Pilot Wave Hydrodynamics

I find it satisfying to look here..

If we contemplate the far side of chaos, we find that a lot of things appearing complicated are actually simple in their roots, either owing to the generating equation or some bounding surface that makes itself known only when there is something expansive to bump into it. Things simply cannot get infinitely chaotic, and there are limits to complexity as well - though such limits may seem far off at the outset. Perelman's proof of the Poincare conjecture illustrates this.

The book "Chaotic Mirror" by Briggs and Peat does not use the term far shore of chaos, but takes that notion as its central theme of investigation. This same sort of thing is seen in experiments with non-linear entropy, where order appears to emerge from the maximum of chaos, or where there is an alternating pattern of orderly and chaotic regimes. Check out the work of J. Miguel Rubi for more on this angle.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Jonathan,

That's certainly one description. In last years essay I intimated that 'inclination' of a wave face corresponds to it's EM energy, so a median 'flat line' ground state value exists undetectably between +1 (peak) and -1 (trough).

i.e. In a fibre optic cable a signal uses 'square' waves, with vertical faces. Nature 'rounds them off', loosing fidelity, so we need amplification stations to sharpen them back up! The vertical lines are the 'switches' (for binary 0,1). If the line goes flat we have ZERO signal. But I say it's only zero at that gauge. If we 'focus in' on the flat line we'll find it's the surface of a smaller 'Dirac Sea' with a smaller gauge (Mandelbrot/fractal) version of the wave pattern.

A slightly different but consistent version of my 'divided photon energy' mechanism then emerges, with the 'crossings' of the median ground state (the most vertical parts of the curve) imparting the most energy. Let's say half the wave 'pattern' goes one way and half the other (randomly). Only ONE of the two parts can ever contain that peak 'switch' energy level, and only THAT half will then produce a quanta on interaction ('measurement').

I find the 3D helix and harmonic resonance derivation the best (and fully consistent with PMD) but the above simplification is easier to visualise.

A number of similar models are possible. None may be correct, but ALL extend the de Broglie Bohm model to replace the false assumptions leading to the illogical conclusions first drawn from twin slit findings and still prevalent in Mach Zehnder analyses. The Huygens-Fresnel principle foundational in optical science can then finally be generalised to all theory.

Or is old theory now too entrenched to see the light? Zeeya?

Best wishes

Peter

Jonathan,

I still think the relationship between order and energy would be a fruitful dichotomy to provide a deeper understanding of these concepts of complexity and chaos. As it is, they emerge from our understanding of order, while energy explains the process by which order is such a fluid concept in the first place.

Regards,

John M

Peter,

Old theory is like that square wave. We ignore nature and keep fixing it back up, because it was the "original signal."

Regards,

John M

John, don't confuse chaos with probabilism. You write:

" ... when we can discern the patterns being propagated, but then it becomes a reaction to this order and we lose the pattern, thus it seems chaotic or probabilistic and yet the better we get at detecting these patterns, the better nature gets at surprising us ..."

Chaos is deterministic. There are no surprises. The experiment under discussion here is a refinement of David Bohm's research into what he called the Implicate Order; his original analogy was of a droplet of ink in a vat of glycerin -- the vat is equipped with a mechanism that allows it to rotate, which causes the droplet to spread linearly, until it disappears. When the rotation is reversed, the ink blob returns to its original shape and position. Bohm and Basil Hiley extended this thinking into what they called The Undivided Universe. It's completely deterministic and classical.

"Why quantum?" Because quanta are integrated elements of nature's continuous and reversible function, its relative becoming, in Joy Christian's precise terms. So much for the sophistication and hubris with which certain physicists surround their theories in one breath, while reserving the other for harsh criticism of Joy's framework, without the least understanding of its mathematically complete structure -- only to witness the rediscovery of his results, all the while reinterpreting and rationalizing their meaning into something that suits their non-classical convictions. The ink droplet that disperses and recombines non-linearly, is not a product of statistical probability, any more than the linear version.

To borrow from Melanie Safka, "Look what they done to my song, Ma."

Are we allowed to ponder things like massively complex quantum entanglements that are generally undetectable, but might for example interconnect all biological life on the Earth, for example? What about deconstructing general relativistic geometry down into a weave of quantum entanglements? Can the physics laws, like Maxwell's equations and the Einstein equations be deconstructed into an enormous set of correlations of some quasi-existent wave-functions?

