There Are No Goals To Wander To by Tejinder Singh

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...

...oh and intrinsic matter decay simply extends the notion of CSL to the shrinkage of all matter in the universe and therefore gives a meaning to dm/dt, the shrinkage of matter with time.

Tejinder,

This is an excellent piece of work. It is written simply enough and clearly enough that it can be understood by anyone with a modest background in the subject matter. Yet it expresses some very deep and profound ideas.

In my opinion, the most profound of those ideas is the QM collapse is independent of physical space and hence there is no "spooky action at a distance".

You have formalized many ideas that have been floating around in my intuition for several years. I would be very appreciative if you would read and comment upon my essay "Five Part Harmony". I present a 5-D model that is non-commutative and reduces to 4-D space-time.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Dear Professor Singh,

Thanks for your insightful essay. I can't say that I understood many of the technical terms, but I really found your ideas on how to explain quantum entanglement and non-locality to be very good...in fact, i think that they might be very similar to my own, although I try to explain it in terms of complexity.

I wish you much luck in the competition, and if you find the time, i would appreciate your thoughts on my own essay.

Sincerely,

William Ekeson

Professor Singh,

I also feel happy!

Since this is a "work in progress" for me, I hope you don't mind if I add on another thought after writing the previous post.

Schrödinger used the possibility of a position, "Ψ(x)", in the wave equation. Born "anded" to this, the possibility of no other position than x, "Ψ*(x)", for the wave equation of a particle.

Then Feynman assigned to the probability amplitude the possibility of a path integral in spacetime.

The results have been beautiful.

So in an informorphism based on a map from the proper time of a particle to the set of possible coordinate times, instead of position and not anything but that position, or path integral, I wonder if we have the opportunity to assign to Ψ (sub i) the possibility of a coordinate time (sub i) in the above set that's mapped from proper time. And not anything but that possible coordinate time, Ψ* (sub i).

The coordinate time involves both the position and momentum for the particle being observed, as well as a time and mass energy. So among the impossibilities for this assignment of coordinate time to Ψ would be those that are outlawed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Would this help?

Lee

Hi Tejinder, do you have any discomfort/cognitive dissonance regarding the conclusion, which is pretty amazing and different from how things seem to be. Or are you immunized by years of physics training?

Hi TP, I did like you essay. Not only because I am very sympathetic towards the problems of standard quantum theory, which you well presented, but also because I like the idea of non-commutative spacetime underlying physics. Very good job! Angelo.

Your essay on the continuous spontaneous localization (CSL) model was very useful for me. It is ironic that CSL adds two constants and a nonlinear term to the Hamiltonian to make quantum mechanics real like gravity for macroscopic sources. However, quantum effects still dominate the microscopic world in CSL and so in a sense, nothing really changes except the interpretation of quantum phase noise.

However, with quantum gravity there already is another term in the Hamiltonian besides charge. All this means is that all wavefunctions already have both slowly changing gravity and rapidly changing charge factors and there is no need to add two new constants. The Hamiltonian already has quantum gravity and so does not need a new decay term as aethertime shows.

However, CSL does seem to show how the quadrupole gravity Hamiltonian operator looks and is different from the dipole charge operator. The quantum gravity operator is then what provides the shaking of aether as quantum phase noise. That seems to be a very nice way to describe the universe. The CSL jump step operators now have an easy interpretation as quantum exchange with the aether field not unlike that of QED.

So far, the CSL literature does not seemed to have linked quantum gravity with quantum phase noise, but that seems so obvious. Also, it is better to use matter and action conjugates instead of space and time. Matter and action conform easily to relativity and mass-energy equivalence at all scales while space and time are limited and do not apply at all scales.