There Are No Goals To Wander To by Tejinder Singh

Dear Tejinder,

Excellently written and brave essay, recognising the Kings New Clothes as fabrication, crying it out loud and even offering a cloaking device. I agree and applaud you 100% for all the identification and analysis (so 8/8 scored so far!) and provisionally 50% for effort with the cloak (~1).

But I wish to find out if you're the 1 in 20 I've just referred to under Stephen Ternyiks short essay. One who understands QM and its foundations, has not blindly bought it all, and who also can look beyond both convention and just their OWN ideas for a solution.

I've identified and describe the very simplest and most obvious self evident falsifiable classical solution in my essay. But it's the giant "elephant in the room", to big and simple it seems for anyone to "see"

In a nutshell, there really ARE two (identifiable) orthogonal complementary classical states of momentum in an electron, consistent with Maxwell (only one is 'curl') Pairs travel on antiparalell polar axes. A detector electron is the same with a rotatable polar axis dictating transfer found (so much for non-locality!) and the momenta vary by the cos of the angle between the poles and equator, with values squared by a well known process.

That is ALL classical, in absolute time (sorry!) and all of the dozen (you missed a few) illogical effects in QM resolve themselves. And all EXACTLY as John Bell predicted! (It emerged in a test of the 'Discrete Field' relativity you may recall so allows consistent QM & SR in absolute time & 'Local' physics).

You'll see this really is a rather BIG elephant!

I'd greatly value your study, questions, comments, advice and, hopefully even, help. As I'm sure I didn't fully understand your 'cloak' and I do agree non commutativity in fundamental principle, there may well be correspondence.

Very well done and thank you for yours.

Peter

Dear Professor Singh.

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Tejinder,

WOW, this is the first essay I have read that has the sma perceptions as mine.

It is really a pleasure to read it.

I only have another end to my interpretation : There may be goal...reaching out for the source of the excitations of consciousness in what I call Total Simultaneity.

But perhaps the search for a goal is just a human wishfull thinking...

I hope that you will find the time to read (and maybe give a rating my essay "The Purpose of Life"

best regards

Wilhelmus

This is the best essay by far that I have read so far. Although I have heard of the continuous spontaneous collapse theory (CSL), I have not really bothered to look at it that closely. Thanks so much for the nice clear exposition.

The collapse rate of Eq. 1 is lambda = 1e-17 1/s, which of course is 0.32 ppb/yr. The exact number from aethertime is 0.26 ppb/yr and is not arbitrary. It comes from the collapse needed to unite charge and gravity forces, so it is not a new constant by far and = mH2 G/(q2 c rB 1e-7).

The collapse radius of 1e-4 cm = 100 nm is actually very close to the exact radius of 70 nm where dispersion and gravity forces are equal. Both of these constants are then not really new constants since they both derive from the properties of the universe.

It is really pleasing to see mainstream science is finally catching up to the truth of quantum gravity and decoherence. Note that Eq. 3 shows the Schrodinger equation

i hbar dΨ/ds = HΨ(s)

which is great with your new non-commuting time, s. But really, once you have CSL, you do not really need s, right? instead, you just use constant dm/dt = mdot as the intrinsic matter decay in this epoch to rescale wavefunctions from time to matter spectra as

i hbar dΨ/dm dm/dt = HΨ(s)

and so

i hbar dΨ(m)/dm = HΨ(m)/mdot

and you have a made to order quantum universe for both gravity and charge...with a little more work, that is.

You are very, very close...with luck, you may beat out Carroll and Weinberg and Wetterich...

...oh, and quantum wandering is still wandering. Just because your path is not deterministic and is instead probablistic, does not mean that wandering does not exist...it just means that an exact path is unknowable, but there is a likely path...

Dear Prof Singh sab,

Thank you for the nice essay on "quantum wandering"

You are observations are excellent in page 3, like..." The problem of time in quantum theory: The time that appears in quantum theory is part of a classical space-time, whose geometry is determined by macroscopic classical bodies, according to the laws of general relativity. But these classical bodies are a limiting case of quantum theory. In their absence for instance in the very early universe, soon after the big bang] there would be no classical space-time geometry. If there are only quantum matter fields in the entire universe, the gravitational field they produce would also possess quantum fluctuations."

For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other. That is one of the differences in both the models....

Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, 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", "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.

With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and blog also where all my books and available for free downloading...

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

Best wishes to your essay.

For your blessings please................

