The Present State of Physics, Mathematics, and Science

Reply to comment on viXra concerning Moon analysis-

I do not say I'm presenting a scientific analysis. I'm looking at the logic and semantics of the question.

I do not assert the Moon is only an image in the space-time thus electromagnetic radiation. You are putting your own confusion 'into my mouth.' You are muddling categories. What, 'the Moon " refers to isn't specified by the question which is a problem for answering the question correctly . That is what Einstein didn't do, though he was close in posing the question.

Abraham Pais said "We often discussed his notions on objective reality. I recall that during one walk Einstein suddenly stopped, turned to me and asked whether I really believed that the moon exists only when I look at it." Rev. Mod. Phys. 51, 863-914 (1979), p. 907 .Like the Schrodinger's cat paradox calling attention to the lack of pre measurement objective state,he uses the Moon for the purpose. This is about objective local realism too.

'the' Moon' can mean; the observer independent existing material object, the seen observation product , experienced as existing externally but generated by internal brain activity which produces virtual spacetime, the concept and the visualization of the moon by brain activity we call imagination. Though not usually referred to we can also mention the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the material body but not yet received by an observer. That is what I refer to as potential sensory data ,signals (or potential sensory information .)

The observation product called 'the Moon' only, isn't generated by the observer when not looking or eyes are closed or blindfolded etc. There is still the existing observer independent moon, the potential sensory data in the environment, the concept of Moon held in imagination stored in memory and other records.

I am providing evidence of object permanence. The illusions and child psychology also relate to object permanence. That is about existing unmeasured and unobserved i.e. Observer independent existence.I do not say I'm presenting a scientific analysis. I'm looking at the logic and semantics of the question.

I do not assert the Moon is only an image in the space-time thus electromagnetic radiation. You are putting your own confusion 'into my mouth.' You are muddling categories. What, 'the Moon " refers to isn't specified by the question which is a problem for answering the question correctly . That is what Einstein didn't do, though he was close in posing the question.

Abraham Pais said "We often discussed his notions on objective reality. I recall that during one walk Einstein suddenly stopped, turned to me and asked whether I really believed that the moon exists only when I look at it." Rev. Mod. Phys. 51, 863-914 (1979), p. 907 .Like the Schrodinger's cat paradox calling attention to the lack of pre measurement objective state,he uses the Moon for the purpose. This is about objective local realism too.

'the' Moon' can mean; the observer independent existing material object, the seen observation product , experienced as existing externally but generated by internal brain activity which produces virtual spacetime, the concept and the visualization of the moon by brain activity we call imagination. Though not usually referred to we can also mention the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the material body but not yet received by an observer. That is what I refer to as potential sensory data ,signals (or potential sensory information .)

The observation product called 'the Moon' only, isn't generated by the observer when not looking or eyes are closed or blindfolded etc. There is still the existing observer independent moon, the potential sensory data in the environment, the concept of Moon held in imagination stored in memory and other records.

I am providing evidence of object permanence. The illusions and child psychology also relate to object permanence. That is about existing unmeasured and unobserved i.e. Observer independent existence.

Reply to comment on viXra concerning Moon analysis-

The analysis of the logic and semantics of the question, as it is written/ has relevance to Relativity theory and quantum mechanics because it helps with understanding of the mental concept of object permanence.

The biology of vision works by the eyes receiving electromagnetic radiation , which stimulates the photoreceptors. In response nerve impulses are sent (or are modified) to the brain. Processing of the nerve impulses in the brain generates an observation product or products, The product generated is experienced as external. In space time . it is not (the image) outside of the body of the observer. If no image is formed the image can not be a part of the observation product , so is not seen anywhere.

I did not realize there would be such incomprehension of the subject. I'm sorry i have presumed too much. I've been told i tend to overcomplicate my explanations, and can simplify them. The explanations in the comments is hopefully compensating for the brevity of the paper

Detailed inquiry nto the meaning of the question 'Is the Moon there when nobody looks?' and related matters, of relevance to foundational physics

Abstract

The usefulness of the analysis is presented. Some history of the question related to Einstein is given along with the supposed motivation for asking it. Questions are asked about the meaning of the starting question. What is meant by 'the Moon?, and what is meant by: there? The lack of precision of the question is identified. The biology of vision is briefly discussed. What is an observer? is considered. For completeness 'What is a question?' And, 'Where is a question?' are also discussed. Further evidence of unseen and unmeasured existence is given. This paper concerns Metaphysics.

'll try to link

Examining Superposition and The Measurement Problem, via comparison of Schrödinger's Cat with The Basketball Game Thought experiment: A brief over view of the Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment; history, raison d'etre, apparatus, usual interpretation, introduction to the measurement problem, causality implication. For comparison the Basketball Game thought experiment is offered. Rules and 'apparatus' are given, followed by comparison of the cat experiment and Game experiment, considering superposition, relative perception and Wigner's friend scenarios. Looking at the measurement problem; definition, absence of existing of object pre-measurement in QM because of lack of definite state, There is analysis of is the Moon there when nobody looks? Considering the reality of the wave function and if there is collapse, Concluding with the solution to the measurement problem. Emphasizing new score like abstract entity outcome state.

