Do the 3 "Uns" have it? by James Lee Hoover

Hi James, nice, most readable and comprehensible. Re. your "We know quantum entanglement (QE) exists, that a particle can be in two different places, light years apart in an instant." It seems as if the quantum state of particle can instantly become upon measurement of an 'entangled partner. But that isn't transport of a particle.

Re. your ". As mere mortals, we must climb the heights, conquering one peak at a time." It seems to me, fortuitously a lot of the problems of physics are related to a few foundational issues. Like 10 pin bowling; knocking down a few pins can cause the others to fall.

I like that you have highlighted big issues we face as a species but end on an optimistic note.

Good to see you here James...

And I find what you are saying interesting. I have not read the essay yet, but from what's in the abstract I already have comments.

I attended a lecture where Gerard 't Hooft said some problems in Physics will never be solved unless we have cooperation that goes beyond the boundaries of disciplines, and uses many kinds of expertise. On the other hand my departed Physics mentor Greg Kirk said some kind of problems can't be handled through divide and conquer and so require a polymath or inter-disciplinarian to crack.

But I heard from both sources (and from another Nobel laureate Doug Osheroff) that many 'unsolvable' problems actually can be solved if people are willing to explore off the map. I look forward to reading your essay.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Hi James,

Thanks for your complimentary post on mine, and well done for yours, but I see we've both been hit by entirely inappropriate 1.0 scores! Yet again. It can't be beyond the abilities of fqXi to do what I suggested last year, add a clause warning those doing so will be exposed or score moved the their own! I hope your score may help mine recover!

I also hope you're pleased to hear I found your essay one of the easiest and most agreeable to read so far, so can score it well. I don't often score until I've read most but can do so if you wish.

I firmly agree re Hilbert v Poincare, and that we CAN advance , if we can escape our bias to 'beliefs' against nurturing NEW understanding. I do just have a couple of points;

You wrote; "we know QM entanglement exists..." Except of course we DON'T James! We just know that 'interpretation of data' exists, which we now "believe in". But I've shown that's an example of what must change to nurture better understanding. You may not understand QM and it's issues but look on the posts between Ronald Radicot and I on his string. However as Wheeler anticipated, that still leaves the uncertainty of whether you're moving left or right when standing at either of the poles!

You also anticipate; {i]"..when quantum computers are perfected.." The above error in QM assumptions means the CANNOT be! Consider Alan Kadins essay and my "It from Bit" one. "0 years of promises have had ZERO results, just hype, claims, and millions paid to physicists!

If you truly think old beliefs hold us back you must e able to review those two! - or perhaps at least re-phrase to; "It's believed.... or "It seems..." etc. in line with Poincare (a key figure in classic QM)

But they're both 'content', and disagreement is not scoring criteria!

Well done

Very Best

Peter

James, Yes, nice fresher version. I think your 1.0 score is ridiculous, clearly a troll again, who hit mine with a 1.0 as well. fqXi could easily stop it by penalising anyone posting multiple 1's and/ or removing them. A warning in the rules could stop it. Any way in line with my comments I've now applied the realistically good score deserved.

Best wishes

Peter

Dear James Lee Hoover, I read your wonderful epic essay in which you attempted to colorfully describe the problems that occurred in the physical picture of the world and indicate ways to solve them, while making the remark that "Can machines think?" is no. Each human generation stands on the shoulders of the one before, not to be replaced by an automaton. " However, I think your essay would be more epic if you would touch upon the possibilities of a neocartesian generalization of modern physics, based on the identity of Descartes's space and matter: Please visit the

FQXi Boris Dzhechko

"The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics. by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich ".

聽At the very beginning of the essay, I repeat twice the idea that rectilinear motion, in essence, is a motion around a circle of infinitely large radius and, if this radius is reduced, then in infinitesimal laws of motion of the theory of relativity will go over to the laws of quantum mechanics. Next come mathematical formulas that only spoil my essay, but without them in any way. I will be pleased if you catch their main meaning and bless me for the further generalization of modern physics. I give high ratings to those who visit my page and leave her comment on it regarding the neo-Cartesian generalization of modern physics, even if they did not agree.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Dear James Lee Hoover,

A beautiful essay, one of your best, and one of the best in this contest. A pleasure to read, while also an insightful overview. So many undecidable issues derive from no data and no means to decide. As you say:

"It would be foolhardy to think that such great mysteries, the greatest truths in life, have easily deciphered answers."

