dennislmay

I have posted a .PDF file of a paper on Physics_Frontier at Yahoogroups. http://tinyurl.com/8558r9m http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/QHYYT1n9t6ywC0jdLHaxGbwb1G6KqrG7ySu0kaVBpasOl2oQBYKSvKSoJJJwitoro0RZyLUGcvNu_RpfJWwy4Q/CMBR%20-%20Non-Linear%20QM%20Thermalization-v1.pdf It is my alternative explanation for the CMBR [Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation] which does not involve Big Bang cosmology. Dennis May

Present some documented facts to back up your -opinion-. That is the plan - I will post a link when I have more ready. Dennis

Yes. There are number of possible means to send readable superluminal signals if non-linear QM can be demonstrated. Dennis If is the operative word. Any hard evidence that it can be done? I means empirical evidence. I am not interested in speculative theories. I am seeking facts. Ba'al Chatzaf If hard evidence already existed Special Relativity, General Relativity, and indeterministic QM would already be dead theories. General Relativity is already dead by observation of galaxy dynamics - only kept alive by a dozen layers of epicycles individually fit to each observation. The acceptance of non-linear QM will finish the other two. It is my opinion that the observational evidence already exists - it just needs to be understood and fleshed out - more on that later. Dennis

Yes. There are number of possible means to send readable superluminal signals if non-linear QM can be demonstrated. Dennis

Faster-than-light interactions is what J.S. Bell showed [1964] were required for deterministic QM [like Bohmian Mechanics 1952] to work. This does not imply you can send a readable signal in the linear QM version since the signal is only able to be read between entangled objects. In this context non-linear QM means a great many processes that are presently thought to be exact are in fact only very good approximations. It would be like saying - gravity is inverse square more or less but slowly runs out of power at distance. In QM it might take the form of wave functions running out of steam at distance while in linear indeterministic QM probability functions can extend indefinitely without losing their ability to act. Dennis

Quite the opposite to the way I read science. I read it with philosophy BS meter on - when I read the mistakes I immediately consider what might be the alternative views of correct philosophy. Dennis

Everything he published in the journals was science. He had many opinions, some of them quite witty, but I would hardly call that philosophy. Be that as it may, his theories stand or fall on one matter: do they or do they not predict outcomes of experiments correctly. That is ALL that matters. Opinions and philosophies may be safely forgotten or ignored. Only Facts count. Only experiments can tell us what is the case. R.P. Feynman did not get the Nobel Prize for his opinions. Interpretations of theories are of little consequence unless the theories are sound and if they are sound and produce good predictions, what does it matter what the interpretations are? When I read a book or journal article on scientific matters I turn on a mental filter the makes anything resembling philosophy disappear. That way my reading is not disturbed. Ba'al Chatzaf Viewing Feynman only by his published papers would largely miss his pushing philosophy. His lectures, how he interacted with students and colleagues, the choice of the straw-man arguments he used to defeat theories that didn't match his philosophy, and choosing not to use his position to support J.S. Bell to correct the "Scandal within Physics" says a great deal. John G. Cramer mentioned in a book I read of his that Feynman considered fighting the scandal toward the end of his life but did nothing about it. Dennis

Global warming advocates as with most environmental movements are where failed communists and socialists migrated to when their economic theories collapsed and they needed a new religion. If you follow the money the largest attempted fraud and redistribution scheme in the history of humanity revolves around global warming and the cap and trade schemes. There never was any real science behind it. Anyone experienced in hydrodynamic modeling knows their claims are entirely bogus and political in origin. That's what happens when collectivism and science meet to redistribute wealth. Dennis

Are you saying that Richard Feynman was only kidding when he crapped all over philosophy? He rather tart barbs about philosophy are priceless. If you want to count as philosophy the rather trivial observation that the world outside is real and little of what goes on there is either under our control or even known to us, I suppose you can say philosophy is with us. A reduced to the bone trivial version of philosophy. Hardly the stuff of Plato and Aristotle. Hume was closest. He had no illusions. Ba'al Chatzaf Feynman pushed Indeterministic QM and sleath philosophy by means that would make a Baptist Preacher blush. He was a leading strong advocate of a particular philosophical approach in the same way as Bohr. His dislike of philosophy only geared toward philsophical views he didn't like - while pushing his own. Dennis

I'm sure varying degrees of ADD-ADHD with "hyperfocus" and autism are all important parts of creative intelligence. There is little question that high intelligence and creativity are closely linked to borderline and varying degrees of mental challenges - calling it mental illness ignoring the benefits. Dennis

