Neural action potentials are the chemical ion pulses that excite and inhibit action for many organisms including, of course, human consciousness. What truly surprised me was that quantum gravity would play any role at all in neural action. However, it is not really quantum gravity per se, it is rather the underlying aether exchange that defines all quantum action.

The action of ATP provides the basic energy for all of life and that includes neural life. The core concept of neural action is that a pulse-echo neural pair forms a particle of aware matter just like two atoms as observer and source form a transient bond by exchanging a photon. But there is both phase and amplitude information in a photon exchange and that is true for a neural exchange as well.

Mainstream science presumes that neural action of ion charge phase decay is much too fast for any quantum neural effects like interference or entanglement. However, with quantum aether, this statement is no longer true. While it is true that the phase decay of quantum charge is very fast for neurons, the phase decay of a neural pulse-echo pair is what defines each moment of thought.

In other words, the current loop of a neural pair results in a magnetic field that couples aware matter particles as a quantum aether into moments of thought. Science measures these neural couplings as the EEG spectra of consciousness, but there is not a theory of the mind that yet understands what EEG spectra really mean.

Once again, thanks for your thoughtful comments.

Since I am not an astronomer, I leave interpretations of galaxy red shifts to those who do the observations. I am a spectroscopist, though, and so do know how to interpret spectra. You have taken the red shift spectral data of hundreds of thousands of galaxies and reinterpreted spectral red shifts as blue shifts.

I have looked at the same dataset and see the red shift spectra as very good spectral information. However, my expanding force and shrinking mass aethertime universe does posit a different reason for the spectral red shifts. Denying the large body of evidence for spectral redshifts of increasingly distant galaxies seems futile to me.

Measurements are key to making sense out of the observer-source quantum bond and the measurements of galaxy spectra are how science makes sense out of the universe. Since the SDSS redshift spectra data is very certain, there is no reason to change that view.

What a really nice comment...indeed, it would appear that wavefunction collapse brings order out of chaos, but it is important to stipulate: When quantum phase noise drives wavefunction collapse, that is distinct from the wavefunction collapes driven by the noise of classical chaos.

Of course, an isolated compressed gas does not change classical entropy unless heat or mass exchanges with the reservoir. However, in the quantum entropy of aether, even a classically isolated system is still subject to the decay of matter and expansion of force. All of the universe decays in matter and expands in action and the quantum phase decay of an isolated system entangles all other isolated systems as well.

Therefore even a classically isolated system shows the same arrow of time of phase decoherence or as you say, dissipation. Does your isolated system account for tunneling? Or coherence? How about interference?

Certainly classical decoherence is not classical dissipation, but then again, the classical universe has no role for quantum gravity in any event. Without quantum gravity, there is no meaning for gravitational decoherence and what I call gravity matterism. The motion of stars along with their radiation provides the dimension of a vector force that has no classical meaning, but happens to be exactly what keeps galaxy rotation constant in aethertime. Galaxy rotation is a consequence of quantum gravity and yet cold dark matter halos are still the classical belief of mainstream science.

Statistical mechanics integrates quantum mechanics by quantizing the modes of an empty box. This works really well for many thermo applications, but does not include the dissipation effects of quantum phase noise just like QED does not either. Really Stat Mech and QED both need to quantize the universe with a finite discrete aether instead of an infinity of vacuum oscillators and then let the space and time of empty boxes emerge from that quantized and finite discrete aether.

Any math that begins with the assumptions of continuous space and time is necessarily stuck with the limitations of continuous space and time. The issue with quantum nonlocality is stuck with the conundrums of continuous space and time because of what the word local means. Beginning a universe instead with discrete matter and quantum action in place of space and time makes life so much easier...and thanks for the Rubi and Pearle links...

Dear Sir,

We find similar echoes in your reply with our views. We have also made distinctions between classical and quantum aspects. Majority people accept that these are different. But are they really different? Every micro phenomena has a macro equivalent. In 2003, we told Leggett about this. Our inability to know does not change the rule of Nature. Just like hydrogen and oxygen have properties different from water, micro world shows different behavior from macro world. But it is not random - there is order behind such coupling. Hence, theoretically, it is knowable. Can you please list a few quantum causes that are not knowable?

