectual necessity to comprehend reality in terms of structures, patterns, models, plans, laws, etc, while nature is inherently dynamic and so builds and breaks down structures, viewpoints, relationships, etc. So we extract these isolated effects, while cause washes by like a flood.

Regards,

John M

Vladimir Rogozhin

John,

When appearing and disappearing the "fundamental constants" and "laws of nature" in your model of the Universгum? According to what the meta-law?

Sincerely,

Vladimir

John Merryman

Vladimir,

In the void there is no form, ideal or otherwise. When you start to have interaction, of polarities, they create definition and since much of it, especially at elementary levels is repetitive, so to is the definition "defined." When we look back at it, we see such principles as 1+1=2 and 1-1=0 as laws, but if there is no dynamic, then there is no process of creation and annihilation from which to draw these patterns. 1 and 2 are nouns. + and - are verbs. While we think verbs are a consequence of nouns acting, it is the action which creates the nouns in the first place.

Regards,

John M

Vladimir Rogozhin

Dear John,

But the question of "fundamental constants" and "laws of nature" in your model of the Universe!

Please give me a link where I can be found with your model ...

Sincerely,

Vladimir

John Merryman

Vladimir,

Mostly this is my synthesis of all the stuff I've learned over the years and I haven't put much effort into having anything published, because there is only a fine line between what has already been said and thinking that is too far outside the box for anyone to pay attention to, so I don't spend much time banging my head against the wall of public opinion.

I have entered in all the FQXI contests, but one. They might give you some sense of how I see reality.

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?

It From Bit or Bit From It?

Questioning the Foundations

Is Reality Digital or Analog?

The Nature of Time

The 'Questioning the Foundations' and 'Nature of Time' entries were both on my point about time being the process by which future becomes past, not a vector from past to future, though the latter entry was much more developed. The 'It From Bit or Bit From It' and 'Is Reality Digital or Analog' entries might give you some sense of what I think of the field of physics, while the last, 'How Should Humanity Steer the Future' was really my sort of question, since I was originally drawn to physics in order to try to understand how society functions and what all is going on in general.

Most of them are fairly short, though the comments sections often go further into details.

Hope this isn't too radical, as I try to pack a lot of ideas into each.

Regards,

John M

Steve Agnew

...six hidden dimensions...

What I mean by hidden dimensions are simply dimensions that are not self evident. Axioms are by definition self evident and so ontologies with dimensions that are not self evident are certainly less useful for making a universe than ontologies with self evident axioms. However, it is true that you can build any kind of universe you want with such added dimensions and explain any kind of observation with another dimension.

Quantum spin, for example, is something that really should come naturally as a consequence of the action of matter and should not require its own distinct axiom or ad hoc assumptions. My matter time universe seems to have these kind of naturalisms that are very pleasant in any universe model.

Adding dimensions is very similar to the propensity to add constants and then to add multiverses, all of this is reminiscent of the tendency to attribute the universe to one or another of these various supernatural agents. What I look for in a model of the universe is simplicity, completeness, and closure.

Steve Agnew

...on the rock and roll...

No, matter time is not infinite, the matter time universe is finite and closed...and simple. My matter time universe is a butt simple time pulse of matter with a Fourier transform that is a matter spectrum with a peak for every matter interaction of every object in the universe. There is a bunch of phase stuff as you might imagine as both time and matter have both amplitude and phase and all action is driven by the Schrödinger equation. Action, once again, is simply a change in matter with time for an object.

Since space is a projection of matter time action, whatever your space in space time works just fine in matter time as well. But do realize that when you say the universe is flat, you infer that there is a space and yet we know that GR's model for gravity has deep flaws.

The speed of light has a really simple definition in matter time. It is just the rate of collapse of the universe at this time. The increasing red shift of light from galaxies is not due to red Doppler shift, it is because the universe pulse began with a universe that had all force at zero and projected to 3,000 Mpc Now we are about 81% of that size. In fact, the collapsing universe, these red spectra are actually blue shifted by the velocity of collapse.

Note that the CMB velocity is 99.96% of the speed of light and so our universe is seemingly tied to the speed of light close to its boundary, the CMB. In space time, this is a coincidence and in a billion years or so, the CMB will disappear over the event horizon. In matter time, the rate of change of the universe is the speed of light, collapsing, not expanding.

