NTuft

 

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.

correction post-edit time:

1 hour ago, NTuft said:

A loosening of unitarity mentioned in the article [*this other article: Physicists Rewrite a Quantum Rule that Clashes with our Universe ]is isometry,

I appreciate the heads/tails dollar\euro quantum money business and various other efforts.

Quote from second article, both cite work by: Arkani-Hamed, N., et al.

I do not think we can give Relativity a free-ride-along and hold to QM interpretations re: unitarity. Furthermore I think the reverence for R. is colouring any admissions for faster than light signaling, that R. is given here the preferred reference frame, but here in Speculations we should be free to drop it and say we want a preferred frame where particles are already moving at c and v>c is possible thereby opening up non-local interaction. I want to leave this by the way-side now and impart more in the state of matter in a singularity thread on this aspect.

But, to get to unitarity and strict locality...

On 9/24/2022 at 4:01 AM, joigus said:

[...]"Spooky" is not a physical term. If you paid even the slightest attention to the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, you would understand this perfectly, as both any "blips" of information, or any "blips" of energy would have to travel in the form of "blips" in the square of the absolute value of the wave function --or the square of the gradient too, in the case of energy. That's what the quantum dynamics doesn't allow to do superluminally.

Here, is this the squaring of the amplitudes, squaring of the Psi modulus, or multiplication by the complex conjugate?

On 9/24/2022 at 4:01 AM, joigus said:

[...]

EPR: If you can predict with absolute certainty the result of an experiment without in any way disturbing the system, there must be some element of reality underlying it. Quantum mechanics says that certain pairings of observables are incompatible, say A and B. If I can exploit a conservation law that's valid for at least one of them, say A, in a bipartite system (A₁+A₂ = constant) and measure A in part 1, and B in part 2, I can infer what the value of A₂ is without actually measuring it. I can, at the same time (within a space-like interval) measure B for 2, that is B₂, with as much precision as desired, and I would have proven that quantum description of reality is incomplete, because I would have the values of A₂ and B₂, which quantum mechanics declares as incompatible. In a nutshell: Either quantum mechanics is incomplete, or your wave function would have to be updated superluminally, to make this incompatible character of A and B persist. 

To quote wikipedia on Local Realism as mentioned by mitcher,

Quote

Local realism
Main article: Quantum nonlocality
In 1935 Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen in their EPR paradox theorised that quantum mechanics might not be a local theory, because a measurement made on one of a pair of separated but entangled particles causes a simultaneous effect, the collapse of the wave function, in the remote particle (i.e. an effect exceeding the speed of light). But because of the probabilistic nature of wave function collapse, this violation of locality cannot be used to transmit information faster than light. In 1964 John Stewart Bell formulated the "Bell inequality", which, if violated in actual experiments, implies that quantum mechanics violates either locality or realism, another principle, which relates to the value of unmeasured quantities (counterfactual definiteness). The two principles are commonly referred to as a single principle, local realism.

Experimental tests of the Bell inequality, beginning with Alain Aspect's 1982 experiments, show that quantum mechanics seems to violate the inequality, so it must violate either locality or realism. However, critics have noted these experiments included "loopholes", which prevented a definitive answer to this question. This problem may have been resolved during 2015 by Dr Ronald Hanson of Delft University, who performed what has been termed the first loophole-free experiment.[2] However, some loopholes might persist, like superdeterminism, with the result that the question may be fundamentally untestable.[3]

and on Counterfactual definiteness(CFD),

Quote

The dependability of counterfactually definite values is a basic assumption, which, together with "time asymmetry" and "local causality" led to the Bell inequalities. Bell showed that the results of experiments intended to test the idea of hidden variables would be predicted to fall within certain limits based on all three of these assumptions, which are considered principles fundamental to classical physics, but that the results found within those limits would be inconsistent with the predictions of quantum mechanical theory. Experiments have shown that quantum mechanical results predictably exceed those classical limits. Calculating expectations based on Bell's work implies that for quantum physics the assumption of "local realism" must be abandoned.[14] Bell's theorem proves that every type of quantum theory must necessarily violate locality or reject the possibility of extending the mathematical description with outcomes of measurements of measurements which were not actually made.[15][16]

Counterfactual definiteness is present in any interpretation of quantum mechanics that allows quantum mechanical measurement outcomes to be seen as deterministic functions of a system's state or of the state of the combined system and measurement apparatus. Cramer's (1986) transactional interpretation does not make that interpretation.[16]

So ths is the Cramer interpretation that bangstrom has repeatedly referenced, where he takes the opposite tack of what joigus seems to insist -- and will do away with CFD instead of locality. SD referenced seems to be SuperDeterminism. 

Quoting from Consistent Histories, as espoused by Murray Gell-Mann,

Quote

The consistent histories approach can be interpreted as a way of understanding which properties of a quantum system can be treated in a single framework, and which properties must be treated in different frameworks and would produce meaningless results if combined as if they belonged to a single framework. It thus becomes possible to demonstrate formally why it is that the properties which J. S. Bell assumed could be combined, cannot.

 

So I think there is no consensus here. Furthermore, I've read it that there is a growing consensus that both unitarity and locality are problematic. See, A jewel at the heart of quantum physics, "The amplituhedron, or a similar geometric object, could help by removing two deeply rooted principles of physics: locality and unitarity."

On 9/28/2022 at 3:24 AM, bangstrom said:

Causality may not be violated but the cause and effect is instant and not mediated by a direct physical contact and that makes the interaction non-local.

[...] There is no need to communicate that one side has fallen to the left for the other side to know they should fall to the right. Both sides respond to their local loss of equilibrium.

A connection by rope is a classical connection and the break in that connection can not be transmitted through the rope any faster than light speed so the timing of events is space-like or slower. On the other hand, a connection by entanglement is instant and simultaneous at all points in space. This never happens at the macro level but it is possible at the particle level.

With entanglement, the break, and loss of entanglement at both ends are all simultaneous. The conventional explanation for the quantum identities of entangled particles is that their identities are in a state of superposition. Their polarities are both horizontal and vertical and their spins are both up and down like Schroedinger’s dead and alive cat.

Superposition is difficult to visualize. I prefer to think that entangled particles lie on opposite ends of a common wave function such that when one particle is a the peak of the wave the other is at the trough. [...]

Well, I do not like your superpositin business. I think what needs examining is the Hilbert space where the unitarity of the Schrodinger equation. It's been said the Schrodinger equation exists to enforce unitarity. A loosening of unitarity mentioned in the article is isometry, which can be seen there to be equivalent to moving the 2-D complex plane to a 3-D sphere where the 'superposition' now has a new degree of freedom. 

It makes more sense to me that the Schrodinger equation requires the removal of measuring the phase of the wave, reducing/removing dimensionality for the sake of ease of calculations -- the shorthand you seem to use by saying the Wave equation is not a physical object. However, Heisenberg's matrices and density matrices preserve the phase aspect of the wave. There is a question posed by the amplituhedron, which is able to represent tremendous amounts of Feynmann diagrams. Is the mathematical basis of QM not accounting adequately for other dimensions, possibly confounded as hidden variables, and does QM treatment of time symmetry (unitarity) follow along behind R. space-time block universe or is there an alternative formulation?

 

On 9/24/2022 at 7:37 AM, joigus said:

Agreed. I would only add that, on top of all that, quantum systems force us to think in terms of amplitudes, which are meta-probabilistic, if I may be allowed to use the term. And we don't exactly know what amplitudes objectively represent. Behind all this confusion, lies the question of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, ie, the several implementations of the principles of quantum mechanics that make no difference as to the experimental results, while at the same time seem to have completely irreconcilable ontologies underlying them.

I think we can say that amplitude in a wave is like the magnitude, or the height displacement, but I'm sure you know that... Yes, what it represents objectively in QM seems to be a core issue.

