MJ kihara

💤😇 ...You are going overdrive...if you mix consciousness discussion which already is a messy issue, that we are trying to keep in order,with..'no reality'..the head will go pop 🤯. What's your take on phase space and it's connection to physical world?

Your statement is contradictory:...'wave function NOT real'.....'observation/interaction is made to collapse the wave function'.. How does something that is not real collapse? Non locality infact enhances argument of consciousness,it isn't a local thing it's global or rather universal. The person making the measurements does not dictate the outcome even if the results are spread within a certain limit....they are random to the extend you are doing the measurement to know the result.... otherwise, what's the need of measure? Scientific principles were derived after making observations... scientific principles don't do experiments...they might as well be principles of consciousness that we label scientific principle...long before humans wrote down scientific principles,quantum processes and other classical processes e.g planets orbiting stars were taking place.

The same thing will also applies to scalar fields once used to model wavefunction collapse.As long as the scalar field is not a static field but a dynamic one that changes in a probabilistic way. Just an example-if you measure an electron spin to be up spin...wait for twenty minutes do a second measurement a you sure 100% getting spin up state? What is the minimum threshold required for a quantum state to have interaction so that it can change it's state?

Which one is which one? According to you it doesn't evolve but there are always interactions that make it evolve.. Does it have to wait for interactions or does it naturally evolve until you make measurements to know its new state? Am not introducing mystism into probability....I tend to think quantum wave function is distinct from throwing coins and dices...coins and dices don't evolve on themselves and of course they are classical objects. If you put a coin head up in a box you close it and store it in a place that is stable i.e without issues like shaking and rusting..wait for 4 min,40 hours,million years open the box you expect to find head up...for a quantum particle the issue is different,therefore, we can't have the same kind of intuition from the probability calculations from the two situations.

It's weird that it's hidden how Galaxy shapes are just a manifestation of the very nature of fundamental particle composition...of course(fundamental particle) they are considered to be point like...I know it's controversial when I talk a bout fundamental particles composition. And how Galaxy rotation curves are just linked to the very nature of dark matter...as i was learning about a simple harmonic oscillator,just a simple thing like Hooke's law,I was surprised to realize how Galaxy rotation is linked to dark matter more a kin to Hooke's law, with minor adjustments of constant k. Excuse me for all this...I just find it hard to resist commenting...

Can you offer a short explanation how its related to wave function collapse...is can be of great help,to have an alternative view...photons are always moving in a certain direction therefore,vector explanation is more intuitive. Mathematics is the best language we can use to describe what we have measured but by its self it doesn't know what is happening.math it's not an object it's a medium of communication...and of course the best standardized form of communication with established rules and axioms. I just gave you the evidence... It could be appropriate if we start by giving out a list of properties of consciousness....first of all what is that,that make us conclude something is conscious? Just an example to provide clarification...Objects interact using gravity, however,weak it is....can you hand me gravity? Why do we need it. We are trying to bridge the gap...I have realized that as you come from classical physics to quantum physics notations and explanations become more important..if it was a spectrum one end having physical and the other end information...the pointer tends towards the information side,as you go quantum. What came before the other...is it the function or what is happening ?...I tend to think the function is the best thing we invented to outline what is happening.

I considered this approach while self learning about QM wave function and it led to a lot of confusion in my head...I could not get the essence of wave function collapse...until I came across a good explanation based on inner product and the importance of orthogonality. Do this simple thing,it may help you get my approach...it's not the observer (EXTERNAL)making measurements.. whatever...it's we interacting with the observer (INTERNAL)...in this case the definition observer need to be considered carefully...of course observable properties I consider them as conclusions. Once you make measurements wave function collapse occurs and then quantum state evolves...the highest probability outcome is highly considered however an outcome of the lowest probability can still occur...the process is purely random however the process has a freedom go give out it's output...to us 'the observer' outcome...we have to wait for measurements result...however the process seem to have the freedom to throw wherever it wants to us but within the expected result. Really? We are the new comers,consciousness has always been there,according to my thinking . We don't have a choice ...we stumbled on that best explanation,it then happened to explain what's going on and it gives use the best prediction. It depends with wat you consider to be pilot waves...also how actual is phase space. Once you make measurements wave function collapse occurs and then quantum state evolves...the highest probability outcome is highly considered however an outcome of the lowest probability can still occur...the process is purely random however the process has a freedom to give out it's output...to us 'the observer' outcome...we have to wait for measurements result...however the process seem to have the freedom to throw wherever it wants to us but within the expected result. ( Correcting a previous typo, underlined it's not go it's to.)

