Stefan,

I agree with most. But "All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses." (Bronowski) or finding "new connections". Too many reject such new connections as too unfamiliar. Mathematicians have tried to limit the implications of Godel's theorem into ever smaller boxes as they hate it. I discussed this about 4yrs ago here.

'Understanding.' OK.; Start from OAM, in which I identify an additional momentum HIDDEN from QM (or 'not used' in the simpler formulation; 'Up/Down' states). It DOES exist in some science, from Maxwell equations on. It is 'curl', which, despite confusion, is what we commonly call 'CHARGE', or clockwise or anticlockwise rotation. This momentum peaks at the POLES, so is ORTHOGONAL (at 90o to) the tangentially LINEAR ('up/down') momentum which peaks at the equator. BOTH these states are then OPPOSITE at 180o.

QM postulates NOTHING about particle morphology and dynamics, except to say up/down 'spin' are some magically 'superposed' states which CAN'T be classical rotation because different angles get bizarrely different 'orthogonal' findings!!

Bless their little cotton socks. Lets give them some nice new red socks lined with green, then explain each is REVERSIBLE. That's equivalent to reversing the angle of interaction with a sphere, so you find the OPPOSITE state!

I'll leave you with that for the moment because it DOES take some initial absorption and integration into neural networks, needing lots of old rubbish to be cleared away to establish. Once done it's simple to then learn how the orthogonal Cosine value distributions with angle emerge, and how they are squared. But one step at a time.

You know the common foundation with the DFM's 'Relativity' already. Light propagation speed is localised ts 'c' wrt the centre of mass of each fermion on interaction. That creates exactly Einsteins 1952 final conception 'spaces in motion within spaces' but gives it a quantum mechanism and removes all the nonsense (in BOTH) preventing unification.

But enough for now. First go back and embed the TWO DISTINCT momenta previously poorly understood and not employed.

On the subject of maths. Sure it'd be helpful to speak Swahili to those who speak Swahili, but my last essay shows that has limitations when it's essential they learn a whole new language to advance. Maths and logic need rebuilding using those simple common rule of brackets as foundations. That was understood on reading it and thus scored top, but then of course just forgotten! I also quoted Wheeler this year; Ontological understanding comes FIRST! Nonetheless if a mathematician came along and joined the party to numerate it all then that's fine. Be my guest! All I can say is; sorry but it won't be me! I have far more important things to do than spend time improving my Swahili.

Thanks for your efforts Stefan. I'm now wondering if you really can be an exception and overcome my essays cognitive dissonance hypothesis (that term itself intentionally not used).

Best

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #102

Dear Peter,

so far i agree on what you wrote concerning Gödel's results.

Thanks for the first step of your explanation. I first like to know to what kind of particle you refer, to electrons or photons. I assume to electrons, since photons are known (at least to me) to have no charge.

The OAM you spoke of - is this the usual OAM of electrons? I assume not, since you write that it is hidden from QM. But i nonetheless ask, since OAM has two components, a position and a momentum component. To define the desired position or momentum, one has to take into account all 3 vector components of position or momentum.

I now assume that what you identified as additional momentum is the momentum component of OAM. The particle spin is always orthogonal to the OAM and both facilitate the total angular momentum. This is the standard interpretation and is valid separately for all 3 spatial directions.

You should give me feedback whether i understood what you wrote or misunderstood it. I would be also helpful to first tell what orthodox QM says in each step and then tell me what your theory says for that step.

Now i imagine a sphere with the north pole above and the south pole down below. This sphere has then its equator inbetween north and south pole. It is turning in the plane of the equator such that the poles do not turn. At the poles, the charges you spoke of are maximal, at the equator they are zero. Therefore, at the equator, another momentum (is this the QM spin?) is maximal an at the poles is zero. This particle has its maximum angular velocity at the equator, and its maximal charge at the poles. During its journey from its source to some detector, the poles always stay where they are, north up and south down below (so the particle has no precession or something like that?). Alternatively, during their journey from their source to some detector, the plane in which both particles turn around is always the equator plane and always stays the same, namely the equator plane (is this more correct?).

Is this the right description so far?

"You know the common foundation with the DFM's 'Relativity' already...."

