Quantum non-locality

[Albers]

I am just encountering this for the first time and need help to get up some speed. My first reading of an account of the statistics behind Bell's theorem and its failure makes it clear I must go to serious depth to see just what states we are trying to measure. This is clearly a major aspect of MDT, which has given a geometric underpinning of wave structure that allows communication beyond light-speed. Spook me, please. I am reading from Google, such as the first entry by Cramer...............................I have used the Maxwell current equation to produce current and charge density terms as the D'Alembertian of the potentials. For photons this yields a certain expression for charge envelope. I cannot yet relate this to the QM formulation of 'rho' as the square of a wavefunction, but this is an important goal. Doesn't MDT posit an analogous substratum of reality?

[merlinwood]

Here (http://foranewageofreason,blogspirit.com) are my considerations on the universal implications of quantum nonlocality

[Albers]

I clicked and got Page cannot be....and also using the url as per the message: (http://foranewageofreason,blogspirit.com

[Epsilon=One]

I clicked and got Page cannot be....and also using the url as per the message: (http://foranewageofreason,blogspirit.comThe Following link should work. The above has a typo.

For a new age of reason: towards a general theory of natural organisation (http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com/)

The hypothesis seems to have merit. It will take me a bit of time to parse it.

I'd like to hear more opinions from Viewers.

[Albers]

This print is small. Can I somehow save and magnify it?

[Epsilon=One]

This print is small. Can I somehow save and magnify it?Yes.

1. Open a blank page in a word processing program. MS Word would be excellent.

2. Open the web page.

3. Highlight text or just click "Ctrl-a" (Hilite all)

4. Next click "Ctrl-c" (copy)

5. Switch to Word document (Alt-Tab)

6. Click "Ctrl-v" (insert)

Then format to taste. Usually a "Ctrl-a" will help.

There are many other ways to magnify the web page, but I like the control the above gives.

One of the simplest ways is to go to the VIEW tab on your browser; click TEXT SIZE; and select a larger size.

If none of this works let me know and I will post it to a web page that is more readable.

[merlinwood]

Sorry about the comma before 'blogspirit' folks!

But you should now be able to access my blog by going here (http://tinyurl.com/ek76d) where you'll find that I have recently updated it.

I intend to submit a revised and shortened version of this blog (under a different title) to the journal Nature.

Any comments either here or at my blog would be welcome!
----------------------------
PS you can enlsrge the print on my blog by going to "view > text size > larger" on your browser.

[merlinwood]

Sorry about the comma before 'blogspirit' folks!

But you should now be able to access my blog by going here (http://tinyurl.com/ek76d) where you'll find that I have recently updated it.

I intend to submit a revised and shortened version of this blog (under a different title) to the journal Nature.

Any comments either here or at my blog would be welcome!
----------------------------
PS you can enlsrge the print on my blog by going to "view > text size > larger" on your browser.

Hello-oh, is anyone the-ere? Should be sending my proposed Nature article off by this Friday 28th April (or April 28th US-time)?

[Albers]

I am appreciating your paper. What I need first, though, is to hang out with the experimental basics around non-locality. Have you seen my papers where I describe localization of both electrons and photons?

[merlinwood]

Sorry, but I only found the above message at around 12 midnight GMT (my time) and I've had a bit of a heavy day today, so I'm off to bed.

Can I come back to you some time tomorrow? I can reply to any response to this message probably in about 8 hours time.

Cheers.

[merlinwood]

am appreciating your paper. What I need first, though, is to hang out with the experimental basics around non-locality. Have you seen my papers where I describe localization of both electrons and photons?

Soorry Albers, I find I can't use the 'quote' button for your message and when I click on the reference to your papers on your home psge something nasty happens with my Adobe Reader so that I have to Ctrl Alt Delete everything.

[Albers]

http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/physics/na These work to get me to the index. Is there a problem with the papers ending in '.pdf'?

[merlinwood]

Actually having done a google I've found I have the same problem with any pdf file, and so that, in fact, I have to restart to prevent my machine from going wonky.

[Epsilon=One]

Actually having done a google I've found I have the same problem with any pdf file, and so that, in fact, I have to restart to prevent my machine from going wonky.If one of you will give me a page, or article, at a time, I should be able to post it to a website so that you can read it without a .pdf. I can also adjust the type for easier reading.

[Albers]

I compose in SUN Open Office. Can you handle this? TALKING SHOP: I say the phenomenology of two-detector non-locality involves the symmetric pair of entangled states and also the fractional field accompanying them! Could we cook up a way in which interference with this background creates what we think is non-local correspondence?

[merlinwood]

Ah but then could this explain the faster than light effects as in measured the Aspect-type experiments?

It was, in fact, reading about the original 1982 experiment by Alain Apect, which measured this superlumnary property of entanglement effects over a large scale distance for the first time, that started me out in thinking about a possible non-local quantum hypothesis that might be supported by large scale natural evidence.

Sorry again, it's now 12.47am here, but I would look forward to any reply before about 8 hours of my sleep is up. [Although I suppose after this would do, anyway(?!)]

[Albers]

Thank you for the clues. I need to handle the actual polarizations or whatever we are looking at.

[Epsilon=One]

I compose in SUN Open Office. Can you handle this?I was referring to .pdf and other data already posted on the internet. Though, I would think that I can handle SUN.

E-mail me something; or, refer to anything already on the www.

epsilon=one@epsilon-1.com

I say the phenomenology of two-detector non-locality involves the symmetric pair of entangled states and also the fractional field accompanying them! Could we cook up a way in which interference with this background creates what we think is non-local correspondence?Are you playing with mathematical manipulations of dubious physical quantities ("entangles states," "fractional fields," "background") or actually concerned with real-world observation?

