Why Did Nature Choose Quantum Theory?

interesting reading :

http://physicsessays.org/search?sortby=newestdate&q=amrit

Amrit Sorli

I think he has a bit the same ideas as I have on time, only more materialistic

Wilhelmus

In quantum vacuum time is a numerical sequence of material change.

Density of quantum vacuum generates gravity and influences speed of material change, what we call on old language "relativity".

see more on www.spacelife.si

yours amritAttachment #1: Mass_and_gravity_have_origin_in_energy_density_of_quantum_vacuum_GRF_2012.pdf

dear Stefano and Jonathan,

Do you think: Is it still possible that there is a massless Higgs vacuum particle giving still mass to other particles?

E.g. giving mass to Quarks and Leptons by a continuous collision process, changing linear oscillating Higgs particles into gravitons and acting as the engine for Quarks and Leptons "eigen" energy and so called dark energy?

See perhaps: http://vixra.org/pdf/1103.0002v4.pdf

http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/

Kerri,

you can certainly pack a lot of questions into a small comment box. Would like to talk about them, especially time, but not straight away.I'll think about them for a while.

There are some other things that you mentioned- eg. The bridge into consciousness. Trouble is such a thing allows access to knowledge that really should be out of bounds and that kind of extraordinary is uncomfortable to think about. The other is the "time traveling" cat. If the cats consciousness is involuntarily taken back it finds its still a kitten and eats the mouse all over again. Then you temporarily have an even more wretched cat that doesn't want to play even if time and toys are provided.

IMO The event belongs to a non existent former iteration of the Object universe, which led to changes that persist in the current Object reality. It has been superseded and does not exist to be altered. But no doubt the present biological response could, by -falsifying- the internal records of it. Which leads on to questions of the relative survival value of comforting delusions compared to the painful truth.

Kerri,

Thoughts on that heap of questions. Briefly this is what I currently think about them, (so explained from the perspective of the explanatory framework I am using rather than text book physics), and have previously discussed on the blog forum, in plain English. Don't know enough physics and realize I need further education to communicate well with mathematically minded physicists.

IMO the 4th dimensions belongs to space-time. Space-time is made from data in the environment amalgamated into an output when received and processed together. It is what is processed together into the same output not what is produced together which gives the present-now. That makes it "messed up". The data comes from different iterations of the object universe not all the same one. (Only the youngest exists as the others are superseded.)

Entanglement thought. The particles created by splitting from a single particle have to exist within the same Uni-temporal Now, ALWAYS, until detected and destroyed. So out of all of the things that might be observed in space-time those entangled particles belong to the same iteration of the universe, not different ones, if they are observed simultaneously (as well as being produced simultaneously). If they have an opposite characteristic at creation then they will retain that difference , as they are the same kind of thing and fluctuate in the same kind of way. Though they can be separated in space-time and if there is a spatial separation there is also a temporal separation- in the underlying foundational reality which is not observed they always exist simultaneously to each other, with the same relationship of their characteristics. There is still sequential change giving passage of time but no relationship of space to time in that foundational reality.

Reversibility exists theoretically in space-time. Data could be input in either "direction". but there is no rewind. The space-time from data input is superimposed on the object reality. The object Universe in motion continues in motion and nothing has sufficient force to stop it and rewind it. The -foundational change- and the -data production- is one way only and not reversible.Its that foundational object reality that we are part of /living in but the experience is the space-time image reality from data interception and processing.

Re arrows of time: 2 arrows. What -is- becoming the new what -is- superseding the former. Thats the traditional arrow of time which doesn't quite fit with space-time. It is the actualisation of the object universe preceding observation. Not in space-time but in the foundational reality. Then there is the other one. Data being formed from actualisations and then being observed as the present-now. The event always precedes its present observation and the order of events depends upon sequence of data interception. This gives future to present direction . Its going to be observed because the data exists on the path taken by the observer through space, making it a prewritten future. Then it is observed as the present then was observed making it past.Without space-time ordering of events there is still an underlying order. which is the sequence of the arrangements of the whole universe superseding each other. The structures rather than the the fabrication from data within it.

