Classical Quantum Conciousness by Peter Jackson

Peter, thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.

You taught me quite about bit AI. I had not heard of Propositional Dynamic Logic. Apparently you work in the field and I will definitely look into some of the issues since it relates to what is happening at neural junctions. Also, I enjoyed your presentation of spin. I had to look up Bloch spherical vectors. If I understand your paper, you have found a classical explanation for half spin based on rotation in 3 dimensions. Spin and its associated wave function determine whether a particle is a fermion or boson. I wonder if signals that add in a neural network are boson like until they reach a particular junction that determines the result. Multiplication at nodes may addition of logarithms until a different kind of junction is reached (your neural hub?). I recall your red sock green sock paper and its relationship to EPR. As I mention in my paper, we need to know a lot more about hidden connections. Overall your paper was excellent. I agree that reaching conclusions regarding intent is a stretch for science with our current level of thinking. One thing that continues to bother me is how we all think so differently.

Gene Barbee

Peter,

Thanks for an interesting read. The three concept rule is new to me. It was also unknown to my college professors. Perhaps they thought it was a minima rather than a maxima:-)

FYI, Milo Wolff presented a visualization similar to what you present to explain QM spin. The key requirement is that there must be rotation about two axes.

Regarding genetic mutations, I had assumed that mutations were somehow related to the decay of carbon 14. Spin alignment is a less destructive alternative.

All in all, a good effort.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Dear Peter Jackson,

This reply i posted on my essay, I am just reproducing here for your immediate attention please...........

Thank you very much for the supporting reply. You touched many points, very nicely. I want to give a point by point reply. I like the idea to work in collaboration with you, we will definitely do that. You are an multi-talented person with very nice knowledge of many fields. Please give more details of your model to me....

....Your words: As an Astronomer long focused on galaxies and cosmic evolution I found your ideas interesting and novel with much agreement with my own work and (some joint) published papers. Certainly the universe is dynamic, and many current assumptions (mainly in the 'Concordance' model) are flawed, incomplete or plain wrong!

.....My reply... You are exactly correct! Thank you very much for your appreciation!!

....Your words: but specifically; ".......our Universe reproduces its Galaxies." I've actually produced a model of precisely how it does this, with a full life cycle bases on detailed data analysis.

.....My reply... Wow, very nice!, I want see details.......

....Your words: "Galaxies tend to evolve from spiral to elliptical structure" Again that is indeed a basic part of the full evolutionary cycle the data supports.

.....My reply... Very Good, it is an expected part.

....Your words: I should say other ideas don't correspond well with findings and data. Part of my studies have been of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field survey data. Indeed I have the 'visible' wavelength image as my computer desktop background. One thing for certain is that it did NOT look the same back then as now. Far from it. There are many differences, including faster evolution and significantly lower mass functions (all smaller).

.....My reply... I want see that data, and want know why you decided like that, Was that based on the observed data.....?

....Your words: Few of the inconsistencies argue with your basics, but if you wish to be taken at all seriously by the current regime you'll need a lot better consistency with data across the board.

.....My reply... I am damn serious, I want this Dynamic Universe model to be always based on Experimental results and observed data, I will never back out.

Many papers and books were published on Dynamic Universe model, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994), 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required' , "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations" , "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background" in FQXi, "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model , 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly' , 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free , Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model . Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe .

Prediction of existence of large number of Blue shifted Galaxies came true. Prediction of "no dark matter" came true. All these papers were published many places available in the internet.

All these books and papers can be downloaded from freely from Dynamic Universe Model Blog or viXra

....Your words: My own model is massively well evidenced (I've studied 20-30 papers etc/wk for decades)and includes better alternatives for the big 'Bang/Bounce' and the cosmological constant (cosmic redshift). But it still hasn't penetrated old doctrinal beliefs! ...

.... My reply... Please give some more details.... You can contact me by emails also... snp.gupta@gmail.com

...... Your words....(Yet it's still being refined and evolving as NONE of us should be too 'precious' about our theories!).

... .... My reply.... You are exactly correct, NATURE is very complex, and it produces new and new facets always. What we can check is how this model explains that observation. All these are being done for the betterment of humanity.

What we can check is how this model explains this new observation. That's what I am doing always for the last 30 years, without any support from mainstream..... It was a real torture to me for the last so 25 odd years, whatever the results and predictions that are that came true, no support.....

..... Your words....If you wish I'll post links to the Evolution paper and a video simply deriving redshift without requiring accelerating expansion. I think both may help inform and advance your own good work. ...

.... My reply... Yes please, I want have a look at them. Please send me, or post them here.

..... Your words....Most will of course say you're too far of topic here, but I feel better fundamental understanding of all nature from the smallest quanta needs better understanding of how the universe works. ...

.... My reply.... Don't worry. These all being done for the better understanding of the universe and its nature, and for the benefit of humanity, definitely NOT for embezzlement of Government funds.....

.... Your words.... It's also well written so I have it down for a good score. (though I try not to apply scores before reading all) ...

.... My reply.... I am also thinking the same, but I am giving high score to you now itself ! These interactions are very important.

Best wishes....

=snp.gupta

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

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