=snp. gupta

Professor Singh,

I hope you don't mind if I take this chance to ask you a "Relativity 101" i.e., very basic question about your ideas. First, my understanding is that the equation for defining proper time in terms of coordinate time is an arrow, or function, from a coordinate frame comprising rigid rods and clocks to the proper time of a particle.

But to model classical space time emerging from the noncommutative Universe, it seems to me that the arrows must go in the other direction-- starting from each proper time of a particle in the noncommutative Universe. And ending at a *set* of possible frames of rigid rods and clocks, or possible coordinate times in classical space time-- where for each possible coordinate time in the set there is an equation back to the proper time.

(I'm try to see this in terms of "infomorphisms." So I'm attaching a screen shot of the relevant page in Barwise and Seligman's "Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems.")

To get an informorphism, there must also be an arrow in the other direction-- but now between the "models" supporting the RHS and LHS of the equation for proper time in terms of coordinate time-- the one model supporting the coordinate times in classical space time; the other model in our case being the noncommutative Universe, supporting the proper time. This arrow would represent "emerges from." So this arrow starts at classical space time and ends at the noncommutative Universe-- the opposite direction from the above arrows.

Is this way of looking at the emergence of classical coordinate time from (in our case) proper time in the noncommutative Universe compatible with how you see it?

Best Regards,

Lee BloomquistAttachment #1: infomorphism.png

"The ordinary space-time coordinates are resulting after a statistical coarse graining of the operator coordinates, and one should not relate the former to the trace time s."

Professor Singh, thank you for replying! This is free schooling for me and I very much appreciate your response. So far I have the idea in my head that for a particle in question, in the usual space-time there will be many possible coordinate times, but just one proper time. (?)

If so, are there also many possible operator coordinate times?

Or, does the statistical course graining "average" all the possible operator coordinate times?

In the case that there are many possible operator coordinate times, how should each be mapped to each of the many possible, ordinary coordinate times?

In the case that the statistical course graining course-grains over possible operator coordinate times, how should that course graining be mapped to the many possible ordinary coordinate times?

(If these questions even make sense.)

I'm assuming that the mappings associated with the equations should go from the noncommutative Universe to the usual space-time, since the latter emerges from the former.

Thank you so much for this very valuable online classroom time!

Lee

Hi Tejinder.

Bell carefully made no assumptions of his own but was testing QM's assumptions "..will use freely all the usual notions". Much of what he said is ignored by most in QM! In his own view he falsified those assumptions. "in our opinion lead inescapably to the conclusion that quantum mechanics is at the best, incomplete." He just couldn't find which one and how.

Basically I add the 'particle morphology' which QM didn't. The simplest one possible; a spinning sphere, and find by looking harder that it produces Maxwells two orthogonal coupling forces, one linear, one 'curl', both bidirectional.

Electrons, or rather 'Fermions', rotate with detector fields, all findings and values are 'relative' between the arriving and field particles (even Bohr said the detector is part of the 'system'!).

Because fermions re-emit at c in their own centre of mass rest frame physics is localised, exactly as Einsteins 1952 conception which I've discussed, and SR and QM are unified. It's that simple (plus a couple of other consequential matters identified which all melts away the great belt of interpretive 'junk' and nonsense.

I get lots of people looking, then looking up my profile, finding I'm not an emeritous professor so dismissing it. (My essay also identifies why).

Bell brilliantly anticipated all this. All quotes from 'Speakable...'; (page numbers available if anyone wants);

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

"The founding fathers of quantum theory decided even that no concepts could possibly be found which could emit direct description of the quantum world. So the theory which they established aimed only to describe systematically the response of the apparatus."

"...in my opinion the founding fathers were in fact wrong on this point. The quantum phenomena do not exclude a uniform description of micro and macro worlds...systems and apparatus."

"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."

"What is essential is to be able to define the position of things, including the positions of instrument pointers... In making precise the notion of position of things the energy density comes immediately to mind." (but) We would have to devise a new way of specifying a joint probability distribution. We fall back then on a second choice - fermion number density."

"...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."

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

I just went and looked round the back. But it DOES need that "imaginativ quantum leap!" to first see.

Dear TP singh,

Went through the article, it is quite interesting. Physics seems to have reached the Superconscient end of the Existence, starting from the Inconscient end. Is it the end of physics, for it seems to be capturing the Ultimate. Its conclusions almost rhyme with what we conceive in Vedas or Gita.

