Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by NTuft

  1. 9 hours ago, Lorentz Jr said:

    Yes, I think all matter and radiation are made of waves. I don't believe in particles. I think they're artifacts of classical thinking.

    Doesn't the 99.99% volume occupancy by the electron only follow from a dense nucleus of particles? From reading Inside the Proton, the 'Most Complicated Thing You Could Possibly Imagine', there are unknowns, but it seems hard to argue away the explanatory power of particles a la the Standard Model. I need to read "Matter as excitations of the field", as admittedly I don't understand the field views well enough, so know I don't discount your perspective out of hand.

    6 hours ago, Genady said:

    Computer is a concept which we (you, me, some other people) use to organize our perceptions of the world. A member of lost Amazonian tribe while finding a computer in the forest would perhaps perceive three blocks rather than one anything, i.e. a big block (monitor), a medium size block (keyboard), and a small block (mouse). And she will be right.


    True, though the object still has an "objective" existence aside from it's functional conception.

    4 hours ago, Mordred said:

    One of the problems of the particle view is the electron spin taking the diameter that NTuft provided. The electrons angular momentum and that diameter. The electron angular momentum would end up exceeding the speed of light. If I recall the calculation correct it would be roughly 10 times c.

     The field excitation view with the increased radius this isn't the case. 

     I mention this as it's one of the common arguments you will find that is used to support the field excitation view.

     Though certainly not the only argument. 

    I should further mention that electron spin is intrinsic. It requires a 720 degree rotation to return to its original state so don't think of particles as little spinning balls.

    The field excitation view... From the linked write-up, there are problems resolving the proton's spin, too. It seems to be related to magnetic field interactions, and to my mind electronic spin and nuclear magnetic resonance look to be making use of a classical spinning.. Dirac's belt trick can be done with a belt. What the analogy of the tethered ends would be, I don't know. I doubt that it is classical, unless there's some physical dimensionality that is difficult to conceptualize, and I'm a bit stuck in classical and not sufficiently confused by the quantum picture as I haven't understood it.

  2. @Lorentz Jr,
    How big is an electron?
    To address your second bullet I go to interpret scattering/splitting experiments. The hard, dense nucleus follows from one. Equating E = e^2/4\pi \epsilon_0 r = mc^2 gives the classical electron radius, ~10-15m, which would be about the same size as the nucleus there. From the Zeeman effect I believe the electron has a magnetic dipole, and the Lamb shift indicates the exchange interaction of electromagnetic force in vacuum. Limiting e rotational speed below c in accounting for the magnetic moment indicates a lower limit on e radius of 10-12m(\lambda_c). Is that the value from which you make your 99.99% claim? Ostensibly it cannot be confined to space less than that because if it were smaller there'd be enough energy for e creatio ex vacuum: producing a positron-electron to annihilate and have a bonus e. The \lambda_c limit calculation is modelling the electron as a classical spinning object (with the constraint v<c), but the interpretation is from the exchange interaction. Experiments have put bounds on the electric and magnetic dipole moments:


    Laser-cooled polyatomic molecules for improved electron electric dipole moment searches
    Experimental probes of the electric dipole moment of the electron (eEDM) provide strong constraints on theories of particle physics beyond the Standard Model (BSM) [1–6]. The most stringent limit on an eEDM has been realized in experiments using a diatomic molecule, ThO, in a 3Δ1 state, limiting the eEDM to < 1.1 × 10−29 e cm [7, 8]. This has placed limits on T-violating new physics above the TeV scale [5, 6]. Other work, using HfF+ with the same electronic structure, has confirmed the ACME results at the <1.3 × 10−28 e cm level [9].  

    2 ACME Precision Measurement of the Electron Electric Dipole Moment (EDM)

    Towards an Improved Test of the Standard Model’s Most Precise Prediction

    The most precise prediction of the SM is the size of the electron magnetic moment μe.

    5. Probe for Electron Substructure
    Comparing experiment and theory probes for possible electron substructure at an energy scale, one might only expect from a large accelerator. An electron whose constituents would have mass m∗≫m has a natural size scale, R=ℏ/(m∗c). The simplest analysis of the resulting magnetic moment [21] gives δa∼m/m∗, suggesting that m∗>400,000TeV/c2 and R<5×10−25 m. This would be an incredible limit, since the largest e+e− collider (LEP) probed for a contact interaction at an E=10.3 TeV [22], with R<(ℏc)/E=2×10−20 m.
    However, the simplest argument also implies that the first-order contribution to the electron self-energy goes as m∗ [21]. Without heroic fine-tuning (e.g., the bare mass canceling this contribution to produce the small electron mass), some internal symmetry of the electron model must suppress both mass and moment. For example, a chirally invariant model [21], leads to δa∼(m/m∗)2. In this case, m∗>460GeV/c2 and R<4×10−19 m. These are stringent limits to be set by an experiment carried out at 100 mK, although they are not yet at the LEP limits. With a more precise measurement of α, so this was limited only by our experimental uncertainty in a, then we could set a limit m∗>1TeV/c2 and R<2×10−19 m.
    6. Comparison to the Muon Magnetic Moment
    The electron magnetic moment is measured about 2300 times more accurately than is the moment of its heavier muon sibling [4,23]. Because the electron is stable there is time to isolate one electron, cool it so that it occupies a very small volume within a magnetic field, and to resolve the quantum structure in its cyclotron and spin motions.

    From my read this puts the electric dipole moment measurement at 1.1 × 10−29 e cm, and "a natural size scale, R<(ℏc)/E=2×10−20 m"? So the experimental results read to me as saying a size below the Compton wavelength is possible. Do you really think the size of the electron is the size of the electron wavefunction? Or isn't the wavefunction a description of the probability of finding the electron at a certain position?

    It may be that you have a high momentum computer, or rather, that your computer's position is so well known that it's momentum is uncertain. However, I'm not sure that the same laws apply at different scales, and that seems to be the insoluble problem. Perhaps your computer's existence is not dependent on any uncertainty relation, or, there is no reason to be biased by creatio ex minima schemas and disregard macroscale classical experience. It may be a form of causal opacity from the interpretations, because I think it's fine to presume that the various scales were accounted for to work well; i.e. your computer ontologically exists. Or please explain why not.

  3. 14 minutes ago, exchemist said:

    But you asked about calcium carbonate. And neither has anything to do with hurting humans. 

    Which one is it? Has to be --------, eh?

    This reminds me of a quote from iNow:

    On 1/7/2023 at 6:57 AM, iNow said:

    I feel with my heart that the internet is becoming inundated with poorly trained bots 

    is that your concern here, exchemist? Or why are you walking on eggshells -- wary because he/she/it mentioned "hurt or even be noticed by a human?" Maybe check post history if concerned? Good show here, thanks.

  4. On 12/31/2022 at 7:29 AM, Genady said:

    With so many, how does one pick a favorite?

    On 1/1/2023 at 3:59 PM, Genady said:

    To better understand this statement, or rather to understand it at all, may I ask if the computer in front of me exists in any meaningful ontological sense?

    On 1/1/2023 at 5:08 PM, Genady said:

    I am familiar with the models. I just wanted to understand what is

    I still don't know.

    Maybe I do... Then my answer [...]


    is, No. This is regardless of waves, particles, strings, [...]

    I don't know. I think you've got to catch them all, then try to compare and contrast. Which one did you choose that lead to that question and answer?


    On 1/1/2023 at 4:21 PM, Lorentz Jr said:

    If you take quantum wave equations seriously as indications of what matter really is, your computer exists as a very complicated wave but not as a collection of particles. According to objective-collapse theories, quantized amounts of the wave keep collapsing repeatedly, creating the illusion of solid matter. The various theories differ in how and why the collapses occur.

    On 1/2/2023 at 12:31 AM, Lorentz Jr said:

    There's a theory of geometric gravity without relativity, and it seems very strange to me that physicists wax philosophical about abandoning cherished misconceptions, while at the same time clinging to the classical ontology of matter as being made of solid entities of one kind or another, in the face of wave-based quantum theories.

    It's called a matter wave, I think it's implied to be "... solid... of... kind...". I read your speculations thread. I don't know if you're on about point particles or (more likely) elementary particles, but it's a stretch to go from there to Genady's computer and I'll be a monkey's uncle if it's not a solid by then. I mean that's a marco-molecular structure, composite particles and on into actual chemicals. Thanks for the link here.

    Genady doesn't even believe his computer exists ontologically. I'm ontologically uncertain about ontology and I blame 1)Markus Hanke and 2)Loretnz Jr. +1 to TheVat who is on about David Bohm and particles over there. Interpretations of QM->Quantum physics->QFT and of course a treatment for time and gravity so from the end of Relativity:


    The question of the particular field law is secondary in the prceding general considerations. At the present time, the main question is whether a field theory of the kind here contemplated can lead to the goal at all. By this is meant a theory which describes exhustively physical reality, including four-dimensional space, by a field. The present-day generation of physicists is inclined to answer this question in the negative. In conformity with the present form of the quantum theory, it believes that the state of a system cannot be specified directly, but only in an indirect way by a statement of the statistics of the results of measurement attainable on the system. The conviction prevails that the experimentally assured duality of nature (corpuscular and wave structure) can be realised only by such a weakening of the concept of reality. I think that such a far-reaching theoretical renunciation is not for the present justified by our actual knowledge, and that one should not desist from pursuing to the end the path of the relativistic theory.


