TakenItSeriously

What kind of arguement is that? I never said anything about the geometries of the dual slits. It’s assumed that they are the proper size in this thought experiment. I disagree, the conclusion of the quantum eraser experiment done in 1999 is that it is knowledge of the path that changes the distribution pattern on both sides of the entangled pairs. When the particles hit either D3 or D4 they create a dual distribution with D0 due to the fact that the path is known. When the particles hit either D1 or D2 they create an interference pattern with D0 due to the fact that the path is not known.

I’m sorry to say that I proved your first premise wrong not that long ago. There is a logical explaination for the deviation in time between the twins: Starting with the paradox of symmetry vs time deviation: Ok, so we can agree that the TP says that the twins respective views of their brothers time are symmetrical for the entire trip, so how do they each experience different amounts of time. There are several valid mathematical solutions that all claim something a little different as to the sources that cause the time deviation, such as relativistic redshift, or gravity or frame jumping, or the turn around, but none of which really explain how the paradox is physically resolved. So they are valid in proving that there is no pardox, but not definitive in explaining why there is no paradox. For this you need to use a logical model. To understand why, I will first provide the logical model that definitively explains the solution. Then I will provide the logical reasoning why math is not a reliable model for explaining a problem. The Definitive Solution: To find the solution using logic, we must find the assymetry to the problem keeping in mind that the solution wont be intuitive because its still in the relativistic domain. So if time is symmetrical, and velocity is invariant, then that leaves only distance. Now, if we look at the two inertial reference frames: in the traveling twins inertial reference frame we only have the ship In the Earth twins inertial reference frame, we have the Earth, the destination system, and the distance inbetween. Therein lies the assymetry! The Earth twin only sees the ship contract, the traveling twin sees the distance to the destination contract. Note that its only the dimension in front of the moving object that gets length contracted in the effectively static frame. So, because the traveling twin is only traveling 60% of the distance, the trip only takes 60% of the time. It seems amaazingly trivial in hind site right? But that’s what logic does, It simplifies the problem through convergence, which goes hand in hand with why it clarifies a problem. But the logical explanation isn’t the complete answer either! Thats because we can’t prove anything using logic, we can only explain things. To prove there is no paradox we need to do the math which has already been done... repeatedly. Which is why math is not the best at providing an explaination of the problem. Thats because if there is no paradox, then all mathematical models will balance out by virtue of their being deterministic regardless of what source your testing. They will all be seen as being the source, because the gap in time is always in the math.. Quod erat demonstrandum To sum up: By defining math as being deterministic, we can prove that their is no paradox. If it were a paradox the math shouldnt balance out, ergo, showing the math balances out proves their is no paradox. Then by defining the logic to being all valid thinking that’s not math, we may solve the intuitive falacy in order to find the logical explanation. Or as I’ve said many times before math quantifies, and logic clarifies. or more importantly, logic and math are complimentary opposites. But the consequences of how we define math and logic are even more profound than solving physics.What makes them opposites, is basically that math is deterministic and logic is not, for example: we can only invalidate the logical models. we can only validate the mathematical models. we can use the mathematical models to Quantify the problem we can use the logical models to clarify the problem The fact math is deterministically defined is why we can apply mathematical methodology to disprove the paradox. The fact logic is not deterministically defined means we must use logic to find a logical model for the problem, which in this case involves deductive logic. Why logic is prone to falicy of intuitive premise Why math is prone to falicy of intuitive conclusions Therefore, since logic and math are opposites, that’s a very good reason why we should not define logic as a type of math. So would the two down votes that appeared at the instant of the post care to explain your preminitions of an angruement?

You’re both right of course. I mis-wrote my example. I meant to say that it was the light beam equivalent of an electron positron symmetry that was just easier to represent. Never the less, the point is that their positions are correlated, i.e. Alice knows the relative positions of both particles. therefore it must produce a dual distribution pattern on both sides.

Entangled particles are the equal opposites of each other. It would be the light beam equivalent of this: (not to scale) So detection of a particle going through one slit defines particles through (or not through) any other slit. Detecting either case causes a particle pattern.

You claim that there is no correlation between the patterns that are registered between Bob and Alice But according to the Copenhagen interpretation there should be correlation. example: If an entangled particle is detected passing through Alice's right slit. This is a measurement of position in the horrizontal axes. Therefore its entangled partner should be passing through Bob’s left slit.

