Rescuing Reality

I realize that this is difficult for civilians because it is difficult for a technical audience as well.

Time and space are very useful notions, but time and space simply do not represent all of the action in the universe. The universe is full of matter and that matter is in all kinds of action.

All can agree on this.

Actions follow a natural order that science calls time, but quantum actions also show the property of phase coherence. Phase coherence makes it seem like an action in one part of the universe determines an effect in a very different part of the universe instantaneously. Therefore in time, phase coherence can make it seem like an action precedes its cause and so backwards messaging is born. Note that people very much smarter than I spend many pages of discourse over this simple proposition.

Science does not measure events from the future because there are no certain quantum futures and measurements only take place in the present moment. It is classical logic that suggests that the future might affect the past. The singularities of classical logic allow any number of odd results.

Quantum logic says the future is largely but not completely predictable and so no quantum action precedes its quantum effect.

It seems that every attempt to 'restore realism' end up asking me to conceive of action without, or outside of, time. And I can't. All I see are circular arguments and words stripped of their definitions.

There have been many variations of "something happens, causing time to flow". Objections are dismissed as mere "philosophy" because, well, here it is in the math...

If you mean by realism that there is no meaning for quantum phase, good luck with that universe.

If you mean by realism to include quantum phase, then all you need is matter and action to form a universe. Time and space simply emerge from matter and action. Space emerges from the action of the electron charge radius and time emerges by counting electron spin periods. So both time and space emerge from the discrete action of discrete matter in a finite universe.

Action, you see, has an implicit dimension of either time or space or both, but it is action that defines what we call time.

Steve Agnew,

Could you please elaborate on what it means to describe either space or time as being emergent?

"... Time and space simply emerge from matter and action. Space emerges from the action of the electron charge radius and time emerges by counting electron spin periods. So both time and space emerge from the discrete action of discrete matter in a finite universe.

Action, you see, has an implicit dimension of either time or space or both, but it is action that defines what we call time."

Does 'emerge' mean that time and space are made to physically come into existence? Does it just mean that 't' and 'd' in physics equations are mathematically justified? Does it refer to additional 'degrees of freedom' or 'new dimensions' either physical or mathematical? if none of these, then what does 'emerge' mean for space and time? Can it be explained so that it can be visualized?

"Action, you see, has an implicit dimension of either time or space or both, but it is action that defines what we call time."

I assume this does not mean that space and time are defined in terms of pre-existing properties? Are you saying that what we call time is simply and only a measure of object activity? Is momentum nothing more than the product of force and 'a measure of object activity'? How do innumerable cases of independent action provide for common standards for time and space? What are the units for time and space?

If this doesn't fit well with your view,then, please share something more about your view of the 'physical?' emergence of space and time?

What do you mean with "singularities of classical logic", and do you include incommensurables (irrational numbers) in "any number"?

I wonder if e.g. both the diameter and the circumference of a circle are countable multiples of electron charge radius.

I appreciate your hint to the often ignored bilaterality of forces like gravitation.

I also appreciate your attempt to deal with decay issues.

However, I don't like mystic speculations. As an old engineer, I am admittedly still lacking a comprehensive understanding of absolute phase even in quantum mechanics. Hopefully someone can lecture me.

++++

You objectivity is important Eckard,I like read your posts always concrete about our physics.I have seen that a lot of people confounded spirituality and measures.We can have an universal faith and in the same time we can respect our foundamental irreversible laws of God.Some persons try to insert a mysticism but the real relevance is to calculate correctly thisphysicality.It is a main problem in the sciences community, it is the same with hidden variables.Civil Engineers for me are the most skillings in science,they know well the maths and of course it is important for our towns and nuclear systems for example.The calcuations muts be precise simply.Don't stop never to be rational, we need that on FQXi also Eckard.

Regards

Boy these are hard questions. Action by standard physics is the integral of energy difference, the lagrangian, over either time or space or spacetime. Time and space are therefore implicit in action and are just another way to keep track of action.

We can count the spin periods of an electron as a sequence of actions, which is what we do and we call that counting time. That is how time emerges from action and likewise space emerges from the charge radius of the electron. We know that matter is a part of the universe and how matter distributes affects action and so we also like to keep track of matter. The charge radius is an intrinsic measure that allows us to keep track of matter as space or volume. That is how space emerges from matter and action.

This approach gets rid of all of the pesky infinities that plague space and time. Any 1/r2 force has a singularity at r=0 and the indivisibility of space is a tough nut to crack. In an discrete aether universe of discrete action, the problems of space and time are simply artifacts.

Rational and irrational numbers are a way that we keep track of space and time because for discrete aether and action, whole numbers are all that one needs. However, carrying around 1e39th digits is real silly since most action only needs a percent or so of precision for prediction. So we carry around a convenient number system that helps us predict action.

In the aether universe, all energy and momentum are equivalent to mass changes just like for all matter-energy equivalence. Therefore aether is fully compatible with relativity's MEE, but aether does not really have event horizons or light cones. The decay of the universe is what defines the speed of light and that means that all event horizons are where they belong in defining the edge of the universe.

This does mean that as matter decays, force and the speed of light increase, but that simply is the way the universe works. The galaxy red shift is real but due mostly to the slow speed of light in the early universe and therefore the weak charge and gravity forces as well...but there was more matter in the early universe.

The units for time and space are both dimensionless counts of spin periods and charge radii. We then assign those dimensions any convenient metric just like we do with wavefunctions, which are also dimensionless.

...oh yes, the question about absolute phase is also a good one. Since phase coherence decay is what differentiates a quantum and classical universe, the question of an absolute quantum phase comes up.

