Peter,
Regarding Dr. Wolff ... unfortunately, he has passed away.
You are correct about my use of equations. It is frowned upon in essay formats such as this. However, this is the only venue where I can present these ideas with any hope of reaching a technical audience that my have useful criticism. If it affects my ranking in the contest then that is a price I will gladly pay.
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
Dear Satyav,
Thank you kindly. I've come across some of your papers before (though among thousands!) and now recall appreciating your 'It from Bit' essay on the CMB etc.
I'll give the links below. I'm probably principally and Astronomer/Observational Cosmologist but as all nature is connected have been a perpetual student spending intense periods studying a wide range of other specialist areas over 50 years. That's proved highly valuable for 'joined up' thinking & science. One essential for a coherent theory is to study the scores of papers posted weekly in the likes of the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (MNRAS) etc. Of course much interpretation there is based on older false ones but the basic findings are valuable. It seems you may not do that quite as much.
I think a useful first job may be to find the Hubble UDF image, put it on your desk top and study it in comparison to the near universe, then look (critically) at the widest range of findings.
I did that at various ranges looking at the evolution of morphologies and eventually a new more coherent picture emerged, outlined in the first paper below.
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4540.5603 or;
http://www.hadronicpress.com/issues/HJ/VOL36/HJ-36-6.pdf
That and most other other important results are also archived on arXiv i.e. http://arxiv.org/a/jackson_p_1
or rather more on Academia.edu;
Peter http://independent.academia.edu/JacksonPeter/Papers
The video deriving cosmic redshift is here;
Cosmic redshift without accelerating w expansion Video
and the (longer one) explaining the Classic QM mechanism here;
I expect that's quite enough for now as we both have many essays to read and review! I'll copy this to you string, and score it now.
Very Best
Peter
Aaargh! I won't expect a response then. Massive shame.
Do you know if anyone is carrying on his work?
Do you think there may be any math input you could contribute on the ontological foundations I identify? I suggest a 'classical' QM could allow great theoretical advancement.
Best
Peter
Peter,
Several folks are attempting to carry forward Dr. Wolff's ideas with myself being one. We are mostly amateurs. Although, one gentleman does have a PhD in Physics. You might be able to make contact through the WSM users group on Yahoo.
Words such as ontology and teleology are barely in my vocabulary:-)
I have posted two works to viXra.org that might be of interest to you. They are Quaternion Dynamics Part 1 and Part 2. This is an active area of study for myself. They can be found here:
http://vixra.org/author/gary_d_simpson
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
Gary
Many thanks. I'll take a look. Not that I'll understand much! but I don't believe theory can advance at all without collaboration. And nobody can be an expert at everything!
From what I've seen so far it looks like the Professor may have been on the nail with non-integer spin but still missing a couple of key pieces to complete the puzzle of Classic QM
Best
Peter
Dear Peter,
You are very nice something like Peter Pan...!
I am giving my reply as follows
....Your words.... I'm probably principally and Astronomer/Observational Cosmologist but as all nature is connected have been a perpetual student spending intense periods studying a wide range of other specialist areas over 50 years. That's proved highly valuable for 'joined up' thinking & science. One essential for a coherent theory is to study the scores of papers posted weekly in the likes of the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (MNRAS) etc. Of course much interpretation there is based on older false ones but the basic findings are valuable. It seems you may not do that quite as much.
---My reply... I will do that, I never saw through a telescope, in my life.... You will have to guide me. It is very nice to have collaboration with a professional astronomer, who is expert in using telescopes... Probably you will check my ideas, I request to have look at my book 4 or papers on blue shifted Galaxies and give your esteemed opinion...
See the link
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/books-published.html
...Your words....
I think a useful first job may be to find the Hubble UDF image, put it on your desk top and study it in comparison to the near universe, then look (critically) at the widest range of findings.
I did that at various ranges looking at the evolution of morphologies and eventually a new more coherent picture emerged, outlined in the first paper below.