Please let us proceed on step after another. I do not remember what DFM is, although i may have read it some years ago.

What is the next step (if my conclusions so far are correct)?

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Hi Peter,

I liked your essay a lot. It reminded me of a section in Frank Wilczek's book "A Beautiful Question" where he speculates that creatures as intelligent as humans, but with a different evolutionary history, would uncover nature's patterns differently. A species of intelligent birds would intuitively grasp Newtonian mechanics, super-intelligent spiders would stumble upon waves before grasping particles. We are limited by our cognitive evolution whose boundaries need to be overcome.

I hope I understood you as well as your barmaids. God-knows I've come across a lot of them more intelligent than myself in my time.

Best of luck,

Rick Searle

    Peter,

    This is impressive, You start your essay as a storyteller and interdisciplinary generalist, setting the table about the questions instead of just diving in with the argument. I like that. Could you clarify how the segue into angular momentum carries on to the end point, and per relevance to genetic change etc? I know how important the subject is in general in QM, what I ask is: how in particular, this aspect relates to other issues. Maybe looking at comments from others will help me understand your strategy here - and I need to brush up on "spin networks," spintronics and the like. The latter surely has relevance to neurology at the fine level such as in microtubules. There is something here to pursue. Best.

    Rick,

    Thanks. I like Wilczek too. I haven't read "A Beautiful Question" but that sounds spot on. I also appreciate your comprehension. Such responses have been well below my 'guesstimate' but you Jim & Neil (below) have got that back on track. Top job. (though non-reader '1' hits keep the score slipping down!)

    But the real problem now is how to get flawed but embedded understanding & paradigms updated? Editors and professors seem to run a mile screaming at the concept!

    I've resorted to evolution for now. Any other ideas?

    Very best

    Peter

    Neil,

    Thanks. I'm impressed when any understand it. Sometime I do too! Yes, posts to Stefan (March 4) may help. If 'end point' is' QM predictions'; the pairs of orthogonal cos values in 're-emissions' are simply squared by the 'cascade' or 'avalanche' detector amplification, which we already know from QED! This is all part of the 'discrete field' model (DFM) where fermions also localise speed because re-emission is always at 'c' in their own centre of mass rest frame. So we get full unification!

    In neurology the dual states provide the complexity needed to 'use memory' and run scenario's of likely outcomes, actually releasing biochemicals etc, so allowing feedback, informing more scenario's, leading to a decision ('Aim') which subsequent decisions serve; (I will/not jump from a plane with/without a chute).

    Genetic Change or 'mutation' will naturally arise where quantum interactions are 'on the cusp'. If you or I can't decide if we're going UP or DOWN at a pole then the new particle may have to 'guess' too! with 50:50 odds (answering you question about randomness). Similarly left/right CURL exactly on an equator. Of course RNA proteins are complex but they're BIG! We're at the most fundamental 'matter' scale above dark energy where perhaps billions of such interactions recreate proteins. That doesn't exclude Darwin, but works WITH those larger scale effects.

    All the 'spooky' effects of QM resolve into logic. It can explain each, even 'quantum erasers' and the nonsense of backward causality! But I'm not sure I 'have a strategy' apart from presenting findings and applying the fundamental mechanism to 'anomalies' to see if they resolve. They always do when I can find and understand the actual data. Much is in my many papers & essays. Can you think of anything in particular as a test? Or any other questions?

    It seems to me that Woolfram's 'simple programme' is right, but leads to better clarity than just 'known' laws. Look also at plasma physics and photonics, both useful if a bit insular, and at the less fashionable work of Huygens, Raman, Lagrange, Heaviside, Stokes etc.

    Do let me know how you get on.

    Peter

      Stefan,

      First, photons DO have 'charge'! Latest max= 10-46 of detector field 'electrons', which dominate exchanges. i.e. IOP & Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 261801 (old rubbish to go!)

      The key player is the detector electron field (as Bohr et al & now QBism infer) Use incoming photons or electrons at will, and photons as or part of 'spread wavefronts, and propagating ON their polar axis or with some 'elliptical polarization' (simply different axial orientation, or, think hard, Einsteins 'lateral' wave component.)

