The Cosmic Code by Gene T. Yerger

Hi Gene and thank you for your essay. Have you ever considered the imagery of the fundamental particle being analogous to an Archimedes screw? This has both particle and wave properties, does it not? What do you think to this visualisation of an electron or photon?

I appreciate your reply Gene, but I'm thinking about very basic concepts whilst considering this mechanical model of the graviton being an Archimedes screw. A rotational energy is transformed into a force of attraction. Think about it. If Newton or one of his contemporaries had suggested this, we would never have had Einstein talking about a 'fabric' of spacetime continuum! Best wishes, Alan

Dear Sir,

We had gone through your excellent analysis that exhibits your intellectual acumen. In addition to the deficiencies of the Schrödinger equation, we will like to add the following.

It is said that quantum mechanical systems are completely described by its wave function? From this it would appear that quantum mechanics is fundamentally about the behavior of wave-functions. But do the scientists really believe that wave-functions describe reality? Even Schrödinger, the founder of the wave-function, found this impossible to believe! He writes (Schrödinger 1935): "That it is an abstract, unintuitive mathematical construct is a scruple that almost always surfaces against new aids to thought and that carries no great message". Rather, he was worried about the "blurring" suggested by the spread-out character of the wave-function, which he describes as, "affects macroscopically tangible and visible things, for which the term 'blurring' seems simply wrong".

Schrödinger goes on to note that it may happen in radioactive decay that "the emerging particle is described ... as a spherical wave ... that impinges continuously on a surrounding luminescent screen over its full expanse. The screen however, does not show a more or less constant uniform surface glow, but rather lights up at one instant at one spot ..." He observed further that one can easily arrange, for example by including a cat in the system, "quite ridiculous cases" with the ψ-function of the entire system having in it the living and the dead cat mixed or smeared out in equal parts. Resorting to epistemology cannot save such doctrines.

The situation was further made complicated by Bohr with his interpretation of quantum mechanics. But how many scientists truly believe in his interpretation? Apart from the issues relating to the observer and observation, it usually is believed to address the measurement problem. Some say that Quantum mechanics is fundamentally about the micro-particles such as quarks and strings etc, and not the macroscopic regularities associated with measurement of their various properties. But if these entities are somehow not to be identified with the wave-function itself, and if the description is not about measurements, then where is their place in the quantum description? Where is the quantum description of the objects that quantum mechanics should be describing? This question has led to the issues raised in the EPR argument.

The Schrödinger equation and the equations describing the probability waves, which travel, like photons, at the speed of light, actually have two sets of solutions: one equivalent to a positive wave flowing into the future (a "retarded" wave), and the other describing a negative wave flowing into the past (an "advanced" wave). The full version of the wave equation has two sets of solutions (one corresponding to the familiar simple Schrödinger equation, and the other to a kind of mirror image Schrödinger equation describing the flow of negative energy into the past). The proper mathematical description of the wave function actually includes a mixture of both ordinary ("real") numbers and imaginary numbers (those numbers involving i, the square root of -1). Such a mixture is called a complex variable. It is written down as a real part plus (or minus) an imaginary part. The probability calculations needed to work out the chance of finding an electron (say) in a particular place at a particular time actually depend on calculating the square of the complex number corresponding to that particular state of the electron. But calculating the square of a complex variable does not simply mean multiplying it by itself since it is not the same as a real number. Instead, you have to make another variable, a mirror image version called the complex conjugate, by changing the sign in front of the imaginary part (if it was + it becomes - and vice versa). The two complex numbers are then multiplied together to give the probability. This shows that, truly it is not squaring, but a multiplication by manipulation as the negative sign implies non-existence of the second term like that of a mirror image. The mirror image does not make two objects, but only one real object and the other physically non-existent image.

For equations that describe how a system changes as time passes, this process of changing the sign of the imaginary part and finding the complex conjugate is said to be equivalent to reversing the direction of time! The basic probability equation, developed by Max Born back in 1926, itself contains an explicit reference to the nature of time, and to the possibility of two kinds of Schrödinger equations described above. The remarkable implication is that ever since 1926, every time a physicist has taken the complex conjugate of the simple Schrödinger equation and combined it with this equation to calculate a quantum probability, he or she has actually been taking account of the influence of waves that travel backwards in time, without knowing it. There is no problem with the mathematics of the followers of this view point with others. The difference is only in the interpretation that the wave flowing backward in time is real and should be taken seriously, not ignored. A typical quantum "transaction" is in terms of a particle "shaking hands" with another particle somewhere else in space and time. The difficulties with any such description in ordinary language - how to treat interactions that are going both ways in time simultaneously, and are therefore occurring instantaneously as far as clocks in the everyday world are concerned - is waved off as inherent fuzziness of quantum physics.