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4540.5603 or;
http://www.hadronicpress.com/issues/HJ/VOL36/HJ-36-6.pdf
That and most other other important results are also archived on arXiv i.e. http://arxiv.org/a/jackson_p_1
or rather more on Academia.edu;
Peter http://independent.academia.edu/JacksonPeter/Papers
---My reply... I will do that, I never saw through a telescope, in my life.... You will have to guide me. I will go through your papers and reply you...
...Your words....
The video deriving cosmic redshift is here; Cosmic redshift without accelerating expansion Video http://youtu.be/KPsCp_S4cUs
---My reply... saw your You-tube presentation, It is very good. you are still considering a expanding universe model... You please see that there are Blue shifted Galaxies,Quasars(are blue shifted).... etc...which are 60 percent of total Galaxies. You will have to consider them also....
and the (longer one) explaining the Classic QM mechanism here;
https://vimeo.com/195020202, (Full) LIVE LINKS ALL IN THE COPY OF THIS IN MY ESSAY STRING)
....Your words....
I expect that's quite enough for now as we both have many essays to read and review! I'll score yours now.
---My reply... Yes , you are correct, I want to read your essays now...
....Your words....
PS. I hope 'Satyav' is OK? SNP here is the right wing Scottish Nationalist Party!
---My reply...
LOL ! No problems, or even you can call me gupta
Today I am giving my high rating to you.....
Best regards
=snp.gupta
Satyav
I'm not sure 'Peter Pan' is appropriate for an ex rugby player! I don't look through telescopes either (most terrestrial telescopes can't see far), and as semi retired and not earning money in astronomy I'm not a 'professional' astronomer, but 'accredited' (still a fellow of the RAS, AAS, MRi, APS etc.), still help in AGN and galaxy classification programmes, but I'm more physicist/cosmologist.
The data comes from the Hubble Space telescope, the dozen or so other probes we have up there looking at various things at various frequencies, and a similar number of specialist powerful terrestrial instruments and arrays. We now have so much data coming in we're years behind in correlation and analysis!
Im also a member of the International Astrostatistics Association (IAA) and massive data sets are available at the ASAIP here; https://asaip.psu.edu/. However studying analysis papers can be far more productive, as long as you don't do just a few (and know how to read between the lines). Some analysis is nonsense based on past errors but the papers referenced in my own papers are all top notch.
On Blue shift - don't forget 'young' galaxies (from open spirals) are all far bluer (younger stars) than old discs, which are red. ('Ellipticals' is still a common misnomer, due almost solely to the orientation of the disc plane wrt us!). The other blue peak we find is from the quasar jet approaching us, which can have collimated components at up to 46c. (No, NOT a typo!) The opposing jet is therefore red and often then red shifted beyond detectable wavelength for the instrument (a fact barely recognized by most!).
You also need to carefully study the dynamic 'whole universe' models showing the various 'flows' of clusters and filaments.
Only once you've done that for some years, absorbed masses of evidence and removed all the flaws can you begin to form and present a coherent credible picture which most of our current 'gatekeepers' of theory (including editors) will study for longer than ~0.6-1.2 seconds before deciding to dismiss out of hand or ignore, if they look at all!
You must remind me after the contest to look further at what you've done so far. I'll also post your score shortly.
Very best of luck in the contest.
Peter
Many thanks for the praise you gave my essay, Peter. I knew my essay addressed what you call "some important fundamental physics". But because it was getting very little attention, I had almost decided that reading my own page anymore was pointless. And I twice seriously considered unsubscribing from receiving any comments. Everything feels right with the world now, though.