I also love the del Toro quote:

"...all we can truly do is echo the order of the universe."

Your essay ranges over the entire universe, including life and mind, with too many good points to cover in a comment. It perfectly addresses the essay topic.

You give Newton in the 17th century, and Einstein in 1900's credit for gravity theory, but I believe that Maxwell-Heaviside theory ~1885 is most important. Heaviside's equations actually lead to Einstein's field equations when iterated, and derive from Einstein when the field equations are linearized.

As you note about lack of data, the dimensionality of the world is underdetermined by relativity, and my essay looks at how to decide issues in this case. Deciding on the nature of time and space.

One essentially makes a metaphysical commitment to an ontology in such cases, and hopes that the data shows up to support it.

Btw, I question whether Einstein's 'visualized thought experiments' were more problem than solution.

My warmest regards for a job well done. Your essay should be one of the top ones.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear James,

You have presented a magnificent analytical, deep philosophical essay with important findings for Science and all of Humanity. You make a very important conclusion: "Many tomorrowrows will hopefully remove the blinders of ignorance concerning the underlying quantum world, for example, and unlock more wisdom."

Let us hope that fundamental science will overcome the modern crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of knowledge and provide Humanity with a more adequate picture of the world, common for mathematicians, physicists, cosmologists, poets, based on the ideas of the "LifeWorld" (EHusserl). I believe that with joint efforts and with deep wisdom, we can together save life on planet Earth and develop steadily together with Nature. Today, as never before, the philosophical precepts of Albert Einstein and John Wheeler are relevant for theorists of basic science:

聽"At the present time, a physicists has to deal with philosophic problems to a much greater degree than physicists of the previous generations. Physicists forced to that the difficulties of their own science. "

"Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers."

I, like many other researchers, have great doubt about the "picture of the world" built on the hypothesis of the "Big bang". Obviously, it is necessary, along with the Empirical standard of justification, to introduce the Ontological standard for the basification of scientific theories claiming to be called "fundamental".... We will hope ...

Very Best

Vladimir

Dear James Lee Hoover,

Thank you for your nice comments on my essay. I just gone through both of your well argued essays. You are retired from Airoplane making company, I retired from steel plant. Why should we fear? No more need. We should be courageous! One should be bold in expressing one's ideas!

Dont criticize any one, but express our thinking freely...............

Best regards

=snp

Dear Jim,

Thank you, glad you liked my work.

It's great that you always want to find the root of the problem:

"The modern human narrative is about breaking boundaries, those thought to bar us from movingbeyond. One of the barriers held our most modern form of humans to confinement to this planet".

"I do find the Bohmian mechanics explanation more satisfying than the standard Copenhagen interpretation. The pilot wave view seems to open the door to related concepts in realms of physics like neuro-physics as well".

"It is our own human multi-layered neural networks and their connection with naturewe must understand to seek truths and solve problems".

Your work deserves the highest praise. On the last day of the discussion, my rating will be given to you.

The events of recent months with COVID-19 have dramatically changed the world. The world will no longer be the same, because priorities have changed and values are being revised. Now, first of all, practical solutions are needed.

I decided to help doctors, biologists and chemists in the fight against COVID-19.

First of all, I formulated the primary task - to connect the universal laws of quantum mechanics with the properties of the connections of the coronavirus COVID-19 with human cells.

To do this, it is necessary to solve the problem of calculating the splitting levels for any spectral lines that are associated with the orbital pilot waves of molecular bonds.

But it turned out that in the universal formulas for calculating spectral lines (5), when they were converted into a convenient form, an error crept in my essay.

I fixed the error and replaced the file of my essay. It is good that this could be done before April 24th.

I ask everyone to excuse me for not being attentive.

Now, on the basis of the corrected formulas, I have formed universal formulas by which intermolecular bonds are calculated, and now it is up to the experiments with COVID-19 and human cells.

The idea of fighting COVID-19 is quite simple.

Since all interactions of the elements of matter occur at strictly defined frequencies of real pilot wave resonators, there is a dispersion mechanism of interaction between resonators that are close in frequency. This mechanism allows you to either stimulate (catalyst) or suppress (inhibitor) strictly defined bonds between molecules.