      You must also step back from the old 'position/momentum' assumption, cause of much of the confusion by assigning them as the offset sine curves. THAT is what's helped hide the distinctive curl PLUS linear momenta.

      It was also 'hidden' because QM famously assigned no 'morphology' to the paired particles. The algorithms then assume ONLY spin UP or DOWN. There logic all fell apart because they had to be magically 'superposed', and one 'collapse' on detection, with FTL or 'non-local' effects between Alice & Bob. Rather than listen to Einstein, EPR etc and correctly taking the hint that some assumption was wrong we just learned to live with what Bell insisted & showed was utter nonsense!

      You'll have seen the effects of the 3 'vector component' or 'degrees of (rotational) freedom in the video; (snippet here 100 sec Compressed version. The complex OAM analysis isn't far off, but famously it's said 'Quantum' angular momentum (QAM) CAN'T be OAM for the various 'reasons' I identify and reveal as invalid (non-integer spins from the 3 degrees...etc). But I show 'interaction latitude' is critical, So;

      QM; Each particle of a pair 'collapses' to just ONE 'state' (and a 'position').

      DFM; Each has both momenta, & relative detector field angle gives amplitudes.

      Your description would best start with the poles left and right. When 'split' they maintain that attitude, so lead by OPPOSITE charges. To keep it simple for now ignore elliptical polarity and remember the DETECTOR electrons, which Alice & Bob rotate, are king! The 'requantize' the energy by absorption and re-emission, and their angle DICTATES the new Cosine values of curl and AM. (that is equivalent to entirely poorly understood 'wavefunction collapse')

      Of course arriving electrons (read 'fermions') have similar charge to field electrons, but each encounters millions so the effect is the same. Once you've re-run and absorbed all that we'll go on to the final 'squaring' of amplitudes to complete the mechanism (or delve into QCD!). But do challenge any bits or ask any more questions first.

      Best

      Peter

      Peter,

      o.k., the particles propagate on their polar axis. Therefore the equators build an up/down line, so by propagating the equators do describe a helix-like path. Is this helix-like path the 'curl' you metioned?

      I understood the charge of the photons the way that only 10 exp 46 photons in a wavefront have the charge of one electron (detector field electron). Is this correct?

      What do you mean by "When 'split' they maintain that attitude, so lead by OPPOSITE charges"? Do you mean negative versus positive?

      "The 'requantize' the energy by absorption and re-emission, and their angle DICTATES the new Cosine values of curl and AM. (that is equivalent to entirely poorly understood 'wavefunction collapse')"

      You mean *They ‚requantize'*, right? So i assume that the particles are re-quatized. What property is re-quantized, the charge i guess? Or do you mean by re-quantized that the particle's new orientation is different from the absorbed particle's orientation?

      So, your DFM has two governing mechanisms, one the momentum, the other the detector field angles? What do these two mechnisms contribute to the measurement and first of all how do they contribute to the measurement result?

      I couldn't watch your video, because your link has no valid internet adress attached.

      Best wishes,

      Stefan Weckbach

      Stefan,

      Yes, "they requantize" not 'the' (or requatized!) See my 2014 'It from Bit' essay; 'The Intelligent Bit' for helices, also this cosmic redshift video Time Dependent Redshift, but remember the 'fractal' scale heirarchy (so all entities 'orbiting' as they translate are themselves rotating), so here 'curl' is really the transfer of "a momentum able to induce rotation." (Try to think simply for initial understanding, only then build the full complexity). And yes; When re-emitted the FIELD ELECTRONS dictate orientation (a whole new 'wavefunction' if you like). Now you can see REAL 'observer dependency'!!) The new amplitudes (pairs remember) have the inverse Cosine values of the the interaction tangent point.

      Sorry about the '100 Sec' video link. Try these; youtube or vimeo But remember that's just a glimpse of this; Full Classic QM video.

      I see electron charge more as 'power' (amplitude) at each interaction but you may be right. So 'charge' is better thought of as rotational energy, not 'speed' (which is 'c' wrt the last event).

      Yes, +/-. If North happens to be left, then even when split, if heading left it will only be found negative, so the one heading right is Positive. Remember the +/- is a 50:50 chance but always opposite. NOW we can make sense of the findings when Bob & Alice rotate their 'electrons'. 'Action at a distance is NOT needed!