You and I really do seem to be on much the same wavelength, and I was fascinated by your video about Classic QM (and Schrodinger's Dog). Einstein published a paper in 1919 called "Do gravitational fields play an essential role in the structure of elementary particles?" The gravity surrounding us is absolutely everywhere, all the time. If the particles composing both you and me include gravitational fields, we would always be connected because gravity always fills any intervening space (actually, space-time). Is this why we're on much the same wavelength? Since everyone is joined by those gravitational waves, the whole world might oneday be on a similar wavelength to the two of us. (I've only had a quick browse through your essay so far - I liked what I saw but can't send comments until I get time to read it carefully.)
I see you presently like unification and TOE's. Maybe you'll enjoy this comment I posted on https://theconversation.com/if-atoms-are-mostly-empty-space-why-do-objects-look-and-feel-solid-71742#comment_1216480 in response to Roger Barlow (Research Professor and Director of the International Institute for Accelerator Applications, University of Huddersfield). It contains some of the ideas in my essay -
"Professor, I think you're overlooking the possible unification of quantum mechanics with General Relativity, which is Einstein's theory of gravity. You say, "It all comes from nothing more than ... quantum mechanics." Uniting quantum mechanics with relativity means it all comes from gravity, too.
"Quantum mechanics incorporates the existence of both advanced waves (which travel backwards in time) and retarded waves (which travel forwards in time) as admissible solutions to James Clerk Maxwell's equations. This was explored in the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory in the first half of last century. Also, John Cramer's 1986 proposal of the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics (TIQM) says waves are both retarded and advanced. The waves are seen as physically real, rather than a mere mathematical device. And "Physics of the Impossible" by Michio Kaku (Penguin Books, 2009) states on p.276, "When we solve Maxwell's equations for light, we find not one but two solutions: a 'retarded' wave, which represents the standard motion of light from one point to another; but also an 'advanced' wave, where the light beam goes backward in time. Engineers have simply dismissed the advanced wave as a mathematical curiosity since the retarded waves so accurately predicted the behavior of radio, microwaves, TV, radar, and X-rays. But for physicists, the advanced wave has been a nagging problem for the past century."
"Albert Einstein's equations say that in a universe possessing only^ gravitation and electromagnetism, the gravitational fields carry enough information about electromagnetism to allow the equations of James Clerk Maxwell to be restated in terms of these gravitational fields. This was discovered in 1925 by the mathematical physicist George Yuri Rainich. [Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 27, 106 - Rainich, G. Y. (1925)]. Gravitation carrying info about electromagnetism means gravitational waves also possess advanced and retarded forms as admissible solutions to Maxwell's equations about electromagnetism. The waves travelling back in time would cancel the waves going forwards in time, producing no motion in time. This lack of temporal movement causes instantaneous contact between particles that would otherwise be widely separated in time (and in space, thanks to the union of space and time into one entity called space-time). In other words, the entanglement of quantum mechanics is produced. This covers macroscopic/astronomical bodies in space-time, and quantum mechanics is reconciled with gravity/relativity.
"^ This means the strong and weak nuclear forces would not be fundamental but would be products of gravitational-electromagnetic interaction. This agrees with theories in which the role of the mass-bestowing Higgs field is played by various couplings [M. Tanabashi; M. Harada; K. Yamawaki. Nagoya 2006: "The Origin of Mass and Strong Coupling Gauge Theories". International Workshop on Strongly Coupled Gauge Theories. pp. 227-241]."
Rodney
Brilliant! Well done. And thanks. But something has stopped universal adoption, and I now think I know what and why.
For me it was Feynman's 'wave going backwards in time' that seemed to need the simpler explanation a barmaid could understand. The TQIM extends Feynman somewhat but the 'reverse time' remains standing out like a sore thumb. If you think about my essay the simple explanation is exactly what I've identified; The second 'phase' (the offset cos^2 curve) is that 2nd 'hidden' momentum in OAM, in Maxwell equations but not identified in QM!! It just takes a little thought for that to dawn.
The Mach-Zender 2 path splitter experiment is then unbelievably simple. Reflecting 90^o simply ROTATES THE POLAR AXIS 90^o so the "2ND MOMENTUM" then interacts, which gives the orthogonal 'out of phase' cosine curve of QM's offset 'probability amplitudes'.