From comment regarding short version of paper on viXra

"The paper would be relevant if it raised the question of whether a photon (or electron) is also there when no one is looking " Wolfgang.[ ] The paper implies that photons (or electrons) exist unseen and unmeasured. Its the principle of object permanence being established.It is general: Do things have to be seen (or measured) to exist? (rhetorical)

The outcome found is abstract. Not the physically existing teams, the court or ball (apparatus) but something new generated because of the sequence of relations of the afore mentioned, existing prior to measurement. So we can use the similarity of logical structure to understand that Schrödinger's cat experiment as a sequence of relations, existing prior to measurement and an abstract entity outcome..

i think it would be better if I said re. what is meant by 'there': It could mean within the configuration of existing things independent of observation? Einstein didn't differentiate observer independent existing things from observer relative semblances of existing things. For him 'there' would have meant within spacetime external to the observer. External spacetime is generally accepted by mainstream science as being where things are. The question can be read as asking whether the existing Moon is in Spacetime when not observed.

I think this is better because whether Einstein ever said Is the moon there or only does it exist ,which is only similar, is not known. He may have been speaking in German .I do not know his precise utterances on the matter. i have seen different variants attributed to him. i have submitted a version with a lot of additional information, which i hope will be useful

The basketball thought experiment can be made more logically similar as I will explain.

A difference at the moment is that play can be stopped after commencement ,but before a basket score. Finding c the corresponding outcome is rescuing a live cat but as it stands at the moment the corresponding cat can be poisoned but not yet dead That can't happen in Schrödinger's experiment the cat is always observed alive or dead: Decay-poison release-dead or no decay-no poison released-alive. A corresponding binary state is needed...The solution is to have the score only accessible before play is started -no decay-no start- no basket score or after the game is played to its conclusion; decay-game starts-basket score-end This will do, at start of game the court is locked and internal scoreboard or player must be accessed to get the score ,before or after outcome state......

In this way the outcome is better tied to the binary state of decay

Lets say the press office scoreboard is broken. The journalist will have to go to the court and report back to friend or colleague in the press room.

Some subtle changes-

A basketball court is locked once play begins so no one can come in or leave. Inside the court there is a game starting device. It has a small radioactive source. When the source decays randomly it emits a particle which activates a detector. The detector sends a signal to a device activating an air horn, starting the game. (linking a quantum event to macroscopic one, instead of instigating process that will lead to a cat's death it's decay leads to starting of the game and so inevitable progression towards score of 1, if the game is allowed to run its course.) The game is stopped when the a basket is scored by either team. Whether the game ends with a basket being scored or is not started, players are required to wait and rest, passively on the sidelines when not playing.

unchanged-

Opening the box and noting the condition of the animal is like writing on the score card. The score- like, state outcome has come into existence upon box opening, preceded by the existing, material condition of the animal. The basketball does not posses the score prior to being thrown

some changes-

What is the state of the game going to be found to be? Either 1 or 0 Likelihood fluctuating as ball goes back and forth. A mix of future outcome score to be found and imagined future that will not be found. This is abstract and not the material existing players (Nor players and court ensemble, or material ball and hoops.) The score is an abstract entity that can be represented and recorded in various ways. A journalist from the press room and collects the update on the game at the court, from a player's scorecard. The 0 showing game hasn't been started is akin to a live cat outcome being acquired A 1, game over, corresponding to a dead cat noticed and remembered or recorded. The outcome of seeing the score in the press room is knowing 1 or 0 with implications of that.

Lets see if I can repair the mess I've made with this-

The court must be closed at least before the game is started. Then after some time there can be a scenario in which started or not isn't known, outside of the closed court. Corresponding to Schrödinger's live-dead cat.

An air horn starting signal is definitely inappropriate as it could be head outside the court. That the game has started would in that way be known. The air horn can be replaced with an automatic flag signal.

In the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment the poison must be quick acting and inevitably deadly. A poisoned cat is never found poisoned but viable or relivable.

I wrote " Re. play stopped: "Finding the corresponding outcome is rescuing a live cat but as it stands at the moment the corresponding cat can be poisoned but not yet dead That can't happen in Schrödinger's experiment the cat is always observed alive or dead: Decay-poison release-dead or no decay-no poison released-alive." GW That isn't quite right because the poison release was matched with a basket being scored in the original version of the basket ball game, I suggested, not immediately at start of the game. If flag drop corresponds to poison vial smashing, very shortly after decay of the radioactive atom there is inevitable score end to game matched (if game is unstoppable) to inevitable death of cat.

If a players score card is used to ascertain the score this might work. A player can not mark the card and show it until play ends. Prior to start of game: score 0, score inaccessible, score 1 at end of game. In Schrödinger's thought experiment, A cat can not be found dying; between life and death. The conundrum is the state of the cat when if poisoned or not is not known, not how or how fast the poison acts corresponding to how the game progresses and for how long it continues.