I did a short paragraph or two last year on superluminary entanglement with an excellent illustration from a UCLA physics professor. I'm not where I can locate it at the moment and I hate to redo something that I can't recall too well. I'll look for it in the next day or two when I have some access; hopefully there will be something useful to you.

[Albers]

Are you playing with mathematical manipulations of dubious physical quantities ("entangles states," "fractional fields," "background") or actually concerned with real-world observation? Both of these!

[Epsilon=One]

Both of these!Well, if that's the case, it would seem that the gravitational effect would be easier to examine on an observational level.

Gravity is certainly a candidate for "non-local quantum hypothesis that might be supported by large scale natural evidence" and with "superlumnary property of entanglement effects over a large scale distance." I connote superluminary as dealing with the aspect of speed; and certainly gravity's speed is much faster than light's speed.

[Epsilon=One]

Both of these!Well, if that's the case, it would seem that the gravitational effect would be easier to examine on an observational level.

Gravity is certainly a candidate for "non-local quantum hypothesis that might be supported by large scale natural evidence" and with "superlumnary property of entanglement effects over a large scale distance." I connote superluminary as dealing more with the aspect of speed than light; and, certainly gravity's speed is much faster than light's speed.

I would like to move your discussion to gravity because it drives the quantum mechanics 'round the bend.

[merlinwood]

Two things about the above discussion:
I connote superluminary as dealing with the aspect of speed; and certainly gravity's speed is much faster than light's speed.
Has this speed of gravity actually been measured to be so and how?

And I'm not sure whether gravitional effects need to be faster than liight for my non-local hypothesis to work.

[Epsilon=One]

Has this speed of gravity actually been measured to be so and how?You have made my point. The speed of gravity has not been measured. If it were not faster than SOL it certainly would have been measured by now.

GR states, the last I noticed, that the SOG is either the SOL; 26 times SOL (???); or infinite. Of course, the theorists have thrown out the last as meaningless; and consider the second as ridiculous. (So much for academic wisdom.)

The speed of gravity is near infinite. When a moon in a distant supercluster of galaxies moves, so does our moon. Yes, admittedly, near imperceptibly.

Gravity depends upon universal contact. When one object moves, all objects in contact move.

And I'm not sure whether gravitional effects need to be faster than liight for my non-local hypothesis to work.There is no concept of non-locality without hyper-relativistic speeds.

[Cerveny]

I thing EPR paradox is badly interpreted. The own “measuring”/(collapse of wave function) is not performing after a decay, when electrons are far, but this “measuring” (some confronting with the “history”) is performing just during the decay...

sorry poor English

[Albers]

I have also questioned the polarizer which is part of the detector in the schemes I've read. Another responder said elsewhere, yes there is angular momentum delivered to the polarizer when a helical photon, say, goes through. We do not account this in the final state. Cerveny, please say more about what you see. What is the decay?

[Epsilon=One]

I thing EPR paradox is badly interpreted. The own “measuring”/(collapse of wave function) is not performing after a decay, when electrons are far, but this “measuring” (some confronting with the “history”) is performing just during the decay...I understand EPR as a perfect example of hyper-relativistic speeds.

My understanding is that EPR, which was originally only a "gedanken," is now well established as an observation. If so, I can't imagine any other explanation than the SOL is not a limit.

What is the decay?I too wonder what Cerveny's decay is; and, I, also, don't understand what electrons have to do with EPR.

[Epsilon=One]

Has this speed of gravity actually been measured to be so and how?No. However there can be no other conclusion if observation is to be reconciled.

GR, as I last understood the interpretation, gives three possibilities.

The first is that the speed of gravity is the SOL, which is the most accepted theory. However, if such were the situation, gravity waves would have been detected a long time ago. (And, I would think that the Cosmos would behave like balls on a pool table.)

The second is that the speed of gravity is 26 times the SOL. Such arbitrariness seems illogical on its face.

The third is the speed of gravity is near infinite, which as with many solutions that yield infinity, this solution is generally discarded by theoretical physicists. I can think of nothing that better reconciles with observation or . . . Pulsoid Theory (overview) (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/OV).

...I'm not sure whether gravitional effects need to be faster than liight for my non-local hypothesis to work.Your concept is of interest. Can you elaborate?

[Albers]

Have experiments of two-detector interference been run with photons, and electrons? Epsilon, what you say fascinates me, I have never seen this. Where do they come up with 26? The infinite limit is easier to sense mathematically.

[Epsilon=One]

Have experiments of two-detector interference been run with photons, and electrons?My understanding is that it is common with photons. You can Google and find facts without my bias.

...I have never seen this. Where do they come up with 26?GR is the culprit. As I remember, I think I first heard this from Kip Thorne . . . or, maybe he verified it as a possible answer from GR equations; though, I'm sure (about March 1994) that he was dismissive; and preferred the SOL solution. A note: Caltech has since spent a billion dollars or more seeking gravity waves; UCI probably a million dollars? a year, etc. If I'm correct, these grants would go south.

The infinite limit is easier to sense mathematically.You'll get no argument from me. Also, observationally and philosophically.

[Albers]

Kip Thorne dismissed my offer to help on the relativistic solution necessary to complete my electron model. I know and love his brother but find him wanky. I think it foolish negativity to be so disparaging about the current search. This is necessary and wise. Further wisdom is always appreciated. As Baba Guru saaays, "Brief glimpses of the obvious are always available." I am tying things together at the level of an available primal field, as we all hope to.

[Epsilon=One]

Kip Thorne... I know and love his brother...I didn't know he had a brother in the "business." What do you know about his brother that I should know? I consulted Kip regarding separation forces of a dimensionless point and a dimensionless sphere some time ago. When school starts back up this fall, I must try to have him recheck my application of what I think he taught me.