All the confusion and counter intuitive concepts are cleared away. Simply measure the TWO momenta distributed on the surface of a spinning sphere!!!!
I hope you may be one of very few immediately able to see the simplicity and profound implications.?
Best
Peter
Dear Peter,
Thanks for your posts in the essay [link:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2748]there are no goals as such it's all play[/love]. I concur with your simple spinning sphere hypothesis, just that I propose Reimann sphere as the fundamental mathematical unit of consciousness. I wish you all the best.
Love,
i.
Your scenario is superbly thought out, Peter. It reveals a mind far above average! However, even people who are on much the same wavelength will disagree about details on occasion. That makes for good, intelligent discussion - which is one of FQXI's goals.
I think your video's explanation of quantum mechanics is a bit too complicated (at least for me). It's simpler for me to imagine QM resulting from a universe-spanning gravitational field whose waves can travel back and forth in time, cancelling to produce lack of distance in space-time known as entanglement. Ptolemy's epicycles succeed in providing explanations and would probably make sense to a barmaid. But astronomy has, with time, come up with better models. Time obviously does exist and I don't think Feynman's, and TIQM's, 'wave going backwards in time' stands out like a sore thumb. This "reverse time" can be explained by the Complex Number Plane being given physical, rather than purely mathematical, meaning (since I'm an incredibly slow typist, I'll copy and paste from things I've already written - so forgive me for overexplaining topics).
The Complex Number Plane has a leftward direction from 0 on the horizontal X axis which is called the "complex axis" and corresponds to backwards motion in time^. The direction to the right of 0 on X is called the "real axis" and corresponds to forward motion in time, while the vertical Y axis intersecting the X axis at 0 represents the so-called Imaginary Time derived from Special Relativity and quantum mechanics.
When Max Planck originated the idea of quanta to solve the ultraviolet catastrophe, I'm sure that idea (like so-called "imaginary" time) was initially thought of as a mathematical trick. Albert Einstein thought differently about quanta, and developed his photoelectric effect. So it appears entirely possible that imaginary time and the Complex Number Plane will find practical application in the future.
^ The photons in a beam of light - or the theoretical gravitons in a gravitational wave - going back in time could be the hypothetical particles called tachyons. Experiments have been conducted to search for tachyons, with no compelling evidence for their existence. If such particles exist, they always move faster than light. Special relativity says this means they travel back in time and cause violations of causality, the relationship between causes and effects. I don't think it violates causality since the tachyon would be the cause and it couldn't affect a particle until it began its journey back through time. What it does violate is the idea that time only ever moves in the forward direction.
Time's obvious existence - together with the tremendous appeal your video has to me - cause me to prefer explaining quantum mechanical things like entanglement as "a universe-spanning gravitational field whose waves can travel back and forth in time, cancelling to produce lack of distance in space-time". To address another example (quantum tunnelling) - Inside black holes, their gravitational and electromagnetic waves possess both forward and backward motion in time, cancelling to produce the zero time/zero distance called entanglement (this allows instant travel to the past, the future, and other planets/stars/galaxies). Physicists now believe that entanglement between particles exists everywhere and that moments of time can become entangled too - "The Weirdest Link" (New Scientist, vol. 181, issue 2440 - 27 March 2004, page 32 - http://www.biophysica.com/QUANTUM.HTM and "Quantum Entanglement in Time" - http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0402127). If there's zero time and zero distance between the inside of a black hole and the seemingly empty space surrounding it, the gravitons and photons of the black hole can exist outside a black hole's boundary or event horizon as "pairs of particles of light and gravity ... (with) one member of the pair being a particle and the other an antiparticle (the antiparticles of light and gravity are the same as the particles)" - "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking: Bantam Press, 1988, p.106. In other words, the particles "quantum tunnel" and cause Hawking radiation.