    Having reached different conclusions about his computer and although I hold in reserve G.'s ability to speak facetiously and cryptically can it be inferred that we have different QM interpretations that led inexorably on to logically to this result or is it an illogical loosening on someone's part.


    I request speculation on this unverified claim:


    ... gauge fixing can simplify calculations immensely, but becomes progressively harder as the physical model becomes more realistic; its application to quantum field theory is fraught with complications related to renormalization, especially when the computation is continued to higher orders. Historically, the search for logically consistent and computationally tractable gauge fixing procedures, and efforts to demonstrate their equivalence in the face of a bewildering variety of technical difficulties, has been a major driver of mathematical physics from the late nineteenth century to the present.

    and clarification of if it is Smolin's Public Lecture: Time Reborn at PI, or what, that is referenced.

  5. On 1/7/2023 at 5:47 AM, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

    I feel with my heart that everything do not exist, yet I can touch them and interact with the computer.

    In quiet moments by yourself how well can you feel your heart? This sounds like overwriting by your mind. If there's a cold body of water you could immerse yourself in you may find it to be a modification for the computer.

  6. Staggered geometric progressions or logarithmic spirals that are created on the Argand plane by expanding definition of imaginary numbers because of the exponentiations. Even numbered exponentiations generate real numbers and odd numbered generate imaginary since working with purely imaginary numbers, so points on the graph are mapped to the axes. Solid line and numbering for +i and -real axes for graphical description given at upper rt.-hand corner describing CCW rotation(from +i axis for positive prime); dashed line and numbering for -i and +real axes for representation described in upper lt.-hand corner describing CW rotation (from -i axis for negative prime). Note that increments for svg.image?i%27=\sqrt{2} on imaginary axis go by multiples of svg.image?\sqrt{2} and by +1's and -1's on the real axis, and for svg.image?i%27=\sqrt{-7} the increments are in 10's of svg.image?\sqrt{-7} and blocks of 10 on the real axis; as denoted by solid and dashed lines, respectively.


    Uncertain how to properly scale axes, but I do think there is a geometric progression because each time there is a squared exponentiation there is a multiplication here by 2 or 7, or by each raised power a multiplication by the sqaure root of those; also unknown if negative exponentiation should instead create a descreasing spiral or the symmetry (change in rotation direction?) around zero as described previously: confusion d/t complex numbers since negative exponents should mean how many times to divide by the number but on the complex plane exponentiation is creating rotation...
    Please criticize.

  7. On 10/29/2022 at 4:08 AM, studiot said:


    Just look how low this dam is.

    What do you mean?


    Currently, around 5000GWh (Gigawatt hours) of electricity from hydropower are produced every year; that’s enough to power roughly half of Scotland’s homes.


    Are you pointing to how they're able to do so much with a small dam?


    However, if not constructed or maintained in accordance with best practice, hydropower can seriously impact on river ecology and fish stocks. In the worst case, rivers could be dried-up completely for hundreds of metres downstream. So, striking the right balance between protecting the water environment and renewable energy generation is vital.

    Or are you saying the water flow past the dam is low? Resevoir looks topped off.


    Reading a while it occured to me to construct an inlet off from the ocean, allowing water to move inland and downhill to run a turbine and have it go to groundwater or form a small delta. Probably engineering contingencies I'm not taking into account. Please elaborate on what it is you're trying to continue to bang on about.

  8. Fine 

    On 10/16/2022 at 4:12 AM, Eise said:

    [...] So your task is to show the formula wrong.

    QM. Just QM.


    Because, from a classical view, the results are outrageous. Two of the fundamental assumptions of classical physics are challenged, locality and realism (in the technical sense of those words, not of your vague interpretations of them, see CHSH). There obviously were physicists that trusted QM so much, that they did not find it necessary to do such experiments, e.g. Feynman.


    I'm sure most realize it but to be explicit, we've branched from QM to Quantum Field Theory(QFT) which most often does bring along Special Relativity. And the CHSH game, or the version with two referees judging timing, may be drawing a line between the classical and quantum versions of Bell's inequality:


    [...]In the following sections, it is shown that if Alice and Bob use only classical strategies involving their local information (and potentially some random coin tosses), it is impossible for them to win with a probability higher than 75%. However, if Alice and Bob are allowed to share a single entangled qubit pair, then there exists a strategy which allows Alice and Bob to succeed with a probability of ~85%.

    Most of the experiments seem to use measuring polarized light as a proxy for entangled electrons as Bell had intended.

    On 10/21/2022 at 12:56 AM, Eise said:


    It is called the singlet state, and QM shows it can be created.

    In that you shifted the meaning away from how it is used in the CHSH inequality. For you, realism includes locality. For CHSH it doesn't.

    Here you are redefining it:

    That simply is not what CHSH is about. It clearly distinguishes the two assumptions on which it is based: locality on one side, realism on the other side.


    From reading Kracklauer, he seems to state that the only appropriate distinction regarding non-commutating measures in QM relates to the uncertainty principle. So one end of either momentum or position; joigus superbly explicates the math/physics formalism for locality.

    On 10/21/2022 at 6:49 PM, MigL said:

    Information, according to Relativity is constrained to stransfers equal to, or less than, the speed of light.
    Are you saying Relativity is wrong ?

    No, they did not demonstrate the 'reality of non-locality'.
    They demonstrated the absence of local realism.

    You can twist and bend that as much as you like, but they are NOT equivalent.

    I don't think Relativity needs to come into the discussion regarding QM or QFT. It is brought out as a litmus test for trying to weigh an interpretation's plausibility but I don't think that's valid here. To point to the second postulate of S.R. is to sidestep the point of contention at issue here with regards to entanglement.

    On 10/24/2022 at 3:58 PM, hoola said:

    for some reason, my newer entries were not displayed on the last page, but the first, so let me re iterate what I said recently. If entangled particles can be considered as matter waves only until wavefunction collapse, and each matterwave  has a distinct, but inverted waveform, running parallel to each other, and proximate enough to induce cancellation, then an increase in spatial separation of the two data streams sufficient to cause them to not interfere would allow them to re appear as real data pertaining to both particles properties, allowing the collapse of the wavefunction into their particular structures. The fact of the two data streams being inverted offers the reason to expect the particles to have the opposite spins. I will go back to the bottom of page one to see if they are still there, as they have a more complete dialogue on what I am saying now....well, they certainly are not there, and since the idea will certainly be broadly panned, I will not persue the matter unless there is any interest of a further explanation.


    Animation showing how the sine function (in red) is graphed from the y-coordinate (red dot) of a point on the unit circle (in green), at an angle of θ. The cosine (in blue) is the x-coordinate. It can be interpreted as a phase space trajectory of the system of differential equations '"`UNIQ--postMath-00000023-QINU`"' and '"`UNIQ--postMath-00000024-QINU`"' starting from the initial conditions '"`UNIQ--postMath-00000025-QINU`"' and '"`UNIQ--postMath-00000026-QINU`"'.

    So the idea of wave function collapse explained by the projection postulate as reality condensing to a certain possible superposition is the measurement problem in QM. I read your conjecture here to hinge on wave->particle duality taking a direction or shape as in going from a wave to a particle upon observation, is that what you're envisioning?

    On 10/27/2022 at 3:18 AM, bangstrom said:


    Correlation between distant points and under varying conditions requires some form of signaling. Violations of Bell's ineqalities and Zeilinger's teleportation rule out the possibility that particle's quantum properties are not unchanged from the start.

    Entangled particles act as if they are side-by-side so any action on one end instantly affects the other as a single event. There is no space-like separation at the particle level, in the way there is at the macro level, so all interactions are essentially instant at the particle level for entangled particles. 

    In answer to your question, this is my view of realism:

    Realism accepts that the cause of a physical change must be local in that it requires a physical interaction between a cause and effect. It also accepts that objects are real and exist in our physical universe independent of our minds. We live in an objective reality, not one which exists only in our minds or which takes form only upon our looking at it.

    On further reading I am open to the possibility that instant action at a distance is 'local' since everything is instant and local for entangled particles and there is no space-like timing between them. I have always considered the emission and absorption of light to be simultaneous events from the perspective of light itself.

    As Carver Mead explains, every electron, when the resonant conditions between permit, is capable of a direct interaction with any other electron on the same Minkowski light cone. I can understand that kind of locality but I don't recognize it as the same locality discussed here.


    On 10/27/2022 at 4:36 AM, joigus said:


    [...] It's not a minor point. It's very important.

    It's the essence of the projection postulate, which is deeply non-local, but has no non-local consequences. Only problem: It's just a convention. It's not an evolution law for the state, and certainly not a law of physics. And most importantly, it has no experimental consequences. It was theoretically designed to do exactly that. Go back to my comment on FAPP's Bell's comment.

    Most physicists that contributed to the formulation of QM had no problem in seeing the state vector as just an epistemic book-keeping device, reflecting our knowledge. That's why they had no problem in introducing a non-local, non-unitary mathematical convention of which no non-local consequences could be derived.

    And last, but not least, as Eise has said above: No. Non-locality does not imply non-realism. They are very different assumptions. Example: Plane waves propagate in a totally local way. Yet, by virtue of selecting the momentum, the position is totally undetermined. That's local non-realism at its simplest, even before we start talking about entanglement.


    Here, if momentum is zeroed to a finite precision, which is questionable, and the position is totally undetermined doesn' that equate to non-locality? I realize you later explain non-locality explicitly.