I am tying things together at the level of an available primal field...I sorta expected as much :)

[Albers]

I said I know his brother who is a cabinet maker in Takilma, Oregon.

[Epsilon=One]

I said I know his brother who is a cabinet maker in Takilma, Oregon.Oh! I'm still impressed . . .

[Albers]

I am not impressed.

[Cerveny]

I understand EPR as a perfect example of hyper-relativistic speeds.

My understanding is that EPR, which was originally only a "gedanken," is now well established as an observation. If so, I can't imagine any other explanation than the SOL is not a limit.

I too wonder what Cerveny's decay is; and, I, also, don't understand what electrons have to do with EPR.

I have meant the decomposition into two measured particle..
For example:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/bells_inequality.html
http://science.enotes.com/science-religion-encyclopedia/epr-paradox
... You can use Ctrl+F to find "decay"...

I think that the “measuring” in QM cannot been comprehended by anthropology way only. The “measuring” is every (inter)action in quantum world, every confrontation the present with the history, every pining on a new event to the causality... The quantum world had been developed before anybody measured it.

You cannot prove that measured spin (for example) would have had another value.

Sorry poor English

[Cerveny]

What is the decay?

Please read http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?p=3641#post3641

[Epsilon=One]

I have meant the decomposition into two measured particle..
For example:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/bells_inequality.html
http://science.enotes.com/science-religion-encyclopedia/epr-paradox
... You can use Ctrl+F to find "decay"...From everything that I can ascertain from your references they are theoretical; and, to my way of thinking, they are quite speculative.

I am reasonably sure that Einstein et al. considered only massless phenomena (photons) with the original gedanken that concerned speeds at that of light. Decay is not a usual description for photons or waves; as, it strongly implies mass.

The quantum world had been developed before anybody measured it.On this we can agree; whatever, the "quantum world" may be.

[Albers]

There was some tantalizing mention in that first presention from Cerveny, about role of the polarizers. I mentioned being questioning about complete accounting of their role.

[Epsilon=One]

There was some tantalizing mention in that first presention from Cerveny, about role of the polarizers. I mentioned being questioning about complete accounting of their role.I don't believe it was Cerveny that mentioned polarization/polarizers. It was you in Posts #17 and #25. Is this what is "splitting" the light beam??? Or, changing phase???

I let your comments slide because it was too much work to figure out what was going on with the geometry of polarization. I note that you won't let me slide.

The geometry of polarization always seems just beyond my intuition; not to mention my wisdom. It's something like the rotation of an ellipsoid has different lateral wave aspects than say the rotation of a sphere.

I posted a little here: "Why Polarization? (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Pzn)" Maybe the links on the post will help??? If I ever get around to updating the post, I'll let you know.

[Albers]

The http://math.ucr....... mentioned by Cerveny speaks of the changing angles of polarizer and of valid questions here.

[Epsilon=One]

The http://math.ucr....... mentioned by Cerveny speaks of the changing angles of polarizer and of valid questions here.Thanks. Darn! I didn't dig deep enough.

Those: "changing angles of polarizer" interested me a while back. Wonder why . . . ???

[Cerveny]

From everything that I can ascertain from your references they are theoretical; and, to my way of thinking, they are quite speculative.

I am reasonably sure that Einstein et al. considered only massless phenomena (photons) with the original gedanken that concerned speeds at that of light. Decay is not a usual description for photons or waves; as, it strongly implies mass.

On this we can agree; whatever, the "quantum world" may be.

I Think it does not mater if two created and drawn apart twins-particles are photons or electrons. I believe their spin (for example or their polarization) is well defined since they have been born, regardless of they was "measured". Such creation I understand as “QM measuring”...

[Albers]

I am confused about the references to photon spin determination. One measures polarization of the fields, but isn't spin parallel or anti- to propagation?

[Epsilon=One]

I Think it does not mater if two created and drawn apart twins-particles are photons or electrons. I believe their spin (for example or their polarization) is well defined since they have been born, regardless of they was "measured". Such creation I understand as “QM measuring”...I believe there is tremendous differences between photons and electrons . . . and that it matters very much. To speak of photons, First, you must explain where the photons are with respect to their environment as the environment changes the state of quantum manifestations (how they will interact); Second, the spin of photons is different from that of the complex spin of electrons, which the Why? of is not clearly understood by theoretical physicists; but, the behavior of photons is decidely different than electrons.

The EPR paradox require non-local (hyper-relativistic) phenomena; photons (the ones in a state of expulsion) being massless would seem to be better candidates than electrons for such "spooky" behavior.

[Epsilon=One]

I am confused about the references to photon spin determination. One measures polarization of the fields, but isn't spin parallel ot anti- to propagation?I agree that the spin angles of photons are related to the direction of propagation; And, for ejected photons, I would expect orthogonal relationships.

I, also, agree that the orientation of the "field"/"decelerating, expanding quantum"/"envelope" determines the polarization of the light wave; as, distinct from the spin of the photon.

I would enjoy comments from someone with research knowlege concerning the subject.

[Cerveny]

I am confused about the references to photon spin determination. One measures polarization of the fields, but isn't spin parallel or anti- to propagation?

or polarization of photon pair brings the same problem. I only suppose that their status is fixed before any measuring by a man. The “measuring” - the “local confrontation” / negotiation - takes part already during coupled pair creation..

[Epsilon=One]

or polarization of photon pair brings the same problem. I only suppose that their status is fixed before any measuring by a man. The “measuring” - the “local confrontation” / negotiation - takes part already during coupled pair creation..What is a "photon pair"? Are they in phase? Are all photons in pairs?