About 55 seconds into your Classic QM video, you say "Spin, in QM, can't be rotation". I also prefer to explain spin not as rotation on an axis. However, spin on multiple axes doesn't satisfy me and I use the gravitation spanning space-time. According to General Relativity, matter causes a gravity field by its mass creating depressions in space that can be pictured as a flexible rubber sheet. Space could affect particles through its curvature (gravity) infiltrating particles, thus giving them quantum spin. The curvature of my essay's Mobius strips implies this quantum spin could be continuous. Since it's known this type of spin can only have discrete values, these values (and space's curves) must be determined by individual pulses of energy (fluctuations / pulsing of virtual particles* could produce the distinct values of binary digits' on-off states, or 1's and 0's). Space's curves influencing particles is consistent with Einstein's 1919 paper "Do gravitational fields play an essential role in the structure of elementary particles?"
*The motions of virtual particles filling space-time appear to be random but a principle of Chaos theory - perhaps science's most important theory after relativity and QM - is "order within apparent disorder". So their randomness may well be an illusion.
Bell's theorem says any system of Hidden Variables that agrees with QM's predictions must be non-local. The binary digits (bits) I speak of are hidden variables, removing probability and restoring exactness (a precision hidden within apparent disorder). The digits are the most basic composition of gravitational waves, and the universal nature of these waves and bits, plus their trips back and forth in space and time, causes them to immediately affect any distant location ie be non-local.
Dear Peter Jackson ! Your argumentaion on maths as cognitive stimulus, algorithms as models of human behavior, and rational-ethic self-organozation do find my support. It is also very reasonable to state that science cannot decide if human development (as contrasted to animals and machines/automata) follows a random process or an eternal order.In any case, the human physics of consciousness does indeed improve by rational & ethic thought, and not by lower brain impulses for biological survival. Best wishes and success: stephen
argumentation
Rodney
I agree simple rotation on multiple axes shouldn't satisfy you. That's just the potato part of the full gourmet meal! My problem is in showing the whole meal when it has to be served on separate plates in courses. Indeed that's the main focus of the essay, All will revert to whatever they have embedded as it's far less work!
From your position you'd need to backtrack a lot. i.e. Bohr never identified any 'particle' description in his model leading to weird 'non-locality'. Einstein, Bell etc, said that must mean his model was flawed. That was Bell was saying in the quote you give, and more directly too! The real pièce de résistance of my dish is the 2nd spin 'momentum' in OAM, showing QAM CAN now be simple OAM! What Bohr forgot was Maxwells second momentum;'curl', orthogonal to Bohrs simple Up/Down!!!
So the error was 100 years ago and we've been digging ever deeper nonsensical and unnecessary holes thinking up unfalsifiable ideas ever since! Everything becomes simple; fermions re-emotto ing at c in their own local rest frame, which we know they do, then allows the 'Classic' QM to be unified with a (now logical) Special Relativity. Sure 'entanglement' exists, all derivable 'b'directly from all pairs & emissions having N and S poles facing in opposite directions!
Now none of that also precludes an underlying universal ('non-local' if you like) 'sub matter medium' or continuum. In fact I refer to it as implicit and essential in the essay - for, gravity, dark energy, Coulomb force etc. and from which to condense (3D vortex) matter from fermions up.
However each will follow their own intuition. In other words I quite see we may be too far down the long slippery slope, with minds not well enough evolved to overcome embedded content and recover a simple coherent understanding of nature.
My 2010 finalist essay describing this simple unification mechanism was titled; "2020 Vision" as I explained I thought at best it would be 2020 before we'd manage any paradigm change, if at all. Unfortunately that's proved correct, possibly for the reason I identify. But I don't fret, perhaps just feel a little guilty at my own inability to convince others. It's just where & what mankind is. We can all only do our best.
Sincerest thanks for being one of the few who've actually looked in any depth.
