The Present State of Physics, Mathematics, and Science

Who or what is responsible for outcomes in the world, i.e. what's moving the world?

When it comes to the question of what's moving the world (representable as what's moving the numbers for variables like position or energy), I suppose that you've only got 3 choices. Keeping in mind that, at a foundational level, the numbers don't smoothly change, they "jump", the choices seem to be:

(1) No entity is jumping the numbers for the variables, the numbers just jump.

(2) The law of nature relationships are a type of entity that jumps the numbers for its own variables.

(3) Matter is an entity that assigns new numbers to some of its own variables.

But there's a problem here: why do the numbers for the variables always conform to the law of nature relationships between the categories of variable. Once again, I suppose that you've got 3 choices:

(A) Nothing has any oversight, but miraculously the numbers always conform to the law of nature relationships between the categories of variable.

(B) An entity has mathematical oversight, making sure that the numbers always conform to the law of nature relationships between the categories of variable.

(C) No oversight is required: the numbers are relationships where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out; when some of the numbers for the variables "jump", i.e when new number relationships are created, other numbers for other variables are passively changed due to the law of nature relationships between the categories of variable.

(3C) describes a type of world where people and other living things are genuinely responsible for outcomes.

I see where I'm going wrong here. The structure I'm thinking of is not a Venn diagram. If it was the set of experienced objects and the set of material objects would not intersect. Unless we specify members of the set of material objects or experienced images of objects sharing a name with members of the other set (than its own.)In which case the two sets overlap. Showing an issue for clear thinking.

The structure with higher dimensional space inside lower dimensional space is more like a map, showing a relation between a 4 dimensional virtual space-time to (assumed to be) 3 dimensional or no assigned dimensionality (as no singular observer viewpoint can be assigned) space...shown in 2 dimensions.

I think" no assigned dimensionality (as no singular observer viewpoint can be assigned)' could be important for understanding some quantum superpositions. Where the found state depends upon imposing an observer's relative perspective.

Thank you Georgina. Maybe this will work, maybe not:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355169846_Gravity_as_a_4

"No connection to science at all" Tom-? Statistics was a compulsory part of my biological sciences degree, I also took 1 lecture of binomial genetics to decide it wasn't my cup of tea, and wouldn't sit the full class but swap for another.

Yes it does. What if ?- to be continued.

I don't understand, Georgina. Are you suggesting statistics as the guiding principle of science?

No, but the statistics that will be used to analyze the results can be part of the experimental design process. Replication of outcomes with statistical significance is better evidence for something being a true effect than just a result or unanalyzed number of results. I think this especially used in some areas of science eg. pharmacology. That was not my point though. It was just that maths is a part of sciences apart from physics.

This structure can be likened to a simulated game 'world' of a computer or games console and monitor, generated in response to a players controlling actions. The complete simulated world does not exist (as decoded product) inside the computer/games console and monitor but it is generated partly and is a semblance of a material reality. --------------------The observation product of a person is partial semblance of the external environment. Rather than providing inputs to a games controller or key board -inputs to the brain are provided by the senses. The experienced Image reality is not 'ground floor' reality. The sources of the inputs and the inputs themselves are plausibly 'ground floor'. Except when the sources of inputs are technology or its product such as; TV, cinema film, photograph, computer game, telephone screen image. Consciousness is fundamental to us as functional humans but not fundamental to existence.

A singular consciousness has a point of view, it is informed by its unique sensory inputs. Now try to imagine an asymmetric, variously patterned object seen from all positions surrounding it at once. Or imagine the superimposed images of 100 cameras surrounding it. It will likely just seem a source of 'noise'; not a discernable form or pattern.

Scenario one; there will be an overload of input, That is the intensity of photons will be far greater than for a singular view.. I'm guessing the appearance will be that of a nondescript light source. Whereas for scenario two, it is addition of many observation products. I think in this case the appearance will be of a dark amorphous object. Darker, with less unique form or patterning where there is a lot of addition . 100 images may be enough to obscure any identifiable structure. This is easily done by adding each image as a new layer using translucent film or a computer program.

