Lawrence

I don't blame anyone for not fully 'understanding' QM. Feynman was right, but there is no comparison with ANY other case. In this case 'interpretations' don't matter as a simple, repeatable and irrefutable experimental proof trumps everything. All illogicality then evaporates.

The challenge is simply to reproduce the orthogonal complementary pairs of Cos[sup2 curves with some physical mechanism. Bell and others show 'hidden variables can't do it, but I show Bell was on the right track with his idea that 'fermion numbers" might be the way, somehow.

I was a complex 3-part solution which has taken time to put together (the last bit was the photomultiplier 3D field 'cascade' amplification, derived then found already proven in QCD!) but now it's done and it works. It reveals a few flaws in the foundations of QM, the key one being NOT adopting Maxwells orthogonal momenta for 'entangled pair' particles. 'Spin up/down superposed' is incomplete and misleading - loosing the logic of the reality.

Of course although conclusive and irrefutable (you can reproduce it yourself at home, experimentally and mathematically) it stands zero chance of admittance as a new paradigm in the next decade, if at all! Indeed my essay identifies why. Our brains prefer pre-set patterns and reject new alien concepts as they require the much harder 'rational computation' processes. It also takes a real understanding of QM - without completely 'buying' it. A very rare combination it seems! Even the few like Joy Christian have their OWN hypothesis (quite incomplete physically) which blinds them to anything else.

I'm a realist Lawrence, so not stressed, desperate or wanting kudos. I'm not even entirely convinced mankind is evolutionarily ready for significant improvements in understanding nature. But I shall anyway present it, in my own way, as I do feel some duty not to 'keep it secret'.

Anyone who's like to collaborate, i.e. with the mathematics etc, is most welcome.

Very Best

Peter

Hi Luke,

Good question (best so far).

Let's hypothesize a relatively low threshold for 'intelligence' as creatures who can derive and formulate mathematical laws. I suggest in that case the laws then aid and help motivate the beings aims and intentions (A&I).

That does not exclude the A&I existing in the first place at lower intelligence, in fact I've suggested AI has A&I. However I suggest 'mathematical laws' can only 'give rise to' such aims and intentions via the agency of those able to derive and employ them

So on some planet with lower life forms, though mechanisms exist which may be describable by others with mathematical laws (correctly OR not!) those laws have not causally 'given rise to' any A&I of the lower species.

You may then surmise that I am not a disciple of the 'mathematical universe' hypothesis, though agree that ubiquitously all mechanisms in the universe should be able to be described or more accurately; 'approximated' in various ways including numerically.

Do you think one day we may find a snowflake, grain of sand or molecule absolutely identical to another? I propose not, so have stated a; 'Law of the Reducing Middle' (QM's Bayesian curves) removing the 'excluded middle' paradox of binary maths & integers in logic. (You'll find it in an earlier essay).

I that complete and agreeable?

Best

Peter

Dear Peter,

in your conversation with Lawrence Crowell some posts above you state

"Of course although conclusive and irrefutable (you can reproduce it yourself at home, experimentally and mathematically) it stands zero chance of admittance as a new paradigm in the next decade, if at all! Indeed my essay identifies why. Our brains prefer pre-set patterns and reject new alien concepts as they require the much harder 'rational computation' processes. It also takes a real understanding of QM..."

May i ask why you do not - neither in your comments to Lawrence Crowell nor in your essay - simply describe how one does reproduce your findings (at home) experimentally?

Thanks

Stefan Weckbach

    I can say that in many ways I hope you wrong. I published a paper last year on the categorical equivalency between Tsirelson bound on quantum mechanics and spacetime structure. My goal is to illustrate how divergences in quantum gravity can be absorbed into unobservable nonlocal hidden variables. It is a sort of renormalization procedure.

    Your recent drop here is not due to me. I am tabulating plausible future scores on a copy of the FQXi essay page, and have graded rather few so far.

    Cheers LC

    I can say that in many ways I hope you wrong. I published a paper last year on the categorical equivalency between Tsirelson bound on quantum mechanics and spacetime structure. My goal is to illustrate how divergences in quantum gravity can be absorbed into unobservable nonlocal hidden variables. It is a sort of renormalization procedure.