      "So, your DFM has two governing mechanisms, one the momentum, the other the detector field angles? What do these two mechnisms contribute to the measurement and first of all how do they contribute to the measurement result?"

      TWO momenta remember, with (Diracs) 'complementarity', dictated by the field angle, (so inverse Cos values).

      NOW the big finale; Those 'polarized' photon/fermion/whatevers now hit lets say (most commonly) a 2-channel photoamplifier, (each channel has opposite polarity) and each will only make ONE channel go 'CLICK', and at a rate dependent on it's amplitude. If Bob & Alice's settings are the same, and Bobs + channel clicks, then Alices - channel will click. If either of them reverses electron angle ('dial') at the last instant then both ++ (or both --) channels will click. If both dials are at half way (say the equator, for 'curl') then BOTH findings will be quite random 50:50 - yet angular momentum AM will PEAK!

      Thus the results of current statistical analysis are entirely reproduced with a classical mechanism, and without all the nonsensical spookiness currently needed. Shocking I know, but it's entirely self evident.

      So Einstein was right at Solvay 1n 1927, he was just a bit wrong about SR (c is localised by CSL) which prevented him finding the mechanism.

      How are you doing? I'm impressed you've hung in where professional physicists have so far failed. As John Bell said; "Professional physicists really ought to be able to do better!" I wait patiently.

      ...ooops I'm late for tennis! must dash.

      Peter

      Peter,

      Here's a 10 bomb for you. This is not vote collusion. I ask nothing in return, although a comment or question in my forum might be nice.

      It's amusing, my first essay did not even receive 10 votes total, but this year's has had almost that number of 1 bombs.

      Best Regards and Good Luck,

      Gary Simpson

        Peter,

        the field electrons dictate orientation (due to their own orientation relative to the incoming particle) and this orientation dictates the measurement outcome (if no more intermediate interactions occur), is this correct so far?

        The dial you spoke of is the polarisation filter, i guess?

        "Yes, +/-. If North happens to be left, then even when split, if heading left it will only be found negative, so the one heading right is Positive."

        Let's assume that the two polarisators have the same angles (there is no relative difference in angles between them). Then the one particle (say, the left with north) is re-quantized with a certain 'power (charge)', depending on the particles initial angle relative to this polarisator, is this correct? For the other particle it is the same, but with the difference that the certain 'power (charge)' i spoke of is complementary to the one for the first particle (the north particle). Complementary in the sense that if one would add up both 'powers (charges)', it always results in the maximum charge that is possible on a single particle. Is this correct?

        So if we give the maximum charge (power) an arbitrary value of 1, then the charges of the two particles always add up to 1. The same principle should then be true also for the other property you spoke of, namely the tangentially linear momentum. If charge has a zero peak at the equator, this tangentially linear momentum has its maximum peak at the equator and vice versa. The two properties of the particle, the charge and the linear momentum, have their opposite interaction powers both at 180 degree.

        Concerning the two-channel photoamplifiers, i now could investigate how these tools function in detail due to mainstream physics. But i guess they work a bit different in your scenario. Anyways, it would be helpful for me if you would explain me the detailed mechanism. Only ever one channel will click, i understood so far (and is self-evident). What channel will click depends on the orientation of the final re-quantized particle arriving at the photoamplifier. But how can a clicking rate depend on the (charge and/or linear momentum) amplitude of a single particle event? As i understood it so far, at the poles, there is no tangentially linear momentum, but maxiumum power (charge). But what for the case *near* the pole - does a certain channel, say the minus-channel (arbitrarily choosen), click here and what is the mechanism that would *prevent* this channel to click? I mean i must understand how a continuum of charge-values from the pole to the equator translates into a binary clicking behaviour of either + or - channel. At what point of the mentioned continuum does the clicking-channel switch from + to - ? The same question arises for the continuum of the tangentially linear momentum. How are these continua quantized into + or - clicks in the photoamplifiers for a *single* particle event? Something inside them must decide which channel clicks for a single particle event and this is something i haven't understood yet from your hitherto explanations.