Some scientists try to solve this problem by effectively standing outside of time, and using the semantic device of a description in terms of some kind of pseudo-time. This is no more than a semantic device. When an electron vibrates, it is assumed that it attempts to radiate by producing a field which is a time-symmetric mixture of a retarded wave propagating into the future and an advanced wave propagating into the past. The retarded wave heads off into the future until it encounters an electron which can absorb the energy being carried by the field. The process of absorption involves making the electron that is doing the absorbing vibrate, and this vibration produces a new retarded field which exactly cancels out the first retarded field. So in the future of the absorber, the net effect is that there is no retarded field. But the absorber also produces a negative energy advanced wave traveling backwards in time to the emitter, down the track of the original retarded wave. At the emitter, this advanced wave is absorbed, making the original electron recoil in such a way that it radiates a second advanced wave back into the past. This "new" advanced wave exactly cancels out the "original" advanced wave, so that there is no effective radiation going back in the past before the moment when the original emission occurred. All that is left is a double wave linking the emitter and the absorber, made up half of a retarded wave carrying positive energy into the future and half of an advanced wave carrying negative energy into the past (in the direction of negative time). Because two negatives make a positive, this advanced wave adds to the original retarded wave as if it too were a retarded wave traveling from the emitter to the absorber.

In Cramer's words: The emitter can be considered to produce an "offer" wave which travels to the absorber. The absorber then returns a "confirmation" wave to the emitter, and the transaction is completed with a "handshake" across space-time. But this is only the sequence of events from the point of view of pseudo-time. In reality, this process can be said to be a-temporal; it happens all at once. This is because, according to the special theory of relativity, signals that travel at the speed of light take no time at all to complete any journey. As Einstein puts it:

1

β = ----------------

√ 1 - (υ/V)^2

Since for light β becomes meaningless or infinite, τ also becomes meaningless or infinite. Thus, effectively for light signals every point in the Universe is next door to every other point in the Universe. Whether the signals are traveling backwards or forwards in time doesn't matter, since they take zero time (in their own frame of reference), and +0 is the same as -0 and all the quantum probability waves do travel at the speed of light. The situation is more complicated in three dimensions, but the conclusions are exactly the same. This interpretation makes no predictions that are different from those of conventional quantum mechanics, but it provides a conceptual model which helps many people to think clearly about what is going on in the quantum world. It means that when an electron is faced with a choice of two holes to go through, the offer goes through both but the handshake only comes back through one, so it knows where to go; and in Renninger's experiment, the particle setting out from the radioactive nucleus has already made its handshake and knows which hemisphere it will end up on. There is no more mystery about the quantum mysteries at all; provided you can live with waves that go backwards in time. But as we have shown in our essay, this concept is entirely wrong.

It is true that particles, which are nothing but confined fields, move in waves, which are nothing but the motion of the field that contains the particles. This can be easily derived from fundamental principles. We treat both this wave and its intensity as real. Once we accept this description, the measurement problem vanishes. Wave function describes the movement of the field that contains the particle. Thus, knowing the specific wave function, we can precisely locate a particle in that field, because the particle also has a role in regulating the movement of the wave. Since measurement is taken at "here-now", it is real. We freeze this value and use it at other times when the system is no longer the same as it has evolved temporally. Regarding the superposition of states, we have described in our essay that it is only the combined unknown states of a temporally evolving system at moments other than the moment when measurement is taken. We can know the precise description of the system only at the moment of measurement. At all other times, it could have evolved with time. Knowing the inputs, we can only describe the probability of its state. We cannot precisely describe its state at any other moment. As we have pointed out in our essay, uncertainty in describing the precise state is not due to the laws of Nature. It is a result of natural laws relating to observation that reveal a kind of granularity at certain levels of existence that is related to causality.