"Wheeler suggested that reality is created by observers and that: "no phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." He coined the term "Participatory Anthropic Principle" (PAP) from the Greek "anthropos", or human. He went further to suggest that "we are participants in bringing into being not only the near and here, but the far away and long ago.""

https://dailygalaxy.com/2019/07/a-smoky-dragon-the-cosmos-is-a-participatory-universe-weekend-feature/

The observed phenomena are products being manifest. I'd add not only the far away and long ago are manifest but configurations that did not exist together but have been amalgamated from signals arriving together from different times (Object universe configurations).

For Wheeler, the word "observer" has little to do with humans or conscious beings. What he actually said was [link:vixra.org/abs/1804.0123#comment-4545191795]"what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe."[/link]

In other words, reality (causes and their effects) is entirely "determined" by how all things behave, after they have detected the individual bits of information, that "trigger" their subsequent behavior.

In this view of reality, humans and conscious beings, are merely one type of "equipment" capable of "evoked responses"; but there are many others ("all things physical") that are far older and far more fundamental.

Rob McEachern

Hi Robert, I also gave a quote. Re. the one you provided: "All things physical are information -theoretic in origin..." Wheeler. That is so if by all things physical, the manifest products are being considered and the foundational source of the products is not considered as part of that 'All'. It is so whether the observer is a device and the process is automated or the observer is human. Either way humans are directly or indirectly involved in the acquisition of the products of the experiment. The idea of consciousness causes collapse comes from the double slit experiment. A detector providing 'which way' information seems to prevent an interference pattern result, as if the experiment knows it is being watched. Significantly, Only if the detector is switched on.

My hypothesis is an electric or magnetic field produced by the detector disrupts an environmental interference pattern that guides the particles travel. The premise is that there is an environment, even in a vacuum. Various non observer sources of fields can be tested. The aim to show it is not the act of observation itself causing the altered outcome. Another/ other experiments are needed to show it is due to an effect on the environment rather than a distributed particle. More doable is to show a distributed particle is unnecessary for the results usually obtained.

Hi Robert, I'll try to use an information theoretic approach. The results of the double slit experiment have to be participatory, in that the signal, channel and receiver are assembled and operated by human actions. The binary question, 'did it (the elements of the signal) go through one or both slits?' is a question emanating from the human mind. Participation is integral to the product 'reality'.

When a working 'which way' detector is included, I'm suggesting it is the kind of noise encountered by the signal in the channel that is changed. Which is not an effect of consciousness beyond placement of the detector and choosing on or off. The effect of the noise is independent of consciousness. Maybe the apparatus can be tested to see if the detector is the source of a field/fields. If undetectable that has no greater significance than the undetectability of superposition. This is contrary to the notion that the mind is creating underlying reality.

Robert and Georgina,

Your exchange illuminates an aspect of the Present State of Physics that continues to treat the physical form of any frequency of EMR as a binary choice of the (observer) theorist. Either its a particle or a wave, mutually exclusive. So a bit of information then becomes subject to being a binary choice as well, between detection of either a ballistic response (mathematically; a parabolic function) or sinusoidal response (mathematically; a hyperbolic function). The conundrum of Wave/Particle duality, superposition writ large.

Suppose that we premise superposition to be time dependent? The duration of any frequency's wavelength being a cyclic variation of velocity effecting the density of the Quantum's physical form, such that at the lower limit of velocity the density exhibits inelastic properties and registers as a discrete mass while at the upper limit of velocity the density of the physical form exhibits elastic properties and registers as an energy field. The obvious objection would immediately present itself that this scenario would require that at peak periodic velocity, the physical form would have to be travelling in excess of the speed of light. A counter argument can be proposed that Light Velocity is a measurably universal constant precisely because that measurement is the consequence of a continuously changing rise and fall of velocity and as such Light Velocity would by definition be the Root Exponential Mean between nil and peak periodic velocity. Without getting into the math, that peak periodic velocity can be empirically derived as (c^1/e)c = 2.143^14 cm/sec.

