Classical Quantum Conciousness by Peter Jackson

pjackson

Essay Abstract

Artificial intelligence can already learn. Algorithmic foundations and structure to describe how interactions produce 'aims and 'intentions' is identified by exposing an unused momenta hiding before our eyes in a spinning sphere (OAM). Modelling this simplest of mechanisms as a fermion gives a classic derivation of the Dirac twin stacked inverse complementary pairs in quantum mechanics, exactly as anticipated by John Bell. The recursion of neural theories is reduced to fractals, however a computer the size of a brain may be needed to run the algorithm to get good approximations. Ironically limited primeval evolution of neural mechanisms can explain why it's own workings remain a mystery. Judgements using 'default' pattern matching rather than more complex rational analysis will tend to constantly re-embed older doctrine and reject anything new so hamper advancement of understanding. We identify that conscious 'self evolution' is required, using a non-linear 'layered' architecture already proven in logic, some human brains and in 'deep thinking' photonic AI. How such evolution may be achieved is informed by the new classic quantum mechanism, allowing a small probability of any DNA key switching on replication. No decision on existence of any cosmic architect can be reached.

Author Bio

Born 1951. Studied multiple Sciences then paralleled research with Philosophy and Architecture degrees. UKC, UCA and Westminster. Perpetual student! Royal Astronomical Society Fellow in Observational Cosmology. Worked in Energy, Renewables & Lead Consultant on major Pharmaceutical, Petrochemical, Energy and Defence projects. Visiting student Mentor at Kent University and UCA. U.K. representative yachtsman, Royal Y.C. Flag Officer. Rugby player & club chairman. Now semi retired but continuing full time research, mainly on unification and TOE's.

Download Essay PDF File

Joe Fisher

Dear Dr. Jackson.

Your essay is quite brilliant and I do hope that it fairs as well as it reads, in the competition.

I have but one quibble about it, You wrote in the abstract, "Modelling this simplest of mechanisms as a fermion gives a classic derivation of the Dirac twin stacked inverse complementary pairs in quantum mechanics, exactly as anticipated by John Bell. "

Simplicity is not gradable. Nature had to have produced the simplest of physical realities.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

pjackson

Jo,

Thank you kindly.

But.. A 'surface' (which I agree) can only be be made of 'matter' or not 'exist', so should involve the particulate state of energy. The simplest particulate form is a rotating sphere. Ergo I invoke the simplest dynamic, or at least the most 'familiar'.

If it's not the simplest; then it isn't! It's unimportant. What IS important is the missing spin momenta which has made confusing spooky nonsense of the physics of the quanta. THAT is what's simplified, then also simplifying & uniting with Relativity.

Now everything can be or 'have' a refractive plane surface (near/far field TZ) and in all directions, so localising all physics everywhere.

Of course the 'matter' condenses from the sub-matter continuum condensate energy on perturbation, (or Higgs process if you prefer) but if we discuss that some may think I'm loosing my marbles!

Best

Peter

[deleted]

Dear Peter,

There am only one unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. No part of that unified infinite visible surface am finitely made of finite matter. That is where you have gone wrong. You have tried to establish the smallest amount of mass that requires the least amount of energy. Infinite surface am energized by infinite energy. Light needs no empowerment because infinite light does not have a surface. Infinite non-surface light am a non-entity.

Joe Fisher, Realist

pjackson

Joe,

Using proper and understandable definitions (you offer no others); If no part of the surface is made of anything how can it be illuminated'? Do you use different undeclared definitions?

Also, the continuum I invoke (giving rise to 'matter' by condensation where perturbed) is not 'finite', is not itself 'matter' and is everywhere. Perhaps then it's somewhere else I went wrong?

I also agree 'infinite' and have written papers identifying the wide consistencies with a 'recycling' universe. Interestingly in that case all 'matter' (including brain matter) must derive from some (probably rather more) intelligent entity at some time in the past.

Now I think your descriptions may indeed relate to some more 'fundamental' truth. So is there anything else you might remember from back then?

Best

Peter

Joe Fisher

Dear Peter,

I never stated that "no part of the surface is made of anything." I accurately stated that No part of that unified infinite visible surface am finitely made of finite matter. You may think that there am different kinds of finite matter that originated from different finite sources, bot the one real unified visible infinite surface must be eternal.