The phase of a photon resonance between an observer and a source is another way to define distance or separation and the only object that is the same distance from anywhere in the universe is the CMB creation. Anyone in the universe can measure the CMB distance and therefore know the size of the universe and that size is equivalent to an absolute phase.

That is how to measure absolute phase...

Hello Mr Agnew, I like your generality.That said I don't understand why you insist on this luminiferous aether.I can understand that like all you imrpove your works and it is difficult to change the line of reasoning.But you could extrapolate with the gravitational aether, it is more logic simply and more general.You can do it Jedi of the Sphere :)

Here is a link to the d'Espagnat article in Scientific American, noted above: The Quantum Theory and Reality The quote is from page 166.

Rob McEachern

I must admit that I have never found any best general description of Bell's theorem. Since Bell did not do any real spectroscopic analyses, it is impossible for me to derive anything meaningful Bell's theorem. Somehow quantum transitions are these magical entities according to Bell and many others that have instantaneous correlations and there is never any mention of the very important property of quantum phase coherence.

Look...many very smart people unnecessarily complexify the simplest notions of the universe ostensibly to make some kind of point. Bell's theorem, in my humble opinion, is simply a complexification of a rather simple reality: Quantum phase coherence exists.

Until science can agree that classical observers do not measure phase and that quantum observers do measure phase, there is really no need for discourse. Without spectrometers, science cannot observe sources. With spectrometers, science either measure quantum phase or not measure it.

If the spectrometer does not measure quantum phase, that is fine, but do not try to argue that that is reality. Just try to get by. If the spectrometer measures quantum phase, then you have a shot at the pleasure of discovery of how the universe really works.

The d'Espagnat article is simply incomplete and has a host of all the regular hidden assumptions. It does not deal with time or space, it never mentions phase coherence or its decay, and this article is exactly what is wrong with much of the current quantum phase coherence discourse.

What we need are essays that discuss the nature of quantum phase coherence and what it means. Instantaneous quantum jumps are fine little approximations, but there is a time and phase dependence to all quantum action. Classical action also works quite well for most of gravity action except for dark matter, dark energy, and black holes. Then it needs serious fixin...

To the author,

I don't think it is interesting path of investigation to assume that nature behaves in absurd ways. We just haven't got all the necessary information about nature yet, to understand the extreme logic behind its functionalities. It only justifies absurd explanations,but brings no new insights to the table. It's basically a case of human self-overestimation. Experimental evidence comes with human interpretation and the latter has limitations.

Summarized : " In the reference frame of the unknown, everything is logical. "

Reality doesn't need to be rescued...just properly understood and experimented with.

T. van Flandern calculated the speed of a gravity wave in a continuous medium (an aether) > 10^6 c . If so, the entanglement and double slit/diffraction experiment can be explained using photons (particles). The affronts to intuition are unnecessary.

Photon Diffraction

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k )summarizes several development papers and an experiment that rejects wave models of light. Yet, the model is based on Newtonian world observations which result in intuitive models.

Hello,

It is interesting, could you tell us more please Mr Hodge?

In all case, I did not know This thinker Mr Van Flandern,I see on wiki and others that he was very relevant.I beleive the same about this gravitation and particles correlated.I see that he is dead in 2009,unfortunately.He was general and very relevant,of course like all there are hypothesis also in the works of people,researchers.I don't agree of course with his speculation for example about the picture on mars from extraterrestrial intelligence.But he was a dreamer and an imaginative generalist.His soul travels Inside the sphere, he is like my parents dead on an other planet :) we are after all jedis of the sphere :)

ps I am curious to see his method of calculation to find this 10^6 c ? Do you know more Mr Hodge please?

Regards

Steve:

Thanks for your query.

My You Tube video referenced above provides references for my Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE).

T. van Flanderin use to publish "Meta Research Bulitin" which I think is no longer available. You may have to purchse his paper Van Flandern, T (1998). "The speed of gravity ? What the experiments say". Physics Letters A. 250 (1-3): 1. Bibcode:1998PhLA..250....1V. doi:10.1016/S0375-9601(98)00650-1 . or https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/tom-van-flandern-the-speed-of-gravity-what-the-experiments-say/ .

discusses some measurements most that say speed of gravity ~ c have flaws. http://milesmathis.com/fland.pdf discusses some measurements most that say speed of gravity ~ c have flaws.

This YouTube video is helpful https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NMozwMcN58 by searchin for Dr. Tom van Flandern.

The STOE suggests the particles are limited to c , Gravity is the divergence of a non-matter substance l like an aether that I call the plenum. Van Flanders's video discusses some of the problems of the rubber sheet view of gravity including the ability of he medium of gravity to transfer energy.

He also discusses the need for an intuitive concept which is in line with the present topic. I think to have a gravity wave, the plenum must have an inertia but no gravitational mass like particles.

I like the sun light vs sun gravity .

You are welcome Mr Hedge,

His works seem very interesting.Your plenum also, I consider also a gravitational aether instead of a luminiferous aether.You make me think about the inertia and the quantity of motions with a kind of lagrangian with potential and kinetic energy and my equation intuitive but not complete or in the error I beleive about the constant mlosV=constant with the 3 motions of 3D spherical volumes.1/2 mv² is always relevant and if we correlate with my seccond equation E=mc²+ml² with l proportional with the spherical cosmological volumes of BH in logic but I am not sure if mlosV is correct, I beleive that yes for gravitation, but not for electromagnetic forces in fact.It is not easy in fat.l is not constant like c.It is intriguing and complex when we consider that number decreases towrads physical singularities but tends to infinity for the particles correlated for fields.Like at this cosmologial Scale.Your plenum seems tending to infinity entropially speaking.Thanks for sharing in all case.Best Regards

Mr Hodge sorry not Hedge :) I write too quickly without rereading.Sorry still