SuperPolymath

Senior Members
  • Content count

    165
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-6 Poor

About SuperPolymath

  • Rank
    Baryon
  1. What is uncertainty ?

    You can, actually.
  2. Off-topic hijack (from What is uncertainty ?)

    Take QM mechanics, an excellent cover-up theory that diverts a community from classified knowledge.
  3. What is uncertainty ?

    In one sense, a myth is an idea that, while widely believed, is false, failing to correspond with reality. In a deeper sense, which is employed by students of religion, a myth serves as an orienting and mobilizing story for a people, a story that reminds them who they are and why they do what they do. When a story is called as a myth in this sense—which we can call Myth with a capital M—the focus is not on the story's relation to reality but on its function. This orienting and mobilizing function is possible, moreover, only because Myths with a capital M have religious overtones. Such a Myth is a Sacred Story.
  4. Hijack (from Ether evidence?)

    GR states that matter tells spacetime how to curve & this curve (gravity) propagates at C for that level of reality (1.6x10^-35 meters through 13 billion light years) & tells matter how to move via SR, there are infinite smaller levels composing an infinite larger levels, that is a governing property & generating property Vmedvil, but it's all deterministic because it's all (including SR) governed by GR, Vmedvil. In either case @swansont was incorrect. This wouldn't be modeled from scratch.
  5. Hijack (from Ether evidence?)

    All gravity has motion. It's called frame-dragging.
  6. Hijack (from Ether evidence?)

    Everything is still dictated by motion under GR.
  7. Hijack (from Ether evidence?)

    It's not from scratch, you have everything up to GR, pre-QM.
  8. Hijack (from Ether evidence?)

    It was an attempt to work with a user who had the necessary education to help me model-build, & I never once asked you to lock it. I said move it to trash can before resorting to locking it entirely, at least from there it could be moved back into speculations in the event a model would arise from the concepts.
  9. Hijack (from Ether evidence?)

    I was going to attempt to work with @Mordred on this but you locked said topic. So I sent him a pm on the subject in question. If he takes on the project I will attempt to do so, then I will post the topic.
  10. Ether evidence?

    The luminiferous Ether was Newton's vision of the ether, not Einstein's "Detector a reads 1 when a particle has horizontal polarity. Dectector B reads 1 when a particle has vertical polarity. If the particles are entangled previously this will affect the statistical average. Superposition is a mixture of the two. Statistically it can only be one or the other. However you don't know which photon has which. " You wanna know why? Because QM uses probability statistics & makes no attempt to understand the underlying nature of it all. The science of it, which could be expressed classically i.e. with nothing but local information exchange, can't be perfectly understood with QM & therefore the predictions are actually less accurate than otherwise possible. That's just what you get with an indeterminate methodology.
  11. Ether evidence?

    Never once do I mention Isaac Newton. His idea of the ether is far too outdated. Einstein's is based on matter telling spacetime how to reshape & spacetime telling matter how to move. My bad, yes I meant "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies." They're neither, they're based on Bell's inequality (math). They may be used to test any theory in physics.
  12. Ether evidence?