Regarding the mysteries of spin behavior, we can explain it easily. As you have pointed out, the electron has a magnetic moment, which is a magnetic field associated with it. If the electron is moving along the z-axis, then the electric and magnetic fields associated with it move along x-axes and y-axes respectively. Since measurement is a process of comparison between similars, any experimental set up to measure the spin properties must use one such field. Thus, while comparing with this field (co-ordinate system), the magnetic moment of the electron will show only two expected values. During other times, it is aligned to the local field. This makes it's spin vector unknown. There is no mystery here.

Regarding the second characteristic of spin - when an electron is rotated through a full 360 degrees, its spin does not return to its original position, but takes an additional 360 degrees to come to its original position, the explanation is simple. If you look at the magnetic field lines of Earth, you will notice that they flow from South Pole sideways in a closed loop towards North Pole, where it closes the loop. When the same field line comes out, due to the movement of Earth, it will come out in the opposite orientation making a figure of 8. After one more rotation, it will regain its original orientation. There is no mystery here also. There is no need to unnecessarily mystify the simple natural phenomena.

We have shown elsewhere that the concept of "light cone" is fallacious as light pulse either propagates in a straight line or in all directions (spheres). There is no reason to assume that it takes a selective direction to validate the imaginative views of some who call themselves scientists. Thus, time evolution of a light pulse will be a set of concentric spheres and not a "light cone". As a consequence, the concept of event horizon is also a hoax.

The basic problem here is not the mysteries of the quantum world, but our way of looking at it and describing it. We know all about the electron and how it behaves except that most do not know what an electron is? This lack of knowledge leads to generation of incomprehensible theories to retain the high position and the perks that come with it at public expenses.

Regards,

basudeba

Gene

Just read your essay and found it highly logical and pertinent. I agree fully with causality, though my own approach uses logic in a more macro sense. It did however occur to me towards the end that your mechanistic theory was essential to create the logical 'landscape' I've derived with a model of discrete fields, with domains from a single electron (photo-electron cloud propagation when accelerated) to the macro, inertial frames.

I identified the importance of 'spin' in last years essay, which languished, but now have a full and fundamental conceptual theory explaining SR and GR with a quantum mechanism, effectively of wave particle interaction. Causality is completed by avoiding Bells inequality to give Local Reality. The consequences really are very fundamental and far reaching.

I do hope you can read, comment and vote on my essay, but if you do don't try to 'skim' over it as complex dynamic conceptual visualisation is needed.

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Gene,

I would like to bring your attention to my essay Clockwork Quantum Universe. I propose a model similar to Zitterbewegung but based on the de Broglie hypothesis of intrinsic periodicitties. You will find interesting overlaps with you idea.

Best regards,

Donatello

Dear Sir,

We believe that the validity of a physical statement rests on its correspondence to reality. If the theory can explain a physical phenomenon correctly and completely, then it must be valid. This requires perception of the phenomenon and communication of this perception. As we have shown in our Essay, the content of perception is " 'this' is like 'that' "- i.e., comparison with similars. Comparison with similars is known as measurement. Hence, explaining a physical phenomenon implies communicating the result of measurement. Since measurement is comparison with similars, since result of measurement is always real numbers, and comparison is a physical process, the physical theories can only be explained through physical quantities and physical numbers. Thus there is no place for the un-physical complex numbers in explaining Nature. We do not use complex numbers for this purpose. We can explain all physical phenomena without involving complex numbers and by comparing with macro phenomena. In various threads we have discussed entanglement by giving macro examples (below the essays of Mr. Weckbach and Mr. Castel, etc.). In our previous correspondence we have explained spin by giving macro examples. We do not agree with the views of Dirac or Cramer.

In our essay, we have shown that moving backward in time is impossible. Elsewhere (below the Essay of Mr. B.N. Sreenath) we had shown how a particle is actualized. There cannot be any positive and negative energy electron states in the past and future if you know what an electron is. Now we will explain the Zitterbewegung phenomena without involving complex mathematics.