Such a dispersion interaction of the resonators is similar to a multi vibrator Yagi-Uda antenna Yagi-Uda antenna. The resonant frequency of the reflector is shifted down by 5% (with a low Q factor of the resonators) and leads to complete suppression of radiation in the direction from the vibrator towards the reflector. And several directors, shifted up in frequency by 5% relative to the main vibrator, repeatedly amplify the radiation in their direction, in fact, pumping energy out of the main vibrator, shunting it and reducing its wave resistance.

Using the experience of constructing multi vibrator antennas, it was concluded that, in the optimal version of the antenna, many directors should have a monotonous reduction in size as they move away from the vibrator. Those. each sequentially removed director pumps out energy from a closer director, and they all optimally pump out energy from the vibrator.

A set of spectral splitting lines for any line calculated according to Rydberg's formula in quantum mechanics plays the role of directors, amplifiers, and stabilizers of spectral lines.

Nature is so arranged that to ensure its stability, the first pilot de Broglie waves of orbital electrons of intermolecular bonds necessarily form second pilot waves, which are elements of the electronic level of matter with a significantly longer wavelength (form lines according to Rydberg's formula) and which are able to transform through the phase of photons . This phenomenon is similar to the conversion of electron-positron pairs into photons, which can again form electron-positron pairs.

Those each stable pilot wave must move at a certain speed or be indignant at a certain equivalent speed in accordance with the formula for the de Broglie wave of an electron. The second pilot waves provide the necessary perturbation of the first pilot wave. Without the action of the second wave, the original pilot wave cannot exist and is annihilating. The fourth pilot waves de Broglie of electron support the second pilot waves of electron and form splitting lines with frequencies ranging from 100 MHz (wavelength 3 meters) to 10 GHz (wavelength 30 mm).

Thus, if the spectral lines of splitting of the fourth pilot waves are suppressed by irradiation with electromagnetic waves, then the first de Broglie pilot waves of the orbital electrons are suppressed, then the orbital electrons are forced to change their orbit, and the harmful connection of COVID-19 with human cells will break or collapse COVID-19.

All these phenomena are a consequence of universal quantum laws and the fractal structure of matter and can be used in neurophysics close to you. Because the above physical mechanisms of interaction between pilot waves are the basis for self-organization of matter and the work of neuron connections.

Warm regards,

Vladimir

Dear James, I thank you for reading my essay and finding the similarity of the concept of neocartesian generalization of modern physics presented in it with the concept of a Cartesian system with probabilistic axes for calculating the speed and time of neurophysiological processes in living organisms. I am inclined to believe from this that you put him a high rating. Check that this is so, as Descartes is worthy of his ideas to be continued and given high marks. For my part, I give high ratings to those who bother to read and understand the essence of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics, which is based on the identity of Descartes' space and matter. According to him, space is matter, and matter is space that moves, since it is matter. Ether in this convention is a synonym for matter and, conversely, matter is a synonym for ether. The ether, which is matter, creates infinite space and time. Here is the nominal one, we must think.

Regards, Dizhechko Boris.

dear sir. I must say your essay is more than a scientific piece. it's very philosophical and best of all very enriching to Human morality ethics and possibilities in the future like the kardashev scale. I imagine the 3U s definitely are us. I too think so. You may review that in my essay here -https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525. all the best.

I enjoyed the essay overall. Some nice phrases, e.g. "virtual waves imposing achievement boundaries for endeavoring scientists" from the intro.

Interesting point emphasizing human intellectual tendencies in the pursuit of knowledge, like the focus on short-term gain over long-term enrichment. This has come out in a particularly ugly way in the context of climate change, like you describe.

Not sure if I agree that dark matter/dark energy are unscientific. I do think that the way we're going about looking for them is not particularly clever, and possibly wrongheaded (if you didn't find anything, just build a slightly more sensitive machine and try again). Also, we should be more open-minded about alternatives given our failures thus far (like some kind of modification of gravity).

Was delighted to learn about the cosmological lithium problem from your essay. Never heard of it before.

Not sure I agree that machines can't think, although I admit this is a huge can of worms, and nobody really knows the answer/can convincingly argue their case yet.

Throughout the essay, you weave together many facts about science and the world around us. At first I wasn't sure what you were doing, but the overall effect (on me, a person) is pretty enthralling. When you say all this stuff about where we come from and our place in the universe, it really does sound striking...maybe I take a lot of it for granted these days.

But it really is amazing, if you stop to think about it. How are we able to understand anything at all about the vast, inscrutable cosmos? It's a miracle we've been able to do everything we've done.