        After a flue and lots of antibiotica i do well again! Thanks for your compliments concerning my essay, i do my best to clear up some issues which i consider as fog concerning the essay contest's questions!

        Best wishes,

        Stefan Weckbach

        Stefan,

        All correct up to para4; "Then the one particle (say, the left with north) is re-quantized with a certain 'power (charge)', depending on the particles initial angle relative to this polarisator, is this correct?"

        Not quite. The TWO momenta (curl+AM) amplitudes are very much dependent on the FIELD ('electrons') angle relative to the particles not vice versa (which could be implied by your description). The particles relative +/- & up/down 'states' are conserved.

        Para5 is also wrong; For each property the max values +1 and -1 are at the opposing poles (for curl) and opposite 'sides' of the equator (up/down). So each is then 0 at 90o. We can only EVER interact with one 'side' at a time so can only 'find' one (curl/AM value pair) at a time. We don't 'add up' Bob & Alice's values. If we did we'd get 0 as one is + and one - !

        What we do in QM is 'correlate' the 'clicks' statistically, which is quite different (leading to the famous 'damn lies' due to the key false assumption that there's only ONE 'state pair'). The orthogonal Cos2 curves are the amplitude plots from changing polarizer field angles. The complimentarity of QM is the inverse relationship of curl/AM values with the angle. Add each of THOSE together and yes, you get 1. (But the cheese would taste a bit chalky as the 0-1 is only mathematical abstraction.)

        Photomultipliers "..i guess they work a bit different in your scenario." Nope, not at all. They're called 'Cascade..or Avalanche..' as they have a dense field (think of a matrix) of fermions (think of them as 'pre-charged to avoid transmission loss) which amplify signals due to cascades of interactions; That is, viewed in Feynmanns 2D, the incoming particle hits one electron which produces two. But look from ANY angle (say 90o) and you find the same! Nature is 3D NOT 2D! The mathematical progression in cascades is therefore by the SQUARE of the input amplitute, not just 'doubled'.

        When Bohr, Von Neumann etc said the detector/meter is 'part of the system' it seems they really didn't have any idea just how right they were!

        "how can a clicking rate depend on the (charge and/or linear momentum) amplitude of a single particle event? Instruments are tuneable, and each emission arrives at BOTH channels. If (relative remember) amplitude in the 'lower value' side doesn't reach a threshold level there'll be no click, but that means there'll be a click from the opposite channel (higher input value side relative to that channels field orientation).

        "At what point of the mentioned continuum does the clicking-channel switch from + to - ?". It doesn't. Rephrase to; "At what point does the + channel stop and - channel start clicking." The answer is then; at 90o. But actually AT 90o there's around a 50:50 chance of either clicking (if set/tuned correctly). And THAT is 'quantum uncertainty'. Actually to 50:50 is presently (also) the statistical correlation between Bob and Alice's clicks when set at 90o to each other. Say Bobs dial is fixed, Alice changes to OPPOSITE, = SAME results, then she goes to 90o and the 'statistical correlation' becomes 50:50. A quantum physicist, website or even Wiki will confirm that's what's found. However as you and I and very few others so far now know, the apparent 'paradoxes' of those findings don't actually need to exist!

        I can still recall how tricky it was to first get my brain round that, so you really do need to read it through and visualise it many times! But you should soon be able to read all about QM, spot the flawed assumptions and confusion of interpretations they led to.

        Peter

        Gary,

        Thanks. I hope admin acts to stop the rot. I did read yours, and made notes which I thought I'd posted but apparently not! I'll do so. I recall I found it a bit more mathematical that I could digest, though that doesn't devalue it and unlike Lewis Carrol I have 'seen' the analogue of quaternions.

        Did you read my last years essay identifying the importance of the rules of arithmetical brackets (and socks) to logic and nature? That was scored top, but scores really aren't as important as some may think. I've had others in the top 10 and one 2nd but NONE have ever got in the prizes!