[Cerveny]

What is a "photon pair"? Are they in phase? Are all photons in pairs?
http://people.bu.edu/alexserg/Entangled.pdf#search=%22Photon%20pair%20EPR%22
http://www.physics.gatech.edu/research/amo/you/2005/prapub.pdf#search=%22Photon%20pair%20EPR%22

Of course all photons are not in the pair. There I have found examples suited to study EPR paradox only. The best example - I believe - is study spins of created positron/electron pair. But let me repeat that I thing EPR is illusory “paradox” only ...

[Epsilon=One]

http://people.bu.edu/alexserg/Entangled.pdf#search=%22Photon%20pair%20EPR%22
http://www.physics.gatech.edu/research/amo/you/2005/prapub.pdf#search=%22Photon%20pair%20EPR%22

Of course all photons are not in the pair. There I have found examples suited to study EPR paradox only. The best example - I believe - is study spins of created positron/electron pair.Unlike your citations, you did not state: "entangled" when referring to photon pairs. I now understand what you were referring to. I do not consider "entangled" photons as a pair; however, there is no reason why others shouldn't use the term.

...I thing EPR is illusory “paradox” only ...I do not so think.

Certainly, any non-local event would have similar explanations that physics must be able to rationalize.

[Albers]

I appreciate the last two papers you referred, Cerveny, about photon entanglement. I think one of the previous ones was not to the point: photon spin is always axial. What we may distinguish is polarization states and your latest references tell of better sources. In electron entangled pairs, we observe spin polarizations which is a different thing. Tell us more of your thoughts.

[Cerveny]

Unlike your citations, you did not state: "entangled" when referring to photon pairs. I now understand what you were referring to. I do not consider "entangled" photons as a pair; however, there is no reason why others shouldn't use the term.

I do not so think.

Certainly, any non-local event would have similar explanations that physics must be able to rationalize.

To clarify my opinion (my English is poor): I believe there are not any non-local events. It seams to be only because of wrong (anthropological) interpretation of “measuring” term..

[Albers]

It is good to ponder questions of epistemology (Epsilon likes this!) regarding what exists and what we can sense. This is one of the roots of quantum mechanics, and I see us forcing an exchange on a system, in our polarizer/detector. I have not yet spent the time to understand in detail the quantum state formulation relating two detections of an entangled state. Is it really necessary to change polarization setting "on the fly"? What possibilities are we trying to weed out by this? I am trying to be open and skeptical, to learn. I have challenged the quantum construction of the radiation vacuum, so I am one to look for needed changes in our QM orthodoxies.

[Cerveny]

I have challenged the quantum construction of the radiation vacuum, so I am one to look for needed changes in our QM orthodoxies.

It is a great, uncomprehensible conservatism, persistence of scientists - who believe blindly in shaky bases of physics created many years ago - that leads us into today’s cheerless state in physics. So we have been faced obscure Special theory of relativity, black holes, some influence of measuring to far particles. It seems there is nobody able to join it to compact, comprehensible system now. I believe the time to change these bases must come...

[Albers]

That is a beautiful statement, Cerveny. I feel deeply similar things which is why I am here sharing with Epsilon=One. I have been able to make sense of spatially localized electrons and photons given vacuum dipole fields. To my amazement, three weeks ago I equated the Schwarzschild metric to vacuum polarizability compression and anisotropy. I am witnessing a marvelous example of how we move forward by synthesis much more than by either/or. The latter can amount to a stupid game of competition. Einstein gave us a physics where gravitation is represented in a four-dimensional Riemannian differential fashion, namely he assumed spacetime has some smoothly-behaved nature by which sources of energy-momentum and mass expressed in tensor form are equated to the deformation of the manifold. Now I am offering the vision that the dipole availability of the vacuum is able to offer us unifying vision of all this as an electromagnetic dance of total relativity of frames of reference of the radiation and matter fields.

[Epsilon=One]

I believe there are not any non-local events. It seams to be only because of wrong (anthropological) interpretation of “measuring” term..Not sure what you perceive as a "“measuring” term"; the speed of light (SOL) is a contrived limit; speed is within all ranges between the duality of Infinity (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/I). Any other limit on speed would defy all logic that should not be abandoned only because there are no tools that can "sense" beyond the SOL.

Anything that has a hyper-relativistic (greater than SOL) speed would appear as non-local.

There are many observations of non-local effects.

[Epsilon=One]

It is a great, uncomprehensible conservatism, persistence of scientists - who believe blindly in shaky bases of physics created many years ago - that leads us into today’s cheerless state in physics. So we have been faced obscure Special theory of relativity, black holes, some influence of measuring to far particles. It seems there is nobody able to join it to compact, comprehensible system now. I believe the time to change these bases must come...I agree with much of your assessment.

I feel the greatest obstacle to alternative ("new") physics is the impairment of the current infrastructure.

Peer review and the "insider's mentality/clan is a built in protection of the status quo that can only be changed in very small and very slow increments so as to protect the privileges bestowed by the status quo.

Only an upswelling from the outside (from forums such as this) can be expected to bring about a sudden Paradigm Shift.

Why cannot Pulsoid Theory (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/OV) and Conceptualism (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/C) be the "compact, comprehensible system now"??? What do they lack for your consideration???

[Epsilon=One]

That is a beautiful statement, Cerveny. I feel deeply similar things which is why I am here sharing with Epsilon=One. I have been able to make sense of spatially localized electrons and photons given vacuum dipole fields. To my amazement, three weeks ago I equated the Schwarzschild metric to vacuum polarizability compression and anisotropy. I am witnessing a marvelous example of how we move forward by synthesis much more than by either/or. The latter can amount to a stupid game of competition. Einstein gave us a physics where gravitation is represented in a four-dimensional Riemannian differential fashion, namely he assumed spacetime has some smoothly-behaved nature by which sources of energy-momentum and mass expressed in tensor form are equated to the deformation of the manifold. Now I am offering the vision that the dipole availability of the vacuum is able to offer us unifying vision of all this as an electromagnetic dance of total relativity of frames of reference of the radiation and matter fields.Yes!!! There is truth beyond collider interpretations.