This would satisfy both demands of information in detection, As a low velocity particulate form the photon would interact with the inherent fields of the atomic aggregate composing the material the slits are cut into, and statistically the results would be what could be expected if it were to be constrained to passing through or being deflected by only one slit. While at higher velocity which would be for appreciably greater periods of duration, the photon in the form of a physical 3 dimensional soliton wave packet with large enough cross-section could pass through both slits. The technical capability to actually make countable the real numbers of photons still limits what we might theorize, but this hypothesis would be doable in experimental protocols statistically. best jrc

Hi John, I think the variation of velocity idea is nice, providing both manifestations, but problematic. The photon is said to pass through both slits, wavelike but a screen just after the slits always finds a singular slit is being used. Assuming all the photons being alike rules out an undetectable sub population traversing two slits each. At low intensity a more distant screen has the interference caused pattern built up gradually by individual particle like photon collision. Taking that at face value, your varied velocity idea would need the photons to accelerate after the slits to become waves and interfere, then decelerate to collide with the screen as 'ballistic' particles.

How is there an interference pattern already there, to serve as a guide? Possibilities: a). maybe from previous photon's travel using both slits but individually only one each. It requires interference of the effect of different photons and persistence of the disturbance; long enough to affect another. b) It is an effect due to the apparatus structure. Maybe miniscule vibration is enough to create 'environmental waves from the slits. c) An environmental disturbance (undetectable except by consequences) travelling ahead of the detectable photon passes through both slits/interferes, followed by detectable photon passing through just one.

Non of these have a photon taking two paths but could result in an 'as if ' appearance.

I'm unclear about the effect of a switched off detector. I read somewhere that the interference pattern is only lost if on. Is that so, or pop misinterpretation? If the 'which way detector is a polarizer ( rather than detection chamber or tube with a voltage),used asymmetrically it is altering the proposed environmental interference pattern that affects what the detectable photon does.

Georgi,

Just an offering, there is no lack of explanatory ideas out here. I'm not clear about an interference pattern being produced by a single slit, I'll have to browse up on that. The hype for the build up of single dots would be explained by the detection element of the apparatus naturally slowing the soliton to relative rest by its encounter with the EM fields of the material screen; hence it would become inelastic and particulate in effect. The model gets involved and being a personal endeavor doesn't deserve my beating my own drum on this topic. It definitely is not a conventionally accepted approach in the Present State of Physics. :-) jrc

Double slit experiment: Current physics-maths shows the 'particle superposition' taking both paths. That's okay if its only representing not knowing which path. However it is used to claim matter is wavelike (and all that follows from that.)

With the premises 1. there is a local environment (base existence) surrounding and in contact with actualized matter particles and waves even in a vacuum 2. The actualized entity has an effect on the base existence, that may be called a field. The field can pass through both slits undetected and interfere but the measurable particle itself always takes one slit. The field is easily divided but the particle stays together. The effect of encountering the field interference can happen for small matter particles because relative size of the field disturbance compared to size of particle. Allowing retention of classical notions of matter, while fitting with the experiments results.

A raw egg is the only analogy springing to mind. I can imagine pouring it over two slits in a baking tray, over a sink. The white is the runny, less gelatinous kind . It easily slips through both slits. The yolk unbroken takes just one of the, bit smaller than flattened yolk diameter, slits.

The yolk represents the detectable particle. The white represents the surrounding undetectable, base existence, environment that ha been affected by the presence of the particle...the particle's field.

This doesn't need 'Many worlds'. Doesn't need giving up on classical ideas of matter. Does need the previously assumed superposition to be a not knowing if a path is taken by particle OR effect of particle in single particle double slit, and delayed choice experiments; And evaluation of when that kind of scenario is relevant in other circumstances.