Regarding the double slit experiment, when you say "even large molecules show interference effects where a single molecule interferes with itself", are you not proving my statement - the macro world is a composite of the micro world?

When you say: "a single particle's many possible futures represent uncertain paths and no single path is knowable", are you not expressing our inability to know? The same initial conditions will lead to the same final outcome - the same future. If we accept that it has a possibility to lead to different futures, can we have science at all? All equations will have different solutions, which cannot be known? We agree that we are talking against mainstream science. But are we wrong? Should we accept majority view without proper analysis? Is majority always right?

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Steve Agnew,

It is very nice to contact a spectroscopist, who knows how to interpret spectra.

I have taken the spectral data of hundreds of thousands of QUASARS and interpreted spectral lines as blue shifts, but not Galaxies as you said.

But NOW I will ask the FUNDAMENTAL question... which way is correct? Why something like that is possible?

I say probably your "expanding force and shrinking mass aethertime universe" explains well present scinerio. But we have to exclude the fundamental question first is that not?

You are correct in saying that Measurements are key to making sense out of the observer.

The SDSS redshift spectra data is very certain, that is exactly correct, but the interpretation of data is done by the software we use. That depends on the requirement and guidance given to programmer.

Finally it will be your will to change that view or not.....

Best Regards

=snp.gupta

...of course, what I meant is that any particle path is not precisely knowable, but that does not mean that we do not know anything about the path. It simply means that there are limits to what we can know.

It also means that given precisely the same initial conditions, a similar but not exactly the same future occurs. Thus, science works just fine, but the quantum uncertainty principle does limit the knowledge of science and so that means that quantum phase noise is different from the chaos of classical noise.

The Schrodinger equation only admits probabilistic solutions, not the determinate solutions of the Hamilton-Jacobi action equation of gravity and relativity. However, there is a quantum Hamilton-Jacobi action equation that describes the determinism of gravity's relativity as well and the probability of quantum charge.

Every time that I look at quasar spectra, I am amazed...but here is an example of the plots of 46,420 quasar spectra that show redshifts, not blue shifts.

Does your data show blueshifts for these many spectral lines? Quasar spectra are due to the near c jets of matter ejected from SMBH's and so are different from the spectra of galaxies and stars, which move much more slowly. Are you somehow reinterpreting the hypervelocity quasar jet are a motion of the galaxy?

As you probably know, there are many more quasars looking back in time and quasars seem to peak at about z = 1.2 or so. Local galaxy density is ~3.5 Mpc^3 and so it is not yet clear why quasars peaked at z = 1.2. In aethertime, the Hubble constant is proportional to the local speed of light, which decreases going back in time just as mass increases going back in time.

The aethertime universe of expanding force does interpret quasar numbers very differently, but the quasar red shifts seem to be real.

Hi Steve, Good essay.

As we tend to come at things from different angles I was pleasantly surprised about how much I was fundamentally in agreement with. In particular I agree your P4 recycling description as very consistent with my published paper on the subject, identifying a pattern reproduced at CMB scale so extending to the universe.

But of course scores anyway shouldn't be based on 'agreement with' content, and we do need all disparate viewpoints. Yours was well written, organized and argued so should be far higher than it presently is.

I hope you may also enjoy reading mine and look forward to your response. In particular I wonder if your 'quantum phase noise' is as similar as I suspect to the squared sine curve distribution I show can be derived classically.

Very best of luck

Peter

    Thanks. I have really been encouraging a null vote even though I appreciate thoughtful comments. I do not know how to rate the very different notions in all of the essays so I do no bother to.

    I do differentiate between classical and quantum with the notion of quantum phase noise. Although there are many ways to generate the chaos of classical noise, quantum phase noise shows superposition, entanglement, and interference. Classical noise does not show these effects.

    Steve,

    If you check the scoring criteria they exclude rating 'notions' or whether or not you like or agree with actual content. It seems most people have (again) entirely missed the point on that! That should make valid scoring a lot easier.