The only things that are valid are consistent theories corroborated by multiple experiments. Anything else, is at best speculation and hypothesizing. J.S.Bell was entitled to his opinion. He was brilliant and he should be given serious consideration. I am interested in Facts, first and foremost. Opinions are only interesting and relevant when they are aligned with facts. Facts are Kings, Theories are Servants, Speculation is Hot Air and Word Salad. The best thing that ever happened to Physics is when it parted company with Philosophy. ruveyn Physics has not parted company with philosophy - far from it. Since the foundations of QM influential physicists have pushed philosophy in a not so subtle manner - being quite nasty about it at times. Many big names in physics have gone out of their way to steer physics in particular directions to suit their philosophy. That legacy remains. Claims of going where the physics leads them only masks the philosophy they were pushing. Such claims are no more valid than "unbiased" news reporters claiming they only go where the news takes them. Dennis May

First rate physicists go where the experiments point. Fact is King. Theory is Servant. And Philosophy is Impediment. Ba'al Chatzaf So I hope we can agree that disinformation concerning the status of deterministic QM for philosophical reasons has no place in the discussion. Mischaracterizing QM as necessarily indeterministic has been an impediment to progress since the beginning of QM. Even when the so called proof of indeterminism was overturned in 1964 [and before] - those pushing an indeterministic philosophical point of view continued a disinformation campaign [to this day] implying only indetermistic approaches are valid. This has led two generations of students [since the 1964 disproof] to generally misunderstand the foundations of quantum mechanics. J.S. Bell called this a scandal within physics and all these years after his death there is still little progress in confronting this scandal. Dennis May

What does he have to replace it? Keep in mind the indeterministic theory you dislike for philosophical reasons has yet to be falsified empirically. In the mean time you use a computer invented by physicists and engineers who buy quantum theory as it is. Have you ever wondered why a theory so "wrong" produces so many "right" things rightly? It is a puzzlement. I will give you a hint. Given a choice between facts and theory, choose facts. And never let philosophy get between you an physics that has consistently produced the right answers to definite questions. Ba'al ChatzafAs has been discussed here several times before there is no priority in the claim of indeterminism in QM. Since 1964 it has been publicly known for all to read that deterministic quantum mechanics produces the same predictions as indeterministic QM. Granted in the relativistic domain the indeterministic version is more developed - but no theoretical development yet suggests a problem for deterministic QM in the relativistic domain. There is no reason to present this as a false choice - no one is suggesting abandoning QM - just the philosophical view that it is indeterministic. Dennis May Since the predictions are the same, why are you complaining. Only predictions matter. And do you really believe the Nature gives a Flying F*ck what formal theories human beings cook up? Ba'al Chatzaf If only the predictions mattered there would not be a concerted effort to prevent Bohmian Mechanics from being taught and there would not be continual disinformation about the status of indeterministic versus deterministic QM. Deterministic QM is a different approach not only philosophically but eventually different mathematical approaches will develop and different predictions will be generated in regimes not yet considered. Non-linear QM is one such regime where deterministic QM can go if experiment and observation says there is a reason to go there. Dennis

What does he have to replace it? Keep in mind the indeterministic theory you dislike for philosophical reasons has yet to be falsified empirically. In the mean time you use a computer invented by physicists and engineers who buy quantum theory as it is. Have you ever wondered why a theory so "wrong" produces so many "right" things rightly? It is a puzzlement. I will give you a hint. Given a choice between facts and theory, choose facts. And never let philosophy get between you an physics that has consistently produced the right answers to definite questions. Ba'al ChatzafAs has been discussed here several times before there is no priority in the claim of indeterminism in QM. Since 1964 it has been publicly known for all to read that deterministic quantum mechanics produces the same predictions as indeterministic QM. Granted in the relativistic domain the indeterministic version is more developed - but no theoretical development yet suggests a problem for deterministic QM in the relativistic domain. There is no reason to present this as a false choice - no one is suggesting abandoning QM - just the philosophical view that it is indeterministic. Dennis May

