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]

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.

Glad I came back to check for a reply..

I'll get to Tejinder's essay before long. Thanks again.

JJD

I do enjoy the essays and am sorry that I do not vote nor do I expect votes. The banter about the unfairness is part of the reason and it is not clear how such a simple-minded vote can ever have any meaning.

My essay continues to evolve into even lower entropy... for those who are interested...

Hi Steve,

You argue your point of view quite well, even though opposed to mine concerning expansion/contraction of the universe. Let experiment be the final arbiter.

I find your description of how early life could have begun quite revealing and interesting. While describing this you touched on the role of the sun. Do you share the views of the late Carl Sagan concerning the 'faint yellow sun' paradox? How much life can such a young sun drive on earth's surface if this paradox is true? Or what is your own proposed resolution?

Lastly, you use the term, 'action' a lot in your writings. Matter we know is measured in kilograms, time in seconds... what is the unit of measure of action (i.e. the fundamental units)?

Best regards,

Akinbo

    You always ask very insightful questions. I am aware of the faint sun paradox, but the snowball earth periods are equally perplexing to me.

    Since mass decays and force grows over time, there are different interpretations of the past. Gravity and charge scale differently with time since gravity goes as Gm^2 and charge goes as q^2c^2 over time. This means that the effects of gravity and charge vary in different ways over time and that will occur for any theory where mass and force vary over time.

    What this means for the sun is that convection, which heat and gravity drive, varies differently from fusion, which quantum charge drives. The current models of the sun over time simply do not allow for changes in mass or c and so the faint sun paradox is simply a result of fixed constants of nature. The sunspot cycle seems to be a result of this effect and the variability of many types of stars is likely related to quantum gravity linked to charge.

    Action is a very well known term in physics and is a result of the integration of energy (or equivalent mass) over time or space or spacetime. Thus the units of action are kg s or kg m depending on whether the integration is over time or space. Note that Planck constant/c^2 has the action units of kg s and represents the quantum of action.

    Thus, space, time, or even spacetime all emerge from the differential of action with respect to mass. This means that the whole universe of space and time emerges from the simple duality of the conjugates matter and action. This means that all quantum wavefunctions are a product of both very slow gravity as well as very fast charge oscillations that have a pure matter and action basis.

    Once an observer of a source tries to make sense out of matter and action, that is when space and time emerge as a way to keep track of source mass and source action.

    Dear Steve Agnew

    I invite you and every physicist to read my work "TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I'm not a physicist.

    How people interested in "Time" could feel about related things to the subject.

    1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

    2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

    3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

    4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as "Time" definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

    5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,... a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander.....

    6) ....worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn't a viable theory, but a proved fact.

    7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

    8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

    9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

    11)Time "existence" is exclusive as a "measuring system", its physical existence can't be proved by science, as the "time system" is. Experimentally "time" is "movement", we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure "constant and uniform" movement and not "the so called Time".

    12)The original "time manuscript" has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

    I share this brief with people interested in "time" and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

    Héctor

      Hi Steve,

      I read your submission and I am not happy. Your profile suggests a better researched and referenced submission. I didn't get that. I see no references, (I seem to live on those). And in your first paragraph you are making statements that other material contradicts. Here is the statement. "The quantum observer has many more possible futures and may not be able to remember the mysteries of exactly which door they actually took or why they chose the door they chose." And here are the references that contradict that statement. [Link:https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.04781]Lev Vaidman1[/Link] and [Link:https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.04109]Lev Vaidman2 and others[/Link]. I choose to believe Lev Vaidman in this case.

      Jim Akerlund

        Thank-you very much for your views on time. Time is a very useful notion and helps science predict the futures of sources, but ultimately, time is limited and does not represent all action in the universe.

        Time needs very careful interpretation and then the notions of time have much value for prediction of of source action.