    On 10/13/2022 at 9:49 AM, swansont said:

    Moderator Note

    Such speculation should go in its own thread


    I can't get back all the quotes I had, but @Mitcher seemed to be referring to Kaluza-Klein theory when he mentioned an oblique 5th-dimension in which apparent long distances are effectively local, so I think he was not in unacceptable territory but was meeting some speculation with some well-supported science:


    In 1926, Oskar Klein gave Kaluza's classical five-dimensional theory a quantum interpretation,[4][5] to accord with the then-recent discoveries of Heisenberg and Schrödinger. Klein introduced the hypothesis that the fifth dimension was curled up and microscopic, to explain the cylinder condition. Klein suggested that the geometry of the extra fifth dimension could take the form of a circle, with the radius of 10−30 cm. More precisely, the radius of the circular dimension is 23 times the Planck length, which in turn is of the order of 10−33 cm.[5] Klein also made a contribution to the classical theory by providing a properly normalized 5D metric.


    3 hours ago, swansont said:

    Correlation is not an interaction, and the correlation is present at the beginning.

    This applies to you, too.

    Will try to provide supporting evidence to assertions as should be required.

    1 hour ago, MigL said:

    All equally valid, and all equally nonsensical from our classical macro perspective.


    I'm not an aether fan-boy; I see it as a useless ( and incredible ) add-on, much like I view non-local 'interactions'.


    Bully, I say. As swansont also mentioned aether not being necessary, I would agree, but only because the patch-work put together is now effectively an elastic dielectric medium for wave propagation and the vacuum energy may even be non-zero (ok, crank-case speculations here). This is on par with higher education, so thanks.

  9. Bell's "Theorem": loopholes vs. conceptual flaws
    by A.F. Kracklauer


    An historical overview and detailed explication of a critical analysis of what has become known as Bell’s Theorem to the effect that, it should be impossible to extend Quantum Theory with the addition of local, real variables so as to obtain a version free of the ambiguous and preternatural features of the currently accepted interpretations is presented. The central point on which this critical analysis, due originally to Edwin Jaynes, is that Bell incorrectly applied probabilistic formulas involving conditional probabilities. In addition, mathematical technicalities that have complicated the understanding of the logical or mathematical setting in which current theory and experimentation are embedded, are discussed. Finally, some historical speculations on the sociological environment, in particular misleading aspects, in which recent generations of physicists lived and worked are mentioned.

    Keywords: Bell’s Theorem; Projection Hypothesis; entanglement; non-locality; irreality

    1 Introduction
    1.1 The issue of dispute
    Frequently in human affairs, be they world wars or parlor games, the participants become so fixated on the tactics of the moment that fundamental strategic considerations are overlooked. This writer holds that this is exactly the current situation with regard to the theoretical and experimental study of the nature and consequences of Bell’s Theorem. What has become known as “closing loopholes in the experimental verification of Bell’s Theorem” is a systematic attack on aspects of the experiments due to possible ancillary technicalities of the experimental setups. It is thought that peculiarities pertaining to the experimental equipment, or overlooked physical effects, may introduce erroneous data supporting misleading conclusions. Very few of those concerned with the general validity of the experimental verification of Bell’s theorem also concern themselves with the more fundamental question: is the theorem itself, aside from practical laboratory realities and exotic hypothetical effects, as a statement within the ambit of Quantum Theory, valid? Is it self consistent? And, is it rationally related to entities in the natural world? In short, is Bell’s Theorem logically correct in its ideal form, ignoring practical subsidiary laboratory complications?

    In principle, if any statement is conceptually false, then rigorous, logical analysis can identify the offending assumption or deduction in the reasoning chain taken in the attempt to “prove” the conclusion. In mathematics, this process is denoted disproving a theorem. This is a formal matter. Formal logic, however, provides a simpler means to indisputably reject a theorem: display a single counterexample.

    Informally, it is likewise instinctively understood, in addition, that any statement or idea that is afflicted with a fatal error, frequently due to complexity or the nonavailability of essential information, can be seen nevertheless as false because some consequence of the statement or a derived idea which should be valid if the statement is true, is in fact invalid. Such a situation can obtain sometimes even when there is no obvious connection to a formal proof or disproof of the statement itself. These “secondary” or derivative falsehoods or inconsistencies can be called “clues.” Often there is no obvious connection of such clues to a formal statement, and, very often they are disregarded as irrelevant.

    Now, the critical literature negating the consequences of Bell’s analysis, known as his “Theorem,”[1] to the best knowledge of this writer, contains three long-term schools of analysis criticizing the formal proofs of Bell’s Theorem, and in addition, many single publications proffer clues. The latter are mostly accidental discoveries made in investigations, not always of Bell’s Theorem itself, but of some phenomena used for many purposes only one of which is involved in a experimental proof of Bell’s Theorem. Some of these “clues ” may also be denoted by custom as “loopholes,” which can be distinguished from pure clues by their relevance, not to the core validity of “Bell’s Theorem,” but just to its empirical verification.

    Herein a line of critical analysis of “Bell’s Theorem” based on the observation that Bell mistook the use of coincident probabilities, is described. Bell’s analysis deduced an inequality that he asserted must be respected by all local (i.e., conventionally causal: causes of all effects lie within the latter’s past light cone) and realistic (i.e., all material entities exist independent of human interventions or observations).

    In addition, there are alternate lines of critical analysis, based on other central observations or propositions, e.g.: [2, 3].

    1.2 Clues and counterexamples
    The current state of the art regarding proofs of Bell’s Theorem is that experimental realizations of the structure of the inequalities deduced in abstract proofs of Bell’s analysis find that Bell’s inequality is violated for auspiciously chosen parameters. Then, since Bell’s analysis states in short that, without some contribution of irreality (wave function collapse induced by human observation) and/or nonlocality (superluminal interaction) the observed results, i.e., the inequality violation, could not have been obtained. This conclusion is meant to be a logical deduction, in other words, a necessary consequence for the validity of the assertions made to the effect that, “experiments prove Bell’s Theorem.” If it is not valid, then all results from empirical tests of Bell’s analysis are ambiguous, insofar as they may have a conventional explanation, i.e., the experimental ‘proofs’ as such fail to satisfy the proclaimed theoretical deductions.

    However, there exist relatively numerous examples of classical phenomena manifestly lacking any hint of irreality or nonlocality violating the very same inequalities. These ‘counterexamples’ usually are based on some macroscopic, classical realization of the microscopic phenomena exploited for the experimental Bell-test experiments. Results from these experiments, to the degree practical, violate Bell inequalities numerically in exactly the way as do Bell verification experiments. As argued above, this should be impossible if Bell analysis is logically fault free. Again, in other words, the conclusion that a Bell Inequality cannot be violated without irreality or nonlocality is baseless.

    Herein first, pioneering studies presenting examples of such nonquantum phenomena tending to disprove Bell’s core conclusion by means of counterexample are briefly reviewed. These include those by A. O. Barut & collaborators, Perdijon and Mizrahi and Moussa. Thereafter, the reasons these obviously classical models coincide with the otherwise considered “quantum result” is discussed.

    2 The Vanguard
    2.1 A. O. Barut & collaborators
    In a series of papers beginning about 1984 A. O. Barut and various collaborators have advanced the contention that, for spin -1/2 particles the average from a classical model of an ensemble of similar particles, yields the same correlations as does Quantum Mechanics [4]. They based their analysis on the known fact that Quantum Mechanics addresses only the expectation values of measurable parameters while having nothing to say about individual measurements. This allows then for reasonable physical assumptions regarding individual systems, which they take to be that an ensemble of such entities with spin can have a random distribution of spin orientations over a sphere. These hypothetical inputs to the model imply that, for their model, the singlet state is not a representation of an individual entity with spin, but rather a formalized expression for calculating expectation values for a randomly oriented ensemble of such entities.

    In 1986 Barut and his student M. Božic extended their study to the triplet state [5]; and Barut reported explicit examples of hidden variable renditions of Bell Inequality tests thereby claiming to have found a counterexample to the widely accepted assertion that Quantum Mechanics cannot accept such variables [6][2]

    Finally, in 1991 Barut published a considerably streamlined analysis of his central assertion regarding spin [7]. Here spin of an entity is taken to be specified by a vector S(θ, φ) giving its direction in space so that the expectation of the correlation E(A, B) is then the average over the randomly distributed angles (θ, φ) for all the elements of the ensemble, namely:

    where a and b are the orientations of the magnetic field interacting with spin, or the axes of polarizers filtering light pulses. Insofar as this classical result is identical to the quantum version, Barut’s model constitutes a counterexample to claims that the observed correlations can be obtained only under the effects of either or both irreality and nonlocality.

    2.2 Mizrahi and Moussa
    These authors independently extended the analysis of the basic Bell-test by means of a simulation of the classical rendition of the experiment [8]. They proposed an actual mechanical and optical setup to realize the conditions envisioned for the basic, two wing Bell Inequality test. It consists of a randomly flashing light in a rotating tube the ends of which are equipped with two polarizer filters oriented such that their axes have a fixed angular displacement. The light pulses from the flashes then exit the tube on both sides and pass through polarizer filters with axes a, b fixed in the laboratory frame after which pulse intensity is measured and recorded for each. The randomness of the flashes with respect to the rotation of the tube ensures that the polarization orientation of any single pulse is random. The fixed displacement of the axes of the polarizers mounted on the end of the tube ensures that the relationship between the polarization axes of the two pulses is nevertheless fixed. This structure constitutes the essence of the natural phenomena under study. (See Figure 1.)