A very interesting topic. There are many facets and compartmentalized aspects to intelligence. It is not static even within a single individual over long or short periods of time. Depending on the IQ test the upper range is 165-170 before the test becomes unreliable - even according to the makers. How do you differentiate two people with the same high score or 100% on a test? How do you rate someone who finds errors on an IQ test? The questions on IQ tests are balanced to approximate the same IQ for the different sexes. Verbal skills are weighed higher to give females the advantage in that area - analytical and visual reasoning skills weighed lowered to achieve balance. In any case intelligence in various areas can vary widely within an individual. Being twice as intelligent would not likely apply to all areas evenly - as it does not now. The range of personalities is likely to expand with increasing intelligence. What I have always found interesting is bursts of intelligence. A topic I've read almost nothing about but I personally know to exist. Dennis May Jake: Math prodigy proud of his autism http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57358845/jake-math-prodigy-proud-of-his-autism/ Jake Barnett is an interesting example of where intelligence can take us. I'm glad to hear he doesn't buy indeterministic QM. Dennis

A very interesting topic. There are many facets and compartmentalized aspects to intelligence. It is not static even within a single individual over long or short periods of time. Depending on the IQ test the upper range is 165-170 before the test becomes unreliable - even according to the makers. How do you differentiate two people with the same high score or 100% on a test? How do you rate someone who finds errors on an IQ test? The questions on IQ tests are balanced to approximate the same IQ for the different sexes. Verbal skills are weighed higher to give females the advantage in that area - analytical and visual reasoning skills weighed lowered to achieve balance. In any case intelligence in various areas can vary widely within an individual. Being twice as intelligent would not likely apply to all areas evenly - as it does not now. The range of personalities is likely to expand with increasing intelligence. What I have always found interesting is bursts of intelligence. A topic I've read almost nothing about but I personally know to exist. Dennis May

Updated version with a new link: http://tinyurl.com/7ls377r Dennis

I want through a lot of crap on Yahoo including registration and I still don't see your paper. Please help. Ba'al Chatzaf It is a small .PDF - I can e-mail it to anyone who is having problems. Contact me at dennislmay@yahoo.com and I will e-mail it. I am not sure what the problem would be with access. Dennis

In order to make my physics work more digestible I am intending to make a series of small papers each of which illustrates a particular point I am attempting to make within a larger comprehensive theory. The later work will be in [updated] book form and will contain more than the individual papers can. The first of these papers is: Two-Component Gravitation - Solution to Galaxy Rotation Curves http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Physics_Frontier/files/Two-Component%20Gravitation-v1.pdf http://tinyurl.com/7k48vwu I call this a Pre Pre-Print because getting a Pre-Print into arXiv.org is little different than getting it published in a journal. The problem is a chicken and egg issue. In order to get into arXiv you must have a sponsor current in the field of study. The journal discourages contacting people in the field for sponsorship unless you have a pre-existing relationship with the sponsor. Having an existing academic position in the field of study is the other means of entry. Having neither sponsor nor academic position I am not an "incumbent" so I have no means of entry. They encourage those unable to gain entry to arXiv to seek the normal journal route [glacial if ever] or publish on the web on your own. For now I am putting it out on the web and still giving away free copies of the 2nd edition of my book until they run out [contact me at dennislmay@yahoo.com if you want a copy]. Upon reading the paper you will see that the paper is not self-contained but requires other parts of a new physics infrastructure. That is another chicken and egg issue - how do you publish one result based in part upon other results yet to be published? I was encouraged in this forum to put out my work in arXiv - this is a small step in that direction. Dennis May

Clarify all that you will. When the falsifications are based on experiment they won't go away because you talk them to death. The Black Swan is an absolute. The perihelion of Mercury simply does not go where Newton's law says it goes. Atoms don't collapse as is predicted by Maxwell's laws. And the past does not perfectly predict the future. Empirical inductions work perfectly except when they fail. And facts are so God Damned stubborn. Ba'al Chatzaf The ‘black swan’ argument is a perfect example of how a misunderstanding of induction leads to skepticism. If the statement that ‘all swans are white’ is based purely on observation, then that fact represents the evidentiary context, and the valid inductive conclusion becomes: “All swans I have ever observed are white.” We cannot reasonably conclude that all swans are white based purely on external observation. The only way to have any scientific basis for such a conclusion would be to use experimentation to connect the property of being white to the biological nature of swans (i.e., a causal connection). To assert that all swans are white simply because one had never seen a swan of any other color is a perfect example of dropping the scientific context. When I moved back to Missouri both my brother and myself had girlfriends from the city visit. One had never seen black cows before and was amazed - she had never seen horse manure before and thought she was seeing burned up charcoal briquets laying about everywhere. The other girl had never seen a clear night sky before. Given a very nice pair of binoculars to look on a clear night sky in the fall - she became motion sick and I suspect had religious misgiving hit her about her place in the universe and asked to head home. With very nice field glasses on a very clear night you can see millions of stars. I doubt she had ever seen more than 100 at a time before. Dennis May