Given the universe pulse in time, all force increases in sync with its collapse, and so all of the right constants shift together. The fine structure splitting, for example, appears the same in early galaxies as it is today even though force was much smaller in early galaxies.

The scaling between gravity and charge forces is related to the size the universe relative to the size of the atom, but they both due to matter decay.

There is an interesting topology for matter time in that matter seems to have a centered or horn torus shape. Since all force is due to matter exchange, that means that the projection of force in space is centered on action, centers of mass, and not on particle centers.

You mentioned an omega parameter...sounds like de Chardin? Singular axioms like the omega point just don't seem consistent with the universe, where there seems to be a minimum of three axioms for a universe, so I call it a trimal universe. Although you can build a universe out of space, time, and action, I find that matter, time, and action makes a very nice simple set of axioms that then result in space as a convenient construct of our consciousness.

Steve Agnew

Okay, you accept the ruler of space, but then you must also accept the ruler of time. It is very useful that you have spent some much time down the GR rabbit hole, but space does expand in an expanding universe, time slows, and so light does take longer to cross expanded space and yet, by the space time model, a constant light speed is consistent with this same expanding universe with a time delay. Although space time has its pathologies, the example you point out is not one of them. Both expanding and contracting universes have very similar relationships with the speed of light, space, and time.

What seems to bother you is that expanding space between galaxies seems to mean that light has to speed up to match that expansion rate. An example is of two simultaneous and opposing light pulses crossing the expanding space between two galaxies separated by 1.0 Blyrs and traveling therefore at 22,000 km/s (7.6% of c). This light will actually cross 1.3 Blyrs of expanded space and the space would have expanded between the two galaxies from 1.0 Blyrs to 1.6 Blyrs during the light travel time and with both Hubble and c constant.

Well, the pulse showed up 1.0 Byrs later at each galaxy, but was actually 1.3 Blyr in the frame of reference that somehow was not expanding in your imagination. Each galaxy time clock was slowed by the velocity and so by that dilated time the galaxies each measure 1.0 Byrs elapsed even though the light crossed 1.3 Blyrs of expanded space at constant c.

What is so hard about that? Expanding space and slowing time...these kinds of space-time rabbit holes invariably take Minkowski diagrams and lots of thought to muddle your way out. However, the flaws with GR are not with the trickiness of simultaneity, inertial frames, expansion, and time dilation, but we can sure spend a lot of time on these complex issues.

John Merryman

Steve,

You are avoiding the issue. In order to work, the doppler effect needs a stable frame. When the train moves away, it doesn't change the speed of sound,. It is because the source is moving away the sound has to keep traveling further to reach the receiver and so the waves are longer and thus redshifted, for the observer.

The problem for cosmic redshift is that it is not just the space between any two galaxies, but all those other galaxies appear to be moving directly away from us, so that it appears we are at the center of this expansion. The solution was to argue that the frame itself must be expanding, but they ignore that would cancel using the doppler effect, which requires that stable frame, in which the source is actually moving away and putting more space between source and receiver. It is a case of wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

Now if it is a lensing effect, it would make complete sense that we appear at the center, but that would mean a stable universe and the "wrong people" were right.

Regards,

John M

pjackson

Steve,

"you accept the ruler of space, but then you must also accept the ruler of time." I suggest not only that that doesn't need to follow but that it's the assumption that's most confounded understanding.

We humans are arrogant creatures. We invent some mechanism by making it repeat intervals we invent by dividing up some arbitrary orbit or rotation, and when some of the EM emissions it sends out with those intervals are changed by Doppler shifts, as is the way of ALL fluctuations, we then assume without really thinking that we've had the power to change 'time' itself!!

Did the rate the original clock ticked change just because some part of it's emissions did?? I suggest it's nonsense to imply so by implying the signals really are 'time'. The only RULER of time measures the 'change', and is the wavenumber', which is the only constant (or scalar).

From a logical view it seems our arrogance has only been matched by our stupidity, which Einstein suggested was infinite. I hope we can one day prove him wrong on that!

Best wishes

Peter

« Previous Page Next Page »