Duda Jarek

Angular momentum conservation says that if we would take a lot of "tiny angular momentums", we should be able to rotate a macroscopic object - and it works for photons. So shouldn't it also work for electrons? If electron's angular momentum doesn't correspond to some kind of rotational motion, so ... what does it even mean? It's not a real angular momentum, but only some kind of quantum-transcendental one? Quantum rotation operator says precisely what does e.g. electron's spin means - that while rotating the system by alpha angle, quantum phase changes by spin*alpha - it is also definition of Conley topological charge. Accordingly to it, situation near +1/2 (left) and -1/2 (right) spin looks something like here: This picture also solves another transcendental "quantum mystery" - that some objects rotated by 2pi becomes something different ... it can be repaired using some covering groups ... or just using field with some symmetry: saying that phase and minus phase is the same as on this picture. And something very similar we have while explaining that magnetic flux going through superconducting ring is quantized: because the phase around has to make integer multiplicity of 2pi: ... or understanding quants of magnetic flux in superconductor: fluxons/Abrikosov vortices - configurations stable because of topology - topological solitons. Their magnetic field is because of topological singularity of quantum phase - like for electron.

I'm a bit confused - so in the first statement here you say that electron has angular momentum: is spinning, while in the second that it is not? It's a part of quantum transcendentalism? Like it is both wave and particle, but isn't?

Quantum in the sense that optical photon is individable? - e.g. produced by concrete single atom and even much later absorbed by another one - undeformed configuration of the field (soliton) - ok, we agree on that ... but what exactly is this configuration???? I also agree with that answer to 'what does it mean that photon has "spin 1" ' question - its spin doesn't denote having anything more than angular momentum - so basically photon is just a twist-like wave of EM field. Whow, once again we agree The only thing what is misleading here is what does "spin" mean - it depends on the context - means something different for electron than for photon. I see you interpret electron's spin as literally spinning and so creating magnetic moment - here are some problems with such picture: http://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~kcy05t/spin.html People see charge as something more fundamental than magnetic moment, while there are much lighter fermions with spin and so probably magnetic moment: neutrinos. So maybe it's magnetic moment what is more fundamental ... ? Why charge? Ok, here is some quote from Feynman about interference: "We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way and which is at the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery." Surprise! In 2006 there was made classical analogue of objects having wave-particle duality and observed interference for them and later also tunneling and even orbit quantization: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/65504-how-quantum-is-wave-particle-duality-of-couders-walking-droplets/ There are clear pictures, intuitions and I haven't seen any reasonable counter-arguments for such equivalent pilot-wave intuitive view ... but it seems there is some strange need for quantum transcendentalism in the society ... it can be intuitive if only you want it to.

So what do you think optical photon is? Let's start with simpler question: what does it mean that photon has "spin 1"? For particles with mass spin denotes magnetic dipole moment and that the beam is split in Stern-Gerlach experiment ... photon doesn't have such spin. Its spin corresponds to electron changing spin e.g. from -1/2 to +1/2 - correspond to 180deg rotation - angular momentum again, which can be directly used to rotate macroscopic objects. From the other side we rather (?) cannot use e.g. electron's spin to rotate macroscopic objects by shooting with polarized electron beam ... My point is that spin of electron and of photon is something very different - the first corresponds to magnetic dipole moment, the second to angular momentum. About momentum it's a different question - it is just seem unintuitive that while atom deexcitation, there had to be change of momentum ... But ok, even while rotating something symmetric in water, twist like waves/vortices would be produced in both directions - carrying also momentum.