    Thanks for confirming my understanding of your QFN. I asked because my essay describes a logical Classical explanation for each of the effects you describe, all from the very simplest mechanism we know; a spinning sphere. It's too important and 'simple' (elephant in the room) for most here to even 'see' but I did have you marked down as one who may.

    I hope you get a chance to read it as I'd value you thoughts.

    Very Best

    Peter

    Dear Sir,

    Modern scientists bring in many imaginary concepts without properly understanding it. One is extra-dimensions, which is used for over a century, even though it has never been observed. In our paper we have proved all modern notions in this regard as wrong and given physical explanations of 10 dimensions. Similarly, complex numbers, or quaternions, etc. are wrong mathematics, because square of i is treated as -1, whereas, mathematically, square of any positive or negative number is always positive. It can never be -1. After writing a beautiful essay, you are leading towards the trap. While other fundamental forces are intra-body forces, gravity is an inter-body polygamous force that acts throughout the universe. This implies that it cannot be quantized. Hence graviton will never be found. So why bring in absurd concepts like quantum gravity, when you can explain life mechanism without it? What you have missed is equating the process of observation with the observer. Life mechanism is different from consciousness. The same mechanism continues during life time, but ceases to operate at death. This implies the mechanism is not consciousness, but only a process. We can observe the same process in all objects, except that there is freewill in conscious beings. So your search should be directed towards freewill and consciousness - not quantum gravity.

    Regards,

    basudeba

    Dear Sir,

    There is much misunderstanding regarding uncertainty of the quantum world. When Heisenberg proposed his conjecture in 1927, Earle Kennard independently derived a different formulation, which was later generalized by Howard Robertson as: σ(q)σ(p) ≥ h/4π. This inequality says that one cannot suppress quantum fluctuations of both position σ(q) and momentum σ(p) lower than a certain limit simultaneously. The fluctuation exists regardless of whether it is measured or not implying the existence of a universal field. The inequality does not say anything about what happens when a measurement is performed. Kennard's formulation is therefore totally different from Heisenberg's. However, because of the similarities in format and terminology of the two inequalities, most physicists have assumed that both formulations describe virtually the same phenomenon. Modern physicists actually use Kennard's formulation in everyday research but mistakenly call it Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. "Spontaneous" creation and annihilation of virtual particles in vacuum is possible only in Kennard's formulation and not in Heisenberg's formulation, as otherwise it would violate conservation laws. If it were violated experimentally, the whole of quantum mechanics would break down.

    The uncertainty relation of Heisenberg was reformulated in terms of standard deviations, where the focus was exclusively on the indeterminacy of predictions, whereas the unavoidable disturbance in measurement process had been ignored. A correct formulation of the error-disturbance uncertainty relation, taking the perturbation into account, was essential for a deeper understanding of the uncertainty principle. In 2003 Masanao Ozawa developed the following formulation of the error and disturbance as well as fluctuations by directly measuring errors and disturbances in the observation of spin components: ε(q)η(p) + σ(q)η(p) + σ(p)ε(q) ≥ h/4π.

    Ozawa's inequality suggests that suppression of fluctuations is not the only way to reduce error, but it can be achieved by allowing a system to have larger fluctuations. Nature Physics (2012) (doi:10.1038/nphys2194) describes a neutron-optical experiment that records the error of a spin-component measurement as well as the disturbance caused on another spin-component. The results confirm that both error and disturbance obey the new relation but violate the old one in a wide range of experimental parameters. Even when either the source of error or disturbance is held to nearly zero, the other remains finite. Our description of uncertainty follows this revised formulation.

    While the particles and bodies are constantly changing their alignment within their confinement, these are not always externally apparent. Various circulatory systems work within our body that affects its internal dynamics polarizing it differently at different times which become apparent only during our interaction with other bodies. Similarly, the interactions of subatomic particles are not always apparent. The elementary particles have intrinsic spin and angular momentum which continually change their state internally. The time evolution of all systems takes place in a continuous chain of discreet steps. Each particle/body acts as one indivisible dimensional system. This is a universal phenomenon that creates the uncertainty because the internal dynamics of the fields that create the perturbations are not always known to us. We may quote an example.