Georgi,

The egg separator is a good illustration ! Actually, I have an early plastic one in my utensil drawer that was an ad gimme from a local family operated hatchery years ago (and a tip of the hat to Wade and Helen). But seriously, yes, the conventional QM interpretation holds that the field effects are 'associated' with a particle however ill defined, rather than the field view of the fields being inherent energy extending beyond the 'hard' particle horizon. Given the amalgam of quantum fields enveloping atomic structure in the slit or polarizer element material those local environmental interactions with the passing photon/soliton would produce the classic 'leap-frog' EM field generations and the yolk could slip through one slit along with some of the albumen and the rest morph throw in recombinant fashion through the other. Lots of scenarios possible which would take a lot of critical examination, but yes, I like that analogy. jrc

John, thank you, I'm glad the analogy works.

My description of 'field' is of course very different from the 'particle field of QFT. That has the particle generated by the field, or rather what the existent field does. Whereas I have the particle as a particular type of concentration of existence, that acts upon base existence around it, forming a field (disturbance pattern); which can in turn affect what the particle does, as in the interference pattern guide scenario.

Physics has given us a fundamentally wrong view of the world, a male view of the world [1], a view of the world where every current aspect of climate change, and every future outcome of climate change was determined from the beginning of the world, and where people are just epiphenomena, i.e. people are not responsible for causing outcomes like flying planes into the twin towers.

Physics has looked at the experimental evidence and decided that it confirms its male biases about the nature of the world, if only they could get the mathematics just right. And all round the world millions of men are doggedly working on the mathematics of their special theories of the world, theories that all presuppose that every current aspect of climate change was determined from the beginning of the world, and that people are just epiphenomena, i.e. people are not responsible for causing outcomes like flying planes into the twin towers.

It's not a matter of tweaking the edges of the male theories of the world, or making the theories equally androcentric and gynocentric: physics has given us a fundamentally wrong and heavily biased view of the world, a view of the world born and developed in the minds of men over a period of hundreds if not thousands of years.

This primitive, male view of the world is that consciousness and agency are so extremely unimportant that they can be regarded as superficial appearances, epiphenomena resulting from the operation of the laws of nature. This primitive, male view of the world is that consciousness and agency are not fundamental and necessary aspects of the world.

1. Physics is more than 80% men, but until very recently, physics was almost all men.

Bigotry and sexism.

Curvature if spacetime us not the cause of gravity. Despite the popularity of the idea and illustrations. Spacetime is a product not source reality. A curved mapping of results is not the cause of the curvature mapped. Relativity relates to what is observed. The spacetime visible universe is what is observed. EMr signals are curved, by the uni-temporal (Same time everywhere -Now) existent environment they travel through. That existent base existence environment getting more concentrated closer to the Earth or other massive body. From which cones the inverse square law. This way gravity can be understood as the result of thee effect of bodies of matter on base existence. And electric and magnetic forces the effect of charges or charged bodies on base existence.

. And electric and magnetic forces, are the effect of charges or charged bodies on base existence.

Unifying electromagnetic forces with curved spacetime won't work as that is trying to unite models ( inverse square law and vector field) reflecting the underlying Object reality with an Image reality product.

Are the foundations of the world doing high-level mathematics that only a human mathematician can do? Obviously not. But physicists, mathematicians and philosophers (approximately 80% men) believe that the foundations of the world ARE doing high-level mathematics!

What has been experimentally shown to exist at the foundations of the world are relationships, and "number jumping", which people symbolically represent by equations and the assignment of new numbers to variables respectively.

But this doesn't mean that the foundations of the world are doing high-level mathematics. What it DOES mean is that relationships between categories exist and that new number assignment relationships are continually being created (i.e. primitive agency). What it DOES mean is that the foundations of the world discern relationship (i.e. primitive consciousness).

Instead of the foundations of the world doing high-level mathematics, the foundations of the world discern relationship and create new relationships.

