There is nothing really wrong with your two-state vector formalism, it is just limited and does not apply to dynamical QM and does not include the decoherence of quantum phase noise.

You are correct in that I do not give a lot of references since those are present in other papers. Any true quantum description of reality must include decay of quantum phase coherence or it makes no sense. Technical references exist and if you want to see them, you are welcome.

Without the decoherence of quantum phase noise, the universe simply does not make sense...

5 days later

Dear Steve Agnew

I inform all the participants that use the electronic translator, therefore, my essay is written badly. I participate in the contest to familiarize English-speaking scientists with New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the principle of identity of space and matter. Combining space and matter into a single essence, the New Cartesian Physic is able to integrate modern physics into a single theory. Let FQXi will be the starting point of this Association.

Don't let the New Cartesian Physic disappear! Do not ask for himself, but for Descartes.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show potential in this essay I risked give "The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural" - Is the name of my essay.

Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. After you give a post in my topic, I shall do the same.

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

Dear Steve Agnew,

You have chosen frequencies in a different manner than I did...

Why and How Blue shift calculation are possible in the way it was shown in the 4 th Book, about Blue shifted Galaxies. Please see the (4 th) Book on blue shifted Galaxies from Dynamic Universe Model blog, which is available for a free down load, for further details.....

Have a look at my paper also............

So Request you to reconsider with this fundamental data.

Best Regards

=snp. gupta

Dear Steve Agnew,

Probably we may be missing a fundamentally new and different Picture of Universe......

Best Regards

=snp

Dear Steve Agnew,

You view of physics is one of those I find far too loose in its handling of properties and especially their equation representatives, their units, to agree with. However, I do also think that it is representative of cutting edge physics theory as theory is handled today. I think we have spoken more than enough about our views. I will not bring anything more about our differences here unless you bring them up. I want you to know that I think you wrote a very good essay promoting your views. I don't rate essays according whether or not I agree with their content if that content is consistent with today's professional presentations of theoretical physics. I think that yours is consistent in that manner. I won't be posting my votes until the last minutes of the contest. Thus far I have posted no votes. Whatever my vote for your essay is, it should have a good chance of counting at that late time. Good luck to you.

James Putnam

    ...but you have to know that I always reply to comments that are worth replying to. I realize that I have been hard on you, but such is life in the fast lane.

    The fact is that you have really good intuition about reality and I always appreciate good intuition. What you could do better on is in not redefining physics so much as clarifying physics instead.

    Granted. There are many ways to redefine the fundamental nature of physical constants. However, redefinition is a perpetual recursion that can tie you up in philosophical knots that lose sight of the primal goal: predicting the future of sources.

    What we are all about is predicting the future better than the current models, and that is quite a challenge. For this essay, it means showing how mindless equations result in aims and intentions. In other words, how does the objective reality of the universe couple with the subjective reality of sources.

    Since observers can only know sources and not themselves, that means that observers always affect sources in ways that those observers can never know. In many ways, that is exactly what your intuitive arguments state, but since you have not yet reached quantum phase noise, you have not yet reached the third stage of consciousness.

    Spectral consciousness is an awareness of the universe sources as spectra of matter. In a way, you could do force spectra in terms of acceleration, which you are want to do. But really, matter and action are much better conjugates for the duality that defines our universe.

    "There are many ways to redefine the fundamental nature of physical constants."

    That can only occur so long as physics properties have not each received empirically revealed definitions. Once all inferred physics properties have received their empirically reveal definition, there is no further means by which to offer other definitions.

    "In many ways, that is exactly what your intuitive arguments state, but since you have not yet reached quantum phase noise, you have not yet reached the third stage of consciousness."

    My arguments are not intuitive if by that word you are charging that I do not know physics. They are explaining that all inferred physics properties can be and must defined in the same terms as is their empirical evidence. This is a restatement of the requirement that physics properties must be defined in terms of pre-existing properties. The physicists of the past who established this criterion knew what they were doing and why. Physics has nothing to do with stages of consciousness. It should have, but so long as it remains restricted to the dumbness of its mechanical interpretation, it will continue to fail to either predict or explain consciousness.