Non locality and entanglement makes sense now in a simplistic way. The observed space-time reality not being the underlying foundational or source reality allows spooky action at a distance and opens up the possibility that things can occur outside of the constrains of the physics of space-time.It also poses the question so what is out there in space existing simultaneously in the same uni-temporal Now, with the space-time observer rather than the space time image.We seem to be moving in such a way that we are always "looking out of the rear view window" at what was rather than what co exists or lies ahead. Not going to speculate on what can be done here as I would at least like to give the impression of being sensible.

You asked "How can nature reject its own creation?" Nature is not just space-time. The space-time universe has been fabricated from received data that has then been interpreted. The image reality is not the underlying stuff of the universe. I don't think the Object universe requires a birth as it is probably a process, endless feedback and recycling and not just an object with a beginning and an end. So rather than being a one off creation event it is endless creation in action. At the risk of sounding a bit theological it would be the foundational creator and creation process and observation of that creation rather than a singular supernatural and final creation event.

I agree with John Merryman "there is no objective judge here". But I reckon that the more questions an explanatory framework can consistently answer the more likely to be "barking up the right tree" at least. Please disagree or comment/ add your own thoughts. I really would appreciate any feedback.

Kerri,

just thought I should add this. I think the difference between the objects that are entangled and those that are not is that the entangled ones are part of the same arrangement or iteration of the Object universe. Everything that is within uni-temporal Now is co existing in the unobserved foundational or Source reality, together in space. So -those- objects and particles in those relationships can affect each other. Due to positions, separations, orientations, scale and so on forces act and changes occur.

That is different from objects that -appear- together in a space-time present which are only there together in the observed positions and relationships and forms because data from the environment has been amalgamated to create that Image reality output. The positions and relationships can be different according to different observers.

The change that is seen to occur is a result of the change in data input to the observer which creates the space-time image reality output. That is the prewritten future (data) becoming the observed present-now output. Its not the outcome of the observed present relationships giving the new observed present. I sort of mean the images don't form new images but the actualisations, new unobserved forms and relationships, provide the data by reflection or emission of EM which form the image output.The sequence of images formed from received data is the space-time reality for a particular observer.

The changes in the foundational or source reality have occurred giving the new unobserved actualisations which will provide the data for the space-time present output before any change is observed. The entire space-time continuum as imagined bang to crunch, or cold death, or whatever does not exist externally as data in the environment IMO but data is still and continuously being formed DEPENDENT upon the foundational or source reality...and the sequence of actualisations is the Source reality which is INDEPENDENT of the reality formed from the sequence of data input to the observers (space-time).

The main point of that explanation being that the entangled things have a foundational relationship and -potential to interact and affect to each other- rather than a superficial observed relationships which are having no affect. Instead the changes in space-time being like playing of a prerecorded story-the sequence of data input giving observed output.

Your thoughts?

Though there is potentially eternal change and so an infinite number of iterations of the universe only the youngest exists the other versions having been superseded. So the imagined infinity of Object universe forms, my kind of multiverse, is being continually added to but they do not actually exist. What does exist is -data- created within those prior arrangements which persists in the youngest iteration and that data can form -images of former arrangements-. Not an infinite amount of data though because, speculating, eventually the data is so old it has become background radiation and more is always being formed. Can't be left over from the big bang if there wasn't one. Too controversial?

Sorry that is a lot of writing but you did ask a whole lot of questions in one go.

Kerri,

you might have or might yet receive a little lesson in NZ English. Its a fascinating reflection of cultural identity. The first expression explained to me was "rattle your dags" which means hurry up. Dags are the little bits of dry poo that stick to the wool at the back end of the sheep and rattle as it runs! The Kiwis are said to have a number 8 wire mentality. No8 wire is the standard for sheep fencing but it has many other uses with self reliance, resourcefulness and ingenuity. I added a couple of expressions the first "she'll be right" seems to be used whenever there is a problem, mechanical breakdown or upset. It is neither dismissive nor sympathetic but reaffirmation of a cultural optimism in the face of any adversity.You might be able to remind me what the second expression was. Then I can then translate that one as well.