[Albers]

Because I am in a productive mode I have only been able to spend a few half hours trying to further absorb your ideas. I mentioned I got stuck where you go to saying something about all possible ellipses. I acknowledge there is much beautiful geoemetry here. I was not impressed by you laying out an arbitrary line segment with a compass, to double it and quadrupole it. You cannot cite this as a fundamental numerics miracle! Seeing where you go with all this I do know I want to get there. Ellipses are an additive construction: ya take ya two nails, and some string and not the kitchen table...

[Epsilon=One]

Because I am in a productive mode I have only been able to spend a few half hours trying to further absorb your ideas.I understand. Don't let anything distract your thoughts.

I mentioned I got stuck where you go to saying something about all possible ellipses.Here I go; distracting you with an explanative reply.

I probably was commenting something like there is a common unit (the Elliptical Constant (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/EC) (EC) for "all possible ellipses" such that they are related.

Or, that for "all possible ellipses" (regardless of ellipticalness), the vector, "v" can be set as the square of the Pulse, "P,"; then, the difference between the Key, "K," and "P" is the EC, which is:
ε = εpsilon = One.

I acknowledge there is much beautiful geoemetry here.If beauty is Natural and fundamental, which I contend it is, nothing can be more beautiful than the oscillations symbolized by:
c² = 2v² - s² (http://www.CQhus.com/PT/BT) (the ellipse) and its corollaries v = εP² and ε = v/P² (Pulsoid Theorem (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/eP2)).

I was not impressed by you laying out an arbitrary line segment with a compass, to double it and quadrupole it. You cannot cite this as a fundamental numerics miracle!You must be referring and concerned with the Elliptical Constant Monograph (http://www.go2data.com/EC/pdf/ec.pdf). When was the last time that anyone was aware that there is an Elliptical Constant (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/EC), which is quite arguably the only constant? You must have missed that these "laying out" manipulations are Natural and when I had finished, the value of the differences between many parts (for example the Key and the perigee) is always “One” regardless of the ellipticalness (or Pulse, or perigee...) of the ellipse. I purposely wrote the monograph to be confusing; yet, to establish the principle of the Elliptical Constant (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/EC). The original intent was to create interest for demonstrating the phenomenon at a blackboard before a group; so, much is left open . . . but, if you look hard enough, it is complete.

Ask questions, if you don’t follow the concept. I will be getting to the crux soon with the separation dynamics of a dimensionless point within a dimensionless sphere (they represent the infinitesimal and the infinite), which is the ultimate possible reduction.

From there we build through Pulsoids (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Pulsoids), harmony, and resonances to all that exists. Don’t forget that mathematics exists; and as such, much be Naturally provable.

Seeing where you go with all this I do know I want to get there.Yay!!!

Ellipses are an additive construction…I consider ellipses (ellipsoids) as the only possible emergent structures from the unbalanced dynamics of the separation of a dimensionless point within a dimensionless sphere; and that said ellipsoids upon emerging must exhibit all the forms of oscillation; thus, collapsing, which creates an unending pulsing that illustrates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) . . . that is certain to provide all known variety.

[Cerveny]

There are many observations of non-local effects.


Please consider: non-local effects cannot be proofed... You are not able to know the status of engaged particles before measuring. The "measuring" settles, fixes, expresses measured status only. It cannot change it..

[Albers]

What does the polarizer yield, and what does it hide?

[Epsilon=One]

...non-local effects cannot be proofed...I completely disagree. "Attraction-at-a-distance," gravity and Cosmic Inertia, are examples. You may not accept the ephemeral quality of all subatomic particles; however, most every world-class physicist does.

The list of "observed" non-local effects is quite long.

There is no other proposed logic that can explain the "speed of gravity" that is observed as the "smooth working" of the both the Cosmos . . . and by extension the quantum "world."

Your thoughts seem to be beyond all bounds of contemporary theoretical physics. Which, I am about the last person to otherwise, overly defend!

You are not able to know the status of engaged particles before measuring.Yes; because you cannot measure non-locality with "local" instruments.

Every time there is a change in direction of anything; there is an element of non-locality.

The "measuring" settles, fixes, expresses measured status only. It cannot change it.Such has no effect on non-locality.

[Cerveny]

[QUOTE=Epsilon=One]
Yes; because you cannot measure non-locality with "local" instruments.
QUOTE]
If we are not able to measure/verify some effect, it does matter to figure with/on it...

[Epsilon=One]

If we are not able to measure/verify some effect, it does matter to figure with/on it...I can not tell for certain what you are saying.

If you mean: because something cannot be measured, it is of no consequence; then, I disagree.

The speed of gravity cannot be measured; however, its effect is certainly of importance.

As much can be said for any non-local effect; of which, there are many.

[Cerveny]

I completely disagree. "Attraction-at-a-distance," gravity and Cosmic Inertia, are examples. You may not accept the ephemeral quality of all subatomic particles; however, most every world-class physicist does.
I do not know anybody who has succesfully measured speed of gravity wave :-(
"Attraction-at-a-distance" we can see being studied electrostatic field (for example)..
Most every world-class physicist are in blind alley .., I am there probably too, but I am looking for way back...

[Epsilon=One]

I do not know anybody who has succesfully measured speed of gravity wave...Billions of dollars have been spent trying without success; and, as much, or more, is continuing to be spent . . . and there will continue to be no success.

"Attraction-at-a-distance" we can see being studied electrostatic field (for example)..Yes, but there is no "logical" explanation of "Why?" a force can act on an object without being in contact.

