Pilot Wave Hydrodynamics

Tom,

You have me on that. Beyond conversing over the internets, zip. Though I have followed the social aspects of science out of curiosity since the early 80's and mentally process the achievements better from that perspective, than from a more mathematical one.

It was really originally the observation in Hawking's A Brief History of Time, that Omega=1, which started me down this rabbit hole of questioning the Big Bang picture of cosmology.

That the expansion of the universe and the contraction of gravity are inversely proportional. Logically they would balance out to a larger cycle, not simply be coincidental. Thus making the redshift evidence of Einstein's cosmological constant.

It was in this further consideration that I started to see the issue of time and treating measures of sequence as foundational to the actual processes being measured, as being the focal point of this issue.

I would ask you a similar question; How many of the scientists and mathematicians, that you know, are human? Further, how many of them are intellectual products of a system of education stretching back centuries, in which each generation has gradually built on the foundations laid down by previous generations. Further, has it ever happened that within this system, it was discovered that assumptions, concepts, models and other such mental tools were found to be incomplete, misunderstood, lacking crucial insights, etc. which then required re-working and rethinking? By this, not only the physical sciences, but everything from history to geology.

In what reading I have done, rarely are new ideas accepted when first proposed and frequently the rejection is valid, but there are certainly enough examples of where the outsiders were eventually accepted as having been right, that the status quo cannot always be assumed correct.

As you state it; "Science is a rationalist enterprise. There aren't different practices and beliefs -- it is universally practiced the same way."

The consequence is that one frame emerges and while that frame logically considers itself to be universally objective, the fact remains "that no system of axioms is strong enough to prove itself."

Right now, some of those on the cutting edge of theory, strings and supersymmetry come to mind, who think some of the more formal proofs of science should be relaxed. That, as others have strongly objected, is not a good move.

There are a number of ideas out there that many people have devoted decades to, which could well prove to be intellectual dead ends. That is the nature of science. And civilization.

Regards,

John M

"I would ask you a similar question; How many of the scientists and mathematicians, that you know, are human?"

All of them. All of us humans belong to one or more subcultures, John, whose boundaries seem opaque to outsiders.

"Further, how many of them are intellectual products of a system of education stretching back centuries, in which each generation has gradually built on the foundations laid down by previous generations."

None of them. You assume that historicism drives science -- by what evidence?

"Further, has it ever happened that within this system, it was discovered that assumptions, concepts, models and other such mental tools were found to be incomplete, misunderstood, lacking crucial insights, etc. which then required re-working and rethinking? By this, not only the physical sciences, but everything from history to geology."

Scientists and mathematicians thrive on the possibility of discovery and re-discovery. Probably a bit like prospectors who do backbreaking labor for long periods of time for small rewards.

"In what reading I have done, rarely are new ideas accepted when first proposed and frequently the rejection is valid, but there are certainly enough examples of where the outsiders were eventually accepted as having been right, that the status quo cannot always be assumed correct."

That's what makes being right so special. Once in a while, someone does discover the mother lode. That doesn't devalue the worth of the achievements and experiences of the rest of the prospectors -- on the contrary, it motivates more hope, more labor, more expectations for success. The journey is everything.

"As you state it; 'Science is a rationalist enterprise. There aren't different practices and beliefs -- it is universally practiced the same way.'

"The consequence is that one frame emerges and while that frame logically considers itself to be universally objective, the fact remains 'that no system of axioms is strong enough to prove itself.'"

That, John, you should realize is an objective statement.

"Right now, some of those on the cutting edge of theory, strings and supersymmetry come to mind, who think some of the more formal proofs of science should be relaxed."

On the contrary, string theorists are among the more rigorous theorem-provers of mathematical theorists. I think you mean that some think that string theory deserves more status in the physics community despite its lack (so far) of novel physical predictions. I expect that Ed Witten would be among those, and Joe Polchinski -- and I think they have a good case. String theory is the only mathematically complete theory that unifies all the forces of nature which are already experimentally supported.