So narrow minded... I just did it and am not what your have referred to above. Can you provide clarification of what you mean...like how? a mathematical process how? Wave function collapse just happened.

What is the cause of Probability amplitudes,coeffecients and wave function collapse in quantum mechanics...? I tend to think quantum mechanics is an emergent phenomenon...gaze from what ?...mmmm... consciousness!... I mean wave function collapse is not consciousness but a manifestation of consciousness. What do you think about that?

Have been following online lectures on QM so that I can appropriately incorporate it to a theory have been developing...when I start thinking about the link btn what am doing and QM ...I just feel... abnormally heavy sleep...when I transition from GR to what am doing to QM back to what am doing...episodes of mental freeze occurs 😂, it seems fundamental science is a form of intoxication.

I didn't give your a red mark..I don't get any joy out of that..am not a fun of swansont...you have cornered him,that's a great thing👍....However given he is not a specialist on your area of expertise...he has done a great job engaging you...he could have opted to keep quiet...what a good show when two titan lock horns...at least I see with good understanding swansont can be cornered.

Eventually... someone's enemy becomes a fascist...after all,the word is proving to be a good Cliché...TikTok era...finally snoring at night will end up someone be labeled a fascist...why over think the AI is here to think for us....🤣.

From where am, am outside the competing spheres... NATO, Russia, Europe...when it comes to nukes radiation affect every inhabitants of earth.. therefore, My concern...otherwise here we're just spectators...I think a spectator outside the competing spheres has unbiased view, from a vantage point of view, outside of competing spheres. Policy of appeasement,is not applicable in this case,unlike 85 years ago...there is nuclear weapons and satellite imagery(it's almost impossible to creat secret armies and launch mass surprise attack on others without being noted). In one way or the other nukes brings strategic stability to world peace...but it's advisable not to sleep walk into nuclear war coz of our egos...i.e wanting not to appear as if we are week....I think Chinese and indians trading with Russia(buying Russia oil) offers breathing space for Russia, therefore,swaying Russia from idea of using nukes... weakening Russia is more dangerous to world peace than a strong Russia...it can just decide to export it's nuclear tech to every other country...which one is better?

How did we reach here? Talking about nukes as if they were toys...I think it's high time given the modern media..tik tok, Instagram,u-tube and all the others should be alerted prior to a live stream of nukes destroying an island somewhere safe...for the current generation to be reminded what nukes are... What seems to be going on it's a war of cultures... Europe wants it's sphere of influence to be entrenched in Ukraine...Ukraine has a significant Russian speaking group...that Russia doesn't want to let go... lf it let it go,that's a disaster to Russia on a future date... therefore,what Russia is doing is self preservation...from my point of view Russia doesn't need to attack other European states,where Russian speaking population is less significant...what happened to Poland I think it's a reminder of what will happen if Russia get economically choked off completely i.e a response to extremely high secondary tariffs to it's trading partners. I think it's high time for the inhabitants (humans) of earth to appreciate each other's cultures...coz someone may see some other's people leaders as if they are a dictator while others/for them they see that leader as a source/point of stability...the issue of imposing values on others should be a forgotten thing/a thing of the past...what we should be doing is avoiding fragmentation of internet, encourage social media, then let people advertise their values,cultures if something is good human beings have common sense, given enough time they will embrace values and cultures they think it's best for them...at the same time we should not forget international trade has been a source of peace on itself.

