• [deleted]

Dear Becker,

Observable reality is not debatable. The real observable Universe must be constructed in the simplest physical fashion allowable. Only one unified visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light eternally exists.

You do not have to think about it, or explain it, or analyze it, or compare it, or compute it. All you have to do to convince yourself that I am being truthful is to open your eyes. No matter in which direction you look, you will only be able to see surface. If you open your eyes in a scientific laboratory, you will see surface. If you open your eyes in the rear storage room of a dilapidated Cairo brothel, you will see surface. You can always amuse yourself by adapting your behavior to the surface you happen to be looking at.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Jonathan,

My math is fuzzy. Goes without saying.

Robert,

The question is how to get them to push the reset button. As anyone following it at all realizes, it will probably take them another ten years to just beat string theory back far enough to even think about looking at the bigger picture. So while I have a fairly good idea where you are coming from, on a basic sociological level, you are beating your head against the wall, trying to overcome the bureaucratic inertia. Like politics, the ones with the power to affect the situation are the ones most beholden to the current models and assumptions.

When it does break open, then change will be as likely radical, as incremental. So the Molotov cocktails I like to toss are not really intended to convince, so much as to stretch the bounds of possibilities as much as possible.

John,

If history is any example, overcoming "bureaucratic inertia" generally requires waiting until the current generation of bureaucrats has died. For someone like Clausewitz ("War is the continuation of politics by other means.", it might be acceptable to accelerate that process, by introducing them to an early grave. But that methodology is frowned upon in science. Rather than throwing Molotov cocktails, I prefer to plant seeds, even though I have come to know that I am unlikely to live long enough to see them grow to fruition.

Rob McEachern

Robert,

As they say of the stock markets; They can remain irrational for longer than you can remain solvent.

It is relatively easy to perceive the basic cycle and where we are in it, pretty much the speculative mania phase, with everything from multiworlds to multiverses, but affecting the pace of the dynamic is in the moving mountains category.

One can only hope some earthquake type fracture will occur, but the opposite is also possible. With the coming economic meltdown, we might enter a fall of Rome stage, which likely helped prolong the geocentric cosmology for several more centuries than it might otherwise have held up. Then all this nonsense gets canonized and calcified as the wisdom of the golden years.

cheers.

  • [deleted]

Isn't free will completely lost in a model like this? A high price to pay for "rescuing reality".

    Dear Jim,

    No part of visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light could ever have been affected by any imaginary person's abstract invisible will.

    My 500 word essay. ONLY INFINITE SURFACE MATTERS has been accepted by the female Peer Review Manager of the CHAOS Journal of the American Physics Institute. I expect it to be rejected by the white male editor on Monday without it being sent out for Peer Revue. I happened to have called the editor a codswallop peddling mindless imbecile a couple of years ago, and my guess is that he has not forgotten about that,

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    Reality does not need to be rescued from entanglement and quantum bonds are what hold matter together and quantum entanglement is what holds the universe together as well. Charge is an exchange of single photons and gravity is an exchange of biphotons. While source and observer do not commute for the single photon exchange of charge, source and observer do commute for the biphoton exchange of gravity.

    This means that charge bonds are subject to the uncertainty principle while gravity bonds are not subject to the limits of uncertainty because of the symmetry of the biphoton exchange. Gravity is the simultaneous excitation and exchange between source and observer as a biphoton while charge is a single photon exchange.

    While gravity does not change when source and observer switch, charge does change when source and observer switch. Far from being unreal, entanglement of amplitude and phase is what makes the universe the way that it is and not the GR geodesics of causal gravity. Causal GR gravity is simply a special case that works for much but not all of the universe.

      "Causal GR gravity is simply a special case that works for much but not all of the universe."

      That would violate the principle of uniformity.