"That, as others have strongly objected, is not a good move."

Here again, John, a reference to the literature would be helpful so that we have the advantage of knowing who said what, and what they are objecting to.

"There are a number of ideas out there that many people have devoted decades to, which could well prove to be intellectual dead ends."

Absolutely. Everyone in the scientific community knowingly takes that risk. So? The journey is everything.

"That is the nature of science. And civilization."

More risk, more reward. :-)

John,

"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."

Having had far more than average and also ongoing experience of academics and academia I find your statement an entirely accurate description. I understand Tom has little more experience in that than you. Of course the 'Scientific Method' was established to try to overcome that natural tendency, which many recognise and try superficially to avoid, but few succeed. It's a tragedy that the SM has largely failed and fallen largely into disuse in many areas.

Present entrenched theory is riddled with paradox and anomalies, new ones emerging every day, indeed they're in the MAJORITY! (I'll post a couple from this week below) Yet old embedded beliefs still trump all. Academics have too much invested in their 'knowledge' to give it up. It's called 'theoretical inertia'. Most assumptions are hidden so pass by unrecognised.

SM/BB Nucleosynthesis can't explain Lithium -6.

Orbital magnetism unexplained by present models.

Curent models can't explain early massive galaxies. etc.

Of course all these WILL be (most 'are') coherently explainable, but certainly not with present entrenched academic beliefs. Most know that but are, as Bell described those in QM; 'Sleepwalking' so can't see what's in front of them.

Wake up time. Have you got an alarm clock that tells us the right time?

Best wishes

Peter

"Having had far more than average and also ongoing experience of academics and academia I find your statement an entirely accurate description. I understand Tom has little more experience in that than you."

Oh really, Peter? Then I invite you to -- without attribution, to maintain anonymity -- cite a case close to you (besides yourself) of a scientist who insinuated his position and emotions over objective research results. And do remember we are talking about research scientists, not academics in general.

Tom,

" You assume that historicism drives science -- by what evidence?"

While our increase in knowledge has gone parabolic over the last century and a half, thinking our current state didn't arise and is necessarily based on prior knowledge, as well as beliefs, seems extremely shallow. Everything we are able to perceive is of prior events and the information is a continual process of compilation and distillation. The evidence is so overwhelming I would have to ask you where there is any proof otherwise?! As you have argued, we need a model to make sense of anything, so how does that model come about? Is it just handed down from on high?

"Probably a bit like prospectors who do backbreaking labor for long periods of time for small rewards.'

There is also the fact that many of these advances are professionally competitive, given that accepting some theories will necessarily mean rejecting competing theories.

"That doesn't devalue the worth of the achievements and experiences of the rest of the prospectors"

In theory it shouldn't, but in practice, there do tend to be winners and losers. How much respect do steady state cosmologists draw today?

"That, John, you should realize is an objective statement."

To the extent it is an admission no model is final. It is not that we don't strive for objectivity, but as I keep trying to point out, perception requires a frame of reference. Even deductive reasoning requires first inducing those general principles from sets of observations. Otherwise the alternative is assuming we have discovered some platonic realm of pure knowledge and this is hubris. We extract what we are able. Nothing more and nothing less. We need that frame to distill the signal from the noise. Even laying the groundwork for this frame has taken millions of years and hundreds of thousands of generations, in order for our knowledge to even start to go parabolic and now it seems our main accomplishment will be to destroy our own environment. In which case, our quest for objectivity would be an evident failure.

"String theory is the only mathematically complete theory that unifies all the forces of nature which are already experimentally supported."

What you are saying is that it is the most efficient patch over the gaps in current theory. It would be if an accountant, finding a discrepancy, simply wrote in whatever number required to fix it. Now to be fair, this accountant doesn't yet have access to all the books, so it could be either some prior mistake, or some piece of information not yet acquired. The problem for the scientific method is that if one is simply allowed to insert whatever is required to fix the problems, then there is no way to actually falsify any theory that has managed to become accepted, when any potential falsification simply means projecting some enormous new property of nature.