To understand the true nature of acceleration, we have to understand wave motion. A wave is a disturbance in a fluid medium where the particles transfer the momentum only. This implies that the particles in a field are displaced temporarily and due to inertia of restoration (elasticity), regain their position and are subjected to the same forces repeatedly. Since fluid mediums do not have a strong confinement like solids, each particle pushes the others over a field leading to a chain reaction, which goes on repeating. The pushed particle, which was at rest, transfers the energy to the next particle due to inertia of motion and pushes the first particle back due to inertia of restoration canceling half of its impact. We call this motion as "kampa". Since this transfer of energy involves over a field covering the amplitude of the wave and is further modified by the density (which is related to mass per unit volume) of the medium, the equation for momentum is ½ mv^2 at every point (most text books give a wrong explanation of this phenomenon).

Now, imagine a situation where the impressed force overcomes the inertia of restoration. The particle is displaced fully and in turn it displaces the next particle. There will be a reaction as above, but the rate of change of velocity will be reduced gradually. The particle will come to rest after sometime. Since the original particle will be going back to the source after sometime, the end particle will be subjected to a similar force in a chain repeatedly. We call this phenomenon "chiti". This last particle in a "chiti" then acts as a center of mass for other interactions. This finally leads to the formation of a structure because, as we have explained repeatedly, all structures have a center of mass surrounded by the extra-nuclear field and confined by orbits. This is true even for quarks. The proof for this statement can be verified from the fact that the mass of the quarks that constitute the proton is only a small fraction of the mass of the proton and the ratio is identical to the ratio of the core of planet Jupiter (which is the macro equivalent of proton) with its total mass. Thus the quarks have an internal structure like Jupiter.

The above description applies to generally linear movements, i.e., where the particles suspended in the medium have comparable mass and the wave behaves like a standing wave. But where the masses of the particles suspended in the medium are not comparable, then the picture becomes different. Since the masses are not comparable, the displacements are also not comparable. This creates different interference patterns. The interference can be either constructive or destructive. Thus the resultant movement is not in a straight line, but along a zig-zag line, which is known as Zitterbewegung. If you look at this description and compare it with your description, you will realize that both are describing the same mechanism. But while you are using the equations of Dirac and Schrödinger, we are giving an alternative, but simple description. Like this, we have a complete theory to describe all quantum phenomena without invoking un-physical complex mathematics.

Regards,

basudeba.

Sub: Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria - suggestions for improvement.

Sir,

We had filed a complaint to FQXi and Scienticfic American regarding Possibility of manipulation in judging criteria and giving some suggestions for improvement. Acopy of our letter is enclosed for your kind information.

"We are a non-professional and non-academic entrant to the Essay contest "Is Reality Digital or Analog". Our Essay under the same name was published on 29-12-2010. We were associated with Academic Administration as a part of our profession before retirement. From our experience, we were concerned about the problems and directions of current science. One example is the extended run and up-gradation given to LHC, (which was set up to finally prove that Standard Model and SUSY were wrong), even when Tevatron is closing down. Thus, after retirement, we were more focused on foundational works addressing, in one of its many facets, our understanding of the deep or "ultimate" nature of reality.

Specifically we were concerned about the blind acceptance of the so-called "established theories" due to the rush for immediate and easy recognition even on the face of contradictions raising questions on the very theories. One example is the questions being raised on the current theories of gravitation after the discovery of Pioneer anomaly. While most students know about MOND, they are not aware of the Pioneer anomaly. Most of the finalists of this contest have either not addressed or insufficiently addressed this question. We hold that gravity is a composite force that stabilizes. This way we can not only explain the Pioneer anomaly and the deflection of the Voyager space-craft, but also the Fly-by anomalies.

Similarly, we were concerned about the blind acceptance of some concepts, such as inertial mass increase, gravitational waves, Higg's boson, strings, extra-dimensions, etc. Some of these are either non-existent or wrongly explained. For example, we have given a different explanation for ten spatial dimensions. Similarly, we have explained the charge interactions differently from the Coulomb's law. We have defined time, space, number and infinity etc., differently and derived all out formulae from fundamental principles. There are much more, which we had discussed under various threads under different Essays. We are the only entrant who defined "reality" and all other technical terms precisely and strictly used this definition throughout our discussion.

Though our essay was on foundational concepts and we derived everything from fundamental principles, it was basically alternative physics. Moreover, we are not known in scientific circles because we did not publish our work earlier. Hence it is surprising that even we got a community rating of 3.0 and (12 ratings) and Public Rating of 2.5 (2 ratings). We have no complaints in this regard. However, we have serious reservations about the manner in which the finalists were chosen.

