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...

    Steve,

    OK, yes I better understand the problem. Nobody who'se convinced they've found 'the solution' down some road of there own can ever disengage, back right up and be led down any entirely different road, even if it may lead to the same place.

    That's human nature. And that's really what we need to advance to truly start to understand how the universe works.

    Goof luck with your own model. If it involves some continuum field (ether) with density distributions then I agree it!

    Best

    Peter

    Aethertime is a discrete quantum aether and discrete quantum action. Any continuum model of the universe will fail at both very small and very large scales. It is very interesting to me when very smart people seem to argue endlessly about identity recursions like what is matter or what is action.

    These are axioms and therefore are simply things about the universe in which we must simply believe. Once we have axioms, then we can predict the actions of sources like spinning spheres. However, there is not a unique set of axioms and instead there are many different kinds of consciousness that successfully predict action. There do seem to be some notions that predict action better than others and for that, the proof is in the pudding...

    Steve,

    It seems we do do have much in common. I refer to a 'sub matter' particulate field rather than 'quanta' (which infers 'matter'), but that's semantic. It can then be a 'continuum' but not of a non-particulate variety which fails. Let me give you a quick written spec for comparison;

    1. It is 'dark' or zero point energy, fulfilling all that role but not 'expanding'.

    2. It is also 'ether', but has to condense fermion pairs to modulate EM propagation.

    3. It is then the 'condensate'. or Higgs field, giving Coulomb, Casimir etc.

    4. The extra spin state of the process is from shear perturbation.

    5. The vortices formed are pairs of handed fermions, both with two poles.

    6. Local energy loss on forming 'matter' isn't 'filled in' but creates a density gradient.

    7. All matter tends to move towards the lowest density side (as in a gas).

    8. Dim witted macro beings are confused by this, calling it 'gravitation'.

    9. When matter returns to condensate form its energy level flattens.

    There's plenty more but that's most of the essentials. What else would be needed?

    However it seems science really needs to catch up with what's really happening at the 'kiddies bricks' condensed matter scale before getting ahead of itself. If most humans can't yet 'see' the TWO pairs of orthogonal momenta being exchanged on interactions with the simplest spinning spheres then it may be some time before they can see the next fractal down! Have you spotted them yet?

    Best

    Peter

    You do have good intuition, but your maths could use some work. It has taken me almost ten years to work out the details of aethertime. Even to finally realize that aether and action are the fundamental reality, not space or time, has been quite a journey.

    When I see other fringe theories, it seems to help congeal aethertime even more nicely. There are many measurements of aether decay and force growth but right now, they are simply labeled as artifacts by mainstream science.

    This continuous spontaneous localization (CSL) theory is very intriguing Somehow the CSL community uses a coherence decay that is very close to aether coherence decay, 0.32 compared to 0.26 ppb/yr. And CSL uses a coherence length of 100 microns, which is very close to the gravity/dispersion = 1 at 70 microns.

    It is really nice to see that more people are converging onto aether decoherence as a fundamental driver of all force...

    Hi Steve,

    I just wanted you to know I read your thoughtful and detailed reply. I do agree that it is likely dark matter and dark energy will go away (or be seen as far less pervasive), because indeed quantum gravity will explain those effects. Verlinde's recent work appears to have cleared the first hurdle. We'll see.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

    The notions of continuous spontaneous localization are very intriguing. First of all, it is remarkable that Singh's essay used CSL constants that evidently have been kicking around awhile, but are very similar to the constants of aethertime...which of course are just restatements of current constants. Singh notes a CSL collapse rate of 1.0e-11 s-1 and aether decays at 0.81e-7 s-1. Singh notes a CSL radius of 1.0e-5 cm and the dispersion to gravity radius is 0.7 e-5 cm.

    Of course, the aether constants are not new constants...they just restate currently accepted constants in the context of quantum phase noise decay. The jostling of CSL seems to be simply arbitrarily chosen to work while the jostling of aether is the gravity jostling linked to charge motion. The motion of quantum charge results in a pervasive quantum gravity phase noise that only becomes important out beyond where dispersive dipole-induced-dipole noise drops below quantum gravity noise.

    The nice thing about the CSL theory is that it already has a nice Hamiltonian and so represents a really nice starting point for quantum gravity. However, it is important to use conjugates like matter and action and avoid space and time. Space and time are simply too limited to ever represent quantum gravity. Only discrete matter and action can handle the limitations of the very small as well as the very large.

    What this means is that every wavefunction is a composite of both the slow changes of gravity phase decay as well as the fast changes of charge motion.