Hi Gary, thanks for your reply. I'm proposing that, existence is ubiquitous and at all scales. The 'base' is that existence that is not differentiated into other forms of existence, and is host for numerous phenomena. Even there, at the sub atomic scale, there is an environment.

There are a few reasons for not detecting a particular phenomenon; it is undetectable with current technology, either falling below the sensitivity of the instruments or it falls outside of the range of operation, or it of an unknown kind for which detection capability does not yet exist or it just isn't being sought with sufficient determination (perhaps having no assumption of its being there to be found). Bringing me to other reason for not finding it; The notion that there is no environment at that scale but void. (Which I think is incorrect.) The interference pattern is being formed by something going through the slit (or taking the other path in the silvered mirror experiments.)

We know from the macroscopic scale that when objects move they have associated effects. Such as magnetic and electric fields, gravitational fields, thermal radiation, pressure waves ( potential sensory data for the sense of sound), shedding of chemicals (that are potential sensory data for the sense of smell). They are not stealthy but can be located by the effects associated with them.(Snakes can detect prey from the thermal radiation emitted. Sharks and electric eels can detect prey using the electric field.) Another reason for not finding anything is if at the very small scale of particles they are utterly stealthy, having no effect other than their being. Which is possible but I think unlikely since, like the no environment notion, it does not fit with the known evidence that something is going through the slit or taking the other path.

A ubiquitous existence forming an environment for the particles differentiated from it, combined with imperfect stealth of those particles enables a non mystical, physical explanation of what is happening.

The tests will not be for a below threshold something. It will be first to try to find out in what way the objects/phenomena are affecting their environment. I think the effect can be amplified using more of the objects or greater intensity of the phenomenon causing the environmental effect. Helping it's detection, if it is something we have the means to detect. Starting with what is known first, such as the aforementioned fields, and eliminating them in turn. -And then thinking outside of the box.

Kind regards Georgina

Universe soup? More like word soup - what is the point of all this and how does it advance Science?

Most of the 'essay' is just lists of unrelated bullet points with no clear direction or thesis that I could discern. Apart from that, a great essay...

    Declan, I'm sorry it isn't your cup of tea! The final section 'Sandcastles and science' is about the practice of science and how it is a good that hypotheses and methods are disproven or discredited, however well regarded, as finding 'it's not like that','doesn't happen like that 'and 'can't be found like that' is certain advance in knowledge. In my reply to Gene, (you might like to read it), I have written about the value of collaborative testing and evaluation in a spirit of mutual helpfulness to enable products to be improved. Feedback in my experience is really useful but very hard to come by.

    I have put a paper in the reference section under background "Woodward , G., Uni-Temporalism, the Relation of Human Beings to Time and the 'future' of Time in Physics,(2016), vixra.org" if you are interested in finding out where some of the idea have come from.

    The essay is broken into sections dealing with different fundamentals. The first part deals with the foundations needed for fundamental foundational, uni-temporal time. The next is electromagnetism which is fundamental to observation and perception. The next is the fundamental forces, and finally what I consider fundamental to science.

    The base of the soup, existence rather than nothingness: see my replies to Gary. As host to all of the fundamental forces it allows their unification.

    The list of differences between the seen and the materially existent is to emphasize that physics is dealing with two different facets of the universe. Actualized existence and material things, and products of signal receipt and information processing. That is not trivial but the necessary realization for understanding the temporal paradoxes as the result of a category error.

    Foundational passage of time is the time needed by QM. The time that emerges from signal receipt gives non simultaneity of events. The two kinds of time allow QM and Relativity to be non contradictory as they are not about the same facets of physics happening in the universe.

    The part about measurables being relational rather than sole properties of the entity of interest is important for understanding QM, providing a 'picture of superposition of the unseen/unmeasured','picture of evolution of a variable profile over time and reduction to a limited fixed state outcome when a limiting viewpoint or protocol is applied. Providing a 'what's going on'at what physicists call 'wavefunction collapse' or 'decoherence'.It discounts Many worlds post outcome in favour of many alternative possible measurements prior to the limiting mental consideration and physical treatment of the entity of interest.