    Your recent drop here is not due to me. I am tabulating plausible future scores on a copy of the FQXi essay page, and have graded rather few so far.

    Cheers LC

      Dear Peter,

      Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. I have read and enjoyed your essay and just rated it highly. It was very informative. Unfortunately, my education in QM is not sufficient enough to break through the barriers I specified via way of Dennis Polis in my paper, but I am glad you are trying and may have succeeded. Describing life in this way well be an important part of the answer to consciousness, and indeed the question to which this contest is founded.

      All the best with your future efforts in this and other intellectual regards.

      Jack

      Philosopher.io

        Dear Peter,

        In your previous comment to me you say "On RNA, I identify a 'mutation' (evolution) not creation mechanism, equivalent to people having to decide if they're spinning clockwise or anti clockwise with Earth when standing exactly on the equator. Both answers may result in that case."

        This is a very good example of something that I have found concerning most people in this world and that is that they are extremists. When confronted with an observation, most will look for the most immediately conveniently found answer and accept that as the true answer and tend to reject all other answers. In the above example you say both answers may result and you are right in that observation because it would be likely that any who were standing looking to the north when the sun came up would give one answer and those who were looking south would give the other answer. A true scientist on the other hand, would look for all of the observational information and then give a complete answer based on all of it. First after seeing the sun come up and go down several times he would come to the conclusion that either the sun was going around the earth or the earth was rotating on its axis. To determine which, he would look at the background stars and see that they also seemed to be moving in coordination with the sun's movements. This would mean that either the sun and all of the stars, etc. were revolving around the earth or the earth was rotating on its axis. The logical conclusion would be that since the sun and all of the stars would almost certainly contain much more mass than the earth, the earth must be rotating on its axis. If he then stood facing north when the sun came up he would see the sun come up on his right side. If the sun was considered to be relatively stationary in comparison to the earth during one rotation time, he would come to the conclusion that the earth was rotating clockwise when looked at from his current position or if he were to back up off of the earth and move down until he was above the South Pole. If he then went back to the equator and turned around so he was facing south, when the sun came up it would come up on his left side. From this he would see that the earth was traveling to his left. From this he would come to the conclusion that it was rotating counterclockwise when looked at from his current position or if he were to back up off of the earth and move down until he was above the North Pole. If he then stood facing east, he would see that as he continued to travel around the curve of the earth, he would be traveling down compared to his current position which he would consider to be the top for reference purposes relative to his standing position on the earth with the earth under him. If he then turned to face west he would see that the earth in front of him was coming up over the curve of the earth toward him forcing him to move backwards compared to his initial position. From all of this information put together he could truthfully say that the earth was rotating clockwise and counterclockwise and was traveling up and down and also to the right and to the left depending on the given input parameter conditions. Not to say that there are not any other possible parameter variations or ways of looking at them.

        Of course, we do not always have time to analyze all observable details, but when confronted with another possibility than what is currently believed, most people will just deny it and never even check it out to see if it has merits. That reaction is one of the things you have to be prepared for in this world when you try to give a new concept or even a different way of looking at an old one. So when that happens to you, just smile within yourself and think, "That's earthlings for you." Wait a minute that somehow doesn't seem quite acceptable. How about, "That's humons for you." Still could use some tweaking. Maybe, "That's man for you." I may have to consider that a little more yet. Just be glad when you find any of the few who are able and willing to think, regardless of where they are from or who or what they are. For any who can hear it, think of what God has to go through, he has to try to reach and convince all of us of his love for all of us, most of who are not just denying what he is telling us, but are actively trying to prove that he doesn't even exist.

        Sincerely,

        Paul

        Hi Peter,

        I have missed your intellectual contribution on the main forum but I don't blame you as many of the recent discussions have not been of the standard when you actively participated.

        I am also happy you put in an essay despite not being fairly treated in the past. I also only decided to put in a contribution almost at the last minute.