        Best

        Peter

        Dear Sir,

        Your opening sentence is very interesting. We have partial knowledge about many things. Other have knowledge about some of it, part of which may be similar and partly different. Assuming all are correct, it implies that there is more to know and the limit on our knowledge of any subject can be boundless to include all knowledge on that subject. This can be said about knowledge on all subjects. We find a pattern in physics, where the infinite complexities are sought to be explained by a few particles and we are searching for a GUT. On the same analogy, we can think of a 'creator', who is the repository of all knowledge. As you say: All have infinite recursion, in both directions. Yes. We call extending from one to multitude as "science" and the opposite effect as "knowledge". For your "mathematical universe, physical and meta-physical universes and a creator", we call it matter, energy and conscious interpretation.

        Your description of Jimal Khalili's 'Shut up while we calculate' is in conformity with the above view. Measurement or calculation or experiment are dynamical processes involving some kind of energy. Result of measurement is a static quantity. A process cannot be measured. Only after the process ceases (even in an intermittent level), we can measure it another static unit through comparison to get some scalar quantity. The static quantity is information, which must be cognized by an observer through measurement again. This implies, observer is also static at conscious level, though the observation has a material (hence mathematical and physical) and an energy (including meta-physical) component.

        To explain the statement further, let us see what is mind. Think of a system at rest. It implies, all the forces acting on it are cancelling each other and with reference to its environment, it is "charge neutral". Now if one of the forces acting on it is disturbed, it will lead to a couple of motions: one in the direction of the force that was removed and the other the back reaction created by this motion on other parts at rest. It is like bringing a positive or negative charge near a charge neutral body. The point from where action starts is called mind. It acts like the sodium-potassium pump in our body. The external impulse starts a reaction that activates the mind both ways and the impulse is carried to the brain for processing.

        We frequently compare mind with RAM and brain with HDD. Mind supports sensory instruments and reports to intelligence, like RAM supports applications (task). RAM has volatile memory and hangs from time to time if overloaded. Similarly mind goes to sleep if overworked. Intelligence is like CPU, which does the processing of all sensory inputs. Just like CPU cannot execute a program that is "not on the disc" and has not been loaded in the RAM, intelligence cannot act without mind. If memory speed is less than FSB, it takes too long to fetch an instruction or an operand. Similarly, mind shows dullness or brightness based on its species specific speed. Just like the CPU and RAM differ in processing capabilities (arithmetic dexterity) and storage capacity respectively even after the computer breaks down; different species show different levels of behavior. These are input, memory, processing and output related and not perception related (as "I know" or happiness, pain, desire etc.). Vital energy that starts breathing, which continues perpetually is like the power supply (electricity provided by a battery). The first breath is like the BIOS Chip, which boosts the computer and searches and loads the OS to RAM from ROM that cannot be modified, which is equivalent to memory content of the new born (such as to cry to draw attention of others when it is uncomfortable or to suckle the nipple when it is brought near its mouth when hungry and many such first time behavior, which has not been experienced by it since birth). First breathing is like first boosting of the computer. Like Consciousness, OS is same for all computers, but BIOS varies from computer to computer. Similarly, consciousness in all living beings exhibits itself through DNA coding, which is species specific. It is a program semi permanently stored into one of the main chips. The OS creates virtual memory in HDD by creating a page-file when the system runs out of RAM. Similarly, we recollect more recollections correlated with greater connectivity among different regions of brain. Sometimes "over-clocking" boosts up OS speed. Similarly, suddenly we have bright ideas.

        More RAM directly increases the amount of applications run simultaneously, faster loading time, faster boot up, and overall greater boost through all aspects. Greater brain size and surface area (creases) does the same for living beings. The better the CPU, more information can be processed at a time. Similarly, better intelligence can take faster decisions. The better the HDD, the faster the information can be passed on to the processor. The bigger the HDD, more information can be stored. The bigger the brain surface area, the faster and better operations could be performed. The CPU processes information in computers using logic gates. Intelligence does the same thing through sensory agencies. CPU directs RAM to do what is important. RAM can provide inputs, but cannot directly take decisions. Intelligence takes decisions based on inputs provided by mind only. When switched off, RAM becomes empty. CMOS battery keeps the CMOS alive the chip even when the computer is turned off. Similarly, intelligence remains active even in deep sleep. This way, macroscopic phenomena are connected to the brain's known neural activity. But when someone says "macroscopic quantum phenomena", we are at a loss. If it is macroscopic, it cannot be quantum. If both are the same, both these terms are superfluous.