On 9/24/2022 at 7:37 AM, joigus said:

I think the confusion of many people with such issues as "non-locality," "collapse of the wave function," "Schrödinger cats" (macroscopic superpositions, etc.) comes from the fact that we haven't, as yet, totally understood what amplitudes are representing, how to implement measurements in a non-ambiguous way, etc.

Again, to re-iterate, I think you are set upon dismissing non-locality but O.K., then you must get rid of CFD; and logically, I do not think one is superior to the other, but in this realm as understood by most perhaps our normal logic does not apply.

On 9/24/2022 at 7:37 AM, joigus said:

If I may be allowed to present a contention here --after all we are on the Speculations section-- is that we haven't totally understood the objective role that the gauge principle plays in all of this, but that's a topic for another --hopefully engaging-- thread.

Please, mind my use of "objectively represent" instead of "is."

Phew.

On 9/24/2022 at 2:50 PM, MigL said:

Mostly because a valid frame of reference for a photon ( emission/ absorption ) does not exist.
Much like non-locality involving superluminal communication/interaction.

R.+? We can't have a preferred ref. frame here?? 

On 9/26/2022 at 3:04 PM, bangstrom said:

Separability in space but not time is what makes the connection non-local. This is impossible in the classical model but possible for quantum correlations.

I think you mean Relativity, which is a classical model, but not necessary all classical models outlaw "action-at-a-distance", non-locality, faster than light comm., etc.

On 9/26/2022 at 3:04 PM, bangstrom said:

[...]

What you say may be true for Gell-Mann and Kracklauer to name one other claiming that QM is non-local but I don’t think that applies to Feynman. The Wheeler-Feynman Absorber theory had instant, non-local connections going both forward and backward in time preceding an actual EM transfer of energy. Feynman interpreted the transaction as a direct action between emitter and absorber.

As John Wheeler said, “I have always believed that electrodynamics is completely symmetric between events running both forward and backward in time. There is nothing fundamental in the laws that makes things run in only one direction. The one-way flow of events that is observed is of statistical origin. It comes about because of the large number of particles in the universe that can interact with each other.”

The W-F absorber theory never caught traction likely because they explained their theory by inventing swarms of photons moving at every possible speed, including all speeds in reverse, and taking every possible path between the sender and absorber of an EM signal.

The W-F Absorber theory survives today as John Cramer’s scrubbed clean version of the old theory.

[...]

The MWI and SD and likely Bohm’s double solution are not scientific in that they eliminate Popper’s “falsifiability” by vanishing any contrary evidence.

Unblemished locality of the wave function? The S. wave function itself functions non-locally.

 

I think of Feynmann's path-integral formulations to be an alternative to Schrodinger's wave or Heisenberg's matrix mechanics so someone please re-educate that stance if necessary. Also, I know you don't answer direct questions, but do please clarify for a short-cut: is Cramer's theory SD (SuperDeterminism)? Further, from reading here, the W-F absorber is very interesting, because I thought Feynmann in particular wanted to formulate time asymmetry, e.g. by looking at friction.

On 9/26/2022 at 6:27 PM, joigus said:

I think you mean non-separability in space. I haven't the foggiest idea what separability in time means, as separable or not is an attribute of the state that depends on how it factorises --or not-- in the particle-identity tags* (state)₁₂=(state)₁(state)₂ --separable-- or, as is the case for the singlet state (state)₁₂=(state)₁(state)₂-(state)₂(state)₁ --non-separable.

Once an inertial system is chosen, there's only one coordinate time.

Separability in time? Whether something is instantaneous. Of course it's doubtful we get that under R.

On 9/26/2022 at 6:27 PM, joigus said:

[...]

FW theory. This is a theory of classical (not quantum) electrodynamics in which Feynman, for reasons that were purely heuristic --see below--, wanted to dispose of the field altogether, and assume a direct interaction between charged particles that gave rise to a completely local, relativistically causal electrodynamics.

Google: "Heuristic hypothesis"

In this method Feynman, after a suggestion from Wheeler, imposed the condition that the force per unit charge (the field in disguise) be half-retarded and half-advanced. But of course, the final constriction is that the total solution from all the electrons in the universe propagated in a retarded way and be totally causal and local. Feynman found that he had to impose the condition that spatial infinity be a perfect absorber of EM radiation. Pretty weird, but it worked mathematically.

Observation: You can perhaps always introduce an interaction between pairs ab initio that is formally non-local, and then impose boundary conditions that restore locality --in this case, the perfect absorber at infinity. You can always have an infinite expansion in spatial derivatives of the interaction (and therefore, non-local) but you impose that the sum of all the infinitely many terms be local. You can play with that ad infinitum. It's just a change of variables.

In fact, I know of another perfect example in which the separation of variables makes locality non-manifest. The so-called MHV approach to solve quantum field theories.

The reason that we today do not believe that the WF model is telling us anything significant about non-locality is, of course, that we happen to know that the world is quantum, and not classical, on the one hand; and on the other hand, that the alleged non-locality has no observable consequences, because of reasons I've just explained. When you study quantum electrodynamics, you see very clearly that the advanced waves correspond to antiparticles, not to any bizarre waves propagating backwards in time.

If you're surprised by this mathematical fact, it's very understandable: In quantum field theory, if you want to have field variables that commute at space-like intervals --and therefore have a theory that preserves causality, and forbids superluminal propagation-- you actually need positrons. These are not actually waves propagating backwards in time, they're only degrees of freedom of the field for which the amplitudes have to be "interpreted" backwards, so to speak.

This is key to the Feynman prescription for the propagator. Feynman explains this point --not very clearly, I must say-- in this famous Dirac-Memorial conference --he starts at 10' 35'' with the words "now, here's a surprise":

<snip, needs review, my apologies...>

Here's the most revealing part of the transcript. Pay attention, please, to the words "apparently moving backwards in time."

So that's all there is to it in the quantum version. You need antiparticles if you want to guarantee locality and causality. Feynman, of course, never doubted locality and relativistic causality.

"You need antiparticles if you want to guarantee locality and causality". I think Dirac needed antiparticles because he needed unitarity?

On 9/26/2022 at 6:27 PM, joigus said:

Well, I'm sorry. It does. They all are quadratic expressions in the wave function, and satisfy local conservation law of energy, momentum, and angular momentum (both orbital and spin.) This is all mainstream. See below for local conservation of probability density and continuity equation, plus Wiki reference added.

What you're measuring there is a correlation that was there from the get-go. No wonder it "is superluminal" to you --and perhaps others who don't understand this particular point--, as it is not the speed of anything. I've told you before. The Book of Psalms is the same everywhere, not because different versions of it are communicating telepathically with each other, but because they were written long before the present time. Correlation is not causation, nor necessarily interaction.

You've got a point there, but that's not totally true. We always have our reliable good old Ockam's razor.

There are also TIQM (transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics), DH (decoherent histories approach), Nelson's SQM (stochastic quantum mechanics), etc. None of these models have been proven falsifiable, which is not the same as saying they are not falsifiable.

What's SD?

That is not correct. So local it is that a simple calculation from the Schrödinger equation allows you to derive the continuity equation for the square of the absolute value of the wave function. Probability satisfies the accepted paradigm of a local conservation law.

🤪

On 9/26/2022 at 6:27 PM, joigus said:

Probability flux getting out of surface = - time rate of variation of probability inside the surface

Totally dumbed down: No probability can get out of a volume without going through its surface. This is a theorem you can prove from the Schrödinger equation. Here it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger_equation#Probability_current

I've tried to simplify the maths, but I can provide you a complete and detailed proof, if you're interested.

Wow, yes, more maths please. This I think is on track with the loosening of unitarity a la isometry: the normal constraint is to transitions that add to 1 on the (complex) unit sphere in (abstract) Hilbert space. It's been posited that the addition of 1 dimension, circle->sphere, is not going far enough in removing unitarity, but I think we need more math to, in effect, maintain the unitarity and the seemingly valid stochastic results while loosing it from a 2-D plane that facilitates the calculatons.