Best
Peter
Dear Peter Jackson,
I really enjoyed your essay, and being a computer engineer especially the parts on the need for hierarchical layered architectures to achieve learning and use of algorithms to possibly program some form of aims and intentions in machines. I need to read it a few more times to understand the QAM part better.
I would be interested in your thoughts on my submission titled 'Intention is Physical' in which I explore the possibility of learning dynamics and intentional agency as a manifestation of minimal energy dissipation. I too end up requiring an hierarchical predictive model to implement those dynamics, and explain how a little bit of wandering is not bad. Thanks and good luck.
Natesh
Sorry for the delay in replying, Peter. We all get a bit busy sometimes. It was a real pleasure looking at your ideas! You're correct that all any of us can do is follow our intuition and do the best we can. Then we have to wait and see what happens. It'd be nice if a paradigm shift could happen by 2020 (or even 2017). But from the way human nature appears to me, I wouldn't be surprised if we have to wait ... and wait ... and wait. It might be 2120 before people can accept a better paradigm. Best wishes, Rodney.
Your essay seems to be about two very different things; neural networks and the angular momentum of a rotating sphere. My focus is on the rotating sphere.
You argue that a classical rotating sphere of charge, which of course radiates at its precession frequency in a magnetic field, describes the spin of an electron. While a classical charge sphere has a continuum of states as it slowly loses energy in a magnetic field, an electron has just two states.
Until an observer bonds to the electron by a photon coupling, the electron exists in a superposition of up and down and the observer finds the electron either up or down in the magnetic field. Now both the phase and amplitude of the electron affect the phase and amplitude of the observer since the observer is also made up of spinning electrons and has bonded to the electron with other electrons.
It is difficult for me to understand why your argument of flipping a classical sphere helps me to understand the superposition states of an electron in a magnetic field. Now two electrons can exist in a quantum superposition state, entangled across the universe where one is up and the other down. Why this simple quantum concept is so difficult to understand is something that I do not understand.
It is true that most of reality behaves very classically and this is because quantum phase coherence exists for only very short times for macroscopic sources. For microscopic sources, quantum phase coherence can persist seemingly indefinitely for mainstream science. But in aethertime, there is an inherent very slow phase decay for the universe, 0.26 ppb/yr, that is what drives the universe charge and gravity forces. This phase decay is also what sets the arrow of time.
Your description does not seem to include phase decay and so it is not clear what happens to your two classical spheres that begin spinning together. How long do they spin in phase? Two classical spheres will only be subject to the chaos of classical noise, but two spinning quantum electrons are also subject to a quantum phase noise of decoherence.
So a classical observer can couple to a classical spinning source and measure the source spin without changing the source spin in ways the the observer can always know. A quantum observer bonds with a quantum source and therefore changes the source and observer phases in ways that the observer cannot know.
Steve,
Seems you didn't get far enough into the spin hypothesis to find the path to neuron interaction. Studying new fundamental theory first needs 5 steps back 'out' of present doctrine & understandings. You wrote about 20 lines on the latter so missed the whole new overview (I admit it did take me a decade to do that unguided!)
Now lets forget 'electron emissions' and all you've 'learnt' and go back 100 years. Maxwell's 2 orthogonal 'coupling forces' or pairs of states are 'curl' and some 'linear' momentum. All is provisional and as poorly understood as his Near & Far fields and 'Transition Zone', but the orthogonal forces are Elec & Mag.
Now cut forward to Neils & Werner. Not liking any model they assumed none, only 'what we can SAY about' particles, but still had to interpret data! So we had 'entangled' pairs each with ONE pair of 'superposed' states spin ('up/down') which 'collapsed' to just one instantly depending on what Alice did a million miles away.
OK that's ONE option! Now just in case that's a fantastical story due to some mistaken assumption lets check what would happen if Bohrs particles each had two pairs of REAL orthogonal momenta. First of course that's consistent with Maxwell's coupling 'forces'. Now second, and this is the giant 'elephant' you missed; we can find momenta equivalent to BOTH those pairs simply by looking more closely at OAM!! and just considering one of a pair (propagating antiparalell on the polar axis) meeting a 'detector' field electron which can be at ANY ORIENTATION. On absorption there is, to simplify, a transfer of momentum ('giving detection').