Most every world-class physicist are in blind alley .., I am there probably too, but I am looking for way back...I concur with your assessment regarding the "world-class (theoretical) physicist"; at least you are aware that the "alley" is "blind."

One cannot easily progress until one can recognize and then discard embedded error. Often no more is accomplished; but, that is, in itself, something of an accomplishment.

I, nor anyone else, can show you a "way back"; you must find it in your own way.

I can nudge you as to what to consider.

If you are working your way "out," let's continue to look for a nonreducible, starting point that contains all manifestations/qualities of Reality that can logically evolve to consciousness.

Do you agree now that the term "vacuum" has many misleading connotations; and as you use it, "vacuum" has many manifestations that can be further reduced to something simpler/more fundamental?

Often if a word has too much baggage, too many connotations, a neologism must be found.

[Cerveny]

The speed of gravity cannot be measured; however, its effect is certainly of importance.
I have not got problem with speed of gravity that is greater (or less) than speed of light. I only believe that it is not unlimited... and so it must be measurable...

[Cerveny]

Yes, but there is no "logical" explanation of "Why?" a force can act on an object without being in contact.

You have exactly expressed one of the reasons that leads me to the existence of ether/vacuum. It goes without saying, everyone’s perception of reality is touched by one’s own way, so existence of fulfilled, structured vacuum (ether) seams natural to me...

[Cerveny]

I, nor anyone else, can show you a "way back"; you must find it in your own way.
If someone recognize a need to go back towards the roots of physics, one probably cannot miss the vacuum with all its obvious properties... In fact there is hardly ever other point where start from again ..

[Epsilon=One]

I have not got problem with speed of gravity that is greater (or less) than speed of light. I only believe that it is not unlimited... and so it must be measurable...Well, OK. But, how are you going to measure something that is hyper-relativistic with sub-relativistic tools and observers?

[Epsilon=One]

You have exactly expressed one of the reasons that leads me to the existence of ether/vacuum. It goes without saying, everyone’s perception of reality is touched by one’s own way, so existence of fulfilled, structured vacuum (ether) seams natural to me...I'm not arguing with your general concept of "ether/vacuum"; I am arguing that "ether/vacuum" is far from fundamental.

[Albers]

I have used one stick, namely a vacuum fluctuation distribution of charges, to dial up localized electrons, localized photons, and gravitation. Have you read my three papers, Cerveny?

[Epsilon=One]

If someone recognize a need to go back towards the roots of physics, one probably cannot miss the vacuum with all its obvious properties...I strongly concur.

[Cerveny]

Well, OK. But, how are you going to measure something that is hyper-relativistic with sub-relativistic tools and observers?
You are not able to made matter to be changed quicker then “light”. So You cannot give a needed measurable “signal”.... but as I do not believe in special theory of relativity, I believe in limited speed of universe growing. It limits every speed..

I am coming back to pair creation/annihilation - maybe it is quick enough to raise quick gravity signal ... but I believe the gravity effect of such pair is compensate and it is equal to zero.. So it seems to be a problem to directly measure a speed of gravity finaly...

[Epsilon=One]

I believe in limited speed of universe growing.The Universe is not growing (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/ETR)!!! It's quanta do cycle.

It limits every speed.What you refer to as speed limitation, is an illusion due to the limitations of our tools, senses, and . . . our inability to process philosophical logic.

I am coming back to pair creation/annihilation - maybe it is quick enough to raise quick gravity signal"Creation/annihilation" is fundamental; most effects of a conventional understanding of gravity are secondary effects.

...but I believe the gravity effect of such pair is compensate and it is equal to zero.Gravity effect is omnipresent; it can only be considered "zero" when balanced by its own reactive force . . . Cosmic Inertia (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CI).

So it seems to be a problem to directly measure a speed of gravity finaly...I disagree. Only, it must be measured with the "tools of our mind" rather than of our hands.

[merlinwood]

Here's a copy of the new introduction to http://tinyurl.com/ek76d

Introduction - the problem of natural organisation

Modern science can be thought to provide inadequate answers to three major questions concerning the nature of the universe that includes life on Earth and, in the hypothesis that follows, these are considered together in relation to the available natural and experimental evidence. These questions are:

(1) Given the known action of the forces, how can matter be or remain organised out of its smallest or subatomic parts?

So although a mathematically complex and successful quantum theory has been developed that explains the visible, chemical, radioactive and electromagnetic properties of matter in terms of the behaviour of the subatomic parts of matter, such theory cannot explain the behaviour that can be uniquely described of quantum objects called wave, spin and entanglement in terms of the invisible and variable behaviour of quantum objects in motion. Only this behaviour can be described as being universally of a certain form and the wave behaviour of the electron - as the universal outer component of atoms and molecules- can be said to prevent it from falling into the atomic nucleus. And for such reasons the conclusion could be that only a sufficient cause and effect explanation of this quantum behaviour in terms of quantum objects in motion would account for how matter can be and remain organised out of its subatomic parts, and despite the forces acting within and upon it, and so how matter in any form can exist at all.

Given the interpretations of quantum physics that have been most widely preferred by physicists such a causal explanation would be impossible in principle. But there is just one kind of mathematically detailed interpretation with its own quantum mechanics, which was first successfully devised by David Bohm and published in 1952, that does describe a further cause to the forces from its effects upon quantum objects in motion. One can argue that this causal interpretation has been unpopular amongst physicists largely for historical and for no adequate scientific reasons.

For there is no measurement problem in the determinate Bohmian account, as is encountered in the indeterminate Copehagen interpretation; it is the only account that to any extent explains the experimental results in terms of the hidden variable behaviour of quantum objects in motion and it is consistent with a wide range of quantum evidence. Also, with regard to all the evidence of matter on the smallest scale, especially given the powerful action of the forces and that its subatomic components are measured to be so small that matter in any form consists almost all of the space between these components, one can reasonably hold that an additional cause needs to act so as to maintain or conserve the natural form and organisation of matter as atoms and molecules.