        You may wish to view and comment later although I see from one of your responses above that you may not be a fan of a single universe.

        I see your continuing effort in this essay to demystify quantum mechanics. This is an area that still contains too much magic for my liking so illuminating contributions like yours are very much welcome.

        All the best in your endeavors,

        Akinbo

          Stefan,

          Sorry, I've done that so many times I forget how invisible it can be. It was supposed to be implicit in the essay but the work limit cut it to the bone. Now this is representation remember (as you can't absorb and re-emit stuff!);

          1. Take one spinning sphere and a dynamometer (dym) or 2 able to record linear momentum AND rotation (or 'curl'). Link its output to a standard pair of photomultiplyers (or avalanch photodiodes), or just tabulate & feed it in later.

          2. Find a girl called Alice or play both roles if you want. The 'entangled' pair are antiparallel so say horizontal & opposite polar axes as the diagram in the essay. But you don't have to go 2 light yrs from yourself so only need one sphere to represent both (AND detector field electrons).

          3. Now just touch anywhere on the surface of the rotating sphere with the dym. Then go 180o round the other side (the condition when Bob & Alice's dials are set THE SAME) and repeat. I think all can see that the findings at 180o will be the exact OPPOSITE. (i.e. for equators one is UP and the other DOWN, for poles S= clockwise N= anti..).

          4. Now either Bob or Alice can rotate their dials (=field angle). If one is REVERSED it simply means you don't need to walk round and the finding is identical. (that may need a bit of thought- just imagine Alice has a separate sphere and flips it 180o

          5. At each POLE you'll find linear momentum is zero. But 'curl' (rotation) is at Max, and the INVERSE at the equator, where 'curl' is 'uncertain'. You can stay at a pole and Alice can go just HALF way round (turn her dial 90o) or ANY angle.

          6. Now you'll find that the AMPLITUDE of each property (linear/curl) changes NON-LINEARLY; by the cosine of the latitude on the sphere (angle from centre, over 90o) Lets say from zero to 1. AND of course from zero to MINUS 1 round the other side (180o from 1).

          7. So what we have when plotted with 'angle' on the x axis is TWO cosine curves, offset by 90o[/sup). (We already know the linear momentum from geophysics, and 'curl' is simply the inverse). But as fermions are quite small we need amplification, so we send the signals into the photomultiplier (pm) tubes, one of which which will produce a 'click' at a threshold amplitude. (Normally '2-channel' set in opposite directions).

          8. Now these pm's and pd's are quite clever. Ihe input amplitude is magnified by cascade interactions in the field (pair re-emissions) which lets say is 'pre charged' so there's no amplitude loss.

          9. Now when we draw cascades on a sheet of paper we get a simple mathematical 'doubling' progression. However nature ISN'T 2D! Reality is 3D(+t) so we'll get a CONE, which outputs the SQUARE of the input amplitudes! Which in fact we already know from Quantum Chromodynamics (which I found afterwards, costing 2yrs as QCD was a theory I'd only skimmed!)

          And that's it. Shocking I know but that has done the 'impossible'. Plot the 'click' outputs and you'll get a pair of orthogonal curves changing by the SQUARE of the cosine of the angle of the detectors. QAM is simply complex OAM and NO NON-LOCALITY IS NEEDED. Einstein AND Bell were correct (just not entirely). The video shows how the so called 'measurement problem' and most other 'weirdness' resolves.

          However I've found wide cognitive dissonance in academia and publishing. The essay was a self referring test of that, so far confirming it. It's simply human nature, which is what I identify we need to evolve to advance.

          Do ask questions, you should have quite a few.

          Peter

          Lawrence,

          Oh dear. That's the exact inverse of good science! And that may be the greatest problem we have. If I derive a hypothesis I'll go to the ends of the earth to DISprove it! That's the 'gold standard' scientific method, (which I'm sure is why the pure triple filtered science I end up with works!)

          At present if a non eminent academic publishes a paper or even just teaches students something he will feel WEDDED TO WHAT HE WROTE! That's the worst way to do science, and, I suggest, the biggest block we have on advancing understanding.