A set of thirty-five finalists (the "Finalists") have been chosen based on the essays with the top Community ratings that have each received at least ten ratings. The FQXi Members and approved Contest entrants rate the essays as "Community evaluators". Since many of the FQXi Members are also approved Contest entrants, this effectively makes the contestant as the judge for selection of the finalists. This process not only goes against the foundational goals of the Contest, but also leaves itself open for manipulation.

Most contestants are followers of what they call as "mainstream physics". Thus, they will not be open to encourage revolutionary new ideas because it goes against their personal beliefs either fully (like our essay) or partially (like many other essays that did not find place in the final list. One example is Ms Georgina Parry. There are many more.) The prime reason for such behavior is cultural bias and basic selfish instinct of human beings. Thus, truly foundational essays will be left out of the final list.

In support of the above, we give a few examples. While there are some really deserving contestants like Mr. Julian Barbour, who really deserve placement in the final listing, the same cannot be said for many others. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists, says that whether reality is digital or analog "refers, at least implicitly, to the 'ultimate' nature of reality, the fundamental layer." He admits that "I do not know what this could mean, nor I am at ease with thinking in these terms." Then how could he discuss the issue scientifically? Science is not about beliefs or suppositions. His entire essay exhibits his beliefs and suppositions that are far from scientific descriptions. He admits it when he talks about "speculative scenario". Yet, his essay has been rated as number one by the Community.

The correspondence between us and Mr. Efthimios Harokopos under his Essay and our comments under the various top ranking finalists show the same pattern. One example is Mr. Paul Halpern. We have raised some fundamental questions under the essay of Mr. Hector Zenil. If the answers to these questions are given, most of the finalists will be rejected. If the idea is to find out the answers to these questions, then also most of the finalists will be rejected.

The public that read and rated the essays are not just laymen, but intelligent persons following the developments of science. Their views cannot be ignored lightly. Mr. Daniele Oriti, who tops the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 35th place in public rating. Mr, Tejinder Singth, who is 7th among the list of finalists as per community rating, occupies 25th place in public rating. If public rating is so erroneous, it should be abolished.

Secondly, the author and interested readers (including FQXi Members, other contest entrants, and the general public) are invited to discuss and comment on the essay. Here personal relationship and lobbying plays an important role. An analysis of the correspondence between various contestants will show that there was hectic lobbying for mutual rating. For example: Eckard Blumschein (Finalist Sl. No. 15) had written on Mar. 15, 2011 to Mr. Ian Durham (Finalist Sl. No. 3) "Since you did not yet answered my question you give me an excuse for not yet voting for you." There are many such examples of open lobbying. One of the first entrants visited most contestants and lobbied for reading his essay. Thus, not only he has received the highest number of posts under his Essay, but has emerged as one of top contenders.

The above statement gets further strengthened if we look at the voting pattern. More than 100 essays were submitted between Feb.1-15. Of these 21 out of 35 are the finalists. Of these the essays of 14 contestants were published in 5 days between Feb. 14-18. Is it a mere coincidence? For some contestants, maximum rating took place on the last day. For example, on the last date alone, Mr. Paul Halpern rose from 14th place to 5th place, Mr. Donatello Dolce rose from 35th place to 14th place, and Mr. Christian Stoica came into the top 35. All these cannot be coincidental.

Thirdly, no person is allowed to submit more than one essay to the Contest, regardless if he or she is entering individually or as part of a collaborative essay. Yet, we suspect that some have indulged in such activities. For example, we commented below the essay of one contestant on March 4. We got a reply from the next contestant the same day. The correspondence continued. The original contender has not replied to us. In fact he has only replied twice in 20 posts. This is surprising.

In view of the above, we request you to kindly review your judging process and forward all essays to an independent screening committee (to which no contestant or their relatives will be empanelled), who will reject the essays that are not up to the mark and select the other essays without any strict restriction on numbers to the final judges panel. This will eliminate the problems and possibilities discussed by us. This will also have the benefit of a two tier independent evaluation.

Our sole motive for writing this letter is to improve the quality of competition. Hence it should be viewed from the same light".

Regards,

Basudeba.