    Your theory lacks an empirically revealed physics foundation. You need to go all the way back to the introduction of the property of mass and learn what it is. Stay with the empirical evidence until you see it. The procedure for you to follow is to figure out how the units of mass can be formed from a combination of the units of its empirical evidence. There is empirical guidance provided in the equation f/m=a. The units of force divided by the units of mass must reduce to the units of acceleration. It is in this manner that both force and mass become empirically revealed defined physics properties. It is by in this manner that the units of both force and mass become empirically revealed physics units. That is the only kind that meets the criterion for defining physics properties. The immediate result is that fundamental unity is an established part of f=ma. The leeway in the interpretations of physics equations that is currently the fodder by which theory prospers is removed and theoretical guesses go away with it.

    James Putnam

    You have been kind enough to share your empirically revealed foundations with us along with your empirically revealed definitions of physical properties. Fortunately, you also then explain what foundations and definitions mean. Unfortunately, foundations are empirical revelations and physical properties are what definitions reveal and so we recursively go a giant circle until we hit the showstopper...

    When we hit f/m=a, this reveals the hidden truth that defines physical properties...that way, force and mass have physically revealed units. I do admire your ability to continuously recursively redefine reality and actually seem to believe that it helps to predict the action of sources better than current physics.

    Since you use all of the same equations as current physics, save a few, where is the beef? Please...tell us what the entropy of a black hole is...

    Steve Agnew:

    You cannot, nor can anyone else, provide the mathematical basis for claiming that the units of Planck's Constant include the units of kilograms. I challenge you, and anyone else who thinks that they know better, to provide the mathematical basis for claiming that Planck's Constant contains the units of kilograms. It cannot be done by anyone. Anyone please provide it!!!

    Verbal diversionary tactics count for nothing and accomplish nothing. I invite professionals: Please do this: Handle mass your way, then proceed from the introduction of the property of mass through the mathematics that finally reveal that the units of Planck's Constant include the units of kilograms. Lets make this personal between myself and theoretical physicists as a group. I say you cannot provide the mathematics to show that kilograms is a unit of 'action' anytime, anywhere!!!

    James Putnam

    Dear Steve Agnew,

    You are not interested in discussing this with me, and, I don't really want to fruitlessly take up your essay forum space. I will give you a good rating in the last few minutes of the contest because I think your essay deserves it. I will return to my own space for anything further that I feel needs said about the theoretical side of physics. That is where others know to find what I think. Good luck to you.

    James Putnam

    Normally discourse helps to illuminate an argument and your discourse has helped me to better understand the axioms you use for your world. You base your world on space, time, force, and acceleration as revealed by empirical evidence from which definitions of mass, charge, and temperature all emerge.

    There is nothing really wrong here, but this approach just doesn't seem that useful to me. Why you get upset with a matter-scaled Planck constant, h/c^2, having units of kg s, or matter*time, misses the point. In aethertime, quantum phase noise drives both gravity and charge with that quantum of action. Both h and c now vary in time and it is h/c^2 and c/alpha that are constant over the decay time of quantum phase noise. Your approach has c varying over time as well, but seems to keep h and alpha constant.

    You never mention quantum phase in your work, but I like the way you use photon deflection by matter to define gravity. That is empirical evidence, but of course, photon gravity is twice the gravity of matter deflection. And of course, matter deflection is also empirical evidence in my dictionary, but not in yours. It is necessary to have a special dictionary with your explanations of definitions in order to properly understand your discourse.

    Steve,

    "It is necessary to have a special dictionary with your explanations of definitions in order to properly understand your discourse."

    Every time you write about what I say it is as if you don't know what I say. I have no discrepancy with regard to photon deflection and matter deflection. Photon deflection is twice the deflection of matter. Here is my main point and it does not rely upon all of the rest of my work. The first error of theoretical physics was the decision to make mass an indefinable property. A defined property, in physics, is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing properties. A defined unit, in physics, is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing units. Mass is not defined in terms of pre-existing properties. It is introduced into physics equations as one of three fundamentally indefinable properties of mechanics.