          May I suggest you goal should be to find conclusively IF "divergences in quantum gravity can be absorbed into unobservable nonlocal hidden variables" or NOT! the not being as valuable a finding. In fact may I also suggest it'd be useful to re-write that sentence in English (as arXiv now demand!) so it actually means something to your average ('Sci-Am level') reader!

          I hold you in higher regard than to downmark essays Lawrence. Unfortunately it seems that doesn't go for all.

          Best

          Peter

          I am not sure what you see as a problem. The goal is to see if this can be mathematically realized. As for disproving that this is the domain of experiment. You generally do not disprove a theory with a theory.

          The idea is that the metric structure is categorically equivalent to the Tsirelson bound, then for Einstein spaces where R_{ij} = Ag_{ij}, for A a constant the quantized curvature or expectation is similarly bounded and divergence removed. This requires going beyond the Weyl tensor spacetime physics (which is where I have worked) to the full Riemann = Weyl Ricc domain. This is rather tough as it is similar to gauge theories with sources that are notoriously difficult to work.

          LC

          Dear Peter,

          thanks for your answer.

          I like your creativity and that you do not give up with your goal of demystifying QM. So please don't take it personal that i am not convinced.

          I thought you present a quantum mechanical experiment (at the microscale). Your experiment may be creative and intelligent form the point of view to build up some analogies between your experiment and the quantum world, as it should be according to your theory (here the first critique: Your experiment and the assumed properties of quantum particles build up a circular reasoning). But a spinning macroscopical sphere is not necessarily the same as a particle. Surely, you want to convince the audience that it indeed is in some sense, but i sincerely think that one cannot call this an experiment regarding what you want to prove - because you don't experiment with the objects you want to find out something, but with some macroscopic replacements.

          If i do not understand you wrong, what you want to achieve is to map the probability distribution curve (which is nicely sinusodial, or cosinusoidal) onto some physical processes, and what would be better than using a sphere for this. I can understand that you are fascinated with this approach and i surely cannot disprove it (without delphing into your arguments or due to the fact that i do not have access to the mechanisms you describe).

          I therefore do not judge your approach, i am simply not convinced. Especially some macroscopic spheres do not necessarily say something about microscopic particles. I think if you really want to establish a new interpretation of QM, then you had to develop some theory which is able to predict something different from QM. Yes, i know, you will say you exactly had already done this, but as i remember, your predictions were all just retrodictions. Besides that, probing the behaviour and properties of the quantum world, i think, necessitates to operate at the quantum level and not with macroscopic spheres.

          I will not downrate you according to my opinions, because nonetheless i think you are a creative thinker and i think i understand the fascination you have for your approach. Therefore i will not rate your essay.

          Best wishes,

          Stefan Weckbach

          Stefan,

          You'd need a deep understanding of QM, which you agree you lack, and to overcome cognitive dissonance to be 'convinced'. I understand & predicted that. But anyway;

          1. QM suggests ABSOLUTELY NO classical mechanism can reproduce those orthogonal cos2 curves! ('QM's predictions') My 'surrogate' simplification shows that to be false. How close to the 'actual' mechanism it is has no relevance in that respect. (I state regularly that rotating spheres are great simplification of particles!)

          2. Using the simple explanation to help understanding means you jumped to a false conclusion. In fact the REAL mechanism of absorption/re-emission came FIRST. You may remember it as Discrete Field dynamics, localising 'c' on fermion field re-emissions. There is then no 'circular reasoning'.

          3. You misunderstand QM, the formulation of which is ITSELF is purely based on experimental findings. That means the 'correct scale' experiments have all been done and all entirely support my (absorption momentum transfer) mechanism. I analyzed the key Aspect and Weihs experiments i.e. here; DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3754.1287. or (note this was incomplete;)

          Jackson, P. A., Minkowski, J.S. Quasi-classical Entanglement, Superposition and Bell Inequalities. Academia.edu 9th Nov 2014.

          Experiments at the quantum scale would only then repeat what's already been done. That's NOT the task. The ONLY problem was findings some classical mechanism able to reproduce the findings. Dirac's twin stacked spinor maths are just fine, but now we have an inkling of the physical process the formula REPRESENTS.