When explanation for something lack... emergent becomes an easy answer...the ocean is largely a large aggregate of water molecules how wonderful could it be conscious....or you will say the octopus feel it and communicate with it..hhh...

What's up with you.... don't bring your weird issues to me and the thread i opened.. I don't paraphrase your issues like you do....open your thread on action( since the year began how many threads have you opened in the forum?)...pliz stop the nonsense...I had a thread I highly esteemed Parameter of a theory of everything...if you have been in this forum and happened to have looked at that thread ...you could know better where that value and units came from(this is out of this OP)...just open your thread on action as simple as that... You are the one in a hole...just update your comprehension. What you are doing is wrong,you rubbish My reasoning..then advertise your thread in my thread... that's totally wrong whatever you say. They get irritated by clarification...they just want boneheads to lecture around without an questioning... Once again;- Again and again.... To conclude why I opened this thread or my intention of posing the question in the OP; Is that there is a unique situation where Energy and Action have consistently the same value,the only difference is on the units used to express them...the particle am taking about has this unique property of having an energy of 1×10−64 J and an action of 1×10−64 J⋅Hz−1 ....and that this individual particle can not be detected by Michelson-Morley type experiment... therefore this kind of a particle is unique.

....mmmm....I talked about a unique situation...are you threaten by the term unique...use specific if that's comfortable with you ....at rest? how many times in this thread have I mentioned free fall away from external influence, gravity influence everything, however,in a constant gravitational field, a free fall and at rest is one and the same thing. I'm the one who posted this thread...I wanted to brought this issue to the forum members and any other person who has been reading my posts and following my threads... It's not new to me...it's new to you because I brought it up as part of clarification later on in the thread...does it change things drastically...Yes...as per the discussion going around in this thread...am i required to make more clarification on it ?..You being the moderator you will say it's out of OP...you have an upper hand.. However,I have more than enough reason to clarify it but it's out of OP. Am talking of a particle that has a much much much much,and infact, much lower energy than CMB photon. hahaha...😂...am learning to survive in this forum... nothing wrong with that... again it's good to let discussion in the thread to have a natural flow. I don't understand your perspective with the way am handling things in this thread..you are almost saying am not the OP... Wikipedia is in public domain if you want,you can make correction on it. Planck's constant is a quantum of action and its given as; 6.62607015×10−34 J⋅Hz−1 don't you see the units that they have used. From Wikipedia Planck's constant article; ".....Dimension and value The Planck constant has the same dimensions as action and as angular momentum (both with unit J·s = kg·m2·s−1). The Planck constant is fixed at h=6.62607015×10^−34 J⋅Hz^−1[4] as part of the definition of the SI units.[32] Alternatively, if the radian were considered a base unit, then h would have the dimension of action (unit J·s), while ℏ would have the dimension of angular momentum (unit J·s·rad−1), instead...." Once again am bound by mainstream stream arguments and OP in this thread... otherwise,I could have brought the issue of cyclic process that has made me stick with the arguments of action and this 'unique' particle am talking about...and of course those arguments being not mainstream as per this era...people around could shout at me and say it's outrageous and accuse me of being outlandish. If so let it be so...Well and good...It won't shut me from having a deep thinking about nature...I will ever keep asking my self why?..why?..why?..as long as am normal...stick to the mainstream and scrutinize what's outside... That is as per your perspective...As for me it has achieved a lot,more than I can appreciate.....mmmm... "....One small step for man,one giant leap for mankind...Neil Armstrong" Again "..Aluta continua.. " for me figuring things out in nature is a struggle ...and the fight has to go on...

To conclude why I opened this thread or my intention of posing the question in the OP; Is that there is a unique situation where Energy and Action have consistently the same value,the only difference is on the units used to express them...the particle am taking about has this unique property of having an energy of 1×10−64 J and an action of 1×10−64 J⋅Hz−1 ....and that this individual particle can not be detected by Michelson-Morley type experiment... therefore this kind of a particle is unique.