Now the question is HOW MUCH OF WHICH momentum (polar 'curl' +/- or equatorial up/down) is 'detected. Clearly at the equator curl is zero, and at the poles up/down is zero. Add the field depth 'cascade' of QCD and we have a COMPLETE reproduction of QM (Diracs complementary Cos^2 curves!!!) found classically! If Bob reverses HIS setting then HIS finding reverses! No spookyness needed - and exactly as Bell predicted; by 'fermion numbers.'
The problem is that's so unbelievably shocking it seems unbelievable to all, proving the hypothesis of my essay on lack of rational thinking. So is that why it's so invisible?' or is it that so few understand QM enough to disbelieve it, and see the 'kings new clothes'? I need to understand the problem to overcome it.
Best
Peter
You have a very good intuitive approach and that intuition tells you that something strange goes on with physical reality. When you try to articulate your intuitions, your words seem to get in your way.
Orbital angular momentum is a well known classical and also quantum notions. However, those classical and quantum notions are not compatible because quantum phase and amplitude have no classical analogs.
You posit a classical observer who detects the angular momentum of a classical rotating sphere. Your classical observer forms quantum bonds with the rotating sphere by exchanging photons and after some period of observation, reports a velocity of rotation as well as a momentum or mass for that rotation.
The fact that the classical observer needed to form quantum bonds with the rotating sphere does not really change the report of velocity and momentum. You further argue that the relative orientation of the observer and rotating sphere will affect the measurement and this is certainly true. However, there does not appear to be any hidden truth in this classical description.
The hidden truth is that the classical observer used quantum bonding with photon exchange to measure the properties of the rotating sphere. That means that it is possible that some of the phase information of one rotating sphere would be entangled with another rotating sphere. In this case, two rotating spheres might show quantum correlation, but it would not be possible for the observer to know this without some other knowledge.
Moreover, the observer phase will affect the phase of the rotating sphere in ways that the observer cannot ever know. Thus the measurement of the sphere velocity first, and then momentum will never agree with measuring the momentum first and then velocity. That uncertainty in these measurements is quite small but inherent. Moreover, an entangle rotating sphere across the universe will show correlated properties to some observer over there as well.
Since the classical observer does not measure quantum phase, it will never make sense. Once a classical observer uses a phase sensitive spectrometer, they become a quantum observer and now can make better sense out of the way the universe is. However, a quantum observer believes in the existence of a fundamental uncertainty for reality because there is simply no way to know the exact quantum causes of some quantum effects.
It is very interesting that many people get wound up in the logic of identity recursion, even very smart people. Even very smart people discourse endlessly about the mysteries of quantum decay. Why do wavefunctions decay from one state to another? Wavefunctions decay because wavefunctions decay. This is an identity that describes an axiom in which one must simply believe: It is how the universe works.
A classical observer uses a spectrometer that does not measure phase and so a classical observer chooses to not believe in quantum phase. This works fine for many predictions of action, but a quantum observer measures phase. This means a quantum observer will naturally predict many more possible futures than a classical observer. So what? The classical observer can still argue endlessly about explaining the definition of quantum phase since they do not believe in it and so do not even bother to measure it.
Peter,
Good to see you here again.
Your description of present-day elements that hamper clear thinking descriptively represents a kind of stream-of-consciousness approach that will keep us "wandering in a search for understanding until we decide to "self evolve" to allow more complex rational thinking." Your quantum computing seems to describe a fractal-type processing that avoids the recursive and linear default modes we have developed.
You make a lot of good points about out-of-the-box mental "self-evolution" and fresh thinking built into our subconscious.
I touch on some of the same concepts but lack the PDL approach you have fashioned.
Jim Hoover