    Figure 1 Schematic of a proposed simulation of the classical variant of the simplest Bell test experiment. The logic of Bell’s inequality derivation would predict that for this setup the inequality would be satisfied. In fact, however, numerical results parallel those from “quantum,” single-photon versions of this setup. Thus, it constitutes a counterexample for the claims made on the basis of Bell’s analysis.
    Figure 1
    Schematic of a proposed simulation of the classical variant of the simplest Bell test experiment. The logic of Bell’s inequality derivation would predict that for this setup the inequality would be satisfied. In fact, however, numerical results parallel those from “quantum,” single-photon versions of this setup. Thus, it constitutes a counterexample for the claims made on the basis of Bell’s analysis.

    The laboratory setup to acquire the data for computing a Bell Inequality consists of two fixed polarizers with photodetectors, one set at each end with axis a or b. The photo detectors then register the intensity of the intensity of the macroscopic light pulses (obviously not single photons) which in the simulation are deduced according to Malus’ Law.

    The simulation results are parallel to those obtained in actual optical realizations of the basic Bell-test. The fact that this manifestly classical arrangement leads to a violation of a Bell Inequality must mean either that classical optics also is irreal or nonlocal; or that the significance of Bell’s analysis is misinterpreted, even invalid.

    3 The underlying defect
    3.1 Edwin Jaynes
    The models described above contradict the conclusion to Bell’s analysis. The natural question is: how can a seemingly rigorous deduction be challenged? What, if any, error is involved?

    Historically, it seems that the otherworldly consequences of Bell’s analysis were in too great a conflict with otherwise intuitively logical, and without other exception, empirically verified principles to be accepted by everybody, so that in spite of sociological forces of conformity, some researchers sought non fantastical explanations. Perhaps the first to do so, or publish his opinion, was Edwin Jaynes. In the 1980’s Jaynes was engaged in an extensive study of Bayesian Methods within the whole of Physics, and was likely highly sensitized to the intricacies of probabilistic reasoning. With this competence he quickly spotted the fundamental mistake in Bell’s argumentation and made it an example of misapplication of probability theory in the preface to the proceedings of a conference held in 1988 on Bayesian Theory [9]. Therein, without any elaboration or even a single formula, he simply pointed out that Bell had misapplied the concept of a conditional probability. The missing elaboration was subsequently published by Perdijon in 1991.

    3.2 Perdijon
    In 1991 the French mining engineer J. Perdijon independently proposed the model described above but applied to the optical version concerning the relationship between different states of polarization [10]. His analysis is based clearly and explicitly on the observation that Bell’s expression for joint expectations, i.e.:

    silently presumes that the detections in the two output channels, i.e., “photon detections,” are statistically independent or uncorrelated—contrary to a fundamental, hypothetical input into the analysis. Perdijon notes that for correlated events this formula should be expressed by

    where ρA(λ,a|b) is the conditional probability that a detection is made at station A given that a detection was already made at station B. Such conditional probabilities do not imply, as mistakenly taken by Bell, that there is a causative interrelationship between the polarizers with settings a and b, but that the input signals differ in their characteristics as instilled at a “common cause” on the intersection of the past light cones of the signals[3] Thereafter, as the signals pass through detection stations, they are registered or “seen” if their characteristics correspond to the preset parameters set in the detection apparatus a,b. This is in accord with the conventional understanding of the application of probability theory to correlated events.

    When this consideration for the most elementary optical version of experimental tests of Bell’s analysis is correctly taken into account, the derivation of a Bell Inequality does not go through. [Ed.: See removed mathematics from S.3.3 below at the linked page for conditional probability derivation]. Thus, conclusions drawn from the empirical violation of a Bell Inequality are rendered invalid. These results can be extended straightforwardly to more complex coincidence experiments involving more than two channels [11, 12].

    3.3 An explicit demonstration
    The foundation of a Bell Inequality is the definition of a coincidence probability (or wave function) for correlated events. The version of this expression used by Bell is the following:


    So, here we arrive at the crux of the matter insofar as Eq. (7) cannot follow because the term ∫ dλρ(λ)A(a′|λ)B(b|a,λ) does not equal P (a′, b). In fact it is undefined, or nonsense, as it is the product of the absolute probability A(a′|λ) times the conditional probability B(b|a, λ), which is not conditioned on a′, but on a, thereby rendering the product meaningless.

    The final, general conclusion is that this Bell inequality is invalid; deductions from it are void[4]

    Exceptionally, of course, when the two detections are uncorrelated, then B(b|a, λ) = B(b|a′, λ), and Bell’s result is valid.

    4 Mathematical technicalities
    4.1 Quantized and non quantized spaces
    There is an intrinsic characteristic related to spin and electromagnetic polarization often overlooked but of fundamental significance. It is that, phenomena for which the mathematical rendition yields an orbital solution manifold with group structure captured by SU(2), are fundamentally non quantum. This follows inexorably from different viewpoints. One such is the fact that, SU(2) is homomorphic to SO(3), i.e., the group of rotations in longitude and latitude on a sphere. The non-commutativity of the generators of SO(3) obviously is geometric in nature. It has nothing to do with quantum mechanical structure, because it is not the consequence of Heisenberg Uncertainty. This is true even though factors of ħ appear, but where this factor scales the radius of the sphere upon which the displacements take place. SU(2) is the group of bi-vector transformations of the 2-D planes in 3-D space orthogonal to vectors (generators) associated with displacements in longitude and latitude. While it is less amenable to visualization than its homeomorph, it is clear that the non-commutative geometric structure of the planes or bi-vectors, like the great circle orbits on a spherical surface, is just a matter of geometry. Quantized spaces, where the non commutativity results from Heisenberg Uncertainty, comprise just two cases, namely phase space (q, p) and quadrature space (phase and amplitude of wave complexes, (ϕ, A)). An obvious consequence of these facts is that all experiments conducted on polarization of electromagnetic signals, (i.e., a structure first introduced by Stokes 70 years before Quantum Theory was envisioned, and having no relationship whatsoever to Heisenberg Uncertainty), cannot be employed for the exploration of implicit consequences from Quantum Mechanics.

    This understanding of the fundamental character of this (topological) space, i.e., its non quantum status, is in full accord with all experimental realizations of investigations using Bell Inequalities to plumb Nature as revealed by Quantum Mechanics. In all optical experiments the a’s and b’s are experimenter chosen polarizer axes, which makes the whole setup sensible only if the λ’s are the polarization states of the photons (or electromagnetic pulses) passing through the measuring stations. This obviates the oft encountered theoretical discussion in which it is disputed whether the λ’s are correlated with the a’s and b’s. The whole point of measurement is to exploit a correlation between some property that is not accessible to human perception (because it is too small, outside the ambit of human perception, etc.), here λ, with some variable quantity that is accessible, a meter reading, say. In view of the fact that all the physical processes in the selected venue, i.e., that governed by SU(2), are non quantum in the first place thereby rendering all implications for the existence of preternatural “quantum” phenomena moot; the physical character of all involved variables as prequantum entities is determined by the relevant physics.

    These mathematical considerations substantially reinforced by the fact that the instruments and devices employed in optical experiments are in fact capable only of making polarization determinations of electromagnetic pulses, whether such pulses correspond to single photons as imagined or not. The only means to introduce nonlocality or irreality is by hypothesizing that the polarization state of the pulses (photons) is determined by von Neumann’s “Projection” or collapse of the wave function upon observation, in this case by interaction with the polarizers in the measuring stations. However, there is no inexorable reason to reject the non quantum account of the relevant phenomena, specifically, prior causes.

    4.2 Representative vice ontological states
    Beyond the purely inadequate employ of formulas involving conditional probabilities implicit in this line of critical analysis of Bell’s Theorem, there is an ancillary issue introduced by the singlet state:

    [...][Ed.:Mathematics removed d/t formatting--see link; this here is similar to what is mentioned in the thread]:

    If this set of symbols is understood to represent a single, ontological entity, then it, as a composition of mutually exclusive components, is a logical abomination. Nevertheless, in the literature explicating Quantum Mechanics, it is often represented to pertain to a single system or entity. This combination of symbols, however, turns out to be coincidently vitally convenient. For the calculation of a coincidence coefficient as applicable to the experiment in Figure 1, i.e.:

    one sees from this formula that the data streams are to be normalized and have zero mean. In the quantum formalism, both the normalization and the zero mean are built into the definition of the singlet state, so that the calculation of the correlation coefficient conforms to the calculation of an expectation as prescribed by the Born interpretation of wave functions. Thus, in this respect and for that structure governed by SU(2), the quantum formalism merely redresses non quantum notation[5]

    In any case, the identification of the expression for the singlet state (and many other similar “quantum” expressions) cannot irrefutably be associated with single ontological entities. Both theory and experiment pertain to ensembles of similar entities; in the case of particles with spin, for example, the ensemble may be distributed randomly over the surface of a sphere.