However, neither the existence nor nature of any additional cause to the forces - or its effects upon matter or energy - can be both sufficiently justified and described just from any of the evidence found of matter and radiant energy on the smallest scale. And nor could the nature of such a cause be described by any mathematical argument from any of this evidence.

(2) How has the universe on the scale of planets, stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters evolved into this organised form?

So at present there needs to be a theory of cosmic inflation where, within the first minute fraction of a second at the beginning of the expanding universe a period is required when. it seems, at least, the expansion defied special relativity by accelerating to faster than the speed of light and then somehow decelerated back to less than this speed. The strength of this theory rests on the fact that, while assuming the action of the forces alone, only it accounts for certain large scale general features concerning the uniformity, 'flatness' and structure of the observable universe. Although that this inflationary period actually occurred cannot be confirmed by any direct observation.

Then to explain other general features including the speed of orbital motion of stars around spiral galaxies, according to present calculations that assume only the action of gravity on the large scale, at least 90% of the matter in the universe needs to consist of an unknown type of non-reflecting matter. No such dark matter, however, has been directly detected by any means despite over twenty years of experimental research. While a very recent development is to replace the idea of dark matter with an updated conception of the ether.

(3) What is the true nature of the mind and consciousness?

So while much is now known about the workings of the brain and nervous system, the questions of how consciousness is possible and whether the mind exists as an invisible or immaterial entity in its own right in addition to the body and, if so, how it could so exist, remain a complete mystery to established science, at least.
-----
Here we find that all three of these questions could only be answered by examining enough natural and experimental evidence together so as to find, justify and describe enough details of a cause that could only be described from its effects and that would act universally and constantly in addition to all the forces.

So, in general, we can consider that by being causes that either push or pull objects with a continally varying strength of effect the forces of physical contact, electromagnetism and gravity can only explain efects upon matter and energy that continually vary. Whereas the universe of atoms molecules, living organisms, radiant energy, galaxies of stars and clusters of galaxies is of a particular form, which therefore does not vary continually. The evidence indicates. however, that the known forces are the only causes that act universally in three dimensional space. While the only effects at a distance between objects that have been measured to occur in addition to the forces in any physics experiment are those of quantum entanglement, and these effects have no measurable strength and are not measured to vary in any way at any distance and so any cause of these effects could not, like all the forces, be described as acting locally to objects.

Hence one could expect that, if it could be developed, a General Theory of Natural Organisation would justify and clearly describe enough details of a non-locally acting cause only when considering from a range of larger scale natural evidence in addition to that found of matter and radiant energy on the smallest scale. And any such theory would need to be be quite unlike any other presently found in physics or the other natural sciences...

[Cerveny]

I have used one stick, namely a vacuum fluctuation distribution of charges, to dial up localized electrons, localized photons, and gravitation. Have you read my three papers, Cerveny?

I am going to print it. It is not easy for me to read such "delicate" text in English...

[Cerveny]

Only, it must be measured with the "tools of our mind" rather than of our hands.
I feel it by same way, but if you accept limited speed of gravity (or anything other) there are not any non-locality...

[Cerveny]

Introduction - the problem of natural organisation...
The whole problem can be reduced to the mystery of the live origin... (the first information using...)

[Epsilon=One]

if you accept limited speed of gravity (or anything other) there are not any non-locality...I don't accept "limited speed of gravity"; however, I do accept several different phenomenon under the label of "gravity," some of which may allow for a minuscule of "wiggle room."

[Epsilon=One]

Your concepts and musings are on a course of alternative theory that should be noted.

...quantum theory...cannot explain the behaviour that can be uniquely described of quantum objects called wave, spin and entanglement in terms of the invisible and variable behaviour of quantum objects in motion."Quantum objects in motion" are the crux of "dark" matter (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/DM) that accounts for part of gravity's observed manifestation/effect.

Only this behaviour can be described as being universally of a certain form and the wave behaviour of the electron - as the universal outer component of atoms and molecules- can be said to prevent it from falling into the atomic nucleus.The electron is an outer resonance within a pulsing quantum (heuristically described by an Emergent Ellipsoid (http://www.EmergentEllipse.com)) that is held in place (away from “falling into” the nucleus) by the outward, complex oscillations of seminal motion (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/SM) (Triquametric motion (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/TM)).

...quantum theory...cannot explain the behaviour that can be uniquely described of quantum objects called wave, spin and entanglement in terms of the invisible and variable behaviour of quantum objects in motion."Quantum objects in motion" are the crux of "dark" matter (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/DM) that accounts for part of gravity's observed manifestation/effect.

…only a sufficient cause and effect explanation of this quantum behaviour in terms of quantum objects in motion would account for how matter can be and remain organised out of its subatomic parts…despite the forces acting within…it, and so how matter in any form can exist at all.I agree. I particularly like the inclusion of “in any form.”

Given the interpretations of quantum physics that have been most widely preferred by physicists such a causal explanation would be impossible in principle.Yes; thus, the “interpretations of quantum physics” must change.

But there is just one kind of mathematically detailed interpretation with its own quantum mechanics, which was first successfully devised by David Bohm and published in 1952, that does describe a further cause to the forces from its effects upon quantum objects in motion. One can argue that this causal interpretation has been unpopular amongst physicists largely for historical and for no adequate scientific reasons.And, what else is new? I interpret your “historical” quite broadly to include the Machiavellian aspects of all organized faiths.