 

On 9/30/2022 at 8:24 AM, Mitcher said:

I have re-read all this discussion with extreme interest and it seems that pretty much everything has been possibly said about non-locality, sometimes even a few times. There are obviously some competent and very patient people here taking the time to explain carrefully and i certainly do not intend to start it all again, however if the explanation for decoherence and a supposed non-locality is something as trivial as the analogy with the coin, the question that comes to mind is why did Einstein and followers up to this day had to use complicated notions as action at a distance, collapse of an unphysical wave function etc.. This is what puzzles me now and because I understood completely every objections made by Bangstrom here, given that I had exactly the same prejudices resulting from all my previous readings. Is it because those QM pionneers had not competely understood those phenomena ? Even today there seem to be quite a few opposed QM schools, local realism being just one of them. Is that part of the situation ?

We might need to get into lattice gauges, Wick rotations; but I'm probably being unrealstic to peform like I know what I'm asking. It may tie in with the Amplituhedron, to speculate...

On 9/27/2022 at 6:08 AM, Eise said:

To 1). I completely accept what rolls out of the math of QM. I 'read' Leonard Susskind's Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum, but somewhere halfway I had to give up on the math, but at least I can more or less follow the argumentation. Maybe I should now reread the relevant chapters again, with the present discussion in the back of my mind.

To 2): Ah, but I specified this immediate after that remark.

Your quote from Gell-Mann:

But that is exactly what I think. Some years ago I had a thought exchange about this with Swansont. If I remember correctly, I defended that the only thing one can say something about is what the result of a measurement of the entangled partner will be. (Of course this is only valid when e.g. polarisers are in exactly the same position.) However, I am completely convinced that nothing physically changes. I think the reason I retracted to this point, is that there indeed are many descriptions of Bell-like experiments where is said something like "If the polarisation of one photon is measured, the other one immediately flips in the same direction." As if some 'Quantum God' already sees how the wave function changed,  before it is measured by a physical mortal. No, nothing flips, the only thing I can know for sure is what will be measured at the other end, if measured in the same polarisation direction.

Swansont and Gell-Mann (Swansont, correct me if necessary),and you make it already to 'reality' because under certain circumstances you can with 100% certainty predict what the other end will measure if the measurement is made with the same polarisers in the same direction. 

But I have to confess, now I am getting confused myself. Thinking about this I could imagine superluminal communication, so there should be an error in my thinking here. It is easy to determine if a beam of light is polarised: just turn a polarisation filter in the direction that lets through the maximum of light intensity, and you know its polarisation directon. Now do the same with entangled photons located exactly between Geneva (for obvious reasons) and the Andromeda galaxy. In Geneva I measure a small stream of photons, with a polariser at 0^o, and because the source of entangled photons is exactly in the middle, the entangled partner photons arrive there at the same time. The Andromedian measures in which direction they are polarised, and will also measure 0^o. So it does not work with single photons, but with many it would work. I assume I am making some huge error here, but at the moment I do not see where. My mind-overflow alert is blinking red... 

The one with the clearest explanation where my error lies, gets a free beer (entangled with the one I will drink then, so take care it does not spill over...).

I'll stop here for the moment, before my head explodes.

Never realised 'honest thinking' can hurt so much. Ah, how easier life would be if one could simply stick to an ideology!

In keeping with your philosophical approach, I think we must establish first principles, and I for one do not have a handle on the basic math assumptions that underpin QM, so I strongly recommend you do not completely accept what rolls out, if you don't either. Second, if you like your experiment, I suggest that all you need is a preferred, objective and not-subjective translatable reference frame from the midpoint of where your experimental photons were released. You could look at Proper Time Geometry speculations by Carl Brennan on replacing SR with a different derivation coming from Lorentz's ether theory that does not have the second postulate of SR. But, i likely misunderstand your experimental problem.

13 hours ago, hoola said:

I have  breezed through the many pages of what I did not expect to see generated by my "crowded quantum" question, but the topic was not about "standard" QM and the normal questions associated to that, but the possibility of directly modifying specific particle pairs, thus creating a communications pathway by allowing an additional degree of freedom not present in normal matter, while at the same time not affecting normal entanglement properties of these prepared particles.  A sort of manipulation of larger clumps of matter can now be done with nanomaterials, and if all matter is composed of mathematics, why can't those basic building blocks someday be modified directly and alter reality at a "nanomathematical" (sub plankian) scale for specific purposes?

I think of modelling a system of particles akin to the "ropes" that bangstrom mentioned, but more like quantum harmonic oscillators whose entanglement exists in an extra-dimensional space currently not accounted for by local Hilbert space that underpins most QM formulations. 

9 hours ago, joigus said:

Creating a communications pathway is precisely what is not possible. Also, all the degrees of freedom are present in normal matter and/or light. And then, you go on to say,

Perhaps, but are they present in the mathematics?

9 hours ago, joigus said:

If you use the channel so as to in any way break the coherence by interacting with it, the system is no longer entangled. In a manner of speaking, you have "selected" a subcomponent of the previous quantum state, thus destroying the richness of correlations it was packaging.

You also say the topic "is not about standard quantum mechanics." What other kind of quantum mechanics is it about?

When the system was prepared, it was correlated in any possible direction that you chose for the polarisers. If you set up a polariser, it is no longer entangled, but now you can predict something about the distant part. If you further deflect/filter any of the beams, it is no longer correlated at all, let alone entangled. What do you want to do with that?

Most anything you do ends up destroying the peculiar quantum correlations, and you get closer and closer to the classical description. Not totally, because you still see a binary observable, which is not covered by classical mechanics for spinning object. But you no longer have the effects of entanglement.

I hope that helps further clarify the discussion, but without us all getting muddled up into fantasy physics.

I can't parse everything you bring, but, will you say you reject realism, since you hold locality?

8 hours ago, bangstrom said:

This is a highly irregular statement. QM permits superluminal signaling, and ‘signaling’ is a word frequently used. The classical view does not permit superluminal signaling.

Are you meaning to say SR classical view? Why do you say again classical does not permit superluminal? I thought it did, as others mentioned.

8 hours ago, bangstrom said:

What are you saying about the superluminal nature of the transaction or non-signal signaling or whatever you choose to call it? The timing of the ‘whatever’ has been frequently measured in experiments to be superluminal so how can you claim superluminal is an illusion?.

Please! Very specifically, even though you don't answer questions/requests, cite this material and it's interpretations!!!

7 hours ago, joigus said:

[...]

I'll finish with a clue for what may come next: Keep track of the phase changes in the components of the wave function, and the essential difference between closed quantum systems and open quantum systems, because I intuit that's what's confusing you, and many other people with you.

 

I hope you can see I've tried to keep track of multi-quotes. Please expound on this. Does closed vs. open have any relation to Wave equation/function vs. density/probablity Matrix mechanics?

7 hours ago, joigus said:

 

@Eisewas totally right when he said that the illusion of superluminal signals only appears because one wants to understand what is happening from a classical viewpoint.

Conversely, one denies superluminal signals by the assumption that a positive-valued probability distribution is the valid description, which is someone else's assertion I can't find reference to at the moment. 

7 hours ago, joigus said:

I would add (repeat for the n^th time really) that there's a second possible source of illusion of superluminal character that comes from the (valid for-all-practical-purposes --FAPP--, but fundamentally flawed, in Bell's words) projection postulate.

 

I have two eyes. You have two eyes. The event that determined the astonishingly[?] precise correlation is far back in the past, somewhere in the pre-Cambrian seas, when the first animals developed eyes. You can measure the correlation between those facts with as much precision as you want here and in Andromeda. There is no limit to how "superluminal" this looks if you keep calling that a signal.

Do you understand now? Is that clear now? Will we be talking about this totally trivial point forever?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality#Quantum_mechanics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_definiteness

 

S.E. “literal purpose in life is to enforce unitarity,”, from QuantaMagazine article on Amplituhedron

+1, studiot

Also second mentions by exchemist, and the point towards Heisenberg's wiki article by MigL. I'd point to the section, "Matrix mechanics and the Nobel Prize", where Born and Jordan get honorable mention for formalizing Heisenberg's work.