" a reference to the literature would be helpful so that we have the advantage of knowing who said what, and what they are objecting to."

While they are not something I'm in the habit of saving, here is a recent one. First comment in the comments section.

"The journey is everything."

As the above post shows, yes the journey is everything and very few are willing to turn around and backtrack, if it should lead into the jungle, with no evident path onward.

"More risk, more reward. :-)"

As one having spent their life in horseracing, more risk is also more opportunity for failure :-(

Peter, Tom,

The issue which really needs to be considered in that regard is not one of personal, but institutional bias. That members of a community, having committed their professional lives, are not only not inclined to go against received wisdom, but having developed the perspective of that group, necessarily see everything from the perspective of its model. This goes back to my point that an objective perspective is an oxymoron. The problem then is that for practical purposes, objectivity amounts to a broader, more generalized point of view. One which does try to incorporate multiple frames, but necessarily loses some detail, while those most engaged tend to view the clarity of detail as the highest goal. Specialists vs. generalists. Catch 22. The "shut up and calculate" crowd is not about to turn around and get all philosophical about the journey.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

There's little problem with data, though you only get what you ask so prior assumptions can always play some part, the issues arise in interpretation. Many I know in astronomy (somewhat) and optics in particular try to avoid interpretation as they know that trying to fit it to theoretical doctrine makes nonsense of it. But most others entirely ignore the implications anyway! Better to just publish the findings or describe it as anomalous (or keep it as 'trade secrets').

I tear my hair out with fellow astronomers almost every day reading the on line journals and seeing the nonsensical interpretations some suggest to make things 'fit' with what they believe, or sometimes even with 'new' suggestions.

Mostly they simply don't read a wide enough range of other work to update what they were taught at Uni. Many in research read an exceptionally narrow range so get no perspective or 'cross pollination'. Many seem to read ZERO papers and only update ideas at the odd conference!

It's human nature and the way the brain works to test veracity against prior neural network patterns rather than entirely objectively. I mentioned Hannes Alfen's comment recently, strolling between labs from one bunch desperate to solve some problem to another down the hall on different research who've actually resolved that exact problem. He says how he tried to get them to speak to each other, but even when forcing them they found they spoke different languages!

I've had VERY many similar experiences from undertaking a wide range of courses. It's those invisible blinkers we all have. NONE of us can believe we have them. We all assume it's OTHERS talking nonsense when we can't understand, so make little effort to do so. Perpetuating the lie that we're all objective is what keeps theory in the rut.

It's as little conscious as it is entirely prevalent. Lahav calls it normal theoretical entrenchment.

Back in academia, when asked what could be done to improve science teaching the main request for for 'less change' in the subject. The fact that science is mostly about discovery and advancement seems to have entirely passed them by!

Best wishes

Peter

Wow!

Thanks John R. I hope that once all is laid out for examination; it will satisfy those who are looking for answers there. In the meanwhile; I'll continue looking for way to make some obscure point about the Math a little more plain. It is really cool to be able to precipitate an 'Aha!' moment, that allows something which would otherwise be lost to get understood or explained.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Hi John,

Feedback loops and karma are of course true. But they're not the only toys in the toybox.

The EPR paradox is telling us that their is more physics, more toys in the toy-box, available that may not be revealed by our current mathematical strategies. For example, if we want faster than light technology, we might have to think outside the box. It might take luck, not mathematics, to find it.

For example, the physics community should convince the government to make the following announcement. That the government will pay $10 billion dollars in gold bullion and gold coins to the first extraterrestrial aliens that will land in their space-craft, and claim it. The government shoud make this announcement, and then see what happens.

We should sweeten the deal by offering all our best treasure to whatever space aliens can claim it. Diamonds, monetary currency, art work, land deeds, stocks, bonds, and then we wait to see what happens.

John,

In practice we find density peaks again at boundary limits, then has a sharp cut-off more akin to the Yukawa potential than Newtons. The peak is also focussed on the vector through the ambient medium, forming the ubiquitous 'bow shock'. (the magnetotail zone is far less concentrated - giving the same 'optical thickness').

