Classical Quantum Conciousness by Peter Jackson

Dear Peter,

The interesting thing about Einstein's disdain for quantum concepts is that his objections inspired other leading proponents to make great strides in their work. In any event I agree with you that "BOTH were largely right". As for contacting prospective collaborators, if they are profesional researchers they will be open to new communication. It is what helps us move forward. I will also reply to the comment you left on my forum.

Regards,

Peter

Stefan,

Thanks. Yes I recall these now (from long ago). They are 'quantum eraser' type set ups as I suggested. The findings of ALL these are fully as predicted by Classic QM, simply identifying wrong interpretation and analysis resulting in the flawed conclusions you described. No 'backward causality' or 'non-local communication' is then needed.

To simplify, just run through each experiment carefully and armed with the classical mechanism (rather than using confused statements like; "..projects the state of photon 2 into a momentum eigenstate"!).

So here it is; BOTH 'photons' have BOTH momenta and states, and parts go BOTH (secondary) 'paths' (I can explain that more). If one is rotated, reversed or delayed, then when they're 'recombined' (on a board OR statistically!) there will be CONSTRUCTIVE INTERFERENCE so an interference pattern. Don't forget that just one extra reflection can do this by leaves a state INVERTED.

Now look at say the PR/Nature 2005 review article. Fig 4. As the filter (NDF) is gradually introduced it rotates the state so only DESTRUCTIVE interference results. Though things have moved on in 12yrs there were some interesting comments in the links, i.e; "..many phenomena thought to be due to the quantum nature of light can actually be explained by using a classical electromagnetic field and by assuming that only the processes of absorption and emission are quantized." But then poor interpretation of other findings confounds! The links were then very interesting, thanks.

Also in there, after designating Bosons unexplained 'spin 1'; "Fermions would behave differently because their quantum state is antisymmetric, as reflected by a negative sign in their initial state. In this case the two amplitudes introduced above interfere constructively and the two particles are always found in separate outputs. Interestingly, this 'fermionic' behaviour can also be observed for two photons if the photons are prepared in an antisymmetric state with respect to their spin." (another way of putting what I explained, that they CAN for most purposes be considered in the same way).

Once you've read Bill McHarris's essay watch the IBM Q Charlie Bennett video (referred by Robert Groess below) for the latest analysis, far better than the confused stuff in these papers and even more consistent with ClassicQM, but still hitting QM's 'brick wall' and admitting little progress with Quantum Computers.

best

Peter

Peter,

Let's recapitulate.

You know the experiment i mentioned in my previous post.

With your scheme, you can't explain it (if you at all understood the results) and everybody who understood it knows that you can't. Many words do not help here.

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Peter

I was an interesting and thought provoking essay, I have also studied computer science and also have special interest in physics, mathematics and algorithms. Have reading your essay and enjoying and I think your essay deserves a high score.

I wish you good luck with your essay.

Kind regards

Koorosh

I have to thank you Peter for your very generous words about my essay.

Your essay is very good, yes I DO understand what you are getting. And as you mentioned we have very similar ideas "I think you may be one of the few with enough imagination and logical understanding to follow the complex ontological (and dynamic geometrical) construction in mine".

Yes I love the cos2 idea especially and the general flow of ideas and how you have a credible story-line for how the "mind" works with the "QM" very intriguing. Yes I agree with how you look at how difficult it is to "integrate" too many "new" ideas at once and you mention it is best to viualise the problem since there are more "channels" open. And I really liked your red/green sock essay from last year which I have given some thought to.

I gave you a 10-bomb one of the better essays I have to said,since do don't give a "wishy-washy" answer to how a human "decision-process" seemed "attached" to "physical object(s) of the brain" using "OM" ideas --- will done.