    5 Conclusions
    All of the components of the critical analysis presented above are fundamental principles known to virtually any competent practitioner in optics [Ed.Question: Can Supraluminal signals be caught with optical instruments?]. Thus, the question arises: just how can what has been called “... la plus grande mépris de l’histoire de la physique?” [15], persist over 50 years  and become ensconced as professional dogma? The response draws on yet another feature of Quantum Theory of an equally mystical character: the “Projection Hypothesis,” according to which all material entities at their core before measurement are completely described by a wave function consisting of a “superposition” of multiple, mutually exclusive subsequent stages of which one is held to be precipitated ultimately by the act of observation. Although von Neumann is credited with this idea by virtue of having presented it in his book on the mathematical foundations of Quantum Theory, less rigorous discussions and disputations on the interpretation of Schrödinger’s wave functions involving similar notions can be found in historical records. In any case, Bell himself in all his presentations clearly considered that the wave function of the “entangled” daughter particles of two wing variations of envisioned tests were to be ‘realized (i.e., converted to observable or “real” non-entangled entities) by the act of measurement at the detection stations A and B. Nonlocality (superluminal intercourse of some sort) should occur, he took it, in accord with the von Neumann’s Projection Hypothesis applied to separated but formerly entangled subsystems, as a consequence of measurement (which implies intervention by sentient beings). “Projection” is considered to entail ‘realizing’ all space-like separated subsystems instantaneously even when only one is materially engaged, in this regard it violates Einstein’s Principle of Causality that no effect can have a cause outside its past light cone.

    It was in trying to accommodate the Projection Hypothesis that induced Bell to the erroneous notion that Quantum Mechanics imposed some kind of instantaneous ’realization’ to an unambiguous state (rather than the superposition of mutually exclusive options) of the spin direction of individual electrons passing through a Stern-Gerlach setup. The fact is, however, probability theory, in particular the use of conditional probabilities correctly employed, has nothing to say about the origin of correlations. The mathematical structure itself would accommodate instantaneous, nonlocal phenomena, were they to exist, without alterations. The source of the issue is not one of Probability Theory, but strictly of interpreting Quantum Theory.

    From commentary accompanying early research, one can get the impression that the Projection Hypothesis was introduced in order to accommodate the fact that wave functions, even though interpreted as probability densities, seem also to have physical substance as they are seen to diffract at physical slits. Strictly abstract expressions of knowledge (i.e., epistemological entities) do not also interact with concrete material (i.e. ontological entities). Nevertheless, wave functions for single entities cannot be taken as empirically verified; so that imputing individual (vice ensemble) physical identities to them is not fully justified either. In turn, this complexity led to the introduction of yet another “spooky” notion: complementarity. Here again, weirdness in not the objection, but logical contradiction[6]

    Arguably the tolerance of, as well as the public appetite for, mystical or preternatural “scientific” theorizing is best explained perhaps by the Forman Thesis [17]. According to Forman’s historical analysis, the psychological consequence in the post war German Weimar Republic, where the center of the development of Quantum Mechanics took place, as a result of the unexpected and sudden loss of WWI, was such as to foster a general, widespread loss of confidence in rationality and sober consideration of life’s experiences. Nowadays, in retrospect, it seems that this thesis has great merit even when it cannot be taken as the predominant factor. At a minimum, it accounts for the psycho-social environment within which Bell’s generation of physicists (certainly its mentors) were educated, and possibly were also predisposed to “open minded” tolerance of ideas actually deserving deep skepticism.

    In conclusion, the analysis presented herein supports the assertion that, Bell’s analysis does not support the contention that Quantum Theory cannot in principle be extended by means of additional local, real variables. Einstein’s life-long conviction that ultimately an interpretation of quantum theory free of the ambiguities he criticized up to his death is seen to be deserving of respect and taken as guidance for the continued development of the understanding of the material world [18].


    [Ed.: Please see link for references and mathematics]

    So... conceptually sound, but holey quantification?

    @Eise, you asked me a pointed question, and although I think you put it there as low hanging fruit, I will answer it and say quantum tunneling. To send a signal into the past and try to achieve that beer, I say that the emitter is a symmetric gamma ray burst. Given a vacuum energy and pervasive fields I'll blithely pretend I have an effective aether, and a preferred frame, although I read a post of @MigL's where he tried for the beer and I'm sure he wants to take the aetherwind out of my sails.

    @hoolayour parallel waves sound like cosine/sine waves -- they'd be out of phase.


    For illustrative purposes, even though this is a scienceforum; there's been a 17-page shootout here between a group on a bandwagon and a lone @bangstrom on a horse. @Mitcher tried to help but @swansont killed him by saying he couldn't speculate (and we wouldn't want him speculating in here against our conceptually Holey but well quantified Law of Relativity). I told you Murray Gell-Man got mad and left the wagon train to go off and was camping somewhere and devising consistent histories around the campfire. A.F. Kracklauer is now up ahead at the pass through the gorge about to blow the dynamite and close the pass on all your arguments regarding even needing to give up locality or realism. 

    This other paper in, "Open Physics", is by Louis Sica who's been on this topic a while:

    The ultimate loophole in Bell’s theorem: The inequality is identically satisfied by data sets composed of ±1′s assuming merely that they exist


    The plan of this paper is as follows: Bell’s derivation of the inequality will be contrasted with an alternative derivation that demonstrates that it results only from the operation of computing mutual correlations of datasets consisting of ± 1’s [4]. It is a purely algebraic result. When applied to either random or deterministic variables, it restricts the values of their mutual cross correlations [...]



    The Origin of Complex Amplitudes [PDF DOWNLOAD -- researchgate]


    Abstract. Physics is real. Measurement produces real numbers. Yet quantum mechanics uses complex arithmetic, in which svg.image?\sqrt{-1} is necessary but mysteriously relates to nothing else. By applying the same sort of symmetry arguments that Cox [1, 2] used to justify probability calculus, we are now able to explain this puzzle. The dual device/object nature of observation requires us to describe the world in terms of pairs of real numbers about which we never have full knowledge. These pairs combine according to complex arithmetic, using Feynman’s rules. Keywords: Feynman rules, complementarity.

    Measurement always involves an interaction between observed object and observing device. Presumably, the device returns to us only one of a pair of numbers that quantified the interaction. We do not probe the inaccessible detail of the interaction — plausibly there may be no classical model for it. It suffices to note that we never attain complete knowledge of either the object (which interacted with the imperfectly known device) or the device (which interacted with the imperfectly known object). We can never bootstrap our way to total knowledge [3], and this indicates that our knowledge is doomed to be, at least in part, probabilistic.


    We describe physics operationally through sequences of measurements that are quantified by pairs of real numbers. This is motivated by the dual (device/object) nature of measurement, and formalized through the pair postulate which notes that our knowledge of a pair is always incomplete, hence probabilistic. Our postulate is a formal expression of quantum “complementarity” [11, 12]. Sequences of measurement obey symmetries. Commutativity and associativity of “parallel” require the sum rule.


    Associativity and distributivity of “series” allows a choice of three product rules.
    A pair c becomes observable through the probability p(c) associated with it. Applying
    this requirement in the Markovian case of measurements with closure imposes a particular form of p for each product rule. Consideration of reverse sequences completes the
    specification, and gives

    svg.image?\begin{pmatrix}%20a_{1}\\a_{2}\end{pmatrix}\odot%20\begin{pmatrix}b_{1}%20\\%20b_{2}\end{pmatrix}%20=%20\begin{pmatrix}a_{1}b_{1}-a_{2}b_{2}%20%20\\a_{1}b_{2}+a_{2}b_{1}%20\\\end{pmatrix} with svg.image?p(\mathbf{c})=c^{2}_{1}+c^2_{2}

    These are the Feynman rules, applicable generally. Pairs are known as quantum amplitudes and behave as complex numbers, adding in parallel and multiplying in series, with modulus-squared giving the observable probability. We now see why quantum mechanics uses complex numbers. Quantification is “really” in terms of real pairs, but these behave like single complex entities.

    There is logic in there of the type you use and I think you could critique it. I noticed studiot so maybe he can tell if this is worth a damn, too.

  10. Well... this is a goofy website:


    that clearly needs vetting. However, what I was looking for was this, which is brought out as an image on the lower part of the page after navigation:



    JCF Gauss; 2nd letter to the Royal Society, 1831. Paragraph 24, his last statement in a long boring paper.

    [24] "We have believed that we were doing the friends of mathematics a favour by this account of the principal parts of a new theory of so-called imaginary quantities. If one formerly contemplated this subject from a false point of view and therefore found a mystery darkness, this is in large part attributable to clumsy terminology. Had one not called +1, -1 and the  square-root of -1, positive, negative and imaginary counting units, but instead, say direct, inverse and lateral counting units, then there could scarcely have been talk of such darkness". (translated from the Latin by William Ewald)

    [Page editor's remarks, possible additions; see page:] Try to follow that little lot in Latin without my red ink. We (as in "the Royal We") are the mathematicians here; you others are merely "the friends". Clearly, Gauss was just "taking the Mickey" and being as unhelpful as his great sense of mathematical-fun and conscience could permit him. Had the great man ever deigned to leave his observatory to speak at the Royal Society, then there would have been flags, trumpets and a packed house, but this was read out to a handful of half-asleep math's fellows who were too tired to retire to the bar. (Blink, and you missed it.) [/Ed.]


    I can't find secondary verification of the letter from Gauss, but here's another page that quotes the same section, and has a good write-up on the topic:

    The Reality of Imaginary Numbers by Brett Berry


    From the Quantum Relativity site, here is their display of the Argand plane from that same page, highlighting the facet of multiplications as rotations (and other stuff..):



    On 10/22/2022 at 1:03 AM, PeterBushMan said:

    So we can just use the X and Y axes, what is the difference? They can do the same thing.