There must be a lot of misunderstanding going around. I haven't changed my arguments, am providing more clarification to what I meant. ...my intention of using it, is to mean each at...e.g a stream of such particles @ 1×10^−64 J⋅Hz^−1 meaning that if their were ten particles, forming a system, the action of that system, therefore ,would be 10 * 1* 10^-64 j.Hz^-1. All this was a response to clarify what I was thinking..if the discussion never went further I could have assumed my thinking was clear and stopped there and then. Somewhere in thread I said free falling in a vacuum away from external influences. going with your argument the energy of free falling photon(massless particle) would be increasing linearly to infinity...that's wrong. The topic had a unit of energy and unit of action...I have been trying to clarify why I bundled them together....and as is evident in thread the discussion is a heated one..I haven't run a way, because I would like the issue looked at thoroughly to make sure we leave no stone unturned. In science you have to be convinced you are wrong...someone can't just tell you,you are wrong then you say;okay well am wrong....it the same urge that makes some want to learn more. Since I was ambushed I have read and reread several times articles of action and principle of action/stationary action,to try to see where is there that am being told am wrong...a good example is what studiot said; It's appropriate..I talked about intrinsic energy and proper time. To just add something important...all this argument of energy and time ...units of time and action and how they are related and my reasoning goes to the core of time translation symmetry and conservation of energy..if am not wrong.

What is your interpretation of the above statement... surely why are you ignoring symbol @ ? then you imply what I meant if ...I should have been asked to clarify...I never implied a Flux...I meant the action of each particular particle moving along with other particles of the same action.... Does a photon have kinetic energy? Atleast thanks for stating this coz have been talking of intrinsic energy and proper time... however majority of members just ignore this fact... What am saying is that if you has such a particle it's energy value will always equate to it's Action the difference will be units. A photon is considered a particle... of course there is particles-wave duality arguments....it's massless...it's energy is in momentum. I well understand that, more so since am bound by mainstream arguments esp in this thread.. Am not forcing anything...my argument is that there is a unique situation where Energy and Action have consistently the same value,the only difference is on the units used to express them...that unique situation is the one members are not get...but rather condemn me of being wrong and not wanting corrections. Am sorry if it appeared like that but that was not my intention.

Why are you cherry picking my questions? Pliz answer this; This statement is disturbing me...whose statement is it? Yours or mine? Or rather who implied that ? Can you provide evidence...as far as am concerned I said action of a particle the reason of using@...then it happens such particles are flowing together. Action is not energy,true. what am saying is that they can have the same value consistently over time only to be distinguished by their units. Clarify your point...if a point particle has an intrinsic energy for a certain fixed time...the particle is free falling tell us how it's action will be increasing with time?. Let's have this example..the particle has an intrinsic energy of 1*10^-64 j...what will it's action after free falling for; 1- one second 2-two munites 3-a billion years

Everywhere in the universe?...what about near a black hole and a way from a black hole? My point is that standardization is important... however it's done.

mmmmm...the person who gave you the green positive mark should come and help you...where is that person Don't you see why I talked about Modred?

I think misunderstanding should not be labeled as flaw. Action has dimensions of energy*time..that is a known fact.. Answer my question how will it's action will be increasing? while it's energy is intrinsic and the time used is proper time free falling in a vacuum away from other external influences.

They are point of reference,that's why we communicate thousands of miles apart...otherwise everyone could have his own unit. Clarify your point...if a point particle has an intrinsic energy for a certain fixed time...the particle is free falling tell us how it's action will be increasing with time?. Don't dive to verbose before you answer the question. The person who gave you a green mark...pliz to that person help him answer that question. The fixed time am talking about is proper time. This statement is disturbing me...whose statement is it? Yours or mine? Can you provide evidence...as far as am concerned I said action of a particle the reason of using@...then it happens such particles are flowing together.