For entangled particles, the entanglement is inclusive to all properties. All that’s required is how the entanglement is prepared.This describes the ways that entangled particles can be prepared. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2017/02/28/how-do-you-create-quantum-entanglement/ Also look up how quantum erasers work. They are all very complicated setups but at their core its a dual slit and entangled light beams. Again its the inverse opposite of this setup.

I wouldnt know whats technically impossible. If someone were to describe the GPS system, I would have thought it was impossible. Or if it was for the sensitiveity for LIGO same thing. In fact I recall when one of my brothers was asking me about a super sensitive time synchronization project, or how I would solve it, which for all I know, it might have actually been for LIGO. I told him the most sensitive timing in electronics would be for the allignment of differential signals creating something called jitter if misalligned. Of cours visible light has a much higher frequency so essentially the diffrential aspect scales to any scale. Ironically, I don’t think he took my idea that seriously, thinking it was too different in terms of scale.

Its just the classic dual slit experiment. So the easy way would be to use lasers that went through a beam splitter and to create entangled phase rotations. So when the light passes through dual slits at Bob’s location, detectors at Alices location are switched on/off to send a message. bob sees either an intrference pattern i.e. a wave state, or a dual normal distribution, i.e. a particle Of course the problem would be technically difficult, but you would rely on line of site communication. So you might need to have a series of satelites orbiting the sun for relay stations. By LOS, I mean entangled communication where the probes are both the entangled sources and the transmitting or receiving stations. i.e. every other probe would switch rolls.

Sure once the quantum application is verified, current technology can do anything we want with enough money, I could imagine a serries of space probes relaying live remote control of bots on mars for example

Sure, either morse code or binary if you keyed it to a computer. The pattern detector could also be computerized.

the telegraph key would be the on off switch for the detector.

Its based on the observer effect in the dual slit experiment. the entangled property would be the particle/wave state. The observed pattern is the the clumped distribution or the interference pattern, so you actually only observe the evidence left behind by the particle or the wave, i.e. photons hitting a piecemof film. The detectors observe the slit that the particles pass through.