"Quantum theory is not the whole truth. It is an approximation to a deeper theory." My guess is that the preceding idea is correct, but in order for its empirical confirmation there must be recognition of the following: Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. If Milgrom's MOdified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) were empirically wrong, then there is no way that Milgrom could have convinced McGaugh and Kroupa.

http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/mond/burn1.html "Why Consider MOND?" by S. McGaugh

https://astro.uni-bonn.de/~pavel/kroupa_cosmology.html "Pavel Kroupa: Dark Matter, Cosmology and Progress"

The empirical successes of MOND imply that there are 2 alternatives: (1) Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational theory is 100% correct but appears to be slightly wrong for some unknown reason. (2) Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational theory really is significantly wrong in terms of empirical statistics.

Professor Singh,

Thank you for sending me to this paper! I will read it many times. It clarifies for me that while I have been playing with "toy models" (at best, like the toy model of an airplane in a wind tunnel), you are working on the real thing (a test pilot flying the full size plane).

In addition to my essay in this contest, much of the following is in this text (as well as in a previous essay for the FQXI mathematics contest linked within this text):

https://leebloomquist.wordpress.com/

("An overall approach to the observer")

-- A model of time that is not classical: In my world of toys I use nonstandard analysis and the co-algebra of streams to glue together a model of time that goes in one direction only.

-- The incompleteness of quantum mechanics: I start with Schrodinger's study of the Greeks to arrive at an equation where the particle is not an object, but a process: "particle = (physicalExtension, particle)". Incompleteness means that the Schrodinger equation does not model the existence of the particle, only the possibilities for the elements of its stream. "Particle = (physicalExtension, particle)" models the existence of the particle.

-- The collapse of the wave function: This is in my essay for the current contest. I follow Samson Abramsky's "Big Toy Models...". Using Wigner's theorem he obtains a "three valued Chu space," which I then use to show the collapse of the wave function.

-- An underlying Universe: Although I don't show it anywhere, a stream representing Bohm's holomovement can be "zippered together" with the stream "particle = (physicalExtension, particle)".

-- Derivation of the Born rule: In the world of learning algorithms, when the wave function is installed in the nonStandardFuture of the monad of properTime, and the associated probabilities in the nonStandardPast, there exists the signature of a learning algorithm. What is it learning? The laws of physics. Who is teaching it? The underlying Universe.

-- The connection to relativity: Using an informorphism to make this explicit, because ordinary space-time emerges from an underlying Universe, properTime of the particle (as above) maps to a set of possible coordinate times.

Now the question becomes like that in software engineering: There are formal languages for specifying and analyzing software which are quite different from the languages used to write the actual software. For example, to specify and analyze software, one can use Petri nets, streams, and/or Chu spaces. But to write the software, one would use, say, C++.

But is any software written like this?

Very little. It's rare to find a software engineering organization where coders in C++ follow the models or listen to the analyses given to them by other engineers writing specifications and analyses in, say, Petri nets. Probably the only application where you do see this kind of cooperation between specification and coding is where human life is at stake.

By analogy we now have questions like these:

Professor Singh, could any of these toy models possibly be useful to you?

Are there any difficulties for your languages that might be easier in these specification and analysis languages?

Very Best Regards,

Lee

The decoherence of aethertime is simply the assumption that the universe force expands and matter shrinks at a rate given by the action of the universe pulse. This means that gravity and charge force are just different manifestations of universe decoherence, what you call continuous spontaneous localization (CSL).

I am not sure why the CSL constants agree so well with aethertime, but it caught my eye. Aethertime came about from simply reconciling gravity and charge forces but still maintaining consistency with measurements and quantum principles along with mass-energy equivalence. The CSL length scale is also curiously close to what that from standard constants of dispersion and gravity forces.

Aethertime means an expansion of force along with a shrinkage of matter that confuses mainstream science. Much like Witterich's expanding mass and shrinking force, aethertime is consistent with the observed galaxy red shifts but results in a much different cosomology. It is interesting that criticisms point to the fact that there is no way to measure a change in mass in time.

This statement is peculiar since the IPK has actually been shrinking at the rate of 0.51 ppb/yr, which is twice the rate due to the fact that force expands even while mass shrinks and so the actual rate depends on the measurement technique. What Wetterich has not done is show how indeed to measure these kinds of things. however, measurements already exist that show mass shrinkage but are still at the edge of the noise of classical chaos. The shrinkage of the IPK, which is called an artifact in the first place, has also simply been called an artifact and not an indication of new physics.

Your approach is interesting to me since it seems to presume QM emerges from classical. Aethertime presumes that classical emerges from QM and it is clear that a truly unified approach would indeed shown this symmetry...