    I have tried to explain the difference between the universe experienced and the universe as it is, and how it can be conceptualized despite our being unable to have all viewpoints from all relations simultaneously.That relates back to the beginning where I mention the difference between human and universe centered views, there was also a little comment about not mistaking consequences for causes , which was pertaining to the anthropic principle.

    The Terry Pratchett quotes were for entertainment but I hope their relevance can be seen too. Georgina

    Georgina,

    A very nice essay with argument which you probably already know I'm in wide general agreement with. I'm pleased you found fermions important, and also that you briefly address QM. But I suggest a few things need more examination.

    1. 'Wavefunction'. You agree complex EM 'waves' yet how do we describe those characteristics, x,y,z, axis energy, wavelength etc. without a 'formula' to cover all oscillations found? I DO agree the 'wavefunction' and it's transforms on interactions are misunderstood and muddy as bathwater, but surely if the baby goes too we'd have to re-invent one?

    2. You identify the ambient frame and that relative 'observer/detector' velocity affects 'colour'. But isn't it more fundamental to identify wavelength 'lambda' after interaction as triggering the colour receptors, then also valid for instruments and ALL EM signals? Then Doppler shifts also remain consistent physics. (In astrophysics we know lambda MUST be the fundamental value)

    3. You identify 'change' which I agree, but why not reduce further to just 'motion'. All change is from motion, and no motion means nothing to change! (boring as you say!)

    4. QM. First well done, I like & agree your description. But you skip the issue that it's exactly that description that Bells 'Theorem' Inequalities irrefutably disprove! (using QM's assumptions) i.e. it's the 'EPR paradox'; if it's just about chosen interaction angles then Alice can change Bob's result instantly at a million miles away! THAT has always been the problem, never resolved, so most say you're wrong & natures weird!

    However good news is at hand to finally prove your model correct. It won't be accepted of course, it'll be ignored & screamed at, but it's now irrefutable by repeatable experiment. The massive importance of Declan Trail's paper (see my comment to yours) is that his maths code also almost precisely matches the experimental result. You can repeat the experiment yourself for under £200 (see my photo's and end notes). It's all about fermions. It's genuine paradigm changing stuff!

    I look forward to chatting further on that and the above queries.

    Very Best

    Peter

      Peter thanks for reading it, much appreciated. Thanks for the questions. I will try to answer them but don't know if they will meet your approval.

      1. wavefunction: My proposition is that measurables are not sole properties of the particle under investigation but relational. All of the measurables are indefinite prior to imposition of the viewpoint or interaction that produces the singular state or value is applied. So wavelength, energy and so on are relative measurements and not absolute. I do think if something works then it's OK to use it, even if the way in which the model functions is not exactly what is going on. If it is kept in mind that it is a kind of mathematical analogy rather than the way the universe really is and is functioning. Including that there isn't really another space in addition to the universe where superpositions are, and there are not Many worlds, other universes where each different way of looking exists. The different relative perspectives are all within the one universe prior to selection of just one.

      2. Frequency (and therefore also wavelength) is another relative measurable. The frequency of the light as it meets the receptor is dependent on that relation. Following on from above. Yes it ties in with the Doppler effect. I was not saying that the velocity of an observer can somehow affect the frequency of light that is distant from it. I'm sorry if that was not clear.

      3. I think if I was only to talk of motion it might give the impression that I was only considering kinetic energy. There are many kinds of energy with their own characteristics and I think 'change' better encompass them than motion. Though yes, I suppose, the different kinds of energy do involve motion. I'm not convinced that it is better. Motion involves questions of position and location and distance, (and timing) which leads onto what kind of space are we talking about, and how should what is happening be accurately defined.

      4. I think that Bells inequalities don't apply because they are based on the assumption that things are happening in space-time but I'm suggesting a different model of the universe. The QM results suggest that something has to give, and that something is that the results have prior existence in the space-time continuum. IE that kind of realism needs to go, rather than acceptance of faster than light communication. As I see it, entanglement correlation is due to imposing the same measurement conditions on the separate particles produced as opposites. The imposition of relative perspective or limiting procedure produces the result. It is not discovering the one and only state or value there could have been, It has no effect on the other particle distant from the one observed. This is possible with sequential uni-temporal time and an entirely open future, rather than the already exiting future in space-time. Which incidentally is also necessary for true agency.