Large-scale milk sugars and grow guns, oh my.

If it were so, and one had lactase, one might be... a galaxydestroyer.

Are you been shanghaied?? How is it not Friday there already.

 

6 hours ago, Mitcher said:

In fact you explained very carefully and the pond example was easy. Going back to the origin of this discussion then, we differ on the point of the actual path followed by light in space-time and a different type of diagram could be used, with the fixed observer proper time on the X axis. If space is supported by the Y axis then a photon emited at (0,0) would follow Y and arrive at (0,1) simultaneously when the observer arrives in (1,0). IOW light would stay behind in respect to the time of the observer as it carries an instant of his past. The zone outside the influence of the observer would then be in the left quadrant. The velocity of a mobile object having also passed by (0,0) can also be represented by v = sin (a), with cos(a) representing the relativistic factor 1/gamma. In addition, dt, dx and ds can be easily represented on this type of diagram.

Preferred reference frame? is this like dt² = ds² + dx² + dy² + dz², or Lorentzian ether theory?

6 hours ago, Mitcher said:

In your equation S does not represent the dimentionless entropy ?

waht, is it J/J now? or is that some weird natural units. action, quanta , relevent to bh

6 hours ago, Mitcher said:

I suspect we need a complete change of paradigm to reach that goal, so powerfully that even basic notions need to be metamorphosed.

9 hours ago, Mitcher said:

How h could possibly go to zero ? It's a constant.

What is there was variation in the speed of light? Or, if in your preferred reference frame, everything was moving? Further,

Quote

A Wick rotation changes the Lorentz-Minkowski 4- dimensional geometry into a 4-dimensional Euclidian geometry. With this change, a quantum mechanical theory becomes a statistical mechanical theory with  playing the role of the temperature. The only difference between the Wick rotated LMG and the PTG is that the PTG makes the 4th dimension cyclic, while a Wick rotation keeps it unbounded. In actual practice with Lattice Gauge theory, even this difference is eliminated as their simulations are done with all four dimensions cyclic. The implication is that  should be interpreted as the temperature of background fluctuations in space-time.
The Proper Time Geometry - Carl Brannen

 

6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

2. There is no rest frame associated with photons, so, unlike is the case for time-like geodesics, you cannot parametrise photon geodesics by arc length (=proper time), since ds=0 by definition. Instead you can use an affine parameter of your own choosing.

oh, haha, no aether for you.

On 9/12/2022 at 8:18 AM, AbstractDreamer said:

I don't think you could tell experimentally.  But my question is really: If we assume that time is constant over time, WHY do we assume that?  What evidence is there?  I'm guessing there is no evidence, hence my questions here.  As physics is based on evidence, why is this one assumption exempt?  What are the theories in the scientific community that considers time over time as non constant?

This is the nature of 4-D spacetime conjunction, as I understand it: it morphed out from the start and it's the same t=0->t=. Yes there are other theories questioning time, although I dont know exactly if it's such that "time over tme as non constant" is the consideration; I sent a PM.

On 9/12/2022 at 8:18 AM, AbstractDreamer said:

I'll posit again that motion or potential changing the experience of time is missing the point.   In a thought experiment, take two volumes of spacetime, both identical in motion and gravitation potential, and identical all other properties EXCEPT in the property of time.  One volume is close to t=0, and the other volume is close to t=infinity.

Theoretically or mathematically, but not experimentally, comparing the progress of time in each volume relative to the other volume, why do we assume they are the same?

This is, I think,the adaptaton of the equivalence principle as swansont referred to it: it is taken as proved that we can apply the Lorentz transformations to compare these events at different time points t=0 and t= and they will be invariant if done properly. From Relativity, short-bus version, pg. 148, Appendix V,
 

Quote

The answer to this question is the special theory of relativity. This takes over from the theory of Maxwell-Lorentz the assumption of the constancy of the velocity of light in empty space [ed.:what do you suppose that entails about time in this theory?]. in order to bring this into harmony with the equivalence of inertial systems (special principle of relativity), the idea of the absolute character of simultaneity must be given up; in addition, the Lorentz transformations for the tme and the space co-ordinates follow for the transition from one inertial system to another. The whole content of the special theory of relativity is included in the postulate: The laws of Nature are invariant with respect to the Lorentz transformations [ed. occurences/laws at t=0 equatable to t=]. The important thing of this requirement lies in the fact that it limits the possible natural laws in a definite manner.

 

 

On 9/12/2022 at 10:04 AM, swansont said:

There’s no evidence that it’s not, for any clock relative to another clock in the same frame of reference. People have looked for deviations from the predictions of relativity and haven’t found any.

Null result for aether? Or does Dayton Miller's interferometer experiment point at anisotropy of light and undercut SR and GR? Unverified A.E. quotes:

Quote

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, July 1925

"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)

https://www.anti-relativity.com/daytonmiller.htm

 

On 9/12/2022 at 10:04 AM, swansont said:

AFAIK there are none. Certainly none with evidence to support them.

How would we not notice this? That there is a time rate difference other than what we know to account for? If frequencies differ from expected, it would show up., and violate Einstein’s equivalence principle.

 

Einstein’s equivalence principle

No, I don't think it would show up, precisely because we take our ticking clocks on Earth to be uniform and relatively undisturbed. Once that is solidified, we can do Fourier Transformations on data.

On 9/13/2022 at 7:30 AM, AbstractDreamer said:

If spacetime is a continuum, and space has been observed to expand, why is it not described as time contraction?  Why must the constancy and consistency of time be preserved?  What makes the immutability of time more sacred than space?

They are bound together in the spacetime paradigm, and I do think that time is presumed to be constant unless there is a relative acceleration that causes a dilation or contraction; similarly distances are contracted or dilated under a relative acceleration. my inference here I think is that it could go both ways assuming some deceleration; officially it may be length contractions and time dilations.

On 9/15/2022 at 6:56 AM, AbstractDreamer said:

Its made up in the same way that we assume time is constant over time.   Any observations or experimental evidence that is itself "trapped" in time can neither support or disprove either that time is constant or non-constant.     And yet we are happy, without evidence or measurement, to assume it is constant; and draw as a useful conclusion, the FLRW metric to describe a Universe that changes over time - it "looks different at different moments in time".  Is this not in contradiction with its OWN premise of homogeneity of the Universe?

support or disprove either that time is constant or non-constant. To repeat myself, I think the definiton of time is that it is a repeating period, or interval, or what you called a Gap. Think of a metronome, or an oscillator like a penduluum: the repetitive period, the constancy, is what we use time for measuring other things against. To figure on whether the rate of passage of time in a reference frame could be dilated, we need another time measuring device to compare with.. so the thinking goes.

On 9/22/2022 at 10:54 AM, AbstractDreamer said:

Sorry, I was imprecise.  The receding of the galaxies is not a measurable it is the conclusion.  All we have are measurements of spectral emission lines from type 1a supernovae which indicate non-linear distance-redshift relationship at very large distances. 

We really need that Fourier transform data to be valid.

On 9/22/2022 at 10:54 AM, AbstractDreamer said:

Afaik, that there is no other measurable (besides cosmological redshift) that is explained by space expansion.   And space expansion is not directly measureable or testable at shorter distances.   Going out on a limb, how can we ever directly test for space expansion, without an experiment that spans a distance where such expansion might be evident?

Yes, I think we would have to get two observation points, let's say one on Earth, and one at the midpoint between here and the apparent edge/end of the universe, in order to try to triangulate a non-local measurement to the boundary. Whether optical or other frequency range would be valid I don't know.