    Imagine an observer and a system to be observed. Between the two let us assume two interaction boundaries. When the dimensions of one medium end and that of another medium begin, the interface of the two media is called the boundary. Thus there will be one boundary at the interface between the observer and the field and another at the interface of the field and the system to be observed. In a simple diagram, the situation can be schematically represented as shown below:

    O !->

    I must admit that I do like many aspects of the DFM approach...but quantum stuff does trump classical stuff and so quantum owns the issue today. Maybe that will change, but right not, quantum owns the day...

    Obviously you have thought a lot about quantum physics and that I like. You mention complex numbers and then disparage them, but complex numbers are just a convenient way to keep track of quantum phase coherence.

    So using the Euler method, sqrt(-1) is just a phase shift of pi and so what is the big deal? My quantavangelism is to make both gravity and charge quantum aether and so far, that has been successful.

    I just cannot convince anyone else in the universe...but may C. Wetterich has the key. His theory uses expanding mass and shrinking force, but what the hey...it could also be shrinking mass and expanding force...

    Very good. I like it when people really think hard about physical reality. There is an observer and a source and they are connected or bonded by a photon exchange. The photon excitation is not instantaneous and the photon absorption is not instantaneous. In fact, there is both amplitude and phase information in this bonding interaction between an observer and a source.

    You mention a boundary, but a photon is more like a bridge than a boundary between observer and source. The uncertainty principle is simply a statement that observing a source also changes the source in ways that the observer cannot know. The uncertainty principle also means that while an observer can be pretty sure about the future, the observer cannot be absolutely certain about the future.

    While many believe that it is the classical noise of chaos the limits prediction, which is certainly true, it is not the only truth and it is also that true quantum phase noise limits prediction in very different ways.

    Steve,

    I agree, the quanta is key. My last 3 years and essay have been about identifying whether any 'non-weird' logical mechanism can reproduce it's results in agreement with John Bell.

    I found one can. Simply fill in the gap Bohr left (in not describing any particle morphology) with one complying with Maxwell's equations. Shockingly I found the additional (Dirac stacked pair spinor) momentum this produces hidden right before our eyes - in OAM, i.e. a spinning sphere, which means OAM is truly QAM, and QAM is truly classical. ALL QM's bizarre effects are rationalised.

    That's why I particularly wanted your critical eye to examine it.

    Start with the spinning sphere. Is is decidable if points on the equator rotate clockwise or anti clockwise? i.e. have plus or minus charge?

    Yet in the stationary Earth centred frame the equator (orthogonal to the poles) is where the UP/DOWN (or Left/Right) momentum pair peak!

    Few are able to see this giant 'elephant in the room'. once it dawns all else follows and slots logically into place.

    Do let me know if you see it. Best

    Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #43

    You and many others on this blog have very good intuition and feeling about the nature of physical reality, but often have difficulty conveying those notions to others.

    First of all there are classical notions and quantum notions and there is nothing illogical about either classical or quantum notions, they are simply different. Right now, neither classical nor quantum notions adequately explains all of reality even though both classical and quantum predictions are very good in their limited realms.

    A classical spinning sphere is a great analog, but you must be careful and differentiate between a gravity sphere and a charge sphere. And then you must be careful about the observer since a classical observer only perturbs rotation in ways that are knowable and causal. A quantum observer also has knowable perturbations, but a quantum observer perturbs rotation in ways that are not knowable and so are not causal.

    A gravity sphere can rotate one way or the other, that is true, and those rotation senses only have meaning relative to the observer. So there are as you say two equal and opposite momentum states and a continuum of states in between. Furthermore, gravity rotation couples with the spin of orbital motion and a rotating sphere that orbits another body will have two very different states in that rotation with and against the orbit phase.

    However there is no self energy for a rotating gravity sphere. The spin of a gravity sphere does not affect the gravity of the sphere. But there are all kinds of tidal forces that heat the gravity sphere and the radiation of that heat slows both spin and orbit.