      We may have to disagree about the ways in which the universe is strange. Kind regards Georgina

        Peter thanks for reading it, much appreciated. Thanks for the questions. I will try to answer them but don't know if they will meet your approval.

        1. wavefunction: My proposition is that measurables are not sole properties of the particle under investigation but relational. Rather than being singular limited states or values, they can be considered as consisting, prior to measurement, of a profile of states and values that is the aggregate of all states or values that would be obtained form the viewpoint of other reference objects in the environment with which there are relations. As the particle moves relations change and so does the variable profile. The wavefunction collapse pertains to obtaining a singular outcome due to mental reduction of possibilities that will be considered and physical interaction via apparatus or protocol. I don't really understand the question about 'characteristics'. All of the measurables are undefined prior to imposition of the viewpoint or interaction that produces the singular state or value is applied. So wavelength, energy and so on are relative measurements and not absolute. I do think if something works then it's OK to use it, even if the way in which the model functions is not exactly what is going on. If it is kept in mind that it is a kind of mathematical analogy rather than the way the universe really is and is functioning. Including that there isn't really another space in addition to the universe where superpositions are, and there are not Many worlds, other universes where each different way of looking exists. The different relative perspectives are all within the one universe prior to selection of just one.

        2. Frequency (and therefore also wavelength) is another relative measurable. The frequency of the light as it meets the receptor is dependent on that relation. Following on from above. Yes it ties in with the Doppler effect. I was not saying that the velocity of an observer can somehow affect the frequency of light that is distant from it. I'm sorry if that was not clear.

        3. I think if I was only to talk of motion it might give the impression that I was only considering kinetic energy. There are many kinds of energy with their own characteristics and I think 'change' better encompass them than motion. Though yes, I suppose, the different kinds of energy do involve motion. I'm not convinced that it is better. Motion involves questions of position and location and distance, (and timing) which leads onto what kind of space are we talking about, and how should what is happening be accurately defined.

        4. I think that Bells inequalities don't apply because they are based on the assumption that things are happening in space-time but I'm suggesting a different model of the universe. The QM results suggest that something has to give, and that something is that the results have prior existence in the space-time continuum. IE that kind of realism needs to go, rather than acceptance of faster than light communication. As I see it, entanglement correlation is due to imposing the same measurement conditions on the separate particles produced as opposites. The imposition relative perspective or limiting procedure produces the result. It is not discovering the one and only state or value there could have been, It has no effect on the other particle distant from the one observed. This is possible with sequential uni-temporal time and an entirely open future, rather than the already exiting future in space-time. Which incidentally is also necessary for true agency.

        We may have to disagree about the ways in which the universe is strange. I may not be as "steeped ' in QM as you say, on Declan's page, but I have thought about it. (I'm certainly not singling out QM papers for criticism out of personal fear of QM. I'm sorry that is your perception of me but I consider it nonsense.) Kind regards Georgina

        Correction I should have said 4. I think that the Bell's inequalities argument doesn't apply as it is based on the assumption ...

        There is an underlying notion that the outcome singular fixed states or values exist already, like the colour or pattern of socks, rather than coming into 'being' when the viewpoint or limiting procedure is applied.

        The elephant and blind men analogy is rather overused but nevertheless: singular limited state trunk/hose only exists in isolation when a singular limited 'viewpoint' (I.e. relative to this man") is applied. Same for singular state leg/pillar, singular state ear/fan and singular state tail/rope. Prior to those measurements the elephant unseen has the potential to be measured as any of those states. Yet isn't any of those isolated 'measurement outcome' states. Elephant source un-felt is indefinite as far as the would observers are concerned. There are of course many other potential 'feel-points' that could be taken. So by mentally limiting the number of observers to the traditional ones the possible outcome states have already been mentally reduced.

        I have some papers on viXra that give some thoughts on quantum physics, variables and measurement, and the effect of different perspectives of the universe.