Joe Fisher, Realist

pjackson

Yes, I see it. It did take rather a long time but not long ago I became quite comfortable with the concepts of infinity and eternity.

Best

Peter

Steve Dufourny

Hello Peter,

Happy to see your essay.I recognise your virtuosity in creativity.Thanks for sharing your thoughts.I liked indeed the spinning sphères.Congratulations and Good luck in this contest.

John Hodge

Peter Jackson:

Thanks for an essay that begins to address a scientific model of the brain's function. The other essays seem to get lost in vague terms such as consciousness, free-will, intention, etc. Note LaMuth's essay may add the layering of brain structure to your essay. This is certainly a 10.

We communicated is another FQXi contest years ago and through messages on Acedemia.edu. Since then, the model has advanced to include a simulation of photon diffraction. The YouTube site photon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k

shows the simulation and the new experiment that falsifies the Huygens Principle and all wave models of light. The experiment is easy to do. Although Huygens is falsified, the simulation model corresponds to ht Huygens diffraction equation. The model also suggests the speed of gravity (plenum, space wave) is much greater than c as T. van Flandern suggested. Thus, "spooky action at a distance" is really just a high wave velocity. Other QM weirdness observations can be modeled with classical (intuitive) math. This the fractal principle.

The model also suggeste a model of spin (also a video and papers).

I'd appreciate your comments on the simulation either through acedemia.edu, here, or my email (found in the video).

Hodge

pjackson

John

Thank you kindly.

You'll have seen a coherent model of duality emerges, but I always study suggested falsifications so will look with an open (if sharply analytical) mind.

I found learning speed reading essential for the ~30 papers a week needed to accumulate adequate coherent 'data points' to consistently describe the proverbial elephant. I'm therefore speed reading all essays and note those to re-read more carefully. Yours is one, but I'll read those of all who read and comment on mine anyway.

One first question. Why does a single universe have to exist? Thinking conventionally for now, if our visible 'matter' based universe has bounds as observation suggests, yet beyond that entity is eternity to infinity, then can there not be infinitely many separate incidences of matter based universes (perhaps like the galaxies in our own). Do you know any evidence inconsistent with that? and if it were true would it falsify your hypotheses as you seem to suggest but don't seem to say how?

Then there's the temporal recycling model (of each?) of course, but only one iteration at a time. You may have seen my paper identifying the wide tranche of findings consistent with that?

best

Peter

John Hodge

Peter

We are in a single universe. We are not in 2 or more universes.

If a claim is made that there are multiple universes, the affirmative is what must be shown.

I think my STOE is the only model that suffest other universes with effects showing their existance in our universe. The Sources inject the stuff of our universe into our universe not from our universe. The Sinks eject the stuff of our universe into another space not in our universe. The growth change eqn. (dA/dt = -kA) of the series of 3 universes calculates the temperature of our universe to hunt e K= 2.718 K.

The STOE suggests the universe is flat and bounded. Th ere is an outer galaxy. The spiral galaxies inject stuff and elliptical galaxies eject stuff. In a galaxy cluster, all the matter from a group of spiral galaxies flows out to local elliptical galaxies. Like water sprayed in a parking lt with sinks. There is a limit the water will go and there will be parking lot beyond.

I am uncomfortable with answers of an infinite physical parameter - it's unreal , therefore, false. Because our universe is covered with the plenum, there is no "Beyond" the plenum.

Which paper? Is on the acedemia.edu?

Hodge

pjackson

John

I agree with much, i.e. that we're in one 'mass/energy' universe at a time, it's finite or 'bounded', there's an 'ether' with density distribution around matter, that energy is quantized whenever it interacts (i.e. measured etc.), that much current theory is seriously flawed, and that we must rationalise first then derive the maths.

However realistically the chances of your model being adopted as the new paradigm seem infinitely small (which I'm sure you know) and I'm afraid I think mainly for good reasons i.e. (despite your claims) lack of conclusive evidence. There are also apparent inconsistencies in your videos (re single slit diffraction, and aether waves I recall). As an example; you dismiss 'infinity' and insist a 'plenum with nothing behind it 'solves' the problem. It's just another 'idea' John, an interesting one but again NOT a solution or 'proof'! my view is 'infinity' may show only the limits of our brains.

I've never seen a problem with postulating different theories and don't like to 'criticise' but, to be realistic, it's way beyond what you've done to suggest you've 'falsified' Huygens, particularly as a more widely consistent model exists consistent with the effects you invoke AND Huygens principle. In general I get the impression wider reading in leading edge optics and photonics may be helpful.