I’m actually pretty confident that it should work. Some of you may recall that I was trying to introduce a new logical model for a TOE some time ago. (which actually converged some time last year). I was having too much time showing it as a single model because that was the most convincing aspects of the three new symmetries. How amazingly well that all concepts would weve together. Beutiful to see in hindsite, but too large to easily explain in fore-site. You may also recall, that I had based 1/3 of the TOE on a differential transmission line model from HSDD (Think twisted pair model for Gigabit Ethernet) back in the mid nineties after I had solved the paradigm shift in HSDD (1993, validated in 2002). So now you can see the differential transmission line actually becomes a working model using the Quantum Telegraph, that cancels out the time component of the differential wave. It explained where the anti-matter went, and all the Quantum effects and EPR paradox, etc. Note, I had renamed the theory as the Missing Spacetime symmetries, then renamed it again to The Missing Spacetime Symmetries of Noethers (first) Theorem which predicts all of the symmetries, but that they are linked to their conservation laws. So this model is clearly linked to the conservation of matter. Completing the SR symmetry is linked to the conservation of information accross the rotation of spacetime, from -c to c of the observable Universe Horrizon, and completing the GR model is linked to the conservation of energy accross the Event Horrizon of Black Holes. And they were tied to the dual helix model which was the first model I had created back then as a improved particle wave model for light, that could explain how light self propagated through the vacuum of space without needing the Aether, because each wave was differential or had a net zero energy, and were self referencing in both dimensions like the Ligo experiment. Figure 1: A Dual Particle Helix model with entangled matter and antimatter in opposite domains of time, 180° phase shifted.which explained Quantum Spin and Intrinsic dipole moments, and much more. The dual particle helix actually makes far more sense when explained at the Big Bang. However, I bring it up just to show how the transmission line ties to the Quantum Telegraph.How the differential time ties into the cancelation of time in quantum erasors, and how the symmetries you begin to see in the OP tie into the symmetries of Noethers Theorem. It’s just an example of how everything connects to everything, which BTW is way too complex and elegant for me to figure out. Meaning the models just revealed itself through epiphany, which BTW is a kind of God speaking to you kind of experience to explain some of those in the past like Srinivasa Ramanujen who claimed that his mathematical solutions came to him from god. Call it epiphanies that cause the convergence of the Universe model or solutions given to him from god, I think may amount to about the same thing. It may eventually unify certain religions and philosophies as well, but I dont want to get too deeply into that. What those epiphanies also do which was kind of my hope since I started, is that their were a finite number of proper analogs in the universe for all mathematical models of closed systems. And the TOE would contain all such proper analogs. And we would then be able to solve all problems through epiphanies. And the epiphanic mechanism is simply pattern recognition of the subconscious mind. So, that’s why I’ve been posting solutions to unsolved problems, as a kind of evidence for the TOE. or as credibility anyway. e.g. the Prime Factor Harmonic Matrix, the Balance paradox, Achilies Tortois paradox, The Traveling Salsema (which isnt a solution to the shortest path but a shortcut to a pretty efficient path i.e. bottom nth percentile making it fine for efficient use in industrial applications. So just to show how crazy, it is. The convergence experience was like I just had many epiphanies at once, which was a very surreal experience. So to test it, I decided to think up the most insanely impossible kind of problems I could think of, which of course was transporters the StarTrek series. Why not, if Im going to prove the negative of the assumption I had to start from an impossible goal and work my way down to anreasonable goal. It didnt matter, I instantly saw the solutions for the first two parts and the back bone and all ingredients for the rest all come together. The first was infinite data compression which Is close via the Prime Factor Harmonic Matrix. The second was Quantum Teleportation which just occured to me today. The third was already solved in the dual helix model as the backbone that ties everything togethr. Then matter, particle, wave, energy, information are all the ingredients for finishing the problem. So for something I tried to imagine as impossible now looks probable in some distant future. So I think that failed attempt is still pretty strong and all the smaller solutions that were either solved or effectively solved was also pretty strong evidence for a TOE that works. So why am I stempping out on such a crazy limb. Because as many of you know Ive been claiming to have been harrassed by the NSA for over five years now but it goes back much farther than that. They are the master manipulators and I’ve nevernhad a single choice in my life. which I’ve scattered all over the internet. I’ve also become familiar with their methods. i.e., whenever people go rediculous measures to force you into taking a specific vector. Thats always when they drop a safe on your head that just looks like bum luck. I’ve been trying to tie up all potential problems but thats an impossible task with infinite options for the NSA, though a life time of altruism which I had committed my life to at 17. isnt going to help their cause. A life time of friends will be able to corroborate that fact to any media outlet. And donating the IP that I owned for HSDD which saved the tech world from being stuck at pre-millennium tech. that I really could use by the way. but rather than arisk a monopoly, It was given to hundreds of companies around the globe. While I scrape by on below poverty level budget. Because the only way to establish trust is to commit to sacrifice and I’m just saying all of my sacrifices are pretty indellible. Finally, why crazy (potentially true) assertions is my only strategy is, that it’s not only my hail mary, to call for support. It’s my protection against crazy bum luck from smacking me in the face from now to whenever. While, I think I’ve made enough inroads to show that while they’re clearly not finished,, their not so crazy and they do have merrit for solving humanities biggest problems. So crazy predictions when facing the end game against an infinitely superrior opponent is my hail marry, and my call for support to begin doing some major good in the world because the Theory of Everything really is prophetically named. Besides I made a friendly bet that I would solve the GUT as we called it back when I was eight with my brother who thought I was crazy for saying it, though he refused the bet anyway, because he knew I only bet on sure things.