You address some deep ontological questions as well --- how is it we know (in your case the "click") that the change of processes associated with the collapse of the wave-function to obtain an observable "state" has happened, and why has it happened as well, using a technique of "there is one" that gets chosen from a spectrum that is tied to the "epistemological" manifestations of the curl directions of a "unique" "pristine" pre-measured and post-measured wave-function-like cos relationship (boson QM) that gives rise to "inter-relationships like in a book's pages" (Ferimon QM) which then gives rise to QCD OM (your decision-process for observers of spin) and then you give an account of how all your different one-idea QM models or "basic units of ways-of-thinking" about reality (that is a classical=curl QM,a boson QM,a fermion QM,a QCD QM, ..., until we get understanding) which you argue leads to an actual ontological manifestation of "a universal world-view-with-knowledge which has local "epistemological processing objects with understand within "change" as described by physical evolution". This single-idea Qm modules of thought deftly handles the temporal paradoxes about "causality" and "free-will", since one is epistemology and the other is ontological- depending on your point of view as defined by your curl decision.

Better to call your essay "The quantised epistemological steps needed to understand the ontology of quantum reality as survived and observed and understand by humans".

Well done, on doing so much with solittle inputs (of new ideas).

sorry typo's

Better to call your essay "The quantised epistemological steps needed to understand the ontology of reality as survived and observed by humans"

Stefan,

It seems you may have just slipped back into to the usual 'mode 1' thinking of the first part of my essay rather than rationalise what I wrote. That's not surprising. It IS tricky to get your mind round it and hold it there, so lets take it in stages; (It's worth doing, unless you can't accept there may be ANY alternative to 'backward causality'!)

Let's simplify to one state and start with mirrors, parts of the system not properly addressed and accounted for in any of the experimental analysis! I'm not sure if you know this or not (if not just check) but reflection INVERTS the photon state (equivalent to electron spin flip). So for the same path length; if two parts from a splitter are brought back together and one has had one more reflection, there WILL be destructive interference. This is what we find. All OK so far?

Now if the pair have the SAME number of reflections and the same path length (remember the delays from transmissions through glass, giving a slight 'phase slip, have to be adjusted for) then the OPPOSITE will found! You should see the fully consistent logic in that, Yes?

Now apply that to the experimental set ups and you'll see that assuming it's a 'which path' question is a misunderstanding leading to the confusion so only an illogical analysis is possible.

So called 'Parametric down-conversion' (a fancy name distracting from the fact it 'splits' photons, which is still assumed by most as impossible) is not a 'unique' case but de-rigeur in Huygens construction (recall my redshift video). That means some state and energy is ALWAYS taking both 'paths'. If you've now looked at Harris's (IBM Q cutting edge) video you'll see the confirmation that some of these assumptions from even 15 years ago are false. (and please, there's no need for insulting suggestions I 'don't understand' experiments I've studied dozens of over decades, and even done some.)

Now just take the Classical Hypothesis and carefully 'run through' each experiment step by step. You'll find IT DOES PRECISELY PREDICT ALL the findings! (including those 'once removed' by the statistical analysis). If there's anything specific you get stuck on or think it can't resolve, just ask!

A few others are now getting their heads round the classical derivation, which really is quite an intellectual test, including to overcome the cognitive dissonance you're struggling with (see below, and Bill McHarris essay) so I hope you can stay focused and get back the grasp of it you seemed to have earlier.

Best

Peter

Peter,

i didn't wanted to insult you, but you simply refer to another experiment, not the one i mentioned. In the experiment i am refering to, i am interested in what your 'interpretation' thereof is. In this experiment there are no mirrors involved!

It would be nice if you would explain the experiment with the heisenberg-detector and the lense on page 232 of the paper you linked in your previous post. Since you haven't done this, but refered to another experiment, i concluded that you haven't understood it. It is now up to you to show whether you understood it by not skipping the crucial details of the experiment or switching to another experiment. But if your scheme meets reality, there should be no need for either.

Just let me know how your scheme interprets this experiment, that's all i asked for.

Thanks in advance!

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Peter,

thanks for your reply.

I am not sure i followed all, cause the experiment has different outcomes for different places of the detectors. I do not know for sure to what places for the detectors your refer in your explanation and ask therefore.