    I think an example from the Medium article is illustrative. Given the equation y=x2+1 graphed on a Cartesian plot with two perpendicular integer axes, this quadratic equation does not cross the x-axis which would normally indicate where the solutions (x=0) are found. I think it's because the X-Y Cartesian plot of this form although seeming to graph a quadratic equation is somehow still linear. When the Argand plane uses the whole Real axis as the horizontal number line it then extends the imaginary numbers, up as "direct lateral" and down as "inverse lateral"  from the direct and inverse numbers horizontally to create the necessary non-linear dimension to find the solutions to the quadratic equations. 

    I'm probably wrong and in need of proof-reading so have at it. I also encourage enlistment to go spelunking about the gnqr website for discussion but now am off topic.

  11. On 10/21/2022 at 6:28 AM, awakening said:

    ambient temperature there, is not a power source, its just cold. and this is just a reference point to deliver the idea, we don't want go there to use it we can use it here right now. pickup a magnet and let a metallic ball suddenly stick to it. the attraction gives you x joules energy until ball hits the magnet's surface and stops moving. when you put the superconductive tube inside it, you use a high RPM motor (lets say ~10kRPM) that makes ball attract toward magnet about 200 times per second. a magnet will have 4 tube in front and back which gives us 800x joules per second.

    yes it violates thermodynamics and i am in danger please ask someone on social media publish it as a joke or whatever you want so i don't need to worry anymore. 

    Hi @awakening, how are you?

    Is english your first language? There is little doubt you are in danger, but, to coin a phrase, "go stick your thumb in another pie". Find something to do: whether it's taking a long walk or starting some exercise, gathering and preparing some food, or going out to talk to strangers or meet with friends or family, or maybe some "ablution" or body care. What is it you think is the danger, specifically? Murder plot?


    As for your designs, you refer to (6) as motor. I look at it, and (6) looks like it must be stator, a vertical anchor (as in svg.image?\perp to the length x width of magnet) around which your rotary (5->7) motor is turning. I think you also need to account for point (6) to have a wire to conduct the electricity. Do you see this as an electric generator?

    You get into some complicated specifications. To start, I think you need to simplify and consider building a simple model as proof of concept. Or, can you explain:

    1) How does the superconductive tube/metglas ball function as armature? Why are these specifications necessary?

    2) Do you think a simplified version could prove feasibility study, specifically: what about the ball getting stuck? Do you think your complex specifications somehow evade the basic faults, or don't you suppose a simplified version needs to be done to show the basic mechanism can work?

    I think of it this way: what you propose is a form of perpetual motion machine, one that will generate energy from motion for an apparent net gain. I gather that you think the complex specifications are necessary for this, but a simplified version should be able to prove the mechanical feasibility of operation, and although perhaps providing a lower power output than your proposed "overunity" device, may need to be the first step.
    It will not be easy as you apparently need some precise machining and gearing, but I do not think anyone is going to pick up your project for engineering wholesale without smaller first steps to prove its worth. Good job trying to work on something that you think has potential. Perhaps think of it in terms of consciousness's wholistic designs: if your project is meant to come to fruition you'll likely get to live to make it happen and that very likely, in my opinion, means you'll have to fashion parts by hand and develop it yourself.


    Good luck! And please do address the two pointed questions.


    On 10/22/2022 at 1:03 AM, PeterBushMan said:

    There is an axis for Imaginary numbers, and there is an axis for real numbers.

    I presume you're referring to the Argand plane?


    Argand diagram refers to a geometric plot of complex numbers as points z = x + iy using the x-axis as the real axis and y-axis as the imaginary axis. [...]
    https://handwiki.org/wiki/:Complex plane#Argand_diagram



    In mathematics, the complex plane is the plane formed by the complex numbers, with a Cartesian coordinate system such that the x-axis, called real axis, is formed by the real numbers, and the y-axis, called imaginary axis, is formed by the imaginary numbers.

    The complex plane allows a geometric interpretation of complex numbers. Under addition, they add like vectors. The multiplication of two complex numbers can be expressed more easily in polar coordinates—the magnitude or modulus of the product is the product of the two absolute values, or moduli, and the angle or argument of the product is the sum of the two angles, or arguments. In particular, multiplication by a complex number of modulus 1 acts as a rotation.

    The complex plane is sometimes known as the Argand plane or Gauss plane.

    https://handwiki.org/wiki/:Complex plane


    On 10/22/2022 at 1:03 AM, PeterBushMan said:

    So we can just use the X and Y axes, what is the difference? They can do the same thing.

    The Argand plane diagrams are graphing complex numbers out from the origin as vectors. We can graph vectors on our Cartesian x-y graph, too. However, the geometric interpretation of the real number line is already a construct of numbers as vectors to my mind: a number selected on the line has a magnitude, its value, and a direction, positive or negative away from 0.

    For the complex plane, look at this difference:


    Stereographic projections

    It can be useful to think of the complex plane as if it occupied the surface of a sphere. Given a sphere of unit radius, place its center at the origin of the complex plane, oriented so that the equator on the sphere coincides with the unit circle in the plane, and the north pole is "above" the plane. [...]

    Under this stereographic projection the north pole itself is not associated with any point in the complex plane. We perfect the one-to-one correspondence by adding one more point to the complex plane – the so-called point at infinity – and identifying it with the north pole on the sphere. This topological space, the complex plane plus the point at infinity, is known as the extended complex plane. We speak of a single "point at infinity" when discussing complex analysis. There are two points at infinity (positive, and negative) on the real number line, but there is only one point at infinity (the north pole) in the extended complex plane.

    To my mind, this is related to the idea that with complex numbers there is no concept of larger or smaller that can be compared to how we think of real numbers as being closer or further from 0. 


    7 hours ago, PeterBushMan said:

    I only can understand complex number in that way - First we invented imaginary number which is not exist. then we try to find some uses of it.

    Imaginary is just a name, given by Descartes himself I believe. Gauss did not like it -- and thought they were on equal footing, to paraphrase his writing.

    +1 uncool on number sets

    +1 joigus on matrices


    On 10/2/2022 at 1:30 PM, Peterkin said:

    There is no single or monolithic Christian tradition. Jesus had very little to say about modesty or chastity - in fact, I can't member a single sermon where those things featured.


    Matthew 5:20-32
    King James Version
    20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

    On 10/2/2022 at 1:30 PM, Peterkin said:

    In Rome, both the costumes and customs were different from the Levant, where a number of Christian sects all went by different interpretations of scripture. The Romanized Christian church made further adjustments in each of their conquered territories, in accordance with local mores. After the fall of the empire, Eastern and Western Catholicism were split and later, the Reformation fundamentalist factions that were far more prohibitive - and misogynist.

    What I intend to convey from my interpretation was that one should comport oneself to surroundings or mores as necessary, more of a be sly advisement than an explicit rule or commandment. I think an undercurrent in the Church was always that they were developing under the Imperial power, and then once the church was ascendent it became a social power...

    On 10/2/2022 at 1:30 PM, Peterkin said:

    The whole modestly fetish comes out of a misreading of one of Paul's many, many instructions regarding methods of worship. He was persuading not to show off wealth and status. It wasn't even about specific naughty parts.

    Well both "Jesus" and "Paul"'s sayings are.. so meta.. I don't think this book is meant to be literal. I don't think Paul mentions Jesus. But I digress. If Jesus's instruction was not to even look at women in lust, then a fine pair of tanned bosoms exposed is.. well it's a fine thing. But control yourself.

    On 10/2/2022 at 2:30 PM, Phi for All said:


    Yes, they did go topless a lot, and apparently it was Islam and not Christianity that objected. 

    And again, there are lots of mentions of spotting women topless and with bare legs and shoulders in the Song of Solomon. It seems like having some of your clothes on (or available nearby) kept one from "nakedness", which was seen as shameful. Overall, it seems like naked means "your genitals are showing" rather than referring to the full monty. It may be assumed that it didn't matter what you wore up top if your bottoms were visible.

    I will posit here in regards to nudism that most folks would agree that to hang dong in front of everyone willy-nilly may not be our best course. I need to do Bible study, and Song of Solomon is now on the list. I don't know why, but i have it on file that to kiss a woman's breasts was something about the Shekinah...

    On 10/2/2022 at 4:42 PM, Peterkin said:

    Must have been a lot of sunburned women in those days. That doesn't seem to include Judea; i.e. bible-country. Isaiah was pretty clear about what it means to have your head and legs uncovered in public: it's a degradation reserved for captured slave women.


    On 10/2/2022 at 4:42 PM, Peterkin said:

    He didn't mention breasts.



    Chapter 66:1-13
    1Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?2For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.3He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.4I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.5Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.6A voice of noise from the city, a voice from the temple, a voice of the LORD that rendereth recompence to his enemies.7Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.8Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.9Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.10Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her:11That ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory.12For thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream: then shall ye suck, ye shall be borne upon her sides, and be dandled upon her knees.13As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem.

    nit-picky, I know but I found it from

    On 10/2/2022 at 4:42 PM, Peterkin said:

    In fact, nobody in the Bible talked about breasts, it was genitals they worried about, and menstruation, and incest.