I know that's not what you want to hear but I hope you agree we must all be self critical and honest if understanding and doctrine are to actually progress.

Best

Peter

John Hodge

What remains is the experiment. Perhaps you could suggest how Huygens (wave ) cab explain the experiment.

Hodge

pjackson

John

Certainly. Without going back in detail, and just a little more than the bare Huygens derivation. It's the 'wave' in the aether which you surprisingly agreed towards the end of one of the video's.

Lets consider flashed from a space probe. The signals will 'expand' in all directions as a Schrodinger sphere. Passing a detector first with light then not then light then not etc. That is the 'wave' pattern I describe, but more complex.

Take a 'patch' of the surface of the sphere and consider it as a gold miners panning 'sieve' being lifted. But it is also 'swirled' laterally as it moves up, and not only that, but it can also be moved up & down slightly (relative to its' progress upwards) as it swirls, which gives elliptical polarity.

The instant this energy encounters matter or any perturbation fermions 'pop up' (pair production/Higgs etc) which re-quantise the energy - to you 'photons', which then spread again (unless self focussed into a Bessel beam).

Now you first said there's NO diffraction pattern from a single slit, which is wrong, but then agreed it! Have you never wondered why electrons gather densely at sharp topological changes? EACH edge of the slit re-quantises the energy, so giving the diffraction pattern. All else follows from that duality. I thought you'd already seen this, which also shows how the model solves a whole tranche of 'anomalies' including producing cosmic redshift WITHOUT accelerating expansion!;

Cosmic Redshift (etc) Video

I'm sure there may be some other aspect I've missed. If so just identify it for me. Past papers include various more detailed photonics experiments you'll be interested in, including this one I think;

Inertial Frame Error Discovery Derives Stellar Aberration and Paradox Free Special Relativity Via Huygens Principle

Best

peter

John Hodge

Peter:

I remember see you paper years ago. I'll reread it.

There is no diffraction pattern after the 1st slit in the Young's Experiment. But the light does become coherent so there is a diffraction pattern after the second slit. This is long recognized. Do the experiment.

The rest of you comments have very little to do with the Hodge Experiment. The wave in the plenum is caused by the photon. The wave thus formed DOES NOT come through the slit , it is reflected off the mask.

You commented that the Huygens model could explain the Hodge Experiment. I don't understand how. Please explain - I'd like to understand.

photon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k

As I understand, The Huygens model suggest each point in the slit radiates a wave. Therefore, a point on the higher intensity side of the slit should illuminate the entire width ( above and below the center) of the screen. The integration then forms the pattern. This implies both sides of the screen should have an (nearly) constant diffraction pattern.

RE: your cosmic redshift video, I saw lots of hand waving, where is the data calculation. There is lots of redshift, should be able to do the calculations.

Hodge

pjackson

John

I'm confused by your assertion of no diffraction pattern from a single slit. I've always found one, varying with energy, distance and width, and it's well documented. Are you saying something different?

Single slit diffraction

I think few here subscribe to the view that real ontological understanding is just 'arm waving' without maths! There's no new maths needed for the redshift model, it's simple as Pi! - The circumference length increases as the orbital diameter increases so each orbit takes longer. As the lateral (propagation) speed is constant the wavelength increases (redshift). 'Understanding' that simplicity is everything.

You may be right that one simplistic 'interpretation' of Huygens may be; "each point in the slit.." but that's not correct. Each PART of the slit has TWO edges, which is what produces the single slit diffraction.

Another big common error is thinking 'frequency', which is only a time based derivative. The real physical property is WAVELENGTH Lambda, which any professional Astronomer or Astrophysicist will tell you. Diffraction patterns change with wavelength. Your assertion "therefore it MUST be from photons" as "no other model can explain it" is therefore quite wrong. The reason being that you started with a false assumption.

Later you say the same of the lateral shift, which is similarly untrue. Remember just because there's no light in the dark stripes doesn't mean there's no energy on that "trajectory". I found an interesting action was to move the screen further forward and back for the CHANGING 3D picture. As my essay identifies, reality becomes far clearer with 3D models.

Of course there are photons, spreading but requantized continually, but that doesn't falsify wave diffraction or Huygens principle. Better understanding of wave/particle duality is needed (I'm referring to ALL not just you John!)