Considered as a near/far field 'transition zone' the two-fluid shock structure appears able to resolve a good number of fundamental issues. Does it affect the one you're discussing?

Best wishes

Peter

Pete,

Gee, I don't know. Fundamentally it raises the question of whether or not a zero boundary physically exists, or whether the pursuit of a mathematic rationale is purely academic. I admit to erroring on the side of a realistic, relativistic zero boundary condition, and believe it can be found in a regime of instantaneous measure of a theoretical free rest mass, properly meaning that the theoretical measure is background independent and free of any interactive influence.

Such a rationale is conspicuously absent in the Newtonian mechanics leading up to the divergent philosophies of quantum and relativistic physics. It might be hoped that a successful rationale would bridge the gap between Newtonian and modern classicism, but we would still need an empirical basis.

In regards the two-fluid shock structure you briefly mention in relation to the TZ, I wonder if what is happening in the TZ is a 'sorting out' of the spacetime of the emission inertial frame and a volumetric spacetime of the far field wave event. And then again, the question presents itself of how does the TZ arise in the two wavelength proximity of an antennae (detector). Does the waveform corkscrew its way into the magneto field of the receptor and the TZ evolve as a response which is symmetrical in spatial form with that of the emission source? Much food for thought.

Which goes to the Topic here of Pilot Wave dynamics. Is the particle surfing its own bow wave? Like an animated cartoon character's hind end getting ahead of it's feet. Physically, Lorentz is explainable as the connectivity between the trailing edge and leading edge of an inelastic region of a mass field translating at light velocity, so in realistic motion the trailing edge would seek to 'catch up' with the leading edge to exist at the same instant. Give Lorentz an added degree of freedom of the mass density, and hence it's elasticity, being dependent on velocity; and we might argue that the one dimension of the wave function is a piling up of the elastic region of the mass field ahead of the motion of the inelastic region.

My turn for a question. Do you see the two-fluid shock as distinctly interactive, or intrinsically inherent. If inherent could it be the interface of a coherent mass-energy quantity and an inertial frame spacetime precipitating energy in that coherent region?

Your go :-) jrc

I think my idea would get us to new physics and new technology than what you're currently doing.

Offering wealth to whatever extra-terrestrial aliens that can visit us has advantages. First, if ET shows up, you know it's not an invasion Why? Because they already knew we were here, they could have sacked us without our invitation. Second, the aliens know that if they show up, that we're not going to shoot at them. Third, whatever shows up is going to wonder what's going on? Or where to get the treasure. This puts us in a great position to negotiate technology for wealth.

All,

This important topic is languishing, so let me throw a little gas on the fire.

The double slit experiment gets a lot of play in Quantum Mechanics, so if we wish to show a classical correspondence we need show an inverse experimental result. Anyone whom has attempted drawing and painting has recognized that in the macro world of diffuse lighting, a similar interference pattern of shadow is commonly found on a vertical surface cast thereon by a slender vertical object, such as a string suspending a weight. Macro world explanations can of course attribute this to the diffuse directional light source, but let's get technical:

Suppose we could get a FQXi experiment on the International Space Station?! The actual apparatus could be quite small, programmable, and relatively inexpensive. The development of experimental protocol would be the more costly part, but could be open group sourced to volunteer participation.

Here is the idea. Use something like spider silk, measurably precise at micrometer cross-section, and stronger than steel. Pull two strands across an adjustable frame opening, movable by programmed actuators like pulse motors, so that distance between them can be changed as well as distance from the source of electron projection. Same with a scintillation counting detection screen. Mount these elements inside a tube with a 'stealth' coating on the interior to reduce interference, then run the experiment in the shadow of the space station when it is in the earth's shadow, in the best vacuum we could hope to achieve. Then compare results of shadows to interference lumination of a typical double slit experiment of the same size of components. Spider silk can be woven into threads that are tough and large enough in cross-section to mimick a micro-machined slit aperture.