    Strong's Concordance shad:breast Original Word: שַׁד Part of Speech: Noun Masculine Transliteration: shad Phonetic Spelling: (shad) Definition: (female) breast

    On 10/2/2022 at 4:42 PM, Peterkin said:

    Jesus didn't seem to mention how to dress - other not to worry about it, because lilies don't need clothes. His logic was a little eccentric sometimes. Paul did mention modesty, but only the sense of not showing off or drawing attention to oneself. Christianity only began to object universally and vehemently after the Reformation - though some popes and monastic big-wigs were more prudish than others. 

    I don't know.. I get that the O.T. is supposed to be historical, but I doubt even the story with Bathsheba isn't allegorical. Or stories with Daniel. And I don't think Jesus's sayings like the one above about adultery are supposed to be hard-line literally applied as rules.. Like to dis-member yourself. I think what is at issue is how to read history. I don't know if we can conclude what things were like necessarily, we may just have to try to put ourselves into the place and time as an experiment.




    6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.11 Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:26 For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.28 But if any man say unto you, this is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?30 For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

    1Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. ...



  14. On 4/21/2022 at 7:02 AM, uncool said:

    The set of all transcendentals has cardinality equal to that of the reals.

    I don't think we actually know that. It may be that the complex numbers have a lot more transcendentals than the reals, don't you suppose???

    On 4/21/2022 at 7:02 AM, uncool said:

    The set of all square roots of primes has cardinality equal to that of the natural numbers, by rather obvious bijection.

    Ok, but to reinforce: the reals have cardinality in part defined by having all transcendentals you claimed, and the naturals have none.

    On 4/21/2022 at 7:02 AM, uncool said:

    Neither of those have “intermediate” cardinality. If you are claiming to have constructed a set of intermediate cardinality, what is it?

    The results obtained from the function svg.image?\sqrt{i%27}^{\sqrt{i%27}

    On 4/21/2022 at 7:02 AM, uncool said:

    And your point is?

    That we will force the natural numbers set to have to match each choice for base, against which all results from exponentiation could be counted; but we will also force a querying function: each counting number is only able to query for a digit, so each counting number can only count out decimals against a single resultant transcendental, unable to account for a single base and set of exponentiated results in my opinion. Then, moving through the change of base and subsequent exponentiations and forced querying operations the counting numbers simply cannot account properly for the set of transcendentals generated by this self-referential set operation. Too much to count.

    On 4/21/2022 at 7:02 AM, uncool said:

    Cardinality is not about underlying members. Just because the elements of a set are transcendentals and there are lots of transcendentals doesn’t mean that set is large.

    I think the set is both infinite counting up with the naturals, and infinite counting out the decimals -- because that's what seperates naturals and reals. While you assert that the set of all transcendentals is of cardinality with the reals, I assert that this set generated is of intermediate cardinality, as in a similar way the transcendentals of the reals not included here cannot be accounted for by those that are here in the i' set.

    On 4/27/2022 at 10:51 AM, uncool said:

    Part of the point of “forcing” is that it is not constructing new sets within the same model - which is your approach - but instead constructing a new model of the real numbers.

    My idea is to construct a new model of the complex numbers.


    Thanks, @uncool, I also appreciated a post on QP you made recently, I'll try to find it to +1 it.

    edit: I was only reviewing page 1, sorry... I thought I hadn't gotten to this somehow.

  15. 5 hours ago, TheLogicalArc said:


    Categorization shaped classical logic, which shaped mathematical logic, which shaped the scientific method, which in turn shaped the


    Here we have a synopsis of two universal extremes

    and not merely the quantum universe, as the largest scales of the universe is where the universe from the Planck time is said to be right now, demarking physically in consistent examples, where our physical premises break down because of our physical incapacity, whether as measurement, or experiential incapacity in the case of the Planck epoch, where light (an aspect of physical reality described by theories invariably stemming from the faux categorizations of classical logic), from that early in the universe's so-called emergence will never reach us.

    Excuse me, Sir, but we can't have you barging in here and using parentheses and commas this way. That is my domain.

    5 hours ago, TheLogicalArc said:

     If we look at the universe from the perspective of its demonstrated structural limits, physical reality is assertable as a literal finite domain, containing all the physical outcomes possible. 

     However, where there are definable limits demarking where the dynamics of physical reality no longer apply, it does not explicate an imperative of negation of other possible domains[ed.:Are you going to test and prove this, or expect logical acceptance?], as physical reality, as a domain, contains strictly physical outcomes in accordance with the exclusive categorization.


    Let x=x [ed.:Just call it x. What kind of remedial math is this.] be equivalent to a domain characterized by the totality of all possible functions and transformations categorizable as physical: with our assertion of x=x being true, we discover that the domain x=x does not express that x=p[Ed.:phantasy land, I take it].

    The fact that x=x does not express x=p, for no aspect of x=p is containing in domain x=x, does not mean that x=p[Ed.:Oh, so now finite domain contains phantasy domain. K.] does not exist, in fact, as x=x can be defined as finite under the above-mentioned definition, there is no account for the structural exclusion of x=p[Ed.:Oh, except for the logical definitions you've made so far] that is consisting as domain x=x, for domain x=x is inherently and absolutely expressing domain x=x only ( as far as quantum mechanics go there has never been a non-physical outcome and will never be a non-physical outcome)[Ed.:You shut your mouth! Quantum business is a magic show, obviously Quantum=p or something. And stop abusing parentheses!], which is a different categorical imperative from the exclusion of potential domain x=p, thus the non-existence of x=p as a domain is not proven by the expressions of x=x.[ed.: No, but it is by definitions you've made]

     It has been established that x=x represents the consisting potential of physical reality; and it has been established also that the domain of x=x is both noninclusional and nonnegational of a domain x=p[Ed.: Ok, new definition, x=p], which represents a single consisting potential other than x=x. There is also a noninclusion of x=o, =t, =5, x=s,.....n.[Ed.: How dare you, Sir. This is the relativity board, not a tic-tac-toe one.]


    X=x and x=p are non-interdependent imperatives[Ed.:You're an impertative!], based on the fact that x=x intrinsically excludes x=p, and x=p intrinsically excludes x=x, and that the intrinsic exclusion is not specific to x=p, or x=x but to all potential domains . 

    From the definition above we can assert a structural continuum that is not defined in the conditions of the superimposed domains, as they are superimpositions that are in themselves fine-tuned[Ed.:Pfft], thus demonstrating an adherence to a specifying context.

    Ultimate reality cannot be an element, or a set type of universality as any such specification requires a specifier.

    Reality, in its absolutely logical form, cannot be an expression of any kind, as this is fine-tuning, that domains[Ed.:What is this, a verb?] the expression as a categorical domain that does not actively exclude the existence of external domains. [Ed.:Look at the damned comma use here. Is your brain taking breaths and so you put one in a sentence?]





    Reality is logically non-referential[Ed:Save for definitions we may need to refer to to have a discussion.], and the tangibility that we associate with physical reality is not "in the expression of" a beingness

    (beingness is defined by physical reality's quantitative standards when we see it as a domain that simply just is, without proper categorization).[Ed.:Tubulur.]


    5 hours ago, TheLogicalArc said:


    We can find non-referentiality by reduction of the quantum mechanic relativism that we experience in physical reality.

    In the overarching domain that contains all superimpositions such as x=x, is characterized the non-interdependency of x=x and any given other domain such as x=p.

    Superimpositionality is not describable within the local frameworks of finite domains themselves[Ed.:Defining x=x and x=p as above suffices]: they are not expressing of overarching dynamics in themselves. They seem absolutely local[Ed.:Not if you use your imagination! Yippee.]

    Invariation of external domains[hypostasis], both in themselves as superimpositions, and as naturally extenuating[wrong word choice] domains, indicate a relativism that does not express the structural limitation of locality, just universalism, which without the usual physical reference of locality is something quite different from solely physical interpretations of an empty set.[nonsense, hypercommatosis]

    The [unacceptable logical]reduction of superimpositionality to non-referentiality sees the non-locality in superimpositionality prevariated[

    1. To speak or write evasively; equivocate. synonym: lie.
    2. To behave in an evasive or indecisive manner, usually in delay.
    3. To utter or say in an evasive manner.]

    by further non-localizational relativism, where now universality goes, the basic reference of quantitative coherence in relation to context excluding the opposite, is the said nonreferentiality that reality can be logical. It's not nothingness, however it's not as irrational as existency.[Your coherence has now reached the opposite of not nothingness]

    So we can see where non-referentiality covers all truly realistic outcomes and demonstrates through a determined reduction of Relativistic[Oh thank God you posted in relativity section after all] structural ethos, not only explication of all realistic participles, but also the de-relativistic subjectivization of all realistic participles, making the non-referentiality actual, in not being objectively expressing of intrinsic, or perturbed fine-tuning.[Oh, beingness, totally tubulur]




    We can establish that applying substantive, elementary metrics[subjective hair-splitting?] to non-referentiality, basically making reality a materially existing location, must have the metrics somehow amount to a non-referentiality being true.


    The elementary metrics being proposed must then be categorizable as basally referential, however, maintaining of non-referentiality[yeah, based referential non-referential. logic=words].

    The application of element metrics[very thin wedge] to nonreferentiality creates the least relativistic relationship. 

    The active de-gradualization from physical reality to nonreferentiality as a base logic system is the affirmation of [complete subjectivity or]nonreferentiality itself as a non-expression, as all extents involved are categorized within reality.