    Repeating these sentences: "A defined property, in physics, is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing properties. A defined unit, in physics, is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing units. Mass is not defined in terms of pre-existing properties. It is introduced into physics equations as one of three fundamentally indefinable properties of mechanics."

    There is no need for me to supply a dictionary so that physicists can understand what I am saying in these sentences. The first page of an introductory physics textbook is what is needed:

    " College Physics; Sears, Zemansky; 3rd ed.; 1960; Page 1, Chapter 1:

    1-1 The fundamental indefinables of mechanics. Physics has been called the science of measurement. To quote from Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), "I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of Science, whatever the matter may be."

    A definition of a quantity in physics must provide a set of rules for calculating it in terms of other quantities that can be measured. 聽Thus, when momentum is defined as the product of "mass" and "velocity," the rule for calculating momentum is contained within the 聽definition, and all that is necessary is to know how to measure mass and velocity. The definition of velocity is given in terms of length and time, but there are no simpler or more fundamental quantities in terms of which length and time may be 聽expressed. Length and time are two of the indefinables of mechanics. It has been found possible to express all the quantities of mechanics in terms of only three indefinables. The third may be taken to be "mass" or "force" with equal justification. We shall choose mass as the third indefinable of mechanics.聽

    In geometry, the fundamental indefinable is the "point." The geometer asks his disciple to build any picture of a point in his mind, provided the picture is consistent with what the geometer says about the point. In physics, the situation is not so subtle. Physicists from all over the world have international committees at whose meetings the rules of measurement of the indefinables are adopted. The rule for measuring an indefinable takes the place of a definition. ...

    Chapter 15, page 286; 15-1:

    To describe the equilibrium states of mechanical systems, as well as to study and predict the motions of rigid bodies and fluids, only three fundamental indefinables were needed: length, mass, and time. Every other physical quantity of importance in mechanics could be expressed in terms of these three indefinables., We come now, however, to a series of phenomena, called thermal effects or heat phenomena, which involve aspects that are essentially nonmechanical and which require for their description a fourth fundamental indefinable, the temperature. ... "

    My work is completely separate from establishing how to define a physics property. It was established without my input. My work begins by revealing to physicists these two points: The first is that both mass and force could have been and should have been made defined properties. The second point is that I have defined mass in accordance with the directive quoted from Sears Zemansky. If you do not like these two points. If you consider them to be unimportant for physics, then our works will definitely differ. Your work will necessarily not include a physics definition for mass. Mine includes a physics definition for mass. Your work will necessarily not include a definition for kilograms. Mine includes a definition for kilograms. You work with properties and units that are loose in meaning to the point that you can write and use E=M as if it was an equation, which it definitely is not. You made use of it when you suggested that the equivalence of mass and energy justified your exchanging the units of kilograms to replace those of Joules as a unit of action. There is no way that E=MC2 can be reduced to E=M except by making units disappear with non-mathematical 'slight-of-hand' handling.

    James Putnam

    Dear Steve Agnew,

    "There is nothing really wrong here, but this approach just doesn't seem that useful to me."

    Its usefulness is the restoration of fundamental unity right from the beginning of physics. It is the opportunity to remove theory, which consists of guesses and conclusions that lack both empirical support and a finished fundamental foundation. This circumstance prevents us from learning the nature of the Universe. Instead, we learn what theorists' think when they are imagining what mathematically plausible solutions might suffice to appear to make up for the unfinished business of properly deriving the properties of fundamental physics from their empirical evidence.

    The restoration of fundamental unity at the beginning of physics makes the theorists' work unnecessary. It is not the imagination of the theorists that we should trust in. We need to put our trust trust back into the ability of empirical evidence to reveal to us everything we will ever know about the mechanical operation of the Universe. Empirical evidence is our source of knowledge about the mechanical operation of the Universe. Its solutions are not located in extra dimensions or extra Universes or in the convoluted visions that result from theorists guesses. All empirical evidence consists of effects. Cause is a physics unknown.