On 9/22/2022 at 10:54 AM, AbstractDreamer said:

We all agree there are peels on the floor.  But instead of massless invisible gorillas, we decide that "self-arranging atoms" decide to spontaneously form banana peels directly from thick air makes more sense.   For this analogy, the peels are the red-shifted measurements; time contraction is the ludicrous massless invisible gorillas theory; and space expansion is the spontaneous banana-forming self-organising atoms theory.  From my perspective both are viable, but why do we choose one and reject the other?

 

Space expansion is such an effect - or more precisely cosmological redshift.   Space does not need to expand to cause redshift.  If time contracts, we can achieve the same result.  The experience of contracted time for the photon is "baked" into the wavefunction of the photon during the experience, which results in two perspectives: either a lengthening of the  wavelength as measured by an observer "trapped" in the same time as the photon (me and you and most everything else in the universe trapped in time); or an unstretched wavelength as measured by an observer "outside" the influence of time (neither me or you or most things in the universe)

 

In the same way the FLRW metric is tuned to BE consistent with such measurements, there might be solutions to metric of time contractions that are equally consistent.  Perhaps preserving the uniform axes of space, but not necessarily so for other solutions.  The counter argument where we could wildly choose functions of time is absurd; of course it would have to fit cosmological red shift measurements.  Just like wildly choosing solutions to the field equations does not mean fitting solutions like the FLRW metric cant be found.

I don't have it in the multi-quote, but you allude to the difficulty of an observation frame outside time. I don't have the hardest time conceiving such a thing, it only requires you split space from time. Presuming conception of a 3-Dimensional space translating over the course of time we have a trace of the development of all worldlines, not in the proper relativity sense I don't think, but just a common sense idea. The aggregate over all time you could call eternity. So as a thought experiment I think it's easy, although I can't actually extricate myself from thinking in terms of causality here.

15 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

You said, "All we have are measurements of spectral emission lines from type 1a supernovae".  The spectral emission lines are from the galaxy not the supernova.  The type 1a supernova have the same absolute magnitude.  By comparing the apparent magnitude to the absolute magnitude you can calculate the distance to the galaxy.  So therefore you can then relate the redshift (recession speed) of the galaxy to the distance of the galaxy calculated from the supernova.

Hey Bufofrog,

Can we conclude that the spectral emissons are traveling uniformly through space? For the sake of the premise here, what if at some point in transit there was a time dilation effecting the frequency or perhaps amplitude of spectral data received on Earth? 

23 hours ago, studiot said:

Maybe, but was is smoky's work or a miscalculation by the bandit ?    +1

Could be Snowman rolled 'er, over.

On 9/20/2022 at 2:14 PM, Mitcher said:

I'am not using hyperbolic trig here.

[...]

I see you say, "...the classical Lorentz...". To reformulate, what is this ds; ds invariance you refer to?

6 hours ago, exchemist said:

The integral, with respect to t,  of 1/t is: ln t +C, surely?  

I think we have to ask, are we actually looking at a function there? We have an inverse relation equated, and I proposed that we were going to select a value, T, to create an arbitrary frequency or 'time period'. I don't think the bare calculus does us much good here, but I always think it is worth the exercise. 

What is it we would want to see from this integral? I'd say we want the summation of successive periods, creating an interval of time. Similarly, if we had it graphed appropriately, we could say we want the area under the curve. However, graphing the function here as 1/x (and note: our T selected above is not a variable, per se, we had chosen a specific value) we have I think the rectangular hyperbola. I do not think this function serves us for our abstract idea of a time period, but maybe I am not thinking broadly enough.

On 9/21/2022 at 10:12 AM, md65536 said:

What is the time measured by a clock moving 0 m with velocity 0 m/s? How would you define an hour measured with a stationary clock? If time can be measured without motion, why would the "most basic" definition require motion?

On 9/21/2022 at 3:04 PM, Mitcher said:

If there is no motion then you only have time to characterize time : time is the time you measure time is the time.... Same for space. With Mass they form the basis of all our dimensional units but we have no precise idea of what space and time intrinsic nature are. Once this is acknowleged then we should admit they could be fundamentally something very different. Is time really a 1D something binded onto a 4D something ? Is it linear, circular, limitless ? This is somehow a childish representation and physicists are starting to admit it, however who is working on researching the true nature of space-time ?

to paraphrase @swansont, "time is the integral of frequency".

Quote

 

For cyclical processes, such as rotation, oscillations, or waves, frequency is defined as a number of cycles per unit time. In physics and engineering disciplines, such as optics, acoustics, and radio, frequency is usually denoted by a Latin letter f or by the Greek letter  or ν (nu) (see e.g. Planck's formula).

The relation between the frequency and the period,T, of a repeating event or oscillation is given by

 

 f, units Hz, or s(econds)^-1, ergo, period T in units s¹

I think vibration is more fundamental than distance. What about distance as in wavelength?

I don't think I agree that time needs a motion -- it sounds like you're referencing speed. I think I agree with @md65536 that we can simply, arbitrarlly, define a period, and then we have a time period... though in some fashion this may entail an abstract clock.

Now, as for space, @Mitcher, do you suppose we can look at geometry à la mode de group theory, as non-circular defined? Could it not be said it is self-sufficient, that it is defined through mathematics, or do you suppose there is recursion there to circular definition?

On 9/19/2022 at 5:09 AM, dimreepr said:

Why? And what does hammer, in this context, mean?

Well, you finished with, "Discus..". To, "think with a hammer", in my mind, means to apply reason or rationality, perhaps even to minimize emotional influence on the thinking.

On 9/19/2022 at 5:09 AM, dimreepr said:

What do you think that means?

That wisdom can only be come to by asking philosophical questions, and likely also through philosophical discourse.

On 9/19/2022 at 5:09 AM, dimreepr said:

You clearly don't understand the mirror metaphor.

Let me ask you, instead of metaphorically, how does your mirror come into play in actuality?

On 9/19/2022 at 5:09 AM, dimreepr said:

And that's the point, in a way, your assumption and judgement is the mirror you can't see beyond.

I do think I alluded to subjectivity, which I think encompasses judgement and assumption one cannot see beyond.

On 9/19/2022 at 5:09 AM, dimreepr said:

The subtext here suggests the more objective perspective, is the one you agree with...

Given the prior injunction that I am trapped in subjectivity, I think it follows that a potential road out is through mirroring in some fashion so as to know together; I do not see what subtext you're reading to say what I agree with on the matter -- the point was that we ought to presume we're subjective, because only from that point does striving for objectivity even become a notion. Or please elaborate on what you saw wrong here.

On 9/19/2022 at 5:09 AM, dimreepr said:

And if you can't agree upon those terms, your fully covered and can storm out in righteous indignation... 

or, hold your horses. sure we can have emotion enter in. I'm apt to do somethin gbodily to  try and draw up the tripartite interface of my common being presence if consciousness calls.

On 9/19/2022 at 9:13 AM, Moontanman said:

I think you have forgotten that the OP is talking about aquariums. Things like "Lysol" and Palmolive are quite poisonous to aquatic life and would be worse than the bacterium.  

Any thoughts/experience on/with methylene blue for that purpose? Or what do you suppose could treat in the aquarium?

On 9/5/2022 at 10:39 PM, jmf said:

but I keep some endangered Australia fish and would like to disinfect equipment between use.

On 9/7/2022 at 7:31 PM, jmf said:

Thanks for all the responses. Mycobacterium species especially marinum seems to be a bacteria from hell.

It's more to sanitising nets, siphons, etc 

 

I should correct my over-selling of Palmolive -- they make a claim about efficacy that is limited to a few bacterial strains, so even my altered claim of efficacy is probably still an over-statement.

 

I do not think ethanol directly interacts with cell membrane lipids, but rather has a dehydrating action by drawing water out through or away from membrane proteins. That said, we ought to be discussing peptidoglcan cell walls of bacteria or outer membrane of lipopolysaccharide/protein.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gram-positive_bacteria

Quote

Conversely, gram-negative bacteria cannot retain the violet stain after the decolorization step; alcohol used in this stage degrades the outer membrane of gram-negative cells, making the cell wall more porous and incapable of retaining the crystal violet stain. Their peptidoglycan layer is much thinner and sandwiched between an inner cell membrane and a bacterial outer membrane, causing them to take up the counterstain (safranin or fuchsine) and appear red or pink.