Notice that full duplex transmission works here: https://www.webopedia.com/TERM/F/full_duplex.html Assume Alice and Bob transmit their message simultaneously: prediction: with both detectors on, then in order for information to be conserved, it must produce an interference pattern for both Alice and Bob as if neither were making an observation. Thus we arrive at Bell’s algorithm for calculating results of sameness or difference. I believe that one of the QE problems also demonstrates this where dual observations restores the wave. diff =1 same = 0 A(1) ⇔ B(0) = 1 A(0) ⇔ B(1) = 1 A(1) ⇔ B(1) = 0 A(0) ⇔ B(0) = 0 to decode Alices message Bob applies the commutative property to decode Alices message. (B,R) = A (0,1) = 1 (1,1) = 0 (1,0) = 1 (0,0) = 0

definition of the Observer effect (physics) - Wikipedia “In physics, the observer effect is the fact that simply observing a situation or phenomenon necessarily changes that phenomenon” definition of Quantum entanglement - Wikipedia “In quantum physics, entangled particles remain connected so that actions performed on one affect the other, even when separated by great distances. The phenomenon so riled Albert Einstein he called it "spooky action at a distance.” Therefore based on the above two definitions, the observer effect changes the state of one side which must change on the other side through entanglement. The setup: Alice and Bob are located at opposite ends of an entangled stream such as entangled lasers through a splitter in opposite phase. At each end the laser passes through a dual slit. Since we can use streams, we eliminate much of the noise issues through large sample size, Bob and Alice each have a detector set up next to a slit that are both default in the off position. therefore with no observation made about particles through slits at either end, then poth sides see a wave pattern. Next assume Alice turns her detector on and the pattern changes to a clumped distribution. Because the particles are entangled, then Bob should also see a change to a clumped distribution. next Alice turns her detector off and the pattern at both ends is an interference pattern…. e.g. A(0)⇔B(0) ⇒ 0⇔0 A(1)⇔B(0) ⇒ 1⇔1 A(0)⇔B(0) ⇒ 0⇔0 A(1)⇔B(0) ⇒ 1⇔1 Bob receives a 4 bit message: 0,1,0,1 Similarly, Bob may respond turning his detector on or off to communicat using binary. e.g. A(0)⇔B(0) ⇒ 0⇔0 A(0)⇔B(1) ⇒ 1⇔1 A(0)⇔B(1) ⇒ 1⇔1 A(0)⇔B(0) ⇒ 0⇔0 Alice receives a 4 bit message: 0, 1, 1, 0 Another way we might think of it is as the inverse of a quantum erasor. Quantum Erasors: uses 1 dual slit to produce dual entangled paths which cancels out the time component. Entangled observer effect: uses 1 entangled stream pair and two dual slits to cancel out the distance component. EPR uses 1 entangled particle pair and a dual observer effect which cancels out the information component. Notice the three way symmetry. I predict that this will become the key model that corrects Nash Equilibrium, flips our upside down economy, converge the diverging two party system, completes the scientific method.

correction it may be easier to remember as the first y factors of x!/y! combin(6,3) = 6*5*4/3*2*1 possible permutations of y given a total of x is the first y factors of x! perm(6,3) = 6*5*4

One more item to add. when we are talking about the complete state solution when treating the route as an open route you had correctly expressed it as (n-1)! However by treating it as a loop: first we need to get rid of the -1 because a loop has the same number of segments as their are cities we need to divide by 2 because their are two directions which is redundant we need to divide by n because while you can designate any city as the starting city, permutations would count all starting states as different when they only need to count once. so: number of different combinations = n!/(2n) I’m sure you’re aware of this but for others who may be reading this, note that I wrote combinations instead of permutations. Combinations is like permutations only after we ignore the redundancies which isn’t required in this situation. (quick review of the combin function for calculating distances) If you want to know the number of distances between any pair of city’s that we need to calculate for a complete solution method we use the combin function, which has a proper expression that I cant recall and couldnt write anyway because I dont have access to math syntax using the iPad. but I always use the combin function provided by Excel written as: combin(n,m) or how many combinations of m objects are possible from a total of n objects . where n is the total number of cities m = 2 because distances are based on city pairs. example: for a total of 4 cities, the number of possible city pair combinations (distances) = 6 combin(4,2) = 6 (A,B) (B,C) (D,A) (B,D) (C,A) (C,D) those are again combinations. permutations would be double the number because then order would count i.e. (A,B) is redundant to (B,A) if you dont have the combin function its expressed as combine(x,y) = x!/y!(x-y)! Or it may be easier to remember as the first y factors of x! so combin(6,3) = 6*5*4

I see where the confusion is comeing from. You need to treat the problem as a loop as the origional problem is stated, as in the salesman starts from his home city and returns back to his home city. For the proplem as you showed it, there are four equally optimal paths due to symmetry so one example loop would be like: A, B, C, D, E, A By the way I am treating it as the shortest distance not time which is really the same thing but area makes more sense in the context of its distance. I had a paper route as a child so I might have taken the loop part for granted when describing the problem, sorry for the confusion. edit to add:(late update) I should meantion that the starting/ending city still doesnt matter though the way I wrote iit kind of implies it does. Its just the nature of loops because to show it literally, there would only be one city A designated, but it would have to be written in a circular fashion. I use the designation twice to show it needs to be connected to E as well as B. But you could treate the problem as C, D, E, A, B, C Just as easily as A, B, C, D, E, A as you sugested in your example.