    Theory is the practice of imagining what cause might be and, inserting those imaginings into physics equations. Cutting to the bone: Theory is a facade, placed in front of empirical physics knowledge, that prevents us from seeing the true nature of the Universe. We learn instead the dilemmas that result from theorizing. It is clear why amateurs disagree with one another. It should be just as clear why theorists disagree with one another. The cause in both cases is lack of understanding.

    In the case of professionals, that lack of understand is self-imposed. It is not that professionals seek lack of understanding. Their problem is that the unfinished fundamentals of physics allow for gaps in knowledge that theorists' impatiently fill with mathematically plausible substitutions that they insert into physics equations in place of that which remains unknown. It is theorists' substitutions that need to be removed from physics equations and be replaced with empirically revealed knowledge. Fixing physics begins with finally defining mass, temperature, and removing the circular definition of electric charge. After those changes are made, physics equations no longer leave room for theorists intrusions.

    James Putnam,

    Okay, I think that I finally have a handle on your revealed truth. Sears and Zemansky (S&Z) is a standard physics textbook now in its 14th edition although the one you quote is the 3rd Ed. The 13th S&Z no longer uses the awkward terminology that ends up defining indefinable quantities. Instead, S&Z state that there are three fundamental quantities from which all other quantities derive. Science defines the three fundamental quantities of mass, length, and time with measurement rules. In other words, you must simply believe in these three fundamental quantities as axioms or operational definitions that then define all other physical quantities.

    What you propose is that there are actually only two fundamental quantities, length and time, and those two axioms then define mass. The use of indefinable or undefinable is not very helpful in the context of explaining definitions.

    It is true that for any set of axioms that define all physical quantities, the axioms must also define each other as well. This means that it is true that length and time define mass just as mass and length define time. This means that you are actually correct that length and time define mass, but this truth is already embedded in S&Z.

    In other words, S&Z define both space and time from the action of light and so light along with mass really define both space and time. Unfortunately, the classical formulation of space and time as continuous and infinitely divisible results in the pothole singularities that tie spacetime in knots. So the classical axioms of length and time do not work for the whole universe and that is why your approach, while not wrong, is simply not that useful.

    My view is that matter and action represent much more useful axioms. Action is the path integral of the Lagrangian (i.e. KE - PE) over some path in space, time, or spacetime. Thus, action can have different dimensions depending on the nature of the path integral. Minimization of the action integral over a classical path is then what defines GR's geodesics while QED's discrete action Lagrangian integral probabilities result in quantum paths as entangled superpositions.

    Observers cause decoherence and then realize an uncertain path from the entangled superpositions of quantum paths. Although mainstream science argues endlessly about this measurement problem, aethertime's universal decoherence of quantum phase noise makes reality objective even without an observer derives. Quantum phase noise comes from the gravity fluctuations of charge motion and is what makes reality objective even without an observer decoherence.

    Hi Steve

    I have read your essay, and as an artist enjoyed that it starts with an illustration!

    Reality must be fundamentally the same, whatever physics we choose to gauge it with. Your paper explores Quantum parity and Classical Chaos ... did you equate the two? I should re-read your essay again to find out.

    Other terms you use that need clarification is observer..bonding..source. You illustrate this by a person (or atom) going through a door, taking a a path in the classical case, she is bonding with ...what? But something deeper seems to be implied. It is not too clear.

    Like most physicists these days you subscribe to the concept of quantum noise - that probability reigns at the bottom rung of Nature. In my Universal model, on the contrary, I believe that an exquisite crystal-like order is at work in the lattice of ether nodes that ultimately form space, energy, matter and everything else. In my fqxi essay I have presented a program of drastic spring cleaning that physics has to undergo before the truth of how it operates at the fundamental level can be known! Hope you will have a look.