        There are differences between brain's software and computer software. A computer can simultaneously test for more than one condition or execute multiple commands. But the brain cannot do so. They follow sequence of logical efforts first and knowledge of such efforts later. Computers run on standard/special programs, which are soft, i.e., flexible to be instantly reprogrammed. These are put to the hardware to become operational. Similarly, the body matter including the bacteria, neurons, DNA, microtubules, etc., are hardwires that operationalize the life's software. But who writes the program? Only conscious beings can initiate action based on freewill. It is different from motion, which is a mechanical reaction. Thus, we have to admit a super consciousness outside all mechanical devices including robots.

        The rest of your paper is extension of this concept through illustration. A thoroughly enjoyable exercise.

        Regards,

        basudeba

          Peter,

          thanks for the reply.

          "Not quite. The TWO momenta (curl+AM) amplitudes are very much dependent on the FIELD ('electrons') angle relative to the particles not vice versa (which could be implied by your description). The particles relative +/- & up/down 'states' are conserved."

          I have difficulties to understand this. I thought that, lets say the particle propagating to the left from the source has, say, its north pole left (at the propagation axis, since the poles are initially always at the propagation axis). The up/down 'states' are initially all on the equator, since the particle spins around itself on the equatorial line (the equator is initially oriented vertically).

          The first interaction is due to a polariser with a certain angle. According to your description i concluded that the polarizer's field absorbes the particle and re-emitts a new one with the same orientation as the polarizer's field orientation. Mmhh, is this correct so far?

          If yes, i further concluded that the new particle (with the new orientations) hits a photoamplifier's electron and due to its orientation, it transmits a certain momentum to the electron. But now i have to consider that these amplifiers have two channels and both channels are stimulated by the impact of the particle. The one channel is stimulated by 'curl', the other by 'momentum'. Is this the right visualization?

          What i do not understand is that you wrote the "particles relative +/- & up/down 'states' are conserved". If two particles propagate from the source, the one has north pole left, the other has also north pole left. Since both particles are measured at opposite sides, their relative 'charge states' are always opposite, *if* no re-emission takes place before a measurement. The same should be true for the up/down state, right? O.k., but there are the experimenters who can indepdently change the polarizer angles from 0 up to 90°. So it can't be that 'relative' in your sentence means relative between the two particles. I guess it means the curl/momentum pair for every particle is conserved and is always +/- 1 for one particle (for one particle +1, for the other particle -1). I conclude from this that the particle's properties and architecture is completely conserved, only the space-like orientation of its properties is changed due to re-emission? Is this the correct way to think of it?

          "Para5 is also wrong; For each property the max values +1 and -1 are at the opposing poles (for curl) and opposite 'sides' of the equator (up/down). So each is then 0 at 90o. We can only EVER interact with one 'side' at a time so can only 'find' one (curl/AM value pair) at a time. We don't 'add up' Bob & Alice's values. If we did we'd get 0 as one is + and one - !"

          O.k., max. value + at one pole, min. value (zero charge) at the equator, max value - at the other pole. The same for the equatorial plane: max. value 'up' say at the front, min. value at the top/down and max. value 'down' at the back of the particle. Since both properties are continua, at every point of the sphere the curl/AM combinations are different from each other.

          "The complimentarity of QM is the inverse relationship of curl/AM values with the angle. Add each of THOSE together and yes, you get 1."

          I conclude from this that you attach to the terminus technicus of ‚up/down' also a kind of ‚charge' with + and - signs. Is this correct? If 'charge' is +1 (-1), then the other value is 0, if 'charge' is 0, the other value is +1 (-1).

          "The answer is then; at 90o."

          This should be the relative difference in angles between the two poarizers, is this correct?

          "The answer is then; at 90o. But actually AT 90o there's around a 50:50 chance of either clicking (if set/tuned correctly)."

          What prevents the two channels to both click simultaneously?

          PS: 90o should be read 90 degree angle.