I don’t think so. that looked like a list of alternative solutions but browsing through them the each seemed to describe something different from my solution. The ant analogy seems a little bit abstract for describing a TSP solution. For one cities are located in fixed states while ants are communicating in a dynamic state. perhaps they may link up in a network remniscent to a TSP net? I DK. I didnt read the article in that much detail, but in anycase I would think it would have to be more a case of parallel processing while mine is still linear.

I understand, it’s a very non-intuitive notion. The easiest example to consider would be the vertices of a regular polygon of n sides. So if a city were located at each vertex, then the most efficient path is the origional polygon which is clearly describing the greatest area. The same would be true for any irregular polygon with all obtuse angles pointing out from the center which describes a starting perimeter of cities. As we add inner cities one at a time, you could look at the problem as adding the city by bisecting a perimeter segment such that the area surrounded by the perimeter is reduced by the least amount. Also note that as I explain it, it’s basically describing the proof I needed. I think I have it all done except for the last optimization. I’ll try to rewrite the proof explaining the method, then provide some pseudo code for the algorythm. This turned out to be a very productive thread.

The area encompased by any given route. So one idea I had was that it could be the case that the shortest route would always encompass the largest area out of all routes. No, not formerly. In fact I wasnt formerly trained in anything. My background was officially electrical engineering and my title was Sr Staff System Design Engineer and I was widely considered an expert in High Speed Digital Design though I never took any EE classes. it was a position I earned through my accomplishments in the field. I may have said that if I had a choice in majors, my first choice would have been Physics because I was a fan of Einstein and his methods especially in his early years. My second choice would have been programming because I was naturally gifted at coding, I do a lot of codding, though on a periodic bassis. Occasionally for a large project, I might do nothing but coding for several years, but it was nearly all self taught so my knowledge may be eclectic, incomplete, limited in languages, and out of date. Actually, I think you answered it. I origionally thought their might have been a trivial method to check a potential solution , kind of like problems that are trivial one way, vs difficult the other way, but I guess thats a different class of p vs np. For the heuristic? solution, like I had posted a little while back, I was thinking the proof could be handled by proving the steps of the method. As far as the algorithm for programming, I might choose a different approach from the mactrices that seem to be commonly used, in order to exploit the method I gave. starting from a linked list of perimeter cities I could optimally insert cities into the linked list one at a time. The order that the cities are processed in using a loop could be based on their radius to a centroid point (avg. x vs avg. y) So cities would begin in an array ordered by longest r to smallest r. Determining where each cities position in the linked list (route list) would be, would be determined by the difference between the line segment on the perimeter and the two new line segments that would replace that segment. then comparing results for each segment on the perimeter. However, there should be a way to narrow it down to compare only edges that are closest to the new city being added to the route determined through geometric relationships somehow.

I’ve always been under the impression that the shortest path should always encompas the largest area, but I didn’t know how to prove it. Is that related to your first point? I mean, has someone proven the above hypothesis.

I think we could use the combin function to get the number of combinations between e.g. 2 of n cities produces c distances comb(n,2) = c That list could be sorted. Any random route would always require n segments. But I dont see how the two lists could be correlated. I’m sure there are problems where the most efficient routes do not necessarily include all of the shortest distances. so it wouldn't just be the n shortest distances. I wonder if it could be the average distance times n. No, definately not. Any regular polygon like an octagon would show the shortest path between its verticies as the polygon itself, all diagonals would be longer than any side. so in that regards it would be the shortest n distances. I think the proof has to be embeded in the method, i.e. axiomatically proving that each step is correct.

Not with the correct solution? Otherwise it wouldn’t be np-hard.