Bye for now, Georgina.

Whoever,

RE. whether the wavefunction is real or not: The observed "thing" in space time is formed from data. That data may "contain" a spread of time and space, as it may have been -produced- at different times and the source object may have had a sequence of different position when the data was produced. All of the data exists in the unitemporal Now, the youngest arrangement of the object universe. How the thing is observed depends on -which data- is selected but all of the possibilities -are out there- in the environment as data prior to observation. So the observed thing, observed or potentially observed in many different ways has an origin in the external unitemporal reality.

The "how" of those multiple possibilities of observation are very different from the possibilities for a quantum object it seems to me.

The wavefunction has to be spread across the different arrangements of the Object universe in sequence. When the object/particle is observed depends upon when the observation is made, which arrangement is selected, and that depends upon the observer's choice. Prior to the observer's choice it might be observed in any of those different universe arrangements, so its position might be -thought of- as being in all of them but only one arrangement of the sequence can exist. So it can't actually be spread across all of them simultaneously.

It seems to me a way of thinking about what is going on. The same way that the position of a particle changing overtime going through the sequence of arrangements of the Object universe might be thought of as string like. It might be helpful to think of it that way but it isn't a string though- because only the youngest arrangement exists the others superseded.

And this is not in space-time because it is nothing to do with what is created from data that was formed from the foundational reality. They are different facets of reality. The foundational or source one is independent and the space time one dependent on the foundational or source one. This structure of reality allows QM and space-time, wavefunctions and relativity but there is nothing supernatural about any of it.

The fun (for me) is not in talking for the sake of talking but in building the sandcastles. What happens next ideally is someone comes and stomps all over it and/ or tries to knock it down or at least tests it. The weaknesses can be addressed and it can be built again, only better. But if it can't be knocked down because, despite the odds against it, is actually very solidly built and beautiful then it would be nice for someone to actually comment on what is good in their opinion or what they particularly like about it. It would be interesting to hear/discuss how it might be further improved or modified to give something even better. However that does depend upon finding someone who is interested in interacting and discussing, who can appreciate what it is and what it does and its potential in the first place.

Seems to me that either the replies to the questions I have given are consistent with the whole explanatory framework as set out and provide answers that do not require the supernatural. Or I don't understand the complexities of what is going on and need educating or correcting. So some kind of feedback whether positive or negative would be useful. I've got a lot to learn. They seem to address the problems -as I understand them- and to be consistent with the paradox solutions and other answers provided by the explanatory framework. If they don't work then why?

If it works for you then good- you can say so,it would be nice. Otherwise something else will work. But I need to know the problem with the answers supplied to work out what needs to be done next. I think I need someone who gets that the whole thing works together and that's why that little bit has to be that way.Its not isolated from the whole conundrum.

Dear All,

Everything in the universe is connected eternally in singularity, separability is an illusionary perception when one is in duality.

Relativity is the theory that best describes duality, where as singualrity is the absolute truth and several quantum mechanic observations are closer to this truth.

who am I? I am dualilty, I is the singualrity.

zero = i = infinity

Love,

Sridattadev.

The freedom of speach is essential. The rationalism is still more than this essential.

To be or not to be, that is the question !

Specific to De Broglie (never actually read his paper):

- follow me here please: here, "X" = wavelength because I don't know how to make the wavelength lambda symbol

IF: X=h/p (De Broglie equation) , where X = wavelength, h = Planck constant, p = momentum

THEN: X = h/mv : because p ( momentum ) = mass multiplied by velocity {m = mass, v = velocity )

and, (please confirm my math here )

equivalent equation : m v X = h

equivalent equation: m = h / vX

Then, what I see is that when "v" gets very large, "m" gets very small ! "h" is a constant, and, just for the sake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sake) of it let's assume that the wavelength is non-changing here, for our example.

