The Present State of Physics, Mathematics, and Science

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.

Starting the game is like release of poison killing the cat. (While the state of play is unknown instead of supposed live-dead quasi real cat there would if modeled and interpreted the same way, game over and ongoing play simultaneously. There may be objection that the two teams are not a single entity like the cat. Each player could be considered.) Basket ball going through hoop iis the end of the game; existing ball going through existing hoop; The existential relationship outcome. Corresponding to the deadly interaction of the existing poison chemical with existing cat metabolism. They are obviously materially dissimilar scenarios but logically similar. The poison ends the cats life, the basket ball going through the hoop ends the game.

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

Wolfgang, unfortunately I had to delete all of your comments on vixra because of sustained targeted harassment. Your shameless inappropriate behavior does not protect viXra, which does not need self appointed vigilante quality guardians singling out individuals for relentless bullying. You have proven yourself incapable of civil discussion with me so I decline your invitation.

Object permanence is a general principle: objects can exist (and happenings can occur) without being seen or measured.[The relative to observer or measuring apparatus perspective is not required for observer independent absolute existing and happening] There is enough evidence of that being so from the art of illusion. It could be called the Peekaboo rule, if not already named as a rule.

Quantum objects have been mentioned . Out of sight, unmeasured such 'things' are treated differently because of the theory. They are not actualized entities but a mix of what will and won't be. Abstract characterizations that are replaced by abstract score-like states when relative context is applied. I don't think the abstract characterizations really ,physically exist ; that is the live-dead cats so to speak.

Hello Georgina,

since at least 2022 you have been quoting my Vixra comments with my full real name here in this forum that was completely unknown for me. I knew nothing about this until yesterday. So I had no chance to defend myself.

This is insidious mobbing. I am surprised that the admin of this forum did not take action against it.

Then yesterday you deleted all your comments on Vixra, thus rendering our reviews referenceless. This complete destruction of several discussion threads in a forum is, in my eyes, damage to property.

The fact that you now present yourself as a victim is the crowning glory. Nothing happened but that your papers were criticized as unscientific by at least two users.

Until just now I still thought that this was a misunderstanding. I simply could not imagine that you did all this on purpose. But now I see it differently. You mob and commit damage to property and probably think about much worse "punishments" for your critics.

Creepy.

Best regards

Wolfgang

Hello Admin,

freedom of speech is commendable. But being denounced here for months without my knowledge is unacceptable.

I am deleting the link to this forum and will not read or write anything here again.

Best regards from Hamburg

Wolfgang

The Schrödinger's cat thought experiment was conceived to highlight superposition. The condition of the cat dependent on whether radioactive decay of the source has happened or not. Decay leads to poisoning and inevitable death. Having demonstrated the superposition the actual process of dying is irrelevant.

to be logically similar the basketball game having started or not is the situation represented in QW theory by superposition which ought to be emphasized. The game play to 'sudden death' 1 score by one of the teams is , like the dying process of the cat, irrelevant for the purpose of the thought experiment. A beside the point poisoned dying cat is never found.

So I have made it so that game in progress can't be found. I have made it that the court remains locked but a player can admit a visitor to the adjoining changing room before the start or after the game.

i meant to type QM theory

I'd like to share with you a thoroughly revised version of the shorter basketball thought experiment paper.

Hopefully it now aligns better with the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment and would be practical issues have been ironed out.

At the moment i think this and the Moon question analysis and my previous work on seen observer relative Image reality and observer independent Object reality work well together to give a consistent model.

Any feedback on it would be great. Including criticism of methodology. I would like to know if there are further inconsistencies or errors too.