Peter,

I am always astonished about what researchers call fundamental. They usually take a rather complicated subject that bases its structure and behavior on other much deeper concepts. A fundament must be very simple and easily comprehensible. In mathematics, a set is a very fundamental concept but mathematics contains a complete theory about this simple concept. In physics, anything that must be expressed or measured in numbers is already a high-level concept. Thus time and space are certainly no fundamental concepts. Anything that is observable is necessarily a high-level concept. In contrast, a relation can be fundamental and a relational structure can be a well-defined construct. Again mathematics defines a complete theory around lattices, which are relational structures. Classical logic is a special kind of lattice. About 25 axioms define classical logic and make it a self-consistent theory. This might be the argument that caused Birkhoff and von Neumann to name their discovery that the set of closed subspaces of a separable Hilbert space is a particular lattice, to call that lattice quantum logic. They hoped to have discovered a self-consistent theory. And that it IS. Mathematicians call it an orthomodular lattice. At that time nobody interpreted the discovery as a seed from which much more can be derived, such as a plant evolves from a seed. However, the orthomodular lattice is a true fundament of a huge and very powerful theory.

The orthomodular lattice contains no numbers and no fields. It only contains relations and it defines precisely, which relations are tolerated. That is also what classical logic does.

So, the orthomodular lattice is not ridiculous simple. It is just simple enough to be able to figure as a foundation of physical reality.

Hans

    Hans,

    Does the orthomodular lattice of quantum logic not share the same simple construction as the rules of brackets in Arithmetic and my argument for discrete field in realtivity, in my (scored top) 2015 'Red/Green sock trick' essay?

    Peter

    Peter,

    A complete webpage of my Wikiversity project: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_Project#Relational_structures is devoted to the lattices of classical logic and quantum logic. The set of modules in the HBM form another lattice. As far as I know, it has not yet a name. In connection with the orthomodular lattice the paper "Division algebras and quantum theory" by John Baez. http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5690 and the original paper of Birkhoff and von Neumann are interesting.

    G. Birkhoff and J. von Neumann, The Logic of Quantum Mechanics, Annals of Mathematics, Vol. 37, pp. 823-843

    Hi Peter...

    To date, I wear all hats on the UQS project, and spent Winter hibernation as CAD app. designer, writing and sequencing digital code conditionals... i.e. eliminate all ambiguity and duplicity in CPU instructions.

    Coding the degree of detail required to achieve anticipated output from the CPU, is a tedious task, and results in tenaciously precise content.

    Example:

    IF ENZ0 AND ABS(ENX) NOT= 1 AND ABS(ENX)= ABS(ENY) AND ABS(ENZ)=ABS(X)-1 THEN CON$="CONBIL" AND SSB$="-x,+y" AND RETURN TO CALL

    IF ENZ

    responses are on Sue Lingo's essay string..

    We seem to have lost our powers to 'see whole post'!

    P

    You have covered a lot of ground as usual, but at least now your apparatus shows one lens, and so you are making progress. But as usual, you dance around the hard issues of quantum phase entanglement and decoherence. Do quantum superposition states exist or do they not exist?

    You do have good intuition about the nature of physical reality, but classical intuition of space and time is limited. The notions of discrete aether and discrete action seem to be more fundamental than those of space and time and as any barmaid knows, the entanglement of matter and action is a lot easier to explain alone than entangled causal set of space and time and matter and action.

      Steve.

      Thanks. I actually hit entanglement & superposition head on. but didn't dwell; Superposition is REAL, as the experiment confirms, but not what we expect. It's Maxwell's 'curl' with in inverse distribution to linear 'up/down', so NOT 'singlet' states!

      'Entanglement' only needs to be retained parallel polar axes of the pairs. A,B 'measure' with rotatable field electrons; so each output is actually either 'SAME' or 'OPPOSITE' at some amplitudes. Think hard; non-locality is then NOT REQUIRED!

      The only thing I've found at all limited about "classical intuition of space and time" is my ability to get it's logic across to those with different beliefs embedded or their own focussed viewpoint. SR was fully logically resolved in past (top 10) essays with the discrete (space/'time') field model (DFM) of nested spaces defined by relative motion and bounded by 2-fluid plasma interaction. i.e. your 'action' concept is indeed at it's heart.

      Just identify what parts you don't recall resolved in the DFM and I'll run though it again. Not sure we can now access long posts, (yours?) so I'll stop here.

      Best, Peter

      Peter Jackson

      If you read this you may be interested in my last blog at:

      blog

      Best regards from _______________ John-Erik Persson

      John-Erik

      Thanks. I agree with much. But were you aware in the final great Michelson experiment, at Chicago with Gale & Pearson (MGP) he concluded; ETHER! Which worked in the way of the Stokes 'ether drag' model, which is now as Minkowski (1908) & Einstein's (1952) 'spaces (or 'discrete fields') in motion within spaces', as the DFM.