          Best wishes,

          Stefan Weckbach

          Peter,

          It is nice seeing familiar names each contest. I need to re-read your essay because I do not see some of the connections. You seem to be looking at the universe as a whole from smallest to most complex. I am just looking at intelligence as a thing, a very simple and common thing. Life is an intelligent system (with my view of intelligence being simple and common, this is not a statement about the state of the universe). I try to show that thermodynamics, in some cases, makes this development of life a little more likely than not being.

          It is great seeing your essay is doing so well!

          Jeff

            Stefan,

            The problem is you're still defaulting to the old assumption that the particle pair momenta dictate output. They don't, apart from just the +/- which IS still key, and that amplitude must be 'adequate'. The cosine value distributions come from the FIELD FERMIONS (interaction tangent point latitude).

            Before we leave that; to save confusion I stated 'default' mode of propagation along the x axis. That's not true for elliptical polarity (see the redshift video) but is largely insignificant. For electron energies it would be more so except for the multiple interactions, so the old state ('wavefunction'') is rather beaten into submission! (in diffuse media even light has bi and trirefringence during that process, which is MORE THAN ONE POLARITY subject to how many interactions each re-emission has had. Your Para 3 then is about right.

            Para4; "The one channel is stimulated by 'curl', the other by 'momentum'. Is this the right visualization? Not strictly, no. Remember EACH state is an inverse PAIR with + and -. The channels electrons are set opposite (+/-) (or electron/positron) and interactions are all again RELATIVE! So the + or - amplitude of each part of each 'tuple' is what's amplified. Indeed that CAN mean one channel is measuring weight of chalk and one intensity of cheese! NOT currently discerned by the maths.

            Para5; Yes. But remember outcomes are relative, so reversing the dial (+/-) then reverses the output (+/-).

            Para7-8; Yes, "Since both properties are continua, at every point of the sphere the curl/AM combinations are different from each other." and different by Cos2 Theta (so angle) inversely (and orthogonally i.e. a 90o angle to each other) ..that's 'complementarity'. which is also Malus' Law (for 'Intensity' of light) from long ago!

            Lastly NOTHING prevents both channels from clicking simultaneously, or BOTH channels clicking. They probably often do at around the 50:50 transition, particularly if the instrument isn't precisely tuned. Fact is we haven't known how many 'photons' are detected so it makes no difference to the abstracted statistics.

            Also remember Aspect had to reject 98% of his data to make his results fit current interpretation due to an unidentified 'rotational invariance' problem blamed on his 'source'. Well I never! The new classical model predicts more like 98% of his data. (Weihs et al reported the same unknown problem from an electro-optic modulator simply stating it was "corrected for"!).

            Bless 'em.

            Peter

            Basudeba,

            Thanks for the compliments. I agree most of you analysis and comparisons. However I do think, and have found, we can self programme our brains, so consciously self-evolve to think more habitually or intuitively in the 'rational analytical' not 'primeval instinct' response mode.

            I've also practiced doing two things at once, like computers and find it CAN be done as one level is 'locked in' operational mode while another level computes. Even talking while driving is a simple example of this. I can helm a yacht to 99% efficiency while computing tactics or deriving and issuing instructions, or stir my tea while also putting the milk back in the fridge. Our brains do then seem to have potential capacity we rarely tend to employ.

            On the other hand I also agree with Erik Hoel, that all such behaviours can arise from ever more complex lower level/higher order mechanisms with feedback loops. Not deterministic as we define it but mechanistic none the less. In that case it seems there may be no sound reason why 'robots' (AI) may not one day effectively match our own 'consciousness'. You ask in your essay "why complicate things with unnecessary details which has no physical meaning" yet Occam suggests all MUST have meaning. Can you fault Hoel's analysis? Or his reference to Marco Polo's agreement; "Yes the Arch itself makes the bridge, but each stone is required with a particular form or there is no arch."

            Thanks for your thoughts.

            Peter

            Peter,

            thanks. I like to know what happens at the interaction tangent point you mentioned in your last post. How do the field fermions interact with the particles you describe? If your scenario is realistic, there must be a real interaction between the particle coming from the source with some particle of a) the polarizer and b) the photoamplifier. With which kind of particle(s) (electrons, positrons, photons etc.) does the propagating particle interact and how does this interaction takes its course until finished?

            Best wishes,

            Stefan Weckbach