    The most basic relativism is singularly universal, where elements are intrinsic property, thus of no particular demarcation. This is superimpositionality. Giving metrication to nonreferentiality equals to the sphere of superimpositionality, which, further metricated, results in local superimpositions, of all possible typologies, non-interdependent in nature on a level that represents a specific prevarication.[You already said x=p]

    Further metrication invariates[ ] elements of superimposed[p] domains, for instance, in physical reality[x], planets, space, time, forces, etc.                                                                                 p=x

    If we choose to element nonreferentiality like this we become [if you had a keyboard you'd be]capable of any typology of transformation graphed within the framework of a [out of left-]field theory.


    5 hours ago, TheLogicalArc said:

    The proposed [pseudo-logical and opposite in spirit to a truly relativistic]field, consisting of these levels[what? you don't list them] of relativism as sub-fields, hold all objects as defined with 4 basic values from the sub-fields:

    1. Non-referentiality

    2. Superimpositionality

    3. Domains

    4. Elements of domains

    [so basic. but so without basallity]

    These values are of course general. They are simply significant points on a spectrum.


    I aware you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

  16. @MigL I second your call to be careful with words, name-calling, and labelling, but, examine this:

    On 9/30/2022 at 2:21 PM, Doctor Derp said:

    The bible leans in favor of moderation and humility. Staying clothed and not showing off your health and physical attractiveness for the entire world to see is considered moderate behavior. While nudity and extremism would be more strongly correlated with liberalism.

    If you disagree with this basic assessment, I would be interested to know why.

    Aside from that, the rest of your points belong in a religious discussion and are too off topic (and uninterestingly inaccurate) to bother responding to here.

    as a reply to Phi for All's critique. Does that set a tone of respect, or an inkling of an axe to grind? If points are to go unaddressed, leave them unaddressed, or, what is the purpose of the disparagement?

    The responses, assertions, and argumentation style used here deserved to be lampooned and harshly characterized. Again, I second your point to be careful and address the arguments, but there is a flavor of irrational disrespect coming through that perhaps cannot be well met with measured and reasoning counter-argument. Note "zero effort to quantify" a qualitative property: historical context. And in both prior responses PfA had couched things being in historical context! Irrational responses! I do think bigot is maybe too strong a word for what was a poorly formulated overgeneralization, but, TheVat artfully used it to illustrate a point, and zapatos drew an easy parallel to what was effectively name-calling/labelling by Dr Derp. 

    On 10/1/2022 at 11:21 AM, MigL said:

    We are not the thought police here; make counter arguments, not 'labels' to stop discussion you don't agree with.

    I do think it makes sense to police bad-faith behavior if that starts to come through in our verbal arguments. There is an absence of malice in either TheVat or zapatos's posts where they use the term; they are indirect, it should not bully down discussion such a usage.

  17. I interpret the biblical admonition to "Render unto Caesar..." as similar to the aphorism "When in Rome...". I think the Christian or general public distate for nudity comes from long traditions aimed at chastity and partly as a result there are laws in many of these traditionally Christian places against such a display in public.

    The most perplexing thing in this thread is @Doctor Derp's deduction that @Peterkin is an atheist based on participation here, but, maybe that's from other data.

  18. I read your hypothesis about the formation of particles from fields post. I wondered if you were going to treat gravity and time. I think I have seen a formalization using differential geometry to develop what I think is a type of gravitoelectromagnetism.

    In fact, I think credit is due to @eytan_il for this, and I wonder if this can get his attention. He seems to be well versed in differential geometry as an alternate way to build up gravity. 

    Electro-gravity via geometric chrononfield by Eytan H. Suchard


    In De Sitter / Anti De Sitter space-time and in other geometries, reference submanifolds from which proper time is measured along integral curves, are described as events. We introduce here a foliation with the help of a scalar field. The scalar field need not be unique but from the gradient of the scalar field, an intrinsic Reeb vector of the foliations perpendicular to the gradient vector is calculated. The Reeb vector describes the acceleration of a physical particle that moves along the integral curves that are formed by the gradient of the scalar field. The Reeb vector appears as a component of an anti-symmetric matrix which is a part of a rank2, 2-Form. The 2-form is extended into a non-degenerate 4-form and into rank-4 matrix of a 2- form, which when multiplied by a velocity of a particle, becomes the acceleration of the particle. The matrix has one U(1) degree of freedom and an additional SU(2) degrees of freedom in two vectors that span the plane perpendicular to the gradient of the scalar field and to the Reeb vector. In total, there are U(1) x SU(2) degrees of freedom. SU(3) degrees of freedom arise from three dimensional foliations but require an additional symmetry to exist in order to have a valid covariant meaning.
    Matter in the Einstein Grossmann equation is replaced by the action of the acceleration field, i.e. by a geometric action which is not anticipated by the metric alone. This idea leads to a new formalism that replaces the conventional stress-energy-momentum-tensor. The formalism will be mainly developed for classical physics but will also be discussed for quantized physics based on events instead of particles. The result is that a positive charge manifests small attracting gravity and a stronger but small repelling acceleration field that repels even uncharged particles that have a rest mass. Negative charge manifests a repelling anti-gravity but also a stronger acceleration field that attracts even uncharged particles that have rest mass.


    Physical meaning: svg.image?A_{ij} transforms the vector svg.image?\frac{P_{i}}{\sqrt{Z}} to svg.image?\frac{U_{i}}{2} as a rotation and scaling transformation and is therefore, of rank 2. It can be extended to a non-degenerate matrix of rank 4, svg.image?\widetilde{A}_{ij} which defines a field of acceleration, i.e. svg.image?\widetilde{A}_{ij}\frac{V_{j}}{c}=\frac{a_{i}}{c^{2}}=g_{ij}\frac{1}{c^{2}}\frac{dV^{i}}{d\tau} where svg.image?{a_{i}} is the covariant acceleration of the mass that interacts with the field, svg.image?c is the speed of light, svg.image?\tau is proper time and svg.image?g_{ij} is the metric tensor.


    If you go to pg. 32 of the .pdf, you'll find speculations on elementary particles being composed of opposite charges, which is what I noticed in your other post, although you were positing the idea for leptons, and then photons...


    The problem is that there is no stable charged particle without spin and therefore our discussion could mean a temporary decomposition of electrically neutral Bosons into two energy states, one temporarily behaving like a negative charge and one like a positive one.


  19. On 7/31/2022 at 9:55 PM, computer said:


    The main differences from the more classical approach are:

    1) Velocity vector V had introduced as an "independent" and essential part of field,

    as physical reality along with E and H

    2) The expression for the energy flux W was changed, with an additional member ε0 · (E · V) · E

    and I hope someone will conduct experiments to confirm or reverse that assumption

    3) There are non-trivial suggestions, what "forces" may affect the velocity derivative over time

    I applaud your presentation. Does your .htm file have more background or detailed information? Could you provide a .pdf or https:// link for it?

  20. sinus.gif.c8b3bd5ba813f0b6ea7d5569e711239d.gif

    "...found to hold valuable clues to the origin of matter."

    "...understand the implications, then there is much more to be unfurled regarding this matter."

    On 9/6/2022 at 2:37 PM, RSolomon said:

    I am not trying to jerk you guys around – how stupid would that be?
    The matter has been reviewed by the heads of several physics departments (who found no fault in it), yet they advised that it be propose to one of the larger research institutions. So now you are it! 
    I will cut to the chase as soon as I am able. While it is that I have proposed something that amounts to a rather tall order, and it requires that I be circumspect. 
    You guys have been working on this matter, in one way or another, for a long while now. So, when someone comes forward with a proposed/possible Solution, be patient… It is a bit more than “42”.
    Now let me work on an introduction worthy of your consideration.


    You are just rude, please stay out of this, if that is all you have to offer!


    No? At least you're not calling them 'closing' solids anymore? I still doubt Albert cracked that hinged 46 nut single-handedly. Cut to the chase.

  21. Double-stranded DNA is split into single strands by helicase enzyme to allow for transcription. Transcription is the process of copying a section of DNA nucleotides composed of guanine(G), adenine(A), thymine(T), and cytosine(C) into an RNA transcript composed of complementary nucleotides Cytosine(C), uracil(U), adenine(A) and guanine(G) by a polymerase enzyme. If it were going to a ribsome for translation (construction into a protein) it'd be called messenger RNA, mRNA. Note that in the RNA transcript uracil(U) is used in place of thymine(T) found in DNA.

    DNA  -  RNA

    G       -       C
    A       -       U

    C       -       G

    C       -       G

    T       -       A

    in context given, it seems gene transcription was occuring on the microarray, which means DNA had been opened by helicase. This exposes a section of DNA for gene transcription. To make this "snapshot of transcription" "in the study of the entire complement of RNA" is to add a fluorescent mRNA strand that will glow when it binds to the open strand of DNA, from which a similar strand of mRNA could have been transcribed, because it is complementary.


    Complementarity (molecular biology)
    In molecular biology, complementarity describes a relationship between two structures each following the lock-and-key principle. In nature complementarity is the base principle of DNA replication and transcription as it is a property shared between two DNA or RNA sequences, such that when they are aligned antiparallel to each other, the nucleotide bases at each position in the sequences will be complementary, much like looking in the mirror and seeing the reverse of things.



  22. Fig.6-ScrollGeo-Proportions.png.02e8bedad32bd9125a31224b030a4b83.png

    Polar plot


    Did you do this your self? I don't know it, but I think you had a computer work on re-doing Platonic solids inside of closed circles. Have to get through recent posts, apology.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.