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros "Throughout this time, Soros developed a philosophy of reflexivity based on the ideas of Karl Popper. Reflexivity, as used by Soros, is the belief that the action of beholding the valuation of any market, by its participants, affects said valuation of the market in a procyclical "virtuous or vicious" circle.[22]" Soros made a great deal of his fortune through insider knowledge and an understanding of how fiat money works to create bubbles. If you have insider knowledge and can influence timing on the effects of fiat created bubbles you can become very very rich. Dennis

Bob, Really? How do you know that? Isn't it reasonable to doubt it? I'm just using your standard... Michael It is a very carefully done and oft reproduced experiment. It has been done thousands of times with the same result. It is part of a complex experiment that corroborates the Pauli Exclusion Principle. The chances of error are quite small. It is one of those 5 sigma jobs. Not absolute certainty, but pretty damned sure. Which is about as good as it gets. Ba'al Chatzaf http://plato.stanfor...ntries/qm-bohm/ Section 11 on spin toward the bottom: "We thus might naturally wonder how Bohmian mechanics manages to cope with spin. But this question has already been answered here. Bohmian mechanics makes sense for particles with spin, i.e., for particles whose wave functions are spinor-valued. When such particles are suitably directed toward Stern-Gerlach magnets, they emerge moving in more or less a discrete set of directions — 2 possible directions for a spin-1/2 particle, having 2 spin components, 3 for spin-1 with 3 spin components, and so on. This occurs because the Stern-Gerlach magnets are so designed and so oriented that a wave packet (a localized wave function with reasonably well defined velocity) directed towards the magnet will, by virtue of the Schrödinger evolution, separate into distinct packets — corresponding to the spin components of the wave function and moving in the discrete set of directions. The particle itself, depending upon its initial position, ends up in one of the packets moving in one of the directions." There is no priority in assuming a probabilistic explanation [probability waves] of quantum mechanics. That priority was disproved by J.S. Bell in 1964 yet it continues to be repeated as though repetition constitutes proof. Dennis May Bohm Debroigle QM is unable to ground quantum electro-dynamics (abbr QED). It is not Lorentz invariant. An any case there is no experiment made to date in which B-DeB beats Quantum Theory. Which is why it is not -the- quauntum theory. Another problem is that the B-DeB pilot wave has infinite velocity.and does not diminish in amplitude with distance. Many physicists don't like that. It is also not Lorentz invariant in the form Bohm proposed it. That is annoying. The Max Born interpretation of the eigenvalues of the operator (that is where the probabilities come from) still produces the results. The relativistic versions of B-DeB require stochastic processes. I clipped this from the wiki article. You might find it interesting: Nikolić has proposed a Lorentz-covariant formulation of the Bohmian interpretation of many-particle wave functions.[20] He has developed a generalized relativistic-invariant probabilistic interpretation of quantum theory,[12][21][22] in which | ψ | 2 is no longer a probability density in space, but a probability density in space-time. He uses this generalized probabilistic interpretation to formulate a relativistic-covariant version of de Broglie–Bohm theory without introducing a preferred foliation of space-time. His work also covers the extension of the Bohmian interpretation to a quantization of fields and strings.[23] In short, probability is back. Can't seem to get rid of it. Here is the thing: No one has been able to improve upon re-normalized quantum electrodynamics. Bohm DeBroigle doesn't. When you come up of a Lorentz invariant theory that predicts correctly to 12 decimal places, please be sure to let us know. In the mean time we just can't get rid of probabilities without some kind of problem. If you can find a way to get us back to the "good old days" of Hamiltonian - Lagrangian physics, please let us know. Ba'al Chatzaf"The Max Born interpretation of the eigenvalues of the operator (that is where the probabilities come from) still produces the results." To say that is where the probability comes from is only one way the math can be used - it infers absolutely nothing about a probabilistic interpretation. There is no experiment in which Bohmian Mechanics beats non-relativistic standard interpretation QM because both produce the same results. This has been known for many decades. Bohm did not propose specifics about the "pilot wave" any more than the standard interpretation can explain the collapse of probability waves capable of localizing particles across all of space. Nikolić calling them "probability waves" does nothing to make that the case. Re-normalized quantum electrodynamics produces good results - a marriage between incompatible deterministic relativity and an indeterministic interpretation of QM - using questionable mathematical techniques without physical foundation. But it works so now the task is to come up with a Bohmian relativistic equivalent since absolutely nothing has changed as far as the priority of a probabilistic interpretation versus a deterministic interpretation. Bell settled that issue in 1964 and quantum electrodynamics overlaps the time frame of Bell's work - the final present form being completed in 1975 without any challenge of Bell's ideas whatsoever. Again repeating the assertion of a priority for a probablistic interpretation adds no weight to the argument. The most that can possibly be said is that a relativistic version of Bohmian mechanics is still in its infancy and does yet compete in the relativistic realm. An understandable situation given the thousands to one funding differential and misinformation about the status of Bohmian Mechanics being taught to this day. Dennis May These philosophical quibbles matter little to me. I am interested in RIght Answers and Facts. I am what Ayn Rand called concrete bound. Facts Rule. Theories Serve (sometimes) and Principles stretch to fit. If you have a better way to come up with more Right Answers then publish, and have your work checked out by experts. Einstein did it. And he did it while he was working at the Patent Office too. Ba'al Chatzaf No argument here about right answers and facts. I am taking your suggestion and working on a paper for arXiv. Eventually little papers won't be enough and I will have to go Tome to ever get it done. Dennis May I have been researching the arXiv.org route. It seems the policy of requiring endorsers on arXiv - (with banishment from endorsing for bad endorsing) - has led to the only recognized endorser I know to refuse any and all endorsements. I am still going to work on the paper but it appears arXiv may be beyond reach. Their success has increased their prestige so they have raised the bar to entry. Once I have the paper finished I can see if I can find endorsement but arXiv seems to discourage seeking endorsement without an established relationship to the endorser. “Outsiders not welcome” is the message I take away from it. The only clear means of entrance is university affiliation. Dennis May