Despite their thicker peptidoglycan layer, gram-positive bacteria are more receptive to certain cell wall targeting antibiotics than gram-negative bacteria, due to the absence of the outer membrane.

I do not think bacteria make cholesterol.

 

 

Hear hear. Vastly preferable to these other explanatons in my estmation.

On 9/19/2022 at 9:21 AM, MigL said:

Upon collapsing the wave function, both particles assume their observed states, and the correlation is evident, just as would happen for a single particle wave function.
The wave function, being a mathematical construct, collapses globally; there is no need for communication/interaction of any kind, sub-luminal or super-luminal.

Mathematically constructed into a probability distribution, collapsing any semblance of reality. Something is rotten in Denmark.

On 9/19/2022 at 4:20 PM, geordief said:

Do the particles  exist when their state is undefined?

Or do they only exist when there is an interaction?

 

I think this may have been answered earlier but if the state of one entangled particle is measured does it matter when the state of the other is measured?

 

Could it be  centuries later so long as there had been no other  interactions  in the meantime ?

 

Also you mentioned the global fields:

Would I be right to think that these global fields arose  at the earliest epochs that have been modeled and that they have been "evolving" ever since ,like some kind of  physical cosmic organisms ?

Beables, being mentioned elsewhere by joigus (whom I have deduced is actually a supercomputer), seem worthy of an introduction here given the discussion and questions you're asking:
From Local Beables and the Foundations of Physics by Tim Maudlin New York University

Quote

Introduction: The Theory of Local Beables
John Bell’s most celebrated contribution to the foundations of physics is his
famous theorem. The theorem demonstrates that any physical theory capable of
generating the predictions of the standard quantum-mechanical algorithm, in
particular the prediction of violations of Bell’s inequality for experiments done at
space-like separation, cannot be local. The sense of “locality” used here is the same
sense that Einstein had in mind when he pointed out that the standard
interpretation of the quantum algorithm was committed to “spooky action at a
distance”. To this day, the import of Bell’s theorem is not universally appreciated. I
have written about this elsewhere (Maudlin, 2014), and others in this volume will
take up that task. It is properly the main focus during this 50th anniversary of that
great achievement.

But it is also important to recall and celebrate Bell’s other achievements. In
many of his later writings, including “The theory of local beables”, “Quantum
mechanics for cosmologists”, “On the impossible pilot wave”, “Beables for quantum
field theory”, “Six possible worlds of quantum mechanics”, “Are there quantum
jumps?” and “Against ‘measurement*¹”, Bell turned his attention to the more general
problem of physically construing the mathematical formalism used to derive these
predictions. This activity is often denominated “interpreting quantum theory”, as if
there were some precise physical theory that might somehow be supplemented
with an “interpretation”. Once framed this way it is easy to ask: But if I already have
a theory in hand, what can be gained by supplementing it with an “interpretation”?
Many physicists, at this juncture, are happy to conclude that “interpretations” are
not a matter of physics at all—maybe they are only of interest to philosophers—and
that therefore the whole enterprise of “interpreting quantum theory” is not within
the purview of physics per se.

What then is in the purview of physics proper? One answer to this question
goes under the banner “instrumentalism”: all physics, as such, is concerned about is
predicting the outcomes of experiments. In the service of making these predictions
physicists may invent various mathematical formalisms, together with rules for
their use as prediction-generating instruments. It is neither necessary, nor perhaps
even desirable, to accompany these prediction-generating algorithms with any
“picture” or “account” or “story” of what exists beside the instruments. Indeed, a
common myth about quantum theory is that it is actually impossible to provide any
such accompanying story, and that the progress of physics requires the positive
renunciation of the desire for one. If this were correct then the desire for anything more than such a prediction-generating set of rules must arise from concerns
outside of physics proper.
[Op.Ed.:"Shut up and calculate": do these wave equations; ask no questions, we got this.]

[*¹ All of these are reproduced in Bell 2004, from which the page citations will be
taken in this paper.]

Bell rejected this account of physics root and branch. As usual, he expressed
his dissatisfaction so clearly and elegantly that there is nothing to do but quote him:

Quote

In the beginning, natural philosophers tried to understand the
world around them. Trying to do that they hit upon the great idea of
contriving artificially simple situations in which the number of factors
involved is reduced to a minimum. Divide and conquer. Experimental
science was born. But experiment is a tool. The aim remains: to
understand the world. To restrict quantum mechanics to be
exclusively about piddling laboratory operations is to betray the great
enterprise. A serious formulation will not exclude the big world
outside the laboratory. (Bell, 2004: 216-17)

Physics itself aims at more than just predicting the outcomes of experiments. What
more is easily stated: physics aims at a complete and accurate account of the
physical structure of the universe. Of course! And the different “interpretations of
quantum theory” are really different physical theories, which happen to make
exactly, or nearly, the same predictions as the standard quantum-mechanical
algorithm. But what general features should such a physical theory have?
One of Bell’s signal contributions to this problem is what he called the theory
of local beables. There is a certain irony here. For while his most famous
achievement was to show that the non-locality that Einstein long ago identified in
the standard “interpretation” of the quantum formalism (the Copenhagen

interpretation) could not be eliminated, his attention to local beables highlighted
just the opposite problem: the standard story fails to be clear about what exists
locally. So the standard account, if one tries to take it seriously, both contains a nonlocality that was not acknowledged and lacks a different kind of locality that it
requires. It is this second sort of locality I want to discuss here.
Any clearly formulated and articulated physical theory should contain an
ontology, which is just a statement of what the theory postulates to exist. The word
“ontology” can perhaps look a little intimidating, or overly “philosophical”, so Bell
invented his own terminology for this: the “beables” of the theory. Stating what the
beables of the theory are is nothing more nor less than stating what the theory
postulates as being physically real. Once what the ontology is has been made clear,
then (and only then) can one go on to ask what the ontology does, how it behaves.
This question is answered by a dynamics: a mathematically precise characterization
of how the beables change through time. The dynamics might be deterministic or
might be stochastic. But according to the professional standards of mathematical
physics, the dynamics ought to be precise. It should be specified in sharp equations
relating the beables, rather than by using vague words (such as “measurement”). [...] 

 okay so only just an amateur.

  

On 9/18/2022 at 7:06 PM, bangstrom said:

There are two definitions of "projection". One is about light and another is the name of a defense mechanism.

 Ohmygod we're going into soft science. 

On 9/17/2022 at 11:04 PM, bangstrom said:

One provision of Occam’s Razor is that it cautions against the addition of unknown and unobserved entities like Leprechauns or worlds beyond our own to explain a hypothesis

An inter-dimensonial leprechaun wearing different colored socks (as a distraction) is going to peaky blinders you with occam's razor; or, how is MWI any worse than your non-local, hidden variables FTL solipsistic "it only exists once I look at it" interpretation?

On 9/19/2022 at 9:21 AM, MigL said:

Upon collapsing the wave function, both particles assume their observed states, and the correlation is evident, just as would happen for a single particle wave function.
The wave function, being a mathematical construct, collapses globally; there is no need for communication/interaction of any kind, sub-luminal or super-luminal.

Again, I must be Mr. diehard, I refuse; I would prefer super-luminal as an explanation, but maybe that's the easy way.

On 9/20/2022 at 7:37 AM, joigus said:

What Aspect et al. proved is that quantum mechanical probabilities give exactly what quantum mechanics --in its close mathematical form for angular momentum-- predicts. Even for the crucial case that Bell et al. proposed.

Because they were confirmed, and John Bell proved that quantum mechanics involves something other than classical logic, we believe quantum mechanics is correct (about angular momentum, anyway) and non-locality was never necessary in the first place.