    I wish you the best,

    Vladimir

      Your comments are very welcome. My essay is about uniting the two types of noise; quantum phase noise and the classical noise of chaos. The ancient Greeks viewed chaos as the beginning from which the order of the cosmos emerged. My essay argues that while we live in a universe ostensibly dominated by the chaos of classical noise, the entanglement of quantum phase noise is what brings the order of the cosmos from chaos.

      Bonding is a term that represents how we move since in order to take one step, one foot bonds with the floor and the other foot debonds from the floor. Thus any destination breaks down into a finite number of bonding and debonding event pairs that distill down to breaking that first bond with the floor and making that final bond at the source.

      My essay is also about the order that emerges from the expanding force of our aether decay. While it is true that quantum uncertainty is a necessary part of our expanding force universe, so are entanglement and coherence and superposition. The difference between a classical and a quantum approach is that classical knowledge is all knowable. This means that once an observer measures a state, the classical observer knows that state existed before its measurement. There is no classical meaning for superposition and phase and the classical universe follows a determinate path set by the CMB creation.

      However, a quantum approach simply accepts that some quantum knowledge is unknowable and therefore that a quantum state may exist as a superposition before the measurement. The state of the superposition before the measurement is therefore not knowable and this also means that the future is only what is likely and simply not completely predictable.

      There is no quantum sense to a determinate future although the quantum future is certainly among a set of more likely futures. A quantum future gives free will and free choice a role in bringing the order of the cosmos from the disorder of chaos.

      Steve,

      Your essay reads simplistic but weight heavy in meaning. Your plural backgrounds and interests have quantum, classical, physics and chemical bonds held together in prose.

      Good point that you can't separate the universe into mindless math laws and mindful observers but must recognize mindless laws are a product of humans who are interacting.

      Quantum coherence and decoherence are still conditions that quantum biology researcher are seemingly finding overlaps between the quantum and the classical world, seeing qualities of coherence holding for more efficient photosynthesis for plants, like in "Life on Edge." They mention it for European robins migration as well.

      A new theory my essay mentions by Jeremy England also sees entropy-based behavior for the inanimate and well as the animate.

      Hope you get a chance to read and comment on my essay as well.

      Regards,

      Jim Hoover

      Thanks Steve

      Forgive me for not engaging with the themes you present -my faxi essay is all about divesting physics from emergent concepts such as wave-function collapse etc. that confuse the fundamentals of physics. if you read my pet model Beautiful Universe, it is an absolute Cellular Automata where there is no distinction between classical and Quantum states - they both emerge from the CA, so most of the concepts of QM that you reiterate above are moot in such a world. Of course I may well be wrong. Your interesting observations about CA on my page need to be re-read thanks.

      All the best,

      Vladimir

      "Okay, I think that I finally have a handle on your revealed truth. Sears and Zemansky (S&Z) is a standard physics textbook now in its 14th edition although the one you quote is the 3rd Ed. The 13th S&Z no longer uses the awkward terminology that ends up defining indefinable quantities."

      I find that at no time did the 3rd edition end up " ... defining indefinable quantities." However, I have read the introduction from the 3rd edition several times since last communicating. I do see that the 3rd edition is not clear about saying that which I say is meant. While it seems clear to me that 'indefinable' means, for Sears and Zemansky, that a property cannot be defined, they do not actually say what I say. One way of saying what I say is: A property that is definable is a property that has units that can be and must be expressed in terms of pre-existing units. In practice, I find that they do this, but, you are correct that their wording is awkward, and, my quote from them is not sufficient support for my position. Since they did not clearly say so, I say that: A definable property is one that is expressible in terms of pre-existing properties; and, a definable unit is one that is expressible in terms of pre-existing units. I acknowledge that, from your intelligent perspective, when you disagree you are disagreeing with me. Good luck in the contest.

      James Putnam

      ...ah yes, but your model is ultimately all knowable and therefore is not quantum. There is nothing wrong about chaos and the CA is very informative...it just does not include quantum phase and therefore is incomplete.