For there is no measurement problem in the determinate Bohmian account, as is encountered in the indeterminate Copehagen interpretation; it is the only account that to any extent explains the experimental results in terms of the hidden variable behaviour of quantum objects in motion and it is consistent with a wide range of quantum evidence. Also, with regard to all the evidence of matter on the smallest scale, especially given the powerful action of the forces and that its subatomic components are measured to be so small that matter in any form consists almost all of the space between these components, one can reasonably hold that an additional cause needs to act so as to maintain or conserve the natural form and organisation of matter as atoms and molecules.Yes; but, Bohm was unable to adequately describe “time” or to describe the requisite fundamental geometry, and its source, of “quantum objects.”

However, neither the existence nor nature of any additional cause to the forces - or its effects upon matter or energy - can be both sufficiently justified and described just from any of the evidence found of matter and radiant energy on the smallest scale. And nor could the nature of such a cause be described by any mathematical argument from any of this evidence.As applicable to Bohm, I agree.

So at present there needs to be a theory of cosmic inflation where, within the first minute fraction of a second at the beginning of the expanding universe a period is required when. it seems, at least, the expansion defied special relativity by accelerating to faster than the speed of light and then somehow decelerated back to less than this speed.Well, yes, such might solve some problems; but it leaves many standing (Big Bang, time, etc.) not the least of which is reconciliation with philosophical logic.

The strength of this theory rests on the fact that, while assuming the action of the forces alone, only it accounts for certain large scale general features concerning the uniformity, 'flatness' and structure of the observable universe. Although that this inflationary period actually occurred cannot be confirmed by any direct observation. Nor can it be logically implied.

Then to explain other general features including the speed of orbital motion of stars around spiral galaxies, according to present calculations that assume only the action of gravity on the large scale, at least 90% of the matter in the universe needs to consist of an unknown type of non-reflecting matter.Yes; I’m pleased that you didn’t fall for the canard of an internal/central black hole. I prefer "dark" matter (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/DM) to “non-reflecting matter” as it has not reached Critical Compression (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CrC) where “photons” have been ejected from it. (Or, maybe even transparent matter.)

No such dark matter, however, has been directly detected by any means despite over twenty years of experimental research. While a very recent development is to replace the idea of dark matter with an updated conception of the ether.You could say that "dark" matter (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/DM) is the ether. You cannot expect "dark" matter (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/DM) that does not radiate energy to be detected by tools that detect radiant energy!!! Otherwise, observation detects the effects of "dark" matter (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/DM) everywhere.

So while much is now known about the workings of the brain and nervous system, the questions of how consciousness is possible and whether the mind exists as an invisible or immaterial entity in its own right in addition to the body and, if so, how it could so exist, remain a complete mystery to established science, at least.If the “mind” is considered as an “invisible or immaterial entity in its own right”; than it does not exist. Most thoughtful persons would conclude that the “mind” exists; which is does; as: complex, analog, self-adjustment: (CASA (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CASA)).

Here we find that all three of these questions could only be answered by examining enough natural and experimental evidence together so as to find, justify and describe enough details of a cause that could only be described from its effects and that would act universally and constantly…Yes.

…in addition to all the forces.Fundamentally there is only one force: seminal motion (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/SM). And, rather than: “in addition to…” I prefer: “as an effect/manifestation of…”

So, in general, we can consider that by being causes that either push or pull objects with a continally varying strength of effect the forces of physical contact, electromagnetism and gravity can only explain efects upon matter and energy that continually vary. Whereas the universe of atoms molecules, living organisms, radiant energy, galaxies of stars and clusters of galaxies is of a particular form, which therefore does not vary continually. The evidence indicates. however, that the known forces are the only causes that act universally in three dimensional space. While the only effects at a distance between objects that have been measured to occur in addition to the forces in any physics experiment are those of quantum entanglement, and these effects have no measurable strength and are not measured to vary in any way at any distance and so any cause of these effects could not, like all the forces, be described as acting locally to objects.This statement commingles so much that is standard model error that it is “not even wrong.”

Hence one could expect that, if it could be developed, a General Theory of Natural Organisation would justify and clearly describe enough details of a non-locally acting cause only when considering from a range of larger scale natural evidence in addition to that found of matter and radiant energy on the smallest scale. And any such theory would need to be be quite unlike any other presently found in physics or the other natural sciences...Absolutely.

It would be interesting to know why you think Pulsoid Theory (Overview) (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/OV) does not meet all the requirements and qualifications that you have set out.

[Cerveny]

I don't accept "limited speed of gravity"; however, I do accept several different phenomenon under the label of "gravity," some of which may allow for a minuscule of "wiggle room."
I do not believe in any infinities in the reality. Here we have got (for example) a bifurcation point in a “new” physics...

[Albers]

Epsilon, I thought you conceived of a very much higher realm of wave-speeds in your gravitation. Cerveny, I have offered, for the electron, what I think is the mathematically most simple and indeed featureless construction in which the singularity is there but integrable, very different from saying 'there is a point at which all the divergence of field takes place'.

[Epsilon=One]

I do not believe in any infinities in the reality. Here we have got (for example) a bifurcation point in a “new” physics...Neither do I so believe; which I do not consider as inconsistent with not limiting speed. I also understand a great difference between the terms Infinity (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/I) and infinite. For example: numbers are infinite; Infinity is a duality that connotes concepts of speed and a locus.

Reality (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/R) (physics) cannot be understood without first understanding Infinity. (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/I) I don't believe there can be anything negotiable on this point.

[Epsilon=One]

Epsilon, I thought you conceived of a very much higher realm of wave-speeds in your gravitation.My concept of the various "faces" of gravity is with infinite speed; however, I detest the concept of gravity "waves," which will never be found despite the billions of dollars that have been spent in the attempt.

The concept of gravity is complex and subtle; thus, the tremendous difficulty that world-class, theoretical physicists have with explaining the phenomena (plural intended).

[Albers]

Given my 'one stick' it is not so complex.