Curved Spacetime is given by Einstein as the underlying cause of gravity and the associated curvature of light. However he muddles existent things and observation products. An observer's reference frame is not actually a slice of the spacetime continuum but what is generated by the observer from EMr signals 'light 'that has been emitted or reflected from existing material objects. A Virtual spacetime product is generated. We know that from study of vision and visual systems and optics. Spacetime is not the underlying source reality. So curvature of spacetime can not be a cause. It can be a way of representing the product. ------Electromagnetic forces are due to effects actualized in the base existence. Representable as a vector field. There can not be a field hosted by nothingness. This is about underlying source reality. Hopefully I have made clear why it is categorically different from curved spacetime.

Physicists, mathematicians and philosophers visualise the people who flew planes onto the twin towers, and they see automata, epiphenomena of the laws of nature.

Physicists, mathematicians and philosophers look at their own children, laughing and playing in the sun, and they see automata, epiphenomena of the laws of nature.

Physics has absolutely no way of, and no possible pathway towards, crediting human beings and other living things as entities that have a genuine presence and a genuine effect on the world. Laughably, physics would only be looking for yet more equations and rules to box in and define the world as automata, epiphenomena of these rules.

But in fact the world is genuinely free: the children, adults and other living things are genuinely free entities; and the stale and stupid men [1] of physics, mathematics and philosophy are backing a losing horse.

What does it mean to be a free entity? It means that the entity (as opposed to the laws of nature) is genuinely assigning the numbers to its own variables, OBVIOUSLY in a non-lawful way, in response to the situations that the entity encounters. (More correctly, assigning numbers to variables is the way to SYMBOLICALLY REPRESENT the agency/ "free will" aspect of the world).

1. Physics is more than 80% men, but until very recently, physics was almost all men. It's pretty much the same for mathematics and philosophy.

More grandstanding and irrelevant sexism.

I wrote in my previous posts "Electromagnetic forces". That's incorrect use of terminology. Not what I intended to convey.

I should have " electric" ,electrostatic and "magnetic' effects on other particles or bodies' are due to effects actualized in the base existence. Each representable as a vector field.

Please excuse the weird punctuation. I should have checked before posting.

Getting interference from single photons in double slit expt. and from recombination of paths from half silvered mirrors seems to be showing that there is a source of interference that affects the paths the particle might take. It isn't necessary to assume the interference caused pattern of results is due to self interference. Rather it would seem to be another example of the effect of existent concentrations of existence, particles or bodies of matter, on base existence around them. Like the field effects of charged particles and gravity. They are not just disembodied numbers or vectors. These effects are showing something is affected even if not directly visible. Seen this way the double slit results are not strange; almost to be expected. They can be reconciled with classical physics. Single photon, half silvered mirrors recombination of paths results and singe particle double slit expt. results can be regarded as unextraordinary 'field effect' classical physics

See Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 9, 2021 @ 20:03 GMT re Curved spacetime. I am not ignorant of it. it has a big problem [category differentiation error].

You haven't got much choice when it comes to what's causing outcomes in the world:

1) Nothing is causing the numbers for the variables to change, the numbers just miraculously change in accordance with the necessary law of nature relationships;

2) The laws of nature are causing the numbers for the variables to change, where the laws of nature are a type of entity that somehow has mathematical oversight, and makes sure that all number outcomes are in accordance with the law of nature relationships; or

3) Matter is assigning new numbers to the variables, independent of the laws of nature, whereby other numbers for other variables change, not due to mathematical calculations being performed or mathematical oversight being required, but due to the fact that both numbers and the laws of nature are relationships.

Physics baulks at something like option 3, because that would mean that people and other living things are NOT epiphenomena of the laws of nature; something like option 3 would mean that people and other living things are genuine entities that have agency.

But arrogant physicists don't seem to care that their view of the world (options 1 or 2) requires extreme doublethink:

If physicists weren't engaging in doublethink, they'd give accolades and Nobel Prizes to the laws of nature, because the laws of nature are the only responsible entities. If physicists weren't engaging in doublethink, they'd give jail sentences to the laws of nature, because the laws of nature are the only responsible entities.

P.S.

I should add that physics is more than 80% men, but until very recently, physics was almost all men.