It would make good PR for FQXi, too. :-> jrc

jc.

Missed it! Light condenses ions via photoionization at a TZ at the density required for the relative speed ('virtual' electrons, surface charge/plasmons, astrophyysical shocks etc.) The fermion pairs exist momentarily then 'cancel' (electric charge, over the Debye length) against those in the 'other' frame. ALL the particles (both sides) absorb the light and re emit it at c in their OWN rest frame.

That is the transition zone (TZ) dynamic between 'inertial frames' and (equivalently) Maxwell's 'near' and 'far' fields. Approaching c the wavelength and electron density approach gamma and optical breakdown mode (10^23/cm^-3) increasing 'opacity' at a non-linear rate which the Lorentz factor well approximates.

I've described that dynamic in two essays but it seems too unfamiliar to retain. It creates a 'discrete field' dynamic hierarchy which applies at ALL scales. The residual pairs not annihilated (meeting 'tip to tip' and binding) are still transparent ('dark') spectroscopically until evolving to bound gas and have an uncannily close distribution to 'dark matter'! I suggest it's a rather important discovery, but with our current intellectual evolution rate it looks like it may perhaps be the most important discovery in 22nd century physics! (lol)

The condensed shock is (MH-)dynamic, turbulent and interactive with Kelvin-Helmholtz and Alfven waves etc. The mechanism even seems to provide a local 'purpose' for 'dark energy' as the condensate (but fluid, not the immobile 'aether' which presented the logical issues).

If that glimpse makes any sense to you maybe there's hope for mankind yet!

Best wishes

Peter

jc,

Great plan. I agree the umbra of a shadow is caused by refraction in the surface fine structure layer. Both optical science and astronomy are already there, but you're right that the experimenters mainly just laugh or roll their eyes and stay ahead and away from the rather 'time dilated' and entrenched interpretations of 'theoretical physics'.

I've long campaigned for free access to publicly funded research to bridge that gap. Theorists can then get up to speed distinguish properly between modern science and the 'ancient scientific beliefs' and flights of fancy we currently teach our kids in history and 'physics' lessons.

Is that really unfair?

Best wishes

Peter

PS, Lest it disappear, I just answered your important questions about TZ shocks below.

The double slit experiment and its variants are all manifestations of the amplitude and phase properties of matter waves.

"The double slit experiment gets a lot of play in Quantum Mechanics, so if we wish to show a classical correspondence we need show an inverse experimental result."

However, diffraction is a complex microscopic manifestation of photon interference with itself and is not the best way to demonstrate the nature of quantum entanglement. This is because alignment noise, near field very far field effects, and coherency are all jumbled up together among source, diffractor, and detector.

Diffraction is normally considered a nuisance in spectrosopic analysis...except diffraction gratings are very useful despite their many artifacts. Diffraction artifacts are so complex and numerous and yet so well explained that you can easily end up in very deep rabbit holes.

To show quantum entanglement, interferometry is the key where source, diffractor, and detector are all integrated. This allows the needed control of stability needed to measure changes on the order of 5e-7 m, the wavelength of light. Since interferometry has been and continues to be done on the space shuttle and in satellites and the moon. Occultation incorporates the diffraction of starlight to discern lunar features as well as atmospheres on planets.

In other words, these experiments have been done, are being done, and do contribute useful information about the nature of reality. You proposal will simply be another of the many reaffirmations of SR and QM of course, but that would hardly be surprising. A more useful experiment might be a gravity interferometer at the Lagrange point of earth and moon that shows the interference and diffraction of matter with itself in a gravity potential.

Showing that gravity shows coherence and entanglement would actually be quite useful...or showing that gravity does not show coherence and entanglement.

Steve and Pete,

If matter waves exhibit a helical OAM, what is a particle? Let's talk electron, because experimentally we could theoretically vary it's velocity. All by itself, with no way to behave as if it were either at rest or in motion, would it have what it takes to exhibit inertia? jrc