        Is Quantum Physics Really Strange? viXra:1708.0235 ,The Map is not the Territory viXra:1708.0268 , and The Frog and the Swarm of Bees, Different Views of the Universe viXra:1801.0098

        Which are also, I suppose, relevant background to the essay but I didn't think it was necessary to list all papers containing some relevant idea. If you are interested in where the expressed viewpoints are coming from you could have a read/skim of them. Georgina

        It has taken me until now to get to this. My time is a bit chopped up these days. I would say that if I had to parse what you write it is that time and causality is defined in a local sense. You say things occur as a part relative to other parts, which in a way is how gauge theory and general relativity are constructed. A local region has some kinematics of spacetime or of a field, and how that local region meshes with other regions determines dynamics.

        A part of what I maintain, which is an aspect of my essay, is that local and nonlocal principles are dual. This is from how I treat the duality between bulk gravity in and anti-de Sitter space and the field theory on its conformal boundary.

        Cheers LC

          Georgina. Thanks. Interesting. But consider;

          1. If we have >2 identical detectors or eyes at rest side by side in an ambient medium they find the SAME from ALL signals. If one is different, rotated, moved or in any relative motion, THEN, we agree, finding always differ. To me the evidence is clear, 'observer dependence', but does it also agree with the signal having NO measurables pre-interaction!? (does it help to think 'wavefront' not requantized 'particle' PRE interaction).

          2. You say; "I was not saying that the velocity of an observer can somehow affect the frequency of light that is distant from it." Sorry I wasn't inferring YOU did, I was identifying it's SR that must infer that - as it ignores 1 above. But we're used to describing 'frequency' when it's crucial to remember wavelength lambda is the scalar measurable. On lens interaction we can't compute any 'frequency' until we sent the revised signal (& lambda) up our optic nerve/cable to our processor to calculate against time! Can 'frequency' then be a more fundamental property? Astrophysics only makes any sense by using lambda.

          3. : "Motion involves questions of position and location (same thing) and distance." I see your quest for simplicity, but all 'motion' really needs is some "relative velocity" of anything i.e. WITH some ambient medium or other body. If none exists then consider; NOTHING exists! Is it not worth considering that really ALL 'energy' is kinetic, i.e. motion based. Kinetic just means linear as opposed to rotational. What else is there? Even 'potential' energy only comes to exist once motion starts.

          4.; "I think that the Bell's inequalities argument doesn't apply as it is based on the assumption that things are happening in space-time". Absolutely NOT! QM can't use space-time. One of the main chasms with Relativity is QM's simple 'absolute' time! Yes, I agree something has to give, but 1. above shows it's NOT 'measurables'. NASA & the ISS couldn't communicate with probes if it were! A simpler answer is known to science; wavefronts (& 'particles') have freedom on all 3 (x,y,z,) axis and use it; (thus elliptical polarity etc.) So states vary in all cases except 'side by side', as found. Does that make sense to you?

          So just a couple of key queries. But of course scoring is not about agreement or veracity so no points lost by theory!

          Very Best

          Peter

          Hi Georgina,

          Very beautiful essay. I think it's an important direction you choose, the difference between what is fundamental for humans vs for the universe. And I like how you sprinkled your writing with very illustrative references to Terry Pratchet :)

          Good luck with the contest!

          Best wishes,

          Cristi

            Hi Lawrence, thank you for taking a look. The proposition in the essay is that:"Foundational passage of time is about the pattern of existence, of differentiated parts and about the change. The happening rather than just the static being of the pattern of existence."

            I wrote, "Change is happening at all scales, galaxies rotating, planets orbiting, hearts beating, atoms vibrating. The pattern is always unitary and uni-temporal. The pattern changes more rapidly at the smaller scales but always remains part of a singular pattern of existence. It all remains together, temporally speaking. The rate of change of the pattern in different places is not foundational time passing at different rates. It is the entire pattern, the entirety of existence, that is a time. There is no other time to be at. "

            Meaning, a time is the configuration or pattern of the whole of existence simultaneously. There is no past or future but only that extant version. Foundational passage of time is simultaneous change of the entire pattern. (Spacetime was put in the disregarded heap.)

            People use timing to compare change. It is really comparison of alteration of one part of the pattern of existence against another. The foundational Object universe is uni-temporal. Causality is local but foundational time is universal.