      Dear Pentcho,

      Reality is not scientific. Although FQXi.org only pays Grants to the proponents of the finite invisible atoms swirling finitely about in finite invisible space unrealistic point of view, FQXi.org has published my contention that although I am eighty-one years old, I am convinced that the real Universe must be constructed in the simplest fashion permissible. All I am asking anyone to do is to notice that no matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed varied colored surfaces. One cannot see invisible empty space no matter how carefully one looks for it, even by peering through the Hubble Space Telescope. There must only be one unified visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. When one uses the word "is," one implies a finite state arising from a previous finite state of was. The word "am" is truly descriptive of a state of infinity.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      Dear Steve Agnew, and Thomas,

      Reality is not entangled. Reality is not scientific. Although FQXi.org only pays Grants to the proponents of the finite invisible atoms swirling finitely about in finite invisible space unrealistic point of view, FQXi.org has published my contention that although I am eighty-one years old, I am convinced that the real Universe must be constructed in the simplest fashion permissible. All I am asking anyone to do is to notice that no matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed varied colored surfaces. One cannot see invisible empty space no matter how carefully one looks for it, even by peering through the Hubble Space Telescope. There must only be one unified visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. When one uses the word "is," one implies a finite state arising from a previous finite state of was. The word "am" is truly descriptive of a state of infinity.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      As expected, even though the Peer Review manager found my essay acceptable, as soon as the female Peer Review Manager of the CHAOS Journal showed my brilliant 500 word essay, ONLY INFINITE SURFACE MATTERS to the white male editor to make sure it was sent out to the right knowledgeable Peer Reviewers, he decided to reject it without sending it out for Peer Review. The ignorant jackass only publishes codswallop about invisible quantum particles entanglements taking place in invisible space.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      The problem with theoretical physics is that the theorist are trying to devise a finite system containing invisible strings of impulses, or even more bizarre, writing endless codswallop tracts about invisible multiverses. Only visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light am.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      • [deleted]

      "Comments on Kate Becker's article "Rescuing Reality" discussing Matt Leifer's FQXi grant:

      I found the subject matter of Matt Leifer's FQXi grant very interesting since I've been studying the question of quantum theory and reality for the past 10 years or so. As most everyone knows, the current orthodox "physicist" model of a quantum particle really does challenge if not contradict reality. I found Leifer's possible approach to restoring reality quite creative.

      In his research efforts, I hope Leifer examines a new proposed model of a quantum particle that's been debated and under discussion for the past five years in the physics community. I call this model the engineering "mechanicist" model which requires no non-reality based assumptions such as "entanglement", the "qubit", and/or "simultaneous multiple paths" for free particles. The main claim of the "mechanicist" model is that it actually does satisfy previously collected quantum test data, in particular, all "Bell test" types of data examining the spin measurements on twin particle spins.

      What are the differences between the "physicist" and the "mechanicist" models of quantum particles? Briefly, to simplify one characteristic, consider the one-dimensional Schrodinger probability distribution f(x). The "physicist" model assumes that "x" is the "true" but "hidden" particle position that is probabilistic and non-existent in real time. This true position only comes into existence when it is "measured." In the "mechanicist" model, on the other hand, physical properties, such as an object's true position, can never exist in a probabilistic state. Every particle, including each quantum particle, has a true real time position which follows the classical and relativistic laws of nature. That position happens to be the average value of "x" derived from the distribution f(x). For a particle that has mass, it's the "center of mass" that is the particles true position in reality. In the "mechanicist" model, the Schrodinger "x" is a "random variable," not a physical property, which describes the probabilistic "outcome" of a measurement procedure or other process. It is the measurement process itself that is probabilistic and not the true position prior to measurement. The Schrodinger f(x) describes the internal structure of a quantum particle which gives rise to the probability distribution of measurements.

      The requirement for "locality" is satisfied in the "mechanicist" model by having the true positions of twin particles, which are its "averages," be equal at the moment that the particles fly off in different directions. In the case of particle spin, twin particles are in "pure" spin states about fixed complementary axes. This satisfies all test results in the conduction of so-called Bell tests.

      Attached is an article entitled "An Engineering Mechanicist's Look at Quantum Theory" which describes in more detail the comparison of the "physicist" and the "mechanicist" models of quantum particles.