    Ether theories continue to have significant proponents, people who've even won nobel prizes (which should hold more weight than anyone objecting them here), finding evidence in support of loopholes in the supposed violation in Bell's inequality that would discredit said Ether theories. Let's start with the most significant original proponents of aether theories from the wikipedia article cited earlier in this thread: "We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." -Einstein circa 1920 Of course many here would probably quick to point out that Einstein's previous paper "the photoelectric effect" which first introduced SR that predated this 1920 post-GR quote of Einstein's doubted the Ether, GR literally predicted it in distorting light waves around the sun that acted like an ether pushing out the stars around the horizon of the sun generating an optical illusion that warped their positions officially confirmed by astronomers in 1919 & then in gravitational waves with v=c measured twice by LIGO (once in a neutron star collision & once in BH collision where the velocity of gravitation was truly confirmed by the fact that GW waves frame dragging means gravity is not even a field) in 2017. The thing that the ether theory states, is local realism in deterministic, infinitely reducible beneath the planck length, spacetime: In the Bohmian view, nonlocality is even more conspicuous. The trajectory of any one particle depends on what all the other particles described by the same wave function are doing. And, critically, the wave function has no geographic limits; it might, in principle, span the entire universe. Which means that the universe is weirdly interdependent, even across vast stretches of space. This pilot wave could literally be the propagating Euclid-esque spatial-temporal curves (GW waves in microcausal systems) of sub-Planck scale (C covers 1/40 planck lengths in 1/40 planck times & that's a superluminal interaction that doesn't violate the cosmic speed limit) structures that we cannot observe. This is supported in this article: The situation is somewhat different when we consider gravity and promote the Lorentz violating tensors to dynamical objects. For example in an aether theory, where Lorentz violation is described by a timelike four vector, the four vector can twist in such a way that local superluminal propagation can lead to energy-momentum flowing around closed paths [206]. However, even classical general relativity admits solutions with closed time like curves, so it is not clear that the situation is any worse with Lorentz violation. Furthermore, note that in models where Lorentz violation is given by coupling matter fields to a non-zero, timelike gradient of a scalar field, the scalar field also acts as a time function on the spacetime. In such a case, the spacetime must be stably causal (c.f. [272]) and there are no closed timelike curves. This property also holds in Lorentz violating models with vectors if the vector in a particular solution can be written as a non-vanishing gradient of a scalar. Finally, we mention that in fact many approaches to quantum gravity actually predict a failure of causality based on a background metric [121] as in quantum gravity the notion of a spacetime event is not necessarily well-defined [239]. A concrete realization of this possibility is provided in Bose-Einstein condensate analogs of black holes [40]. Here the low energy phonon excitations obey Lorentz invariance and microcausality [270]. However, as one approaches a certain length scale (the healing length of the condensate) the background metric description breaks down and the low energy notion of microcausality no longer holds. I quote Gerard t'Hooft, another proponent of ether theory: "Einstein had difficulties with the relativistic invariance of quantum mechanics (“does the spooky information transmitted by these particles go faster than light?”). These, however, are now seen as technical difficulties that have been resolved. It may be consid- ered part of Copenhagen’s Doctrine, that the transmission of information over a distance can only take place, if we can identify operators A at space-time point x1 and operators B at space-time point x2 that do not commute: [A, B] 6= 0 . We now understand that, in elementary particle theory, all space-like separated observables mutually commute, which precludes any signalling faster than light. It is a built-in feature of the Standard Model, to which it actually owes much of its success. So, with the technical difficulties out of the way, we are left with the more essential Einsteinian objections against the Copenhagen doctrine for quantum mechanics: it is a probabilistic theory that does not tell us what actually is going on. It is sometimes even suggested that we have to put our “classical” sense of logic on hold. Others deny that: “Keep remembering what you should never ask, while reshaping your sense of logic, and everything will be fine.” According to the present author, the Einstein-Bohr debate is not over. A theory must be found that does not force us to redefine any aspect of classical, logical reasoning. What Einstein and Bohr did seem to agree about is the importance of the role of an observer. Indeed, this was the important lesson learned in the 20th century: if something cannot be observed, it may not be a well-defined concept – it may even not exist at all. We have to limit ourselves to observable features of a theory. It is an important ingredient of our present work that we propose to part from this doctrine, at least to some extent: Things that are not directly observable may still exist and as such play a decisive role in the observable properties of an object. They may also help us to construct realistic models of the world. Indeed, there are big problems with the dictum that everything we talk about must be observable. While observing microscopic objects, an observer may disturb them, even in a classical theory; moreover, in gravity theories, observers may carry gravitational fields that disturb the system they are looking at" More evidence: The hole is quantum-mechanically unstable: It has no bound states. Wormhole wave functions must eventually leak to large radii. This suggests that stability considerations along these lines may place strong constraints on the nature and even the existence of spacetime foam. In invariant set theory, the form of the Bell Inequality whose violation would be inconsistent with realism and local causality is undefined, and the form of the inequality that it violated experimentally is not even gp-approximately close to the form needed to rule out local realism (54) [21]. A key element in demonstrating this result derives from the fact that experimenters cannot in principle shield their apparatuses from the uncontrollable ubiquitous gravitational waves that fill space-time. ---- A finite non-classical framework for physical theory is described which challenges the conclusion that the Bell Inequality has been shown to have been violated experimentally, even approximately. This framework postulates the universe as a deterministic locally causal system evolving on a measure-zero fractal-like geometry IU in cosmological state space. Consistent with the assumed primacy of IU , and p-adic number theory, a non-Euclidean (and hence non-classical) metric gp is defined on cosmological state space, where p is a large but finite Pythagorean prime. Using numbertheoretic properties of spherical triangles, the inequalities violated experimentally are shown to be gp-distant from the CHSH inequality, whose violation would rule out local realism. This result fails in the singular limit p = ∞, at which gp is Euclidean. Broader implications are discussed. In invariant set theory, the form of the Bell Inequality whose violation would be inconsistent with realism and local causality is undefined, and the form of the inequality that it violated experimentally is not even gp-approximately close to the form needed to rule out local realism (54) [21]. A key element in demonstrating this result derives from the fact that experimenters cannot in principle shield their apparatuses from the uncontrollable ubiquitous gravitational waves that fill space-time. ---- A finite non-classical framework for physical theory is described which challenges the conclusion that the Bell Inequality has been shown to have been violated experimentally, even approximately. This framework postulates the universe as a deterministic locally causal system evolving on a measure-zero fractal-like geometry IU in cosmological state space. Consistent with the assumed primacy of IU , and p-adic number theory, a non-Euclidean (and hence non-classical) metric gp is defined on cosmological state space, where p is a large but finite Pythagorean prime. Using numbertheoretic properties of spherical triangles, the inequalities violated experimentally are shown to be gp-distant from the CHSH inequality, whose violation would rule out local realism. This result fails in the singular limit p = ∞, at which gp is Euclidean. Broader implications are discussed.. A particle of energy is just like an infinite universe of matter with a relatively infinite amount of mass. Everything works the same. Fall anywhere in space, no matter how seemingly void, & you're gonna land on matter if you're small enough. There isn't an empty place anywhere. The idea behind any attempt to build an ether theory is just that empty space ought not be really empty. We have two good reasons to think so: first, electromagnetic signals behave undoubtedly as waves; since they propagate even through intergalactic space, there must be some thing there (everywhere), in which they do wave. Second, quantum theory predicts that vacuum has physical effects, such as the Casimir effect, which is now experimentally confirmed [1].
  13. Ether evidence?

    @swansont, you will lock this thread on the basis that you locked mine for less. Failure to do so will result in a report against you.
  14. Quantum interpretation states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality This theory states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality#Local_realism
  15. Explain how there's more evidence for, or testable predictions in, non-locality than in this first. Any model can be tested & any well-sensed theory can be modeled (which was what Mordred said he would do if said thread was posted). There was no true evidence for the super-positions in space-time that QM predicted, this is why Einstein opposed it. This doesn't actually violate C, & it doesn't assume the non-commutation of action like in the standard model's version of QE which there's really no evidence for. I'll tell you what, move this to trash-can until someone models it. That seems to be the only issue here.