Hello forum, hello Georgina,

since I'm quoted here several times by Georgina, I'll say "hello" personally.

In contrast to Georgina's moon, photons are really extremely interesting. We can't see them while they are flying. One can measure them exclusively destructively. They would have to be actually several light years long, in order to explain their small bandwidth. They can interfere. We can entangle them. Photons are obviously quite different from the moon.

Georgina insists on her "object permanence", which she thinks applies equally to all objects. No matter if macroscopic or quantum.

Already on VIXRA I pointed Georgina several times to my photon experiments of destructive interference. During destructive interference the photons are invisible and unmeasurable:

https://vixra.org/abs/2109.0196

But they are still there in spite of this invisibility and immeasurability, because I can conjure them out of nothing again (with a special trick):

https://vixra.org/abs/2111.0104

These two experiments are a clear refutation of "object permanence". Because the photons are demonstrably there, although one cannot see or measure them.

Since a moon is not capable of interference, Georgina's equation of photons and the moon is nonsense.

These are facts. A physically thinking person can now try to question my experiments. But Georgina simply ignores the facts and sticks to her wordy views.

-----------------

This is no way to deal with physics. VIXRA is very precious to me as a special platform. There even I, a businessman, am allowed to show my small findings without obstructive formalisms.

So I found in seven cases small but interesting deviations from the mainstream:

https://vixra.org/abs/2202.0119

And when I even realized Pound-Rebka and Einstein's space curvature with a 20 cent photocoupler, it made big waves:

https://vixra.org/abs/2204.0120

https://vixra.org/abs/2207.0014

I am very proud of these experiments and insights. However, if VIXRA gets a bad reputation because of "unphysical" papers, it devalues my work as well.

This is the motivation why I criticize Georgina's paper. I would appreciate it if she would upload the papers in unphysical sections of Vixra.

Best regards from Hamburg

Wolfgang

Wolfgang,

object permanence is about existing although being unseen and/or unmeasured,. There are different way in which something can be useable. Being extremely small is one of them, being hidden in a dove pan or lining of a magician's hat is another, not being looked at another; with eyes closed , being blindfolded or looking away, being obscured from sight by another object. All the aforementioned ways of not being seen prevent electromagnetic radiation (EMR) being transmitted from the object to the observer. Who's sensory system processes such input into observation products. Lack of EMR input is why the Moon is not seen when not looking.

Destructive interference, Thinking first of water waves- They can add or subtract when they meet, which seems an expression of their joint energy. They are able to pass through each other unlike solid objects and go on to express their energy as individual waveforms. The wavelike characteristic of photons means they too can destructively interfere due to expression of their combined energy when they meet. Though undetectable when this happens energy is not destroyed or goes missing, so can be expressed as separate wave forms again after the meeting. After the meeting the separate waveforms may be a bit different from before. While interesting in its own right , it is something different from object permanence, that is a general principal that objects can exist 9 and happenings happen ,without necessarily being seen or measured. Which may sound silly to be saying. However it is important to current quantum physics.

That happens can happen out if sight is important for the art uf illusion Such as manipulation of a coin hidden behind a hand

Hello Georgina,

I am not disputing the object permanence of the Moon or other macro objects.

I dispute the comparability of the moon with photons. I have pointed you to two homemade (only such I trust) photon experiments which show that quanta work quite differently from the moon. You dispute the evidential value of these experiments.

Ok. Then we do it the other way around.

Then you prove that photons are there, if nobody measures. I don't want to read anything of your "logic". I deny in principle that macroscopic logic is applicable to quanta.

So you have to give strong evidence for your thesis. If you cannot do that, then your assertion that moon and photon are equally subject to object permanence is at best a thesis, which is not proven by anything.

And such a thing is neither physical nor philosophical in my eyes. So your papers do not belong to these branches of science either.

Best regards

Wolfgang

Hello Georgina, hello Forum,

"Lets see if I can repair the mess I've made with this" (Georgina)

You are devaluing VIXRA's reputation with your papers. And you devalue the reputation of this obviously serious site with your eloquent comments.

I would really wish that you reduce your ad-hoc fantasies a bit and deal with evidence. Especially philosophy depends on clean thinking.

Neither Schrödinger's cat nor basketball games nor any other macroscopic models can explain quantum mechanics. I refuse to follow your macroscopic "logic". You don't explain the physics of a black hole on the basis of a grapefruit.

Let the two of us (maybe even the forum will join in) discuss quantum physics in a relaxed manner. I am also very interested in this topic and I can even do some experiments if it helps to gain knowledge.

But try to restrain your fantasies. It is NOT as simple as you think. Fortunately. Because if quantum physics would be like your basketball game, it would probably not be so exciting.

-------------

I put a first thesis for discussion into the room:

QM has nothing to do with logic or macroscopy. The macroscopic logic describes causalities of single events. QM has rather something to do with the statistics of many mysterious events.

If my thesis should be correct, it is in principle impossible to explain single events of QM. We can only describe their distribution.

Best regards

Wolfgang