Noether theorem says that with symmetries come conservation laws and so because of time, translation and rotation symmetry, EM field itself guards energy, momentum and angular momentum conservation. While atom deexcitation there clearly appears energy and (orbital) angular momentum difference, so there should be created EM field configuration carrying this difference. Photon's angular momentum is usually imagined as something only "quantum-transcendental", but in fact it is very real angular momentum. For example Richard Beth in 1936 has measured the tiny reaction torque due to the change in polarization of light on passage through a quartz wave plate: http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v50/i2/p115_1 Here is nice video of rotating macroscopic object using circularly polarized light - at about 20 second the polarization was switched to opposite one: Is optical photon something more than just EM wave carrying energy, momentum and angular momentum? If not - what more? Other than EM interactions? Some electric/magnetic moments? Is it just a "twist-like wave"? - like behind marine propeller, but this time in viscosity-free environment and so does not dissipate - can travel undeformed for years (is soliton) from a concrete single atom to anther one ... One would say that because of spin conservation, it has also "spin 1" - e.g. due to electron changing spin from -1/2 to +1/2 ... but isn't it just 180deg rotation - twist again? Especially that in opposite to other particles with spin, photon doesn't have magnetic dipole moment... Another question: why it has momentum? Is it that it was just required for this kind of waves or maybe there is some momentum change required for atom deexcitation itself?

There are getting popularity great Couder's experiments about classical objects having wave-particle duality: oil droplets on vertically vibrating liquid surface - constantly creating periodic waves around - interaction with these waves allows to observe 'quantum effects':interference pattern in double-slit experiment, tunneling depending on practically random hidden parameters or orbit quatization condition - that particle has to 'find a resonance' with field perturbations it creates - after one orbit, its internal phase has to return to the initial state. It's difficult to find good intuition about these experiments from only static pictures - the first time I had occasion to see videos was on recent congress on emergent quantum mechanics where Couder had the opening lecture and most of speakers were excited about these experiments. Fortunately I've recently found youtube video of these experiments: The main qualitative difference with physics is that while Couder uses external clock, particles should rather have internal one - such understanding of wave-particle duality was started by de Broglie in his doctoral thesis: that with particle's energy: E = mc^2 comes some internal periodic process: E = hf It is reminded in very interesting Hestenes paper, in which there is also described recent experimental confirmation of this effect (called e.g. zitterbewegung): http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Hestenes_Electron_time_essa.pdf Such internal periodic motion creates periodic wave-like perturbations of surrounding field - giving localized entity also wave nature ... localized constructions of the field are called soltions, so it suggests to search for particles solitons models, which often have such internal periodic motion, like breathers. What do you think about these experiments? About such understanding of wave-particle duality? Have particles both natures simultaneously, or maybe only one of them at the time? In such case when and how it is switched? What about Afshar experiment?

Ok, you are right - there is no problem with single excessive electron ... ... it starts with two, like e.g. for S2- or some molecules - in this case the total electric potential energy would drop while single electron would go to infinity - so shouldn't one electron tunnel/escape to this lower energy? Thanks for pointing out that electrons are on opposite sides of the nucleus - it is usually forgotten in QM times, but it applies not only to classical picture. The standard in QM is approximating two electron wavefunction by tensor product of for single electrons - it's good enough to calculate energy corrections, but from the perspective of wavefunction it completely ignores the interaction. If we would do it right (unfortunately impractical) - take wavefunction for two particles: psi(x,y), six-dimensional potential V(x,y) have strong repulsive barriers on the diagonal - wavfunction is practically nonzero only when electrons are on opposite sides of the nucleus. And it doesn't need Pauli exclusion principle - this anticorrelation is the result of Coulomb repulsion only.

I was just asked this looking trivial question ... and honestly it doesn't look so simple. Atom is just a bunch of particles hold mainly by electromagnetic interactions - doesn't pure Coulomb repulsion tell that some electrons should immediately run away? Would e.g. F- or Cl- atom be stable while just flying in empty vacuum? How stable? My first answer is the magnetic attraction between oppositely directed magnets - electron couples? But the distance between them seems to be too large for such attraction (1/r^4) ... however there are suggestions that magnetic conjugation still works on larger distance, like for Cooper pairs or that neutral positronium scatters like a charged particle: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44265

From perspective of Lagrangian mechanics like QFT or GRT, there is practically no difference between past and future - they are time/CPT symmetric - just finds action optimizing history of field configurations. For example if photon will be measured by given linear polarizer, it should be imagined