    Why this is an elephant in the room completely escapes me.

    A charge sphere like an electron can rotate one way or the other as well and that spin magnetism will couple with the magnetism of an electron in orbit around a nucleus. This means that there will be a difference for up spin versus down spin just like a spinning gravity sphere.

    A charge sphere in orbit around another charge behaves similar to the gravity sphere and classically, there are a continuum of states. However, the classical charge sphere radiates continuously as it orbits and so loses energy. A quantum electron also radiates, but the nucleus captures that radiation in a resonance that is what quantum is and returns it back to the electron in a perpetual game of catch.

    Instead of a continuum of classical states, there are now just discrete quantum states. The electron can be either up or down and the orbit can be a ground state or any number of excited states, each with a factor of two less velocity. In order for the electron to leave, it must lose a succession of discrete photons each a factor of four less in energy in an infinity of Zeno's paradox.

    The quantum spin state exists as a superposition of up and down both prior to and in orbit. Unlike the classical spin in a classical orbit, the quantum spin exists in a spherical or S state and there is no up or down yet and no elephant in the room. However, there is a photon of energy lost when a nucleus captures an electron and that photon phase is entangled with the electron spin phase.

    So now there is a quantum elephant in the room. The electron also does not exist only in the ground state and spends some short time in all of the states and in fact, the electron spends some time in all of the universe as well. This makes quantum sense but does not make classical sense. Moreover, the electron spin does affect its charge and the electron motion in its orbit also affects its charge. The electron self energy is called the anomalous gyromagnetic ratio and it is possible to derive it from the fine structure constant.

    Thus far there is no gravity analog to this effect of spinning quantum charge and its entanglement with the lost photon that literally does exist in the whole universe and that is the elephant that is in the room. With a quantum gravity, of course, there is an analogous self energy and meaning for photon entanglement but that is a different story.

    Steve,

    Thank you, but you did the same thing; started from half way down some other road. Yes I know all you wrote, all current theory, from lectures, papers and books for many decades!

    You're proving my 'embedded patterns' hypothesis and need at least another 4 great steps backwards to disengage with ALL of that (look at it as temporary) and to start to see the REAL elephant appearing, which is many scales larger than you're looking! and massively simple in concept.

    Perhaps you're not an expert on QM. I don't know, but reading Tejender Singhs excellent essay first may help (I only disagree with his rather desperate solution).

    Also perhaps this video if you can find a few minutes.

    https://vimeo.com/195020202 Classic QM

    Apart from clearing away all the wierdness you'll find that QM and SR are fully unified (in QM's absolute but 'local' time). You can't then 'start' from any assumption (most all!) where they're not!

    Best

    Peter

    Thanks for the Singhs link...I have not yet run across this one. Determinate QM usually assumes some Bohmian pilot wave, but these complexifications are completely unnecessary since QM works fine without them.

    It is classical physics that does not explain all of physical reality because classical physics and intuition do not sense quantum phase. Therefore, there is no role for superposition or entanglement or interference which is too bad.

    Instead of predicting the actions of sources from observation, classical discourse wraps quantum reality in a security blanket of classical causality. Your spinning sphere is a simple analog that you choose to complexify into something that does not make sense to me and to many others as well.

    Look...science needs a quantum gravity and simply cannot seem to figure out how to join gravity with charge as quantum. I have done it, but no one else has that I have seen. It could be that aethertime will fail to predict action very well, but so far it works really well for Higg's boson, for dark matter, the spin down of the earth, the spin down of pulsars, and for the mass loss of the IPK.

    The nice thing about aethertime is that since no one else seems to like it, I get plenty of time to work out its details. My latest is that there is a time lense in cosmology that magnifies galaxies and quasars looking way back to the CMB creation. While it seems like quasars are more prevalent at z = 1 to 1.5, that is simply due to the time lense caused by the expansion of force and the speed of light.

    Thanks again for the Singh link. Had not yet read it, but Singh is really almost there...very cool...