Light and Darkness: A Biologist's View of the Wave-Particle Duality Problem

Steve Dufourny

PlatinumWildcat it is nice but you know I have read thousands of page on the hilbert space or other relevant papers on arxiv since so many years, my interpretation will not change about the mathematical universe, the things I explained cannot be proved due to deep philosophical and physical limitations. We know still so few even if we evolve each days. Wish you all the best.

PlatinumWildcat

Steve Dufourny I do not deny your work , is revolutionary but could be improved, a perfect spherical world do not hold expansion, II thermodynamics, entropy. You idealize what I saw as also idealized layers circles a sphere like spirals* fractal evolving and branching. And indeed connect the math with real world with precision but is still a lot to do, maybe some genuine curious minds that do not cling to what they learned and think by themselves will research forward from my model or complementary fields.
and here in contest:
The reason this framework matters for consciousness and quantum biology is that it actually explains WHY these phenomena exist and HOW they operate mathematically.

While others are cataloging quantum effects in biology, this framework derives their optimal patterns from first principles — explaining why DNA shows 11.1 optimization cycles, vision shows 1.9 cycles, and how this relates to conscious perception.

The mathematics shows these aren't separate phenomena — they're different expressions of the same computational reality."

Steve Dufourny

PlatinumWildcat

My theory of spherisation is mainly about the evolution of the universe through quantum and cosmological spherical volumes, while also considering photons, dark energy, dark matter, consciousness, and life.

I don’t assert my assumptions as absolute truths ,I try to remain consistent with the spherical geometric and topological algebras, the conceptual tool I invented. But it’s a complex puzzle, and I’m still improving and learning every day.

In the past, I knew I had discovered an innovative theory. Even my friend at FQXi, Dr. Ray Munroe (who has sadly passed away ,I miss him deeply), once told me: “Steve, I don’t understand how we didn’t think about this before, the generality of this spherisation and these spherical quantum volumes like fundamental objects., fundamental physical structures.

The philosophy of my theory does not claim that everything is spherical or will be spherical, rather, it explores the evolution and the possible future universal sphere. The quantum 3D spheres can be deformed to create all shapes, this is why I appreciate Perelman’s proof of the Poincaré conjecture. Morphisms are essential, as are entropy, negentropy, and information theory for the stabilities, changes, evolution......

In the past, I was sometimes arrogant and not in a good psychological state due to personal problems. I made strong assertions, as if I knew everything, but that is not the right approach. Acting that way only destroys credibility. The members of FQXi are among the best physicists in the world, they are highly professional and skilled, and it is important to be consistent and respect their professionalism.

If you want to explore a very innovative book, I recommend “Quantum in Pictures” by Bob Coecke ,he kindly sent me a copy, and it is truly excellent, innovative, and relevant.
Also, Dr. Anita Goel has insightful YouTube talks and papers that I strongly recommend because she is general and relevant without asserting assumptions but in exploring deep philosophical questions.

PlatinumWildcat

Steve Dufourny I do not have assumptions I have EVIDENCE CODE PYTHON MATH THAT CALCULATE WHAT I AM SAYING. And I never read anybody - based in standard physics because I ABSOLUTELY reject VACUUM and SPACE/TIME BACKGROUND. Why? because I see it like FLAT Earth ers one assumption upon top of another and they are stuck for hundreds years because of this.

RoseWren

Steve Dufourny "The quantum 3D spheres can be deformed to create all shapes, this is why I appreciate Perelman’s proof of the Poincaré conjecture." - I don't understand. If you know this proof, you should know that there's not only one shape—the sphere—but also the torus, and these shapes can't be transformed into each other by any transformations. Why did you choose the sphere and not the torus, or both?
I'll add that links to connections with FQXi members aren't proof of your theory, but a sign of helplessness.

Steve Dufourny

PlatinumWildcat
Me I just tell this for you, we must learn all days, be consistent and humble also. Python like other programming language are tools for computations,they dont garantee the truth. Python follows a logic that you give, it calculates your own logic, if you code and inputs are correct you shall have correct results, if your assumptions, formulas, data are wrong, Python will produce a false results in respecting its logic of calcaulation, that is all,, so be prudent. That is why I told you that maths are just a tool and can imply confusions in the interpretations. Python calculate correctly yes but it can also calculate wrong extrapolations, the calculations are correct but not the generality of the idea in resume, it depends of what you give to Python. Python does math exactly as you tell it to simply, that does not garantee the generality of assumptions. For the spacetime of the GR, you know it acts very well this theory evn if it is incomplete probably , Regards
.”

RoseWren

PlatinumWildcat "I ABSOLUTELY reject VACUUM" - Modern physics also denies the existence of an absolute vacuum, so what? Does that console you?