            Non simultaneity of events stems from differences in signal receipt;and pertains to the products of processing. Relativity has been formulated upon a category error that does not distinguish between material objects and products of signal receipt and processing. Trying to highlight the important difference between the categories was the reason for the extensive list in the essay of differences between seen things and objects as they are. Kind regards Georgina

            Peter I'll try to address your points

            1. My proposition is that the measurables are relative and so the relative to what has to be established. Without that its state or value is indefinite. Does that mean the object or phenomenon does not have behaviour unless measured? No. But to say what it is comes with,"says who?',i.e. what perspective or limiting constraint was applied to obtain that singular value or state.

            The measurements are not sole properties but involve relations. I think one argument against hidden variables is considering the measurement values or states belong to the entity of interest. Incorrectly assuming the (to be) observed object or phenomenon needs separate individual states to satisfy each different kind of measurement. Whereas it just needs its one unobserved behaviour. It isn't drawing the correct response out of its bag of answers when interrogated but its behaviour is being judged in a particular way.

            2. Special relativity involves different observer reference frames. The objects seen in a reference frame being distant from the observe must already be the products of processing of received EM signals. That's how vision works. Different observers receive the signals differently producing different products, they are not affecting external reality distant from them.

            The lens is not the receiver, the light passes through, but photo-receptors absorb it. They have frequency range sensitivity. You wrote "But we're used to describing 'frequency' when it's crucial to remember wavelength lambda is the scalar measurable." Are you talking about spatial distance? Re. astrophysics making sense, did you see the appendix? The distance of objects in astrophysics is estimated using brightness of standard candles for comparison, which is intensity not wavelength or frequency.

            3. By 'position' I really meant 'orientation' in that reply. I have written in the essay "Change is happening at all scales, galaxies rotating, planets orbiting, hearts beating, atoms vibrating." All the aforementioned change is motion. That everything is in continual (absolute not measured) motion is a foundational tenet of the explanatory framework I have been working on for the last 10 years.)There is no bias against the term just a preference to use alternative vocabulary in some circumstances. A singular time is a pattern of relations between all of the constituents of the universe. A change to that pattern is a different time. I think that the word change works better to convey that whole re-arrangement rather than trying to convey an alteration involving motion, that is altering all of the relations between the constituents, Even though that is what is happening.

            4. I agree that wasn't well said.

            Einstein wanted to defend spacetime, (thinking it where physics happens.) Bell's inequality violation shows something has to give with Einstein's model. I have been saying that spacetime is not where the physics is happening. Spacetime is the seen product of signal processing. Where the physics is happening is in the kind of space I tried to describe in the essay and the time is foundational, sequential uni-temporal time of the kind needed by QM.

            Anyway the wish list for defending spacetime is local realism (mind independence of measurables), locality (no faster than light communication), and counterfactual definiteness (equal reality of all unmeasured variables). In regard to 1, see reply to 1. above. Even though I am not talking about involvement of a mind I am emphasizing the non independence of the measured state or value as it is always relative. See also my reply Jan. 15, 2018 @ 00:38 GMT, the elephant analogy.

            If the actual limited, fixed state variable, states or values do not exist in isolation prior to the act of extraction then neither do the counterfactual states or values that might have been obtained. That leaves the only remaining requirement no faster than light communication. It should, in regard to this be noted that what is seen or otherwise made known is the product of processing of received signals not the physics that is at the moment of seeing, or otherwise becoming aware, happening. Uni-temporal Now where the physics happens precedes the awareness of it. Which may make it seem in some experiments that things are happening faster than they should.

            In conclusion Local realism and counterfactual definiteness out. Locality in, with the added point about awareness vs happening. I don't agree that non locality has to be accepted. Kind regards Georgina

            I wrote "Einstein wanted to defend spacetime, (thinking it where physics happens.)" It would have been more accurate to have said -'thinking it where physics is'.

            Thank you Cristinel. I found far more great quotes from Terry Pratchett than I could use. I'll share this one. 'Discworld' has its own science.

            "The universe, they said, depended for its operation on the balance of four forces which they identified as charm, persuasion, uncertainty, and bloody-mindedness.Thus it was the sun and moon orbited the Disc because they were persuaded not to fall down, but didn't actually fly away because of uncertainty. Charm allowed tress to grow and bloody mindedness kept them up, and so on." Terry Pratchett. The Light Fantastic (1986).

            It works!- and makes me smile.

            Kind regards Georgiba