          4. The other important part of all this is that ALL the 'spooky' interpretations fall away. Too shocking and unbelivable to accept I quite understand, but the fact is they do. See the definitions in the above paper.

          a) 'Entanglement' effects simply come from the anti paralell axes.

          b) 'Superposition' refers to the ACTUAL momentum transferred subject to detector electron orientation (everything is RELATIVE!).

          c) Wavefunction collapse' simply comes from absorption and re-emission, which solves the 'measurement problem'.

          d) Non-integer spins come purely from relative y or z axis rotations as the video shows. (very compressed one of some basics here;)

          https://youtu.be/WKTXNvbkhhI 100 Second Video

          I'll even explain what's really happening in the 'quantum eraser' experiment without needing 'backward causality' if you can't see it (it's not easy first time).

          Again, I have no delusions that humankind is able to assimilate and rationalise this quite 'different' understanding of nature, even with Occams razor. However I do feel obliged to steer anyone interested 'back on track' when they depart. The track will remain invisible to most until well trodden. I thank you kindly for that interest.

          Very best

          Peter

          Lawrence,

          "I am not sure what you see as a problem"

          I suggest the need for us to attempt falsification of our theories is far MORE important for theorists than experimentalists.

          It seems using purely maths has led us away from that. Might that be a reason we're 'wandering' in such a dense forest of untenable and/or unfalsifiable theories!? Do you not also agree we need to remember at times that just because something is describable mathematically doesn't mean it can or does really happen 'physically'?

          In experiments, it's invariably not the output data that's meaningfully important but the interpretation put on it, which is theoretical physics and too often based on previous flawed assumptions and interpretations. I suggest then that DISproving those assumptions, mainly theoretical or mathematical, may be far MORE more important that showing something MAY be possible.

          Is that not reasonable?

          Peter

          Hi Akinbo

          Great to hear from you. I only moved to QM as a test of 'discrete field' SR, and as the quanta ultimately drives everything. My SR solution passed the test, so exposing the error in the assumptions underlying QM, giving a unified description, and much more!

          An earlier test addressed the flaws, paradoxes, anomalies & unexplained in 'Concordance' (doctrinal) cosmology. That too surprisingly succeeded. The more coherent model free of all the anomalies etc united the Hawking & Penrose models into a single 'recycling' mechanism, at work in the galaxy evolutionary cycle (giving the mass function growth you invoke by pair production). I'll confirm your correctness on that in your essay blog.

          Unfortunately significant evidence suggests that some of your adopted starting assumptions were unreliable and probably wrong. Not necessarily the 'bi-bang per se as that needs little improved understanding (and some logic) to be a recycling (re-ionizing) mechanism.

          Did you know the only original 'evidence' for accelerating expansion was cosmic redshift? It was only ever 'one possible interpretation', but repeated often enough, like all lies, it becomes 'truth'. I've shown an irrefutable mechanical production of redshift over time which is rather better as it's less problematic. Will the gatekeepers let it surface? Your guess will be correct!

          VIDEO; Time Dependent Redshift; http://youtu.be/KPsCp_S4cUs let me know if you understand it all.

          So just correcting the expansion rate alone removes a host of issues and allows a more coherent picture to emerge!

          I enjoyed your essay and it's original approach, and am sure you'll enjoy mine, though it may be more testing than many!

          Very Best

          Peter

          Dear Peter,

          thanks for the answers. Your theory enables a similar kind of hidden-variable theory that has implications for the question of qualia. Let me be as original as you and claim that the impression of the color red is - at its fundamental level - not due to a certain wavelength, but due to the fact that a red stream of light consists factually of *red* photons. Via absorption an re-emission photons with all kinds of colors are produced naturally. Due to the process of absorption an re-emission, in the brain the impression of all colors is facilitated by the re-emission of the apropriate color mixture photon ensembles. These photons are projected in a cinema-like process in a holographical, encoded fashion onto the homunculus - what 'proves' that there must be some homunculus which can filter and decode a kind of holographical colored data-stream of photons. I am not sure if this also holds for all the other senses :-)

          I ponder over wether your mechanism is strictly deterministic and wether or not the maths of your theory should lead to an infinitely precisely defined location for every particle at detection. Since you have reproduced the cosine-curves, one should expect that interference patterns and all the rest should be arise like a perfect printer plot, without some positive accidents in the destructive parts. Please explain.