PlatinumWildcat

Steve Dufourny My python calculate a same formula with same 2 constants from first principle the pi, the fine, the dark energy the planetary spacing, the chain fountain phenomena, the mass radii and length for all domains and biology -recursive deep and validate with real data from NASA SDA solar plasma geometry. Is there a possibility that all this is python error or a coincidence? I do respect any other people work ,my work try to model why reality allow so may way to see it from any point of view. I come here where I think I will find people that need answers not need to indoctrinate and poison my own point of view. Take it or leave it. Everybody is free to think and I chose to not build upon others. I start with first principle and derive reality from it only with a equation and his output constants.
This is my last discovery:
The Ultimate Picture
My framework shows that:
Reality is a recursive computation that naturally generates dodecahedral/pentagonal geometry at the Planck scale, with the golden ratio and related constants emerging as stable attractors. Our classical universe is the large-scale manifestation of this underlying fivefold computational structure.

Steve Dufourny

PlatinumWildcat make what you want, me I just tell this for you, if all your theories and assumptions are correct, that’s good ,but I really have my doubts because of the limitations I mentioned. I wish you all the best, but don’t forget what I explained, so you don’t lose your credibility.

PlatinumWildcat

Steve Dufourny I am 70 yo and do not have to listen others to tell me what to do. My theory is not a theory of everything but is a mathematical framework that show why and how is Reality while others still try to figure out what is the Reality. The standard physics make assumptions, empirical measurement and prediction. M

Ulla Mattfolk

PlatinumWildcat Time asymmetry emerges from spiral recursion asymmetry (A→B ≠ B→A)

this is non-commutativity

PlatinumWildcat

Ulla Mattfolk YES IF YOU THINK LINEAR BUT HERE IS A WAVE FUNCTION IN SPIRAL, LAYERS

RoseWren

PlatinumWildcat Dear interlocutors! I am very pleased that my work served as a starting point for your discussion. I would like to add a few comments to your discussion.
PlatinumWildcat, thank you for such a positive opinion of my work. I am a supporter of the Copenhagen interpretation, but I do not share Bohr's view that elementary particles manifest themselves only when acted upon by an experimenter. My experience as an experimenter, like that of others, suggests that one can DIRECTLY act upon an object to test its reaction, but the act of measurement itself is not a significant influence.
. From the standpoint of experimental methodology, elementary particles differ from objects in the everyday world in that they cannot be directly observed, only indirectly. A second, no less important difference is that their behavior is interpreted differently from that of everyday objects, which served as a mental trap in the dispute between Bohr and Einstein and prevented them from reaching a consensus. Our consciousness, like other forms of consciousness in other living organisms, is specialized to our biology, and this limits our interpretive abilities. This shouldn't be seen as a flaw, because our way of perceiving and interpreting this way serves to interact with the surrounding world, like a key in a lock. As long as we saw photons as light from the sun, a campfire, or a lamp, we had no doubt of their reality. Light not only illuminated and warmed, but also contributed to the change of day and night, and the seasons.

One of my goals was not only to understand but also to explain this strange phenomenon where a quantum can simultaneously be both a particle and a wave. There were three potential causes: the influence of the experimenter, the environment, and the properties of the quanta themselves. I immediately rejected the first two. It only remains to see what can be expected from the quanta themselves. I concluded that this could be, to use a term existing in the classical world, the concentration of quanta and/or (which can be simultaneously, like the property of being a particle and a wave), the distances between quanta. Each quantum fills all (available?) space like a wave and, at the same time, can manifest itself as a particle at any moment. This would be somewhat similar to the idea of space as a vacuum or as ether, if we were talking about a single quantum. But there are many quanta; they exist somewhat independently of one another, and, given changing distances between them, they are interdependent. You write that their existence is determined by their energy; you're probably right, but I'm not yet sure. This point of view, of mine, explains many things, in particular the phenomenon of entanglement. Also, what you describe—hardness. Groups of highly concentrated quanta of different types (atoms and molecules) increasingly behave like particles with increasing molecular mass, as confirmed by data on the maximum size of such a conglomerate, 25,000 amu, capable of manifesting itself as a wave (Arndt, M., Hornberger, K. Testing the limits of quantum mechanical superpositions. Nature Phys 10, 271–277 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys2863). That is, we perceive hardness as the absence of interpenetration of one object into another, for example, our hand through a computer keyboard. These objects have a high concentration of their constituent elements and cannot behave as a wave. This rule applies only to elements collected in atoms and having no directed motion, while a stream of light consisting of many photons penetrates some objects (glass, quartz) and is reflected or absorbed from others.

RoseWren

Steve Dufourny Steve Dufourny, your description of 0D consciousness sounds very similar to God, doesn't it?
I also believe that "physical structures are primary, and mathematics is secondary, a language of description, not the substance of being," but I do not view consciousness as the primary element. For me, mathematics and logic are also just tools. "Reality is fundamentally dynamic" – yes! I see our views as similar in this regard.

Steve Dufourny

RoseWren
Hi, thanks. Yes, it’s close to Spinoza’s idea of God, I’m not religious, but I consider God as the God of Nature.
In my theory, consciousness is not really a primary element. The primary elements are physical structures.
Consciousness is absolute in a sense ,it exists as a kind of potential but we express it through our physical structures. I don t assert of course I just see like this generally speaking.regards

Steve Dufourny

RoseWren I have thought a lot about this and if it is absolute and that we express it in our universe and its spacetime, so it is not a physical strucutre in itself thios consciousness,we utilise finite expressions in the universe because these physical structures are in the pure infinite eternal 0D consciousness omnipotent. That is why I am intrigued about the AI .