I think i followed your picture of photon 2, requantized at both edges of each slit. What would one see, following your interpretation, if one would install a photo plate instead of Detector 2 in its plane? What picture would arise after many of the photons 2 did impinge the photo plate? I think the answer must be an incoherent superposition of the two slits, or in classical terms, a superposition of the light rays of many small sources, coming through the slits in different angles.

So, there is no interference pattern at the photo plate after sufficiently many runs here. Nonetheless i would like to know what a photon is in your approach. I considered it as a sphere, a particle, spinning in some special way around some axis due to your previous explanations. Following the latter, it gets absorbed at the double slit and re-emitted at both edges of each slit. So we have two particles, re-emitted at the double-slit, propagating towards the single slit. Since you say that the single slit plane entirely controls the pattern on the photo plate, i would like to know what happens at this single slit with the particles which are re-emitted at the double-slit.

Since in the original experiment (outlined by Dopfer) there is no single slit, but a lens (in the plane where you formerly assumed the single-slit to be). According to you, whatever passes this lense, has no memory of its past state. So what arrives at the photo plate at exactly which point is arbitrary, only the whole ensemble of 'photons 2' build up the homogenous gray.

Are these considerations of your view of the experiment correct? If not, please correct me for further discussion!

Thanks in advance!

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Peter,

i wrote

„I am not sure i followed all, cause the experiment has different outcomes for different places of the detectors. I do not know for sure to what places for the detectors your refer in your explanation and ask therefore."

You answered

"There will be an interference pattern, but varying with the plates position."

I cannot take you serious anymore cause you do not reply to crucial questions, but play a kind of 20-questions game. Therefore it makes no sense to me to further discuss with you.

"The 'photon' is a requantization at each interaction, but spreads from there. Only a peculiar morphology such as a Bessel beam (self focussing) or (less so) a laser can keep it focussed. Otherwise it spreads (ultimately forming a Shrodinger sphere surface which is almost a plane wave)."

I think a photon is whatever you want it to be in a certain situation. Reminds me of 'Barbapapa'!

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Dear Peter Jackson,

I really think you view of spin interaction as something interesting. The spin of the electron, as described by the Dirac equation, belongs to the group su(2), which is a double cover of so(3). That is, we need 2 rotations of a sphere. But people forget that these are different things and end up trying to talk about an electron as it were merely ONE very small sphere, tending to radius 0, mysteriously shifting its position up and down. Stephen Hawking did this confusion in his famous book brief history of time. People confuse the algebra if the group with the actual rotation of the electron. So, an electron is a 4 dimensional entity, since the Dirac equation obeys Lorentz transformations. So, people visualize the wrong situation, where the actual situation should be a hyperbolic sphere SO(3,1). And SO(3,1) is isomorphic so SU(2)XSU(2). This is why you needed 2 spheres to correctly explain the spin phenomena. I think you clarified a great deal of things, even for me.

Plus, you have added some great stuff along the way, which may help understand intelligence. Look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eas2zOSKIaQ

What is happening here it is that the slime molde, when it expands and pulsates, it is mimicking a non perturbation integral of a path integral. When you do non perturbative, you appeal to combinatoric methods, which are very compute intensive for usual computer architectures. I think our brains works in a way analogous to a slime mold, but it needs its parts more fixed, and not too fall apart, like it would happen to a slime mold. So, I think the brain works by expanding "pseudopods", and tries to find the food (the idea), and when it finds, it creates a synapse. As you can deduce from the slime mold examples, things will be stored like loops in the brain (indeed this is the case, and this is more clear in the relation ship between brain cortex and thalamus)

Amazing and very learned,how you define and discuss biological and AI consciousness as computational intelligence with both inputs and outputs (aims and intentions) based on mathematical principles (Propositional Dynamic Logic).

You suggest that outputs serve a goal (intention)and that evolutionary errors as well as inadequate RAM architecture in biological consciousness which disrupt rationalism and therefore efficient response to stimuli (inputs). And that upgrading to nonlinear processing is necessary. How can this be accomplished or is it an imperative of evolution?