          Peter, i hope you can swallow some humour, not because your theory is silly as such, but how can it make a difference if it has no experimental consequences? The difference would only be in changing some worldviews. People would believe in absorption an re-emission and in your mechanisms instead of believing in entanglement etc. Would this improve the world or make it a better place, beyond changing some minds in the scientific community?

          Jack,

          Many thanks. You're far from alone in not understanding QM, Feynman said effectively (I paraphrase) that those who claim they do are delusional! It may be a GOOD thing you haven't been educated on it as you'd have had to swallow it hook line & sinker to pass the exams! That's not to say the maths don't model the findings ok, it's the 'interpretation' that went off the rails from the start.

          Just to advise you I'm now scoring your essay, in line with my positive comments.

          Best

          Peter

          Again you can't disprove a theory with a theory. A theory is falsifiable, while information that falsifies a theory is not. Hence you do not falsify theory with theory. Of course you can show a theory is inconsistent and thus false because it is internally flawed. Experimental data does support Bell theorem which rules out local hidden variable or classical-like physics underlying QM.

          LC

          Lawrence,

          I entirely agree with all of that. Very well put. We can only EVER reveal inconsistencies, which is the task, but never 'prove' anything absolutely (even with experiments come to that!) so my point remains. I agree 'disprove' wasn't a perfect word but that is a little semantic.

          And I entirely agree 'experimental data supports Bells theorem' which was anyway self evidently correct. And that same experimental evidence also entirely supports the model I identify, which in NOT a hidden variable theory, indeed is consistent with Bells predictions.

          The only problem you have here Lawrence is Cognitive Dissonance. That's entirely to be expected. I'll give you a few more quotes of John Bell (which I didn't find till AFTER I derived the model and was trying to disprove it, including scouring every page of his; compilation; 'Thinkable and Unthinkable in QM')!.

          "We are interested only in the possibility of hidden variables in ordinary QM and will use freely all the usual notions." p.2.

          "..fundamental obscurity in quantum mechanics. Our theorists stride through that obscurity unimpeded... sleepwalking?" p.170

          "The quantum phenomena do not exclude a uniform description of micro and macro worlds...systems and apparatus." p.171.

          "I think that conventional formulations of quantum theory, and of quantum field theory in particular, are unprofessionally vague and ambiguous. Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better." p.173.

          "It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal." p.172.

          "...the new way of seeing things will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us. In any case it seems that the quantum mechanical description will be superseded." p.27

          "...the 'Problem of Interpretation of QM' has been encircled. And the solution, invisible from the front, may be seen from the back.." p.194.

          Bell was very wise. A "radical leap that will astonish" is not one most readers of an essay contest are going to immediately be able to accept (for the reasons I identify in the essay). Indeed if anyone says; 'Yes' wow! I see; brilliant!' I'll most likely assume they're crazy! The mechanism none the less self evidently does what Bell predicted, which most people wrongly assumed he thought 'impossible'!

          So did you actually watch the video? Classic QM It's just that from what you write it appears you didn't.

          Best

          Peter

          yehuda

          I liked Bohm but he didn't crack the problem. I find close analogies between the original strings and helical path ellipticities. But a more important point on self organisation;

          I suggest the REAL start of conscious intelligence is when;

          A BRAIN IS ABLE TO ORGANIZE AND ARRANGE STORED INPUT TO 'IMAGINE' FUTURE SCENARIOS, TRIGGERING MOTOR NEURONE RESPONSES, WHICH THEN LEADS TO CREATION OF WHAT WE TERM 'INTENT' and 'GOALS'.

          Can anyone think of a better learning 'step point' for the definition?

          Peter