Tom,

I didn't say they were the same, which is why I listed both as causes of unpredictability, though we might still assign both different meanings. I would describe chaotic as not being able to know all input into a situation, while probabilistic as having far too much input to effectively determine the outcome before hand. This goes to my oft repeated observation about time being the process of future probabilities becoming current actualities and then residual effects, rather than a vector from past to future. Therefore the future remains inherently probabilistic, sometimes bordering on chaotic, because all input into a particular event cannot be fully known from a prior frame, ie. all input only comes together with the occurrence and since information cannot travel instantaneously, there is not a method to fully know what will be affecting it.

While I take your word for the physics of your example, it would seem both directions of spin would create centrifugal, not centripetal forces.

Regards,

John M

Though possibly stopping the spin altogether would allow the ink to coalesce.

Jason,

On the classical level, I suppose pilot waves are what we would refer to as feedback loops.

In eastern philosophy, as karma.

Regards,

John M

Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way. The Milky Way is moving through and displacing the aether.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether. The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of spacetime.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

In a double slit experiment it is the aether that waves.

"I didn't say they were the same, which is why I listed both as causes of unpredictability, though we might still assign both different meanings."

That isn't true, though, John. A chaotic system exhibits entirely predictable behavior. It's sensitively dependent on the initial condition, such that predictions further from the initial condition are progressively more difficult. Research into chaos and complexity theory is deepest at the point researchers identify as the "edge of chaos," where certain behavior starts to become uncertain.

"I would describe chaotic as not being able to know all input into a situation,"

And you would be wrong. It's been a years-long frustration to me, John, that you have a fine creative mind -- and yet you continue to absolutely refuse to familiarize yourself with the literature. Why? What have you got to lose?

" ... while probabilistic as having far too much input to effectively determine the outcome before hand."

There are two fundamental philosophies of probability: 1) the Frequentist view, where a result depends on the number of independent trials for an event; i.e., the more trials, the more confidence one has in the prediction. 2) the Bayesian view, which requires a certain amount of personal belief to predict a probability on the interval [0,1] though Bayesians believe there is a certain preexistent probability for any event.

Neither of these, however, have anything to do with "input," because they all all about output. The 'input' to a probability calculation is an information model, not physical input. When it comes to Bernoulli trials in a frequentist model -- one cannot, contrary to your assertion, have too much input, because the certainty of a prediction only grows with the number of trials. I won't get into Bayesianism, because I think it's nonsense from a scientific perspective.

Tom,

Your inability to comprehend my behavior rests on a lack of information. Personally I spend a large amount of time running around this farm, have to live on what amounts to a sedative to control the epilepsy and conversing in these discussions is a form of personal relaxation, of which I lack the time and energy to be able to invest the amount of effort required to "know everything." As such I'm entirely grateful for your efforts to converse, even if we often see reality from vastly different frames of reference.

My definition of probability and chaos do not come from careful scientific evaluation, but in dealing with the ebb and flow of my interactions with the world in which I live. As such, they are potent terms to me and if you insist on copyrighting them to only be used in scientific discourse, would you have any appropriate ones which I could replace them with?

If I might add further clarification to my views, it would be that chaos is not having a frame of reference to define the input. In other words, it's all noise and no signal. While probability would be a frame which does allow one some degree of foresight, but not absolute foreknowledge.

"Research into chaos and complexity theory is deepest at the point researchers identify as the "edge of chaos," where certain behavior starts to become uncertain."

The feedback loops start to get a little fuzzy?

I would say this does seem evidence for information being emergent from the underlaying dynamics. Consider even a concept as simple as 1+1=2. While the factors might be considered static entities, the function, addition, is a process, a verb. So the frequentist argument is that it is 100% predictable that 1+1=2, yet you still have to actually ask the question to get the answer. This information is not pre-existing, even if it is entirely predictable. In the void there are no static entities and no processes, so there is no platonic realm containing that information. Thus it is not at a fundamental level, deterministic.

As Lorraine is arguing over on the contest thread, the calculations are all contained in the ground level activity.

Regards,

John M

Ps,

Even considering 1+1=2 as a tautology, in the void neither description exists because there is no existent form to idealize. Information is emergent with what it defines.

"My definition of probability and chaos do not come from careful scientific evaluation, but in dealing with the ebb and flow of my interactions with the world in which I live. As such, they are potent terms to me and if you insist on copyrighting them to only be used in scientific discourse, would you have any appropriate ones which I could replace them with?"

How about "unpredictability" which fits your usage in both cases. And forgive me, John -- I thought we were engaged in scientific discourse.

"Even considering 1+1=2 as a tautology, in the void neither description exists because there is no existent form to idealize."

That's essentially correct. By the time Russell published Principia Mathematica, which consumed 300 some odd pages to prove that 1 + 1 = 2, Godel had proved that no system of axioms is strong enough to prove itself. So 1 + 1 = 2 isn't a theorem in the axioms of arithmetic; the theorem is that if 1 + 1 = 2, then 2 + 2 = 4.