      Ref the discussion in your blog post the following are directly relevant and pertinent. Do question them;

      http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7163 Jackson. P. A., Minkowski. J. S. Resolution of Kantor and Babcock-Bergman Emission Theory Anomalies

      VIDEO Time Dependent Redshift

      Inertial Frame Error Discovery Derives Stellar Aberration and Paradox Free Special Relativity Via Huygens Principle

      Best

      Peter

        Peter Jackson

        Thank you very much for these interesting links. They are of value to me since I do not have the details, although I have heard about these papers.

        About my blog:

        It is about the conflict between Potier and Michelson regarding the transverse arm in MMX. I have demonstrated that it went wrong. This mistake was important when the Lorentz transform was introduced. We have not regarded the difference between ray and beam. So, take a look at my blog again and write a comment at the blog if you support Potier or Michelson. I support Michelson and this means that we do not need time dilation.

        Regards from _________ John-Erik Persson

        Your discrete plasma field is a good intuition, but you still seem to conform to continuous space and time. Once you go discrete, space and time are no longer continuous. The causal set approach for a granulated universe has many good barmaid stories...it is just one thing after another...yada, yada, yada...

        Steve,

        Thanks, but I'm not sure where I've gone smooth. I confess I never really understood causal sets theory and didn't see how could be 'fractal'. To explain, In the 'Discrete Field' Dynamic all apparent 'smooth' Lagrangian behaviour is granular at the next scale down, naturally recursive, rather like the amplituhedron. Rotation is what DEFINES a discrete state or 'granule'

        So; The 'vortex' state of a (Majorana?) fermion ('electron/positron pair') as the smallest 'condensed matter' state, is made of many smaller vortices, the 'pressure' distribution of which around the fermion (etc) is what we call 'gravity'. I feel that's more in line with granularity than continuity. No?

        If you feel the two can combine for something greater than the sum... do advise.

        Peter

        Peter Jackson

        I would like to discuss with you regarding the conflict between Potier and Michelson in 1882 that I describe on my blog. I have given you the blog address above. Write on my blog.

        John-Erik

          Hi Peter...

          No problem...

          Have posted all my FQXi "What is fundamental?" commo on-line in UQS Social Media and Forums Log http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSSMF.php

          The short of it:

          [(Redshift) NOT = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion)] NOT = (No Accelerating Expansion)

          (UQS Emission to Shell 5) = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion)

          IF (Redshift) NOT = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) AND (Accelerating Expansion Verifiable to UQS Emission Shell 5) AND [(Accelerating Expansion) NOT = Constant)] THEN (Recursive Entity Interaction Density) NOT = Constant

          IF (Redshift) NOT = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) AND (Accelerating Expansion Verifiable to UQS Emission Shell 5) AND [(Accelerating Expansion) = Constant)] THEN (Recursive Entity Interaction Density) = Constant

          (UQS Emission to Shell 5) NOT = [(Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) = Constant)]

          (UQS Emission to Shell 5) = [(Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) NOT = Constant)]

          Thanks Peter for the Energy to keep me "Going On", I am putting down tracks... i.e. I code all visual mapped UQS conditionals/differentials, for UQS "calculus", as digital logic statements rather than symbolic equations.

          S. Lingo

          UQS Author/Logician

          www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

          Sue,

          Keep up the good work. I almost understood that comment! If redshift is simply explainable by the increasing orbital paths on the Shrodinger spherical (causal) wavefront) at the DFM would imply, then that element will be constant (if subject to refractive perturbations in between). Of course there would still be both red and blue shifts from recession and approach, as we find locally.

          I'm pretty sure I gave you links to my paper & video deriving the related cyclic cosmology (a scaled up quasar jet distribution) and helical path expansion, but if not, here they are;

          www.academia.edu/6655261/A_CYCLIC_MODEL_OF_GALAXY_EVOLUTION_WITH_BARS

          VIDEO Time Dependent Redshift

          very best

          Peter

          Peter Jackson

          My opinion is that Poitier (and others) made a terrible mistake 1880. I am sorry that you do not have a clear opinion on this point.

          Best regards from ________________ John-Erik Persson

          John-Eric,

          You may be right, but I said all I could on the blog. Sorry couldn't find anything to support 'infalling ether', only 'dragged frames'.

          I found Lodges 'glass disc' path error rather more serious as it led to Lorentz dismissing Stokes model, bringing confusion and the need for SR. Had Lodge used the correct observer frame he'd have found the true (Poynting) vector and scientific advance wouldn't have 'parked up' for 100 years!

          Ce'st la vie

          Best

          Peter

          Peter Jackson

          Of course you could not find anything. Potier made an error 136 years ago, and it was not discovered that he made an error and it was instead Michelson that was right.

          Regards _______________ John-Erik Persson

          7 months later

          Hi Peter Jackson.

          You remember you talked about collaboration.... Did you think any further about it???

          =snp

          9 days later

          Hi snp

          I haven't as I'm buried under work and blogging. The DFM is very successful, but as always ANY departure from doctrine is near impossible to disseminate!

          How good is your mathematics, i.e. finding Lagrangians etc.? I'm told a more mathematical approach might penetrate. Do yu recall my 'Law of the reducing middle' and extension of the rules of brackets? (All in the essays).

          Peter

          Write a Reply...