Universe soup and Sandcastles by Georgina Woodward

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

Duplicate post -please ignore.

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

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

-And I give a possible solution to Olber's paradox.

Peter thanks for considering my responses.

1. Your "WHY Alice appears able to change Bob's results instantly from 3 light years away". There is an error in assuming Bob already has a result, a singular, limited,fixed state, outcome state or value, to be changed. The particles are formed having opposite unmeasured behavior. It is not characterized as a singular state until the conditions are applied that only allow a singular state to be found. It does not mean there isn't a behaviour happening, or a singular object. That behaviour or object can be accepted as absolute; not qualified or diminished in any way, i.e. total. and existing independently and not in relation to other things. Whereas the measurables are relative to viewpoint, or way in which a procedure is applied.

I have read your essay twice the second reading made more sense than the first.

Hi Peter, the jury is out on your lens idea. From reading your previous work and discussion son FQXi blogs, I realize this allows you to have a non uniform speed of light but always measured at c. My recent thinking has been along the lines that the EM waves are hosted by a medium not empty space and a characteristic of that medium is that it can only transmit the waves at absolute velocity of c; because of what it is.

Linked:Interesting list and short explanations of measurements. Standard candles and red shift are mentioned as well as evaluation of most luminous of certain kind of star conglomerations Distance Measurement in Astronomy.

I don't disagree that the EM has a behaviour with a characteristic that is measured as a wavelength, prior to measurement. I think the 'what is the wavelength?' question depends on how it is measured, the relation between the observer and the signal. Not alteration of the wave. I'll think on. Kind regards Georgina

Hi Domenico, thanks. I think the 'base'existence is differentiated into all the different kinds of existence. The fermions are one particular way the base can be different. I mentioned the fundamental forces are different ways in which the base medium is affected by matter. Photons are also alteration of the base medium but in another different way. Photons are singular disturbances from the change in energy level of an electron. In contrast a disturbance of the medium that is a gravitational field is a whole that is spatially distributed and the division into single particles that are not that whole doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. Likewise the bosons that supposedly operate at sub atomic scale. I can think about what is going on as field or disturbance of the medium and division into particles doesn't make more sense. I think the HIggs boson is not a part of nature but an effect caused by the extreme conditions used to detect it, which caused the evidence of its existence. in nature the field isn't divided into individual boson particles. I think the bosons are a part of an accounting system that works with the different kinds of alteration of the base medium. Stemming perhaps from a desire to have a full particle model for everything. That's why the whole 'particle zoo' of the standard model was put aside at the beginning of the essay but not discarded. Kind regards Georgina