Classical Quantum Conciousness by Peter Jackson

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

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

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]."

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

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.

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

Dear Peter,

Since you asked me to read your paper in your comment on my paper's page, I was not sure if you wanted me to respond on my paper's page or yours, so I am doing it on both to cover both possibilities.

I am doing this partly because of a problem that I have noticed with the email notifications that tell when someone has made a new comment. If I press the link in the email it always takes me to my paper's page even if the comment was made to me on some other page. If several comments come in quickly it is easy for me to miss one on someone else's page that was made to me.

Thank you for your agreement with the understanding that the concept that the complex structure of the universe demonstrates a pattern of design and not just what would be expected from random natural occurrences. I have found that as people in this world proceed down a path of search for understanding they tend to gain beliefs some of which are likely to be true and some are also likely to be false because of lack of information or other causes. These beliefs tend to channel their further search patterns into narrower more localized searches that exclude concepts that do not agree with their current beliefs. There is also a pattern of disconnection from real observational information and the buildup of abstract concepts that when all are put together tend to separate people from reality especially in areas where they are in error because irrational abstractions can often be used to justify those beliefs when rational arguments would not work, thus allowing them to continue to believe the false information to be true. It is, therefore, always an uphill battle to get new concepts accepted, especially if they show that previously established beliefs are in some way lacking or false. You are probably right about the numbers because I try to stick to reality in discussions and this may offend those who are willing to just give what they perceive as being expected of them to get high scores or may not like it if reality is contrary to their theory in some way, but to me it is better to find out if your theory is in error so you can work on correcting it than to just have everyone agreeing to overlook each other's errors because that just adds to the confusion. Luckily for me, I am not concerned about the scores, partly because I don't have man's credentials to get more than a $1000 prize and partly because I currently can get by with what I have and don't have any delusions of grandeur to think that what I am giving out will be understood adequately in my time in this world to give me any gain from it while I am here and once I am gone it doesn't matter anyway. My goal or purpose is just to do what I can to make life better for those in the future in this world and to help prepare as many as I can for a positive result in what comes after this world.

I am glad that you consider it possible that the world was created by God. I Spent about twenty two years in about the same situation, but as scientific developments progressed and the complexity of the world and the life that is in it became more and more known, It got to a point that the possibility of a natural creation of it all became so improbable that it would have been ridiculous for me to keep going down that dead end path. I am not sure of what you mean by "having identified a mechanism to allow rather more of consciousness (and even an RNA mutation model!) from hierarchical levels of interactions than yours." Please explain. I have seen concepts of random self-assembly of RNA molecules, but man has been attempting to purposely cause such self-assembly for several years now and the last time I looked has not been successful. If intelligent man cannot do it with purpose and intent, it is hard to believe that it could be done by random occurrences in a world in which entropy actually works to break down such complex structures. Even if such an RNA molecule were to be produced randomly, there would still be the great improbability that it would contain the proper coding to build an actual very simple living creature because it would have to contain all of the information on how to construct the 200 or so exact protein machines needed to make that creature out of a possibility of about 2.58 x 10^220 possible different proteins that could be produced. This plus other improbabilities make natural production of the right RNA molecule so vastly improbable that it would only be wishful thinking to believe that it could happen.

In this basic model I am presenting the motion that is called the speed of light as being generated by a specific motion amplitude level above which the threshold is crossed allowing any further increase in motion amplitude to be transferred to the sub-energy particle's fourth dimensional motion that then generates its wave and dynamic mass effects, thus turning it into an energy photon. This threshold level is generated by the structural relationship between the lower three dimensions and the fourth dimension. If the three dimensional motion amplitude of an energy photon is increased the extra motion is transferred to its fourth dimensional motion and its frequency is increased. If it is decreased motion transfers from its fourth dimensional motion back down into its three dimensional motion to maintain it at the speed of light and the decrease in its fourth dimensional motion lowers its frequency. I mention these things because they are important in explaining the mechanisms of blue and red shifts, etc. I looked at rotation to explain the static mass effect in matter particles, but found that basic rotation is just a two dimensional operation, so the mass effect that it would produce would vary depending on the direction of interaction compared to the axis of rotation.

I read over your paper quickly and I find many things that are said using word patterns that are not explained in common terms, so it will take me some time to look up and get familiar with the more expanded meanings of those terms. I am sure that there are some who work in areas that would expose them to all of these terms who would easily understand all of them and their extended meanings, but I must still decipher them and translate them into those that I am familiar with. It does appear to me though that you propose that matter particles are spherical and rotate. I am not sure, but it looks like you may consider a second rotation that occurs in a different direction/angle than the first. Is that the case? What do you consider a matter particle to be composed of? What do you consider energy photons to be composed of? What do you consider fields to be composed of? Since they can all be changed into one another, how do you explain the mechanism(s) that allows or causes those transformations?

Sincerely,

Paul