In any case you should recall from my paper that the old 'ballistic' theory of conserved photons without wave characteristics doesn't and can't coherently explain Stellar Aberration.

I like and agree with much of your model, but in suggesting it falsifies waves the whole thing fails the consistency test. That's the area I see most refinement needed.

I hope that was clearer and helps.

Best

peter

[deleted]

a single slit diffraction link

John Hodge

The light from a candle is incoherent. when passed through a slit or pinhole it becomes coherent. As i said in the video, Coherence produces a diffraction pattern when passed through a slit. But light from a candle is incoherent. as I said in the video, there a 3 sources of coherence, for far away light sources (stars), form a lasar, and from the 1st slit in young's experiment. Incoherent light impinging on a mask with a pinhole produces an image not a diffraction pattern it's called a pin hole camera.

It's obvious you have not listened or understood the video. Otherwise you'd know the photon is the source on the direction (Bohm) wave. When the photon is between the mask and the screen, there is no wave coming through the slit to the photon. Huygens requires a wave passing through the slit.

But you don't have to accept the reflection. In that case you have to say where the directing wave comes from such that the diffraction pattern reflects photon's energy. This is the Major, major problem with the Bohm interpretation.

You really don't understand the accepted physics or the problems with it. There is a reason accepted physics says Young's experiment is the whole key to QM.

Hodge

pjackson

John

You seem wholly wedded to your theory which blinds you to it's flaws. That's quite usual, particularly as we get old (as am I too). But you shouldn't assume or blame others ignorance. I well understand the theories behind the single slit diffraction pattern, which are FAR from settled.

I did well understand your video, also wide experimental results and current interpretation. The problem is, apart from 'passing over' key issues, that you clearly haven't recognised or taken on board that; NO WAVE HAS TO PASS THROUGH ANY SLIT!! - (That's duality for you!)

I also quite agree the Bohm interpretation is also flawed.

I'm only trying to help John, but if your belief in your full model is that deeply embedded then it supports the hypothesis of my essay, there's no capacity for development and and may then be little point discussing further.

Best

Peter

Vladimir Rogozhin

Dear Peter,

I read with great interest your deep analytical essay with ideas and conclusions that will help us overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science through the creation of a new comprehensive picture of the world, uniform for physicists and poets filled with the meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl).

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

Vladimir Rogozhin

«With the same anguish my days flash past,

Monotonous as they were,

As if roses are dropping their petals,

And nightingales are dying.

And she is also sorrowful,

The Love that has guided me

And envenomed blood

Runs under her satin-like skin.

And if I am in this world,

It is for the only dream I have,

That we both, like blind children,

Will go to the mountain ridge

There, where there are only reveries,

In the world of the whitest clouds,

To seek for faded roses,

And listen to the dead nightingales.» (Romance N. Gumilev, Music A. Balchev)

Physicists and mathematicians have become poets today to paint a picture of the world, filled with the ultimate meaning of existence.

"We are no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself." (John A.Wheeler)

Satyavarapu Gupta

Dear Jackson,

Very good essay, you have gone into depths of quantum mechanics very nicely....

I am just quoting few of your words just for further discussion sake ....

1. ..... "No conclusion is possible as to whether or not a cosmic architect created our or any universe"...

................ Why we should think this way sir? Just have a look at my essay, where I have discussed about birth and death of individual galaxies, independent any other galaxies. Why should we think of some creator......?

2........ "It is possible to model mechanisms producing aims and intent algorithmically and give similar architecture to AI, but a computer as complex as a brain may be required for useful predictions.".........

....... More complex computer structures like super computers , single bit computers which work like individual neurons which can simulate Neural networks of brain are available...... The main problems faced are, how to use them and software development and programming. Another problem is they are very expensive. Some of the programming developed on them can be done very easily on your PC, and many times more accurately .........

Best wishes for your essay

=snp.gupta

pjackson

Satyav

Thank you.

I agree galaxies are evolving and also published a paper on an evolutionary sequence and recycling by quasar some time ago. I'll read your paper with interest. However nobody can prove how anything 'started'. I didn't want anybody to interpret or assume my essay suggested a god, or not, as many do.

I agree we're progressing, but still a very long way off nature as our doctrinal theoretical foundations remain badly flawed.

I look forward to reading your essay again in more detail and commenting.

Best

Peter