I mentioned to you elsewhere that QM wants to have it's classical angular momentum and it's nebulous probability cloud, too; Murray Gell-Mann did not go home, he went to go camp outside with James Hartle and Roland Omnès,

"The consistent histories approach can be interpreted as a way of understanding which properties of a quantum system can be treated in a single framework, and which properties must be treated in different frameworks and would produce meaningless results if combined as if they belonged to a single framework. It thus becomes possible to demonstrate formally why it is that the properties which J. S. Bell assumed could be combined, cannot. On the other hand, it also becomes possible to demonstrate that classical, logical reasoning does apply, even to quantum experiments – but we can now be mathematically exact about how such reasoning applies."
Not that I understand this QM interpretation either.

18 hours ago, Eise said:

 

Quote

Fourthly and finally, it may be that Bohr's intuition was right - in that there is no reality below some "classical" "macroscopic" level. Then fundamental physical theory would remain fundamentally vague, until concepts like "macroscopic" could be made sharper than they are today.

I concur, it seems that a "weakening of the concept of reality" is required to take on board the results of QM's mathematical construction's interpretations. They want to grab the lowest hanging Bohr electron then remove any concept of it having an actual velocity in an orbit... I say, "God does not play dice", but sure, has probably been to Monte Carlo, and helped develop many good methods. As for back to the OP, no, not likely we can increase bandwidth, unless we can suss out the demon in the details because I'm pretty sure we're missing something fundamental and it's causing fundamental confusion.Hence, I think I can safely say noone understand quantum mechanics. 

On 9/18/2022 at 2:21 AM, joigus said:

Then they went back to the QM's drawing board and formulated the general properties of an angular momentum, and discovered that there was room for this subspectrum that jumps in half-units of ℏ .

At the risk of preaching to the choir,

 

Quote

 

"1. Electron spin /2 and spin magnetic moment.

How did the concept of "electron spin" appear in physics, moreover, of such a relatively huge magnitude as /2? Why huge? And what is ? Let's look at all this in detail:

A physical constant , the Planck constant, is the quantum of action, central in quantum mechanics. Planck's constant divided by , =/ is called the reduced Planck constant (or Dirac constant). Both these parameters, h and , are fundamental constants of modern physics.
In magnitude, the constant  is exactly equal to the orbital moment of momentum (or angular momentum or rotational momentum) of the electron in the first Bohr orbit, according to the Rutherford-Bohr atomic model, and is a quantum of this moment:
  (1.1)

where  is the electron mass,  is the first Bohr speed of the electron moving around a proton in the hydrogen atom,  is the radius of the first Bohr orbit.

In quantum mechanics, there is no concept of the trajectory of the electron motion and, correspondingly, there are no circular orbits along which electrons move. Accordingly, there is no concept of speed of motion along orbits, just as there is no concept of the radii of such non-existent orbits.

Moreover, in quantum theory, according to the uncertainty principle, conjugate variables such as the particle speed v and its location r cannot be precisely determined at the same time. Therefore, the above two parameters cannot be presented together in the corresponding equations of the given theory.
For the reasons stated above, formula (1.1) and the formular for h,
h=  (1.2)
do not make sense in quantum physics and are practically not mentioned.

It should be noted that in the spherical field of an atom the product of the orbital raidus r_n and angular velocity v_n of the electron is the constant value v_nr_n=const. Accordingly,

=v_nr_n

The true, classical origin of the constants  and h is simply hushed up.

However, the history of introducing the concept of electron spin is associated with the rotational momentum  (1.1). And everything began with the Einstein and de Haas experiments on the determinaton of the magnetomechanical (gyromagnetic) ratio (1915). They adhered to the Borh model of the atom [...]"

 

Quote

 

On 9/21/2022 at 10:55 AM, joigus said:

Sorry, I don't follow. The azimuthal angle leads to a description that's constantly varying on a line? One angle disappears because you can only use one direction to provide a set of operators to express angular momentum. It's a convention that we use the angle that represents rotation around the z-axis. J_x, J_y and J_z do not commute with each other, so we only get to pick one. Is that what you're trying to say?

It is within formulating the operator method for developing the Schrödinger wave equation. In "the transition from the complex basis into the real one...". Instead of the power series expansion, the operator method creates a wave value number, k, in the Schrödinger equation:

; a quantity that varies continuously in the radial () direction. Hence our woowoo probability superposition?

 

On 9/20/2022 at 2:10 PM, Mitcher said:

Similarly it is possible that the complex plane would not be a simple mathematical trick to force results but an essential substrate to reality and perhaps able to explain action at a distance or probabilistic trajectories. At least the chartographers knew very well what the oceans they sailed on looked like.

Can you please elaborate?

On 9/21/2022 at 10:55 AM, joigus said:

This is what I think truly underlies John Bell's concept of beables: A set of commuting operators that expand the internal space of elementary particles. We would have to drop the requisite that everything relevant "inside the particle," so to speak, is amenable to parametrisation with real numbers and Hermitian operators --observables. Maybe the condition that every relevant parameter be an observable is too strong, and only a human constriction. Maybe that's the path to tackle the problem of singularities. Expressing measurable consequences of that idea may be a taller order though.

Dope...

On 9/21/2022 at 3:58 PM, Mitcher said:

It's more the arena itself of the observables that i have in mind, like the Complex plane ameanable to an extra dimension so to speak. Consider for instance the two functions y = 1/x and y = 1 - x not like two independant systems S1 and S2 but rather like a global one {S1 + S2} whose elements are symbolically intricated. The rectangular hyperbola is also composed of 2 apparently distinct elements by the way. To realize that intricated state one force the equality 1/x = 1 - x which result in both equations x^2 - x + 1 = 0 and 1/x + x - 1 = 0,  both with the same complex roots as solution so the image of that parabola might represent the system {S1 + S2}. When the straight line cuts across the hyperbola the solutions are obvious observables but when it is somewhere in between its two branches there are no apparent csolution anymore, however we still have complex solutions somewhere beyond the realm of our space. So it's not so much that there are hidden variables but more like about hidden dimensions, where particles could operate incursions at will.

Combined, dopest thing I've read in a long time. I basically wrote about this to someone in an email but was calling that space in between (on the hyperbolic complex plane) a time interval... I guess you elaborated on hidden variables/FTL(action at a distance) here in a way already.

I want to link @Mitcher to @joigus post here:

 

, #comment-1218003, on gauge invariance b/c it too is super doped and he could perhaps make sense of it or weigh in over there. I lost the mustard I had to try and lay on consistent histories there, like anti-solipsistic QM to me, but I do not understand QM.

Thank you, @studiot, for various explanations and recommendations. I think I see it there and will need more study.

this was a tease  

On 9/7/2022 at 3:21 PM, studiot said:

The 5 platonic solids you mention form what we now call a 'homotopy group' and it is by this means that we can prove that there are only these 5 regular solids in 3 dimensions. They actually enjoy no particular order (in the mathematical sense). Groups are not, as you suggest, series in mathematics, they have a very special definition.

as I suppose he saw the word paper.

Then @Eiseteased it out. Funny quote!

@RSolomon Scroll geo./phys. looks interesting to me... but, one of A.E.'s colleagues already developed this into a physical Theory. May be in more broad strokes, you would say. 

Sorry, this is basic Lorentz ds, I see from Studiot in a book by Eddington,
"The interval between two neighbouring events with coordinates  and in any coordinate system is given by 

Where the coefficients , etc. are functions of x1,x2,x3,x4. That is to say, ds² is some quadratic function of the differences of coordinates.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Maybe what quantum mechanics is telling us [?] is something like: It's topologically impossible to map all of reality with one Cartesian/spherical-polar, etc., chart. If you insist on going "Cartesian cartographer" on something like an electron, you need to use a complex chart at some range, and then the problem of describing the "north pole" (where the electron is) becomes a probabilistic problem.

Why does it become probabilistic? I don't know, and that does strike me as strange.