[Although speed of light "c" does equal wavelength multiplied by frequency]

So, at faster rates of travel, mass gets smaller: m = h / vX [as "v" in the denominator gets bigger, "m" gets smaller] with everything else remaining constant.

At "c" , mass disappears altogether (it has turned to Space (MTS & CIG Theory)

Why are we told that mass gets greater toward it traveling at "c" (Einstein) ????

Here, I see it getting smaller? What am I missing?

About the conflct here - does mass get greater (Einstein) or smaller (CIG Theory) at rates approaching "c" ??

CIG says smaller as Matter actually unfolds into it (mass) becoming Space itself. The mass of Dark Matter is that of a Time nature (read Time Equilibrium in CIG Theory), as opposed to units of grams. The mass has turned to Space with an increase in Velocity, as is apparent in the De Broglie equation: m = h / vX

I am trying to learn Schrodinger's equation, and, if you already know it, and you would like to jump ahead, please apply CIG Theory to it as well. So far, as I understanding the probability wave function, CIG interprets it as being real, with the "electron" smeared out (into it being newly created Space), collapsing only when it slows down (i.e. the black hole "M" version of the MTS equation)

comment here or to lippfamily@earthlink.net

read theory at : www.CIGTheory.com

Thank You,

the author - CIG Theory

[also professes to solve Dark Energy and offer a new explanation of pressure]

What I have found from mathematical and analytical study (thanks to Spinoza and Leibniz) is that the mathematical system which constitutes a physical theory must have a single premise as well as a lock in theorem for its subject matter to be prominently and reliably true.

Pure spacetime, Einstein-Davis and Kaluza-Klein theory, has a single premise - the reliability of the metric.It also has a lock in theorem, the Bianchi identities. So denizens of spacetime cannot directly experience a non spacetime reality since the denizens depend on conservation laws for their very existence; which in turn are simply a restatement of the Bianchi identities. Only the alternative phenomena that are, by some loophole, compatible with the metric can be experienced. Solid surfaces and colored light are such alternatives.

For other disciplines in physics, such as quantum mechanics, a mathematical form that is expressive, not hypocritically applied, and is not compound or hybrid must be adopted. Then for reliability the lock in principle must be found and a proof of it attempted. I would guess that unitarity is such a principle.

From the implications of Godel's proof, there is no compulsion for fundamental theories to directly include or replace the others.

A consequence of lock in theorems is to mitigate the seeming effect of historical accident, magic or unreason on the design of the universe.

As regards my Computer Program, I could say that, in an Open environment, where Determinism is the only acting force, that alternative probabilistic theory - which might violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics (increase of entropy as defined by a regular sense of time compass - which is mentioned in the article is probably the exception that confirms the fact: that of the entire pertinence of quantum mechanics to explain reality. How? Determinism seems (scientifically speaking) to be far away from quantum physics. But is that really so? In my Computer, two highlights of quantum theory are entanglement (my programming Language acts through systemic essays that define the indefinable - the irreversible, in time's arrow! - according to new laws which are - and aren't - to define a new intepretation of the Bible (internal - and external, as regards its effects in surrounding Reality) and superposition (the Bible and other Scriptures, of other religions, are in a state of superposition in that we cannot know - unless we measure - and the Program does it by itself, defining a reversible arrow of time! - what happens as to a new - or not! - interpretation of these «physical entities»). So, God defines a reversibility - when Knowledge is Represented actively by the person contacting with the Computer, making its (in)existent irreversibility align with the (ir)reversibility of the Computer. In this case, observing (implicitly 'taking measures'), would define a new quantum theory, based in eminent reversibility (for instance, of the aging process). Is it true that the way in which information is coded in possible irreversibility of time - in all its manifestations! - cannot be reversed? This is a «side effect» of a theory which, as many others, can come to be refuted - at least as regards my Computer Program.