The Law of non-Contradiction is a slam dunk. We are certain it is true, because if it isn't there is no knowing or certainty. Non-contradiction is absolutely necessary for the kind of activity that our kind of brain does. The things of which are are not certain have to do with basic -physical- facts. If quantum theory is correct then there is a set of tiny tiny quantities - Planck Length, Planck Time. With our best and most expensive equipment we are about fifteen orders of magnitude removed from this scale. In short our best most precise knowledge of the physical world is fuzzy. And that is why we cannot be absolutely certain of the underlying physical laws and processes. Look at the history of physics. In the 1930's and 1940's three sub atomic particles were known: the proton, the neutron and the electron. Then technology improved and we found we need neutrinos (later actually found in the 1950's) anti-particles and by the 1950's we stumble into the "particle zoo" brought about by the increase of energy in our particle accelerators. Now we have the quarks. We -think- quarks are rock bottom but if we get another two orders of magnitude increase in the energy of particle accelerators we may very easily be "surprised" again. I would not make a bet that we have struck bottom yet. It it is not completely clear that there IS a bottom. Do you see the pattern? Just when we think we have it figured and grounded our technology bores deeper into reality and reveals totally New Stuff we had no idea about. That is the uncertainty and incompleteness that is being referred to. The Last Fact is not known and the Last Word has not been uttered. Ba'al Chatzaf http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/585/2/L77 Richard Lieu has written on this topic several times - the concept of Planck Length and Planck Time have no experimental support and observations indicate they do not exist. Dennis

Peter, I don't know what Rand would say. I do know what I say. I claim that we are made out of the same stuff as the rest of the universe. We are not freaks of nature (to repeat what Nathaniel Branden often wrote). We have a top-down "form-making" nature and we have a bottom-up "emerging" nature. People with Bob's view (that there is an "in here" and an "out there" and that they are fundamentally different) deny the top-down part and put doubt in its place--as they have to since they are denying half of reality. I say QM (at least my understanding of it) confirms my view. I'm not sure Ayn Rand would have agreed with my formulation as I state it, but she did affirm that the human mind is a causal agent, which perfectly reflects my view. QM merely shows the possibility that its causation capability is not strictly limited to what its host human body does. Michael Like Ellen Stuttle I would be very cautious of using QM as any sort of springboard towards the human mind as a causal agent or opening up the possibility of causation capabilities outside of the human body. While a popular view there is no supporting science and certainly no reason to suspect QM could ever provide such support. Such beliefs are part of the popularity behind indeterministic QM - since its founding - but entirely without merit. Dennis May

I am always concerned about context and compartmentalization in such discussions which is why it is helpful to have a specific topic at hand to illustrate how it is possible to go metaphysically astray when discussing almost anything. The context of when it is appropropriate and not appropriate to compartmentalize a discussion is also very important in the logical outcome. Dennis May