It has appeared to me that  is reduced to  either when the momentum operator is multiplied by itself in the operator method of deriving the Hamiltonian for the Schrodinger equation or when squaring (normalizing?) the probability amplitude a la the Born rule under Copenhagen. In the first case I think -i*-i is resolved to -1, and in the second multiplication by the complex conjugate simplifies the complex number.

The interpretation I've read says that the azimuthal  of the wave we're left with a description of is constantly varying on that line unlike any other wave form, but the interpretations of probabilistic clouds of potential locations fits that.

2 hours ago, Mitcher said:

Didn't they already conduct real experiments in the lab about this ?

I'd like to hear about it.

11 minutes ago, bangstrom said:

The cat is a macro object so QM does not apply but something similar happens at the particle level.

The contingency was there is a potentially decaying radioisotope in the box, no?

On 8/21/2022 at 12:03 PM, Mitcher said:

I'am still working on it and I'am not sure somebody tried to show Lorentz transforms, ds invariance and velocities composition in a single coherent numerical piece of work.

On 8/18/2022 at 3:45 PM, Mitcher said:

I don't conform that it's not possible to draw a simple working space-time diagram where Lorentz relationships, velocities addition and conserved ds would be obvious. I understand of course that you would need many more dimensions than a piece of paper can offer.

On 8/20/2022 at 11:39 AM, Mitcher said:

Hi. With the help of the many answers I got from people here and the numerical exemple from Peter Collier’s book I was able to close this simple calculation for the first time, founding v’ = - v and ds = ds’ as it should be. Before that I was mixing v, x and t the wrong way. Only glitch is that he is using c = 1 and hence c squared also equals 1 but I think it will work if one use any number larger than 1 and v.

Is this ds arclength?

Quote

es, my interest here was purely in terms of observed intervals of space-time and what it implies as a fundamental level. We definitely have a huge problem there since space and time, which are the bases of all our units, are circular defined. There are no intrinsic definitions for them.

You're speaking here under relativity's concern with spacetime bound together? Is that why you say they're circular defined?

On 9/5/2022 at 4:19 AM, dimreepr said:

I think it's to hold up a mirror (with the same relective index) to everyone, equally; be they, a scientist or a priest, a leader or a follower, a worker or a lay about, a saint or a sinner etc.

Should anyone be exempt from that scrutiny?

Perhaps:

A scientist is better informed than a priest.

A leader is a better human than sheeple.

etc.

Discus...

Hammer dross.

The love of wisdom.

I think the point is a somewhat informal discussion, the goal of which is to bring agreement which could contribute to common ethos. I do not think that it is using a mirror with the same reflective index with everyone. That to me sounds like egotism in a way, in that you are not making accomodations to read your counterpart and try to comport your rhetoric or argument to them, but instead are holding to your own preconceived notion that you have objectivity, which is unlikely. Perhaps it is though that we could recognize we are trapped in subjectivity and by holding mirrors to help each other see ourselves whilst also trying to see each other we could in that way try to grasp a more objective perspective.

  

On 9/7/2022 at 7:02 AM, mistermack said:

But I can't think of a single question that "philosophers" have solved. They seem to spend most of their time arguing over the meaning of various words.

I don't think the purpose is to index answers for you. I think it can serve to help you fashion your own mind, and decide what you take on by what accords to your reason. I think the necessary first step in a logical discussion is to have a set of agreed upon terms.

10 hours ago, bangstrom said:

I don’t see instant action at a distance as a violation of anything in SR with the single exception of Einstein’s second postulate where nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. 

The second postulate is a provisional statement and it does not work as a law of physics. Faster-than-light need not extend into the main body of SR if we recognize c as a dimensional constant of space and time rather than as a speed. The value of c serves as a universal constant for converting between units of distance and units of time. The constant c is essentially the length of a standard meter expressed in seconds.

It is a ratio and not a speed, and in SR, c works perfectly well as dimensional constant but it acts nothing like a speed. This is why c is the same for all observers independent of their own velocities. Nothing can go faster than c because c is a ratio and NOT a speed. Nothing can go faster than a ratio just as nothing can go faster than 1.6 km per mile. If c were a speed c +/- v should be possible.

Whether we choose to call c the “speed of light “ or a “dimensional constant” the numerical values are identical so none of the math is changed. This change in perspective simplifies SR and it eliminates the paradoxes such as the “Pole in the Barn”. A slight modification to the wording of the second postulate could set everything right.

Olaf Roemer observed the planet Jupiter and its moons and discovered c as the constant ratio between units distance and units of time and he mistakenly called it a “speed”. Unfortunately the misnomer has carried into SR.

Thanks, MigL. I'd still like to hear back from you about what I addressed to you vis a vis Hilbert spaces as a bulk of small local spaces and how that relates to entanglement and locality. I'd also like some explication of S. Hossenfelder's argument, not just your bare synopsis and a video link, seeing as you insist on tilting at MWI with such vigor. Occam's razor can be formulated to say that complexity of phenomenon dictates necessary complexity of explanation, and MWI is not comparable to Leprechauns wrangling rainbows with pots o' gold. 

As to how you figure a ratio cannot be a speed, I do believe you're missing the mathematical description of reality there. It's certainly not in units of kilometers per mile, and by c +/- v I take it you want me to add a scalar to a vector(v, velocity), not a speed(c) to a speed(v), and you think that's impossible? I'd take the magnitude then add them. Granted, c should be the constant speed of light in a vacuum so I doubt what I'm alluding to previously means much, but I do think there's more to argue there. Nonetheless, I appreciate your input and noted the paradox and various other data throughout here.

5 hours ago, bangstrom said:

When one particle was measured to be spin-up the other particle instantly responded by becoming spin-down. Both particles “got” the message instantly.

You propose that the act of measurement caused the spin state of the unmeasured particle? Talk about anthropometry. It was spinning down before that.

@jmf I presume you looked at the study based on your comment about sodium hypochlorite. "Concentrated original Lysol" performed well, as did sodium chlorite with an activator (sounds like MMS, which might be good for disinfecting aquarium tools; but double check). I would suggest Palmolive with lactic acid or some other things, but again, the concentrated Lysol at 1% seemed effective in a study so that carries it. Perhaps the Palmolive in a strong solution for cleaning gross contamination, followed by the soak in 1% lysol. Appreciate the mention of mycolic acids...  doubt a regular soap saponifies those cords. Plus if they're acid resistant then they're the 0.1% that escapes the lactic acid, and they're catalase positive, but I doubt they'd enjoy the l-lactic acid or peroxide regardless.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238046154_Efficacy_of_Common_Disinfectants_against_Mycobacterium_marinum

On 9/11/2022 at 6:07 AM, bazzy said:

I seem to be seeing a number of influences who are rejecting the science for climate change on economical grounds

Piers Corbyn disagrees with the global warming science, partly on economic grounds.

On 9/11/2022 at 7:14 AM, bazzy said:

there is no suitable energy storage technologies, despite there being a number of Australian companies developing electrical and thermal storage technologies using investment from overseas. until recently the government has shown little interest.

What are these new electrical and thermal storage technologies?

On 9/10/2022 at 11:06 PM, exchemist said:

Ballocks. Participles belong to verbs. There is no verb to intricate, or to be intricated.

Bollocks, you say?. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intricate#English (not the OED, humor me):

From Latin intricatus, past participle of intricare.
Verb intricate (third-person singular simple present intricates, present participle intricating, simple past and past participle intricated)
(intransitive) To become enmeshed or entangled. 
(transitive) To enmesh or entangle: to cause to intricate.

Someone made it that way, so we use an adjective to describe that. Examine how the OP(original post) conflates a theological idea of salvation only inside the church or salvation of the elect (not by works) with in-group vs. out-group preferences, commonly known as rayyyyyyyycism. This intricates the issue to one including two hot button issues that are then resolved into not an actual question, random capitalization, and a declaration of might makes right in an intricate display of sophistry. This is my supporting evidence for my claims, and, I SAY GOOD DAY, SIR. BALLOCKS!