Mathematics is always done in a void, as you call it. Perfect proofs are only a system of self consistent statements. That's why mathematics is art, not science.

"Information is emergent with what it defines."

Let's talk about that. You say that my failure to understand you, is my lack of information of your epileptic condition, such that what "emerges" as information in my mind should be the definition, or idea, that studying the literature is dependent on one's mental state. I don't buy that:

You post here daily in a coherent and articulate way. Having been a professional writer and editor for 50 years, I know intimately the relation between writing and reading. If you do one well, you can do the other reasonably well.

As for time and resources to learn, no one ever has enough. Parallel to your epilepsy is my own struggle with a head injury at age 3, which left me with a dyslexic-type disorder which stymied my ability to acquire a formal education. So I had to give up a lot of other things to learn on my own, and even today my investment in books and other learning tools outweighs that of food and clothing. It's a matter of priorities.

I'm not saying that my choices are better than yours. I'm saying that when one indulges in a community dialogue of a technical nature, it's different than bantering around the cracker barrel. Is it important, though? -- do you consider the people you influence with your words? Do they deserve the best information you can convey, or do you expect it to "emerge" as if false premises could lead to true conclusions?

Just my two cents. For what it's worth, I could even get change.

Tom,

Science arises as a formalization of essential human curiosity. It is not handed down as holy scripture. As such, different practices and even beliefs will result, such as the view of whether spacetime is a mathematical construct, or underlaying fabric of reality.

As I've pointed out frequently, my larger interests tend to be sociological and political, which leads me to study and appreciate the objectivity of the scientific endeavor, as an effective way to explain the inner workings of society, that rarely emerge from topical discussions of such activity. So that tends to be the direction my reading goes.

It is quite interesting to view all these political and economic dynamics in terms of thermodynamics, with radiant energy and gravitational consolidation providing the opposite poles. Such concepts as liberalism, conservatism and all their various permutations come into sharper focus, when you consider all the mixing this process enables. Such as why conservatives tend to be focused on order and generally seek solace in the past, while liberalism is constantly trying to upgrade the various social systems and expand their reach, but seemingly lacking a strong sense of structure.

Now for someone in a traditional mindset, with the dichotomy of personal desires and public responsibilities providing the motivation for their particular world views, the current world situation, with its loss of economic momentum, dissolving political and national clarity, a growing sense of religious and spiritual hollowness and general breakdown of what we consider tradition, might seem increasingly chaotic, though you would prefer me refer to it as "unpredictable." Yet I think it safe to say that edge between certain outcomes and uncertain ones, is getting quite close to home for many people. In my terms, the lack of an organizing frame to make sense of it, makes it seem like lots of noise, while the signals mostly seem ominous.

This may not qualify as suitably technical in your view, so I will recommend a two part article by Edward O. Wilson, that might help to bridge the gap between your worldview and mine;

Ants Are Cool but Teach Us Nothing

Masters of Earth, Alone in the Universe

If you wish an edited version, here is the second to last line; "We need to understand ourselves in both evolutionary and psychological terms in order to plan a more rational, catastrophe-proof future."

Regards,

John M

"Science arises as a formalization of essential human curiosity. It is not handed down as holy scripture. As such, different practices and even beliefs will result, such as the view of whether spacetime is a mathematical construct, or underlaying fabric of reality."

No, John. Science is a rationalist enterprise. There aren't different practices and beliefs -- it is universally practiced the same way. I saw E.O. Wilson's ant lecture in person, in Boston, years ago in connection with a complex science conference. Read his conclusion again.

Tom,

""Information is emergent with what it defines."

Let's talk about that."

"Mathematics is always done in a void, as you call it. Perfect proofs are only a system of self consistent statements. That's why mathematics is art, not science."

And the fact remains, as Godel points out, that it can't be done in a void. Anything multiplied by zero is still zero. Anything added to zero is still only what it is and nothing more. We don't even know what 1 is, without a rather complex process of definition, distinction and judgement, as Robert McEachern has pointed out.

Math is a mapping tool, not the foundational structure. It is the skeleton, once we have boiled away all the vital tissue, not the seed from which reality springs.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

" There aren't different practices and beliefs -- it is universally practiced the same way."

As we discussed previously, it does involve a process of trial and error and in order to do that, considerable speculation is required, to which proponents, being human, assign a great deal of emotional and circumstantial(read careers) attachment to.

Now, yes, in that theoretical void, it is a strictly rationalist enterprise and I assume, the results are consequentially thus deterministic, but as I keep trying to point out, I view this through the lens of human psychology, in which rather deep divisions do often occur.

Regards,

John M