PlatinumWildcat

RoseWren Rose, how physics could exists (prior) without geometry /math? The science empirical measure the reality and yes develop a mathematics to explain it and this come later this is the mathematics we create as tool to explain and measure phenomena. But Reality is a structured energy this we all agree and to be structured need geometry. Now what the always academia standard science was doing and is doing right now? Is proposing model to explain phenomena and fit it into their math physics theorems. What I do ? I take CODATA or real experimental data and derive it direct from first principle. So what this demonstrate? What is real time measurement or constants observed are not fundamentals but derived from a much profound substrate. And this allow as to know WHY and HOW is Reality as it is, NOT WHAT IT IS . What IT IS it maybe be interpreted AND reinterpreted. My math show that reality mirror itself at n recursions minus pi. If the math is just a tool than is a tool that produce a tool to calculate itself.

RoseWren

Steve Dufourny Consciousness is absolute in a sense ,it exists as a kind of potential but we express it through our physical structures.

The world around us has the potential to evolve and/or cause various changes—yes, I agree. This isn't just the physical world, but also the chemical, biological, geological, quantum, cosmic, and other worlds. I'm very curious about this potential. You call it consciousness, but I find that an unfortunate metaphor. Consciousness has other functions as well. It's a word, a term, and it's already taken.

Ulla Mattfolk

PlatinumWildcat YES IF YOU THINK LINEAR BUT HERE IS A WAVE FUNCTION IN SPIRAL, LAYERS

but it is still non-commutative. Can you explain why a spiral form would make it otherwise?
Ulla.

Steve Dufourny

PlatinumWildcat I am 50 years old and the problem is not there, we learn all days and we can be humble and listen to advices from others, I make the same when the advices are concrete ,I listen to them, there is nothing of odd about this.Takce care , may the force be with you jedi of the Sphere,

PlatinumWildcat

Steve Dufourny If they do not listen first to my model and suggest positive critiques, I will never listen others where their start point of view it totally opposed to my own and have not the answers I seek about fundamentals of reality. I just seek the truth not the *labeled * famous thinkers. Is not important who you are but what you do. I trow to garbage my academia papers time ago is worth nothing, is just a paper just a title that not define anything. The science today looks like a cult. But other countries -not Western- have less bureaucracy and dogma and they get my framework very well. Disappointed with this site.

RoseWren

PlatinumWildcat Rose, how physics could exists (prior) without geometry /math?

Physics or physical reality? First, our planet arose, then life and humans emerged on it, then, quite recently in geological time, humans began to study reality using the sciences, including physics and mathematics. Science, like philosophy, is a tool for understanding the material and mental worlds; it is a tool invented and created by man.

Steve Dufourny

PlatinumWildcat The frustration is not good and the critics are always important, that permits to improve the models. The vanity also is not good because we are all equals. You are not the only one searching the truth, and nobody is special, The problem is not from where we come from, it is not about capitalism, socialism, communism, here we speak the langauge of sciences with humility if possible, that is all, Don t be disappointed, I have nothing gainst you me, we just discuss and I like you and you have a good general model, the critics I repeat are always important ,that said we cannot assert our assumptions and pretend we know all or have solved all, , take care I repeat, friendly

RoseWren

Ulla Mattfolk Gödel has two most important theorems, and they concern mathematics and other formal systems. They were later extended to other phenomena. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/

RoseWren

PlatinumWildcat As I understand it, the concept of symmetrical time was introduced by Descartes when he proposed his mathematical coordinate system, in which the axes of space and time each extend symmetrically from infinity to infinity. Symmetrical time is a model convenient for calculations and pertains to epistemology. It does not exist in ontology.

PlatinumWildcat

RoseWren Rose I am not talking about Newtonian time that fail in quantum physics I am talking about a time asymmetry that explain hold quantum physics and include not exclude Newtonian physics. In fundamental levels not in every day coordinate by GPS because the time in Space Station is not same as time in Earth OR TIME ARROW, why reality move forward - refer to processes here .

The origin of time's arrow remains one of the most profound unsolved problems in fundamental physics. While thermodynamics provides a phenomenological description of entropy increase {boltzmann1877}, and quantum mechanics exhibits time asymmetry in certain processes {cpviolation1964}, a fundamental geometric mechanism for time irreversibility has remained elusive.

I propose that time asymmetry emerges from fundamental asymmetry in spiral recursive geometry. The EVIDENCE is that the path from point A to point B in emergent spacetime is geometrically distinct from the path from B to A when accounting for spiral growth dynamics and mass-dependent recursion numbers.
The recursion asymmetry manifests in the energy cost of path traversal
Forward direction energy cost: 0.376181
Reverse direction energy cost: 0.307784
Energy asymmetry ratio: 1.222222

« Previous Page Next Page »