      Ronald Racicot, PhD, Case Western Reserve University

      ronaldracicot@gmail.com

      • [deleted]

      "Comments on Kate Becker's article "Rescuing Reality" discussing Matt Leifer's FQXi grant:

      I found the subject matter of Matt Leifer's FQXi grant very interesting since I've been studying the question of quantum theory and reality for the past 10 years or so. As most everyone knows, the current orthodox "physicist" model of a quantum particle really does challenge if not contradict reality. I found Leifer's possible approach to restoring reality quite creative.

      In his research efforts, I hope Leifer examines a new proposed model of a quantum particle that's been debated and under discussion for the past five years in the physics community. I call this model the engineering "mechanicist" model which requires no non-reality based assumptions such as "entanglement", the "qubit", and/or "simultaneous multiple paths" for free particles. The main claim of the "mechanicist" model is that it actually does satisfy previously collected quantum test data, in particular, all "Bell test" types of data examining the spin measurements on twin particle spins.

      What are the differences between the "physicist" and the "mechanicist" models of quantum particles? Briefly, to simplify one characteristic, consider the one-dimensional Schrodinger probability distribution f(x). The "physicist" model assumes that "x" is the "true" but "hidden" particle position that is probabilistic and non-existent in real time. This true position only comes into existence when it is "measured." In the "mechanicist" model, on the other hand, physical properties, such as an object's true position, can never exist in a probabilistic state. Every particle, including each quantum particle, has a true real time position which follows the classical and relativistic laws of nature. That position happens to be the average value of "x" derived from the distribution f(x). For a particle that has mass, it's the "center of mass" that is the particles true position in reality. In the "mechanicist" model, the Schrodinger "x" is a "random variable," not a physical property, which describes the probabilistic "outcome" of a measurement procedure or other process. It is the measurement process itself that is probabilistic and not the true position prior to measurement. The Schrodinger f(x) describes the internal structure of a quantum particle which gives rise to the probability distribution of measurements.

      The requirement for "locality" is satisfied in the "mechanicist" model by having the true positions of twin particles, which are its "averages," be equal at the moment that the particles fly off in different directions. In the case of particle spin, twin particles are in "pure" spin states about fixed complementary axes. This satisfies all test results in the conduction of so-called Bell tests.

      Attached is an article entitled "An Engineering Mechanicist's Look at Quantum Theory" which describes in more detail the comparison of the "physicist" and the "mechanicist" models of quantum particles.

      Ronald Racicot, PhD, Case Western Reserve University

      ronaldracicot@gmail.comAttachment #1: MechanicistLookAtQuantumTheory.pdf

        Dear Ronald,

        Complex quantum theory has absolutely nothing to do with simple reality. The real visible Universe must be constructed of the simplest means allowable and the simplest physical construct is visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        • [deleted]

        "The founders of quantum theory maintained that objective reality is an illusion, that you cannot say anything about the state of particles before you observe them, and that the only hard facts in the world are the results spit out of quantum experiments."

        The trouble I have with what some of the founders said, and people still say of course, and with looking for [retrocausal] resolutions to it, is that it just doesn't follow from the fact that quantum theory doesn't describe an objective reality that an objective reality doesn't exist.

        In my view there is no problem - no offence against common sense - in quantum mechanics in the first place. On the contrary, it's just the necessarily subjective and necessarily noncommutative probabilistic theory which results when you dispense with the offences against common sense which classical mechanics is founded on (perfect, universal knowledge, effectless/non-interactive measurement).

        It doesn't need fixing: it is the fix.

          Dear Paul,

          Infinite surface is always visible. Complex quantum theory has absolutely nothing to do with simple reality. The real visible Universe must be constructed of the simplest means allowable and the simplest physical construct is visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

          Joe Fisher, Realist

          Tried to submit ONLY INFINITE SURFACE MATTERS to The New Physics Institute, but failed to do so because of lack of membership in any scientific society. Emailed a copy to the editor instead. Submitted THE SIMPLEST UNIVERSE to the CHAOS Journal of the American Physics Institute.

          Joe Fisher, Realist

            Although my brilliant essay, THE SIMPLEST UNIVERSE was rejected by the Journal of the New Physics Institute, and the CHAOS Journal of the American Physics Institute, Editor Ben Sheard, and Editor Kurths, gave written affirmations that my essay could be submitted to the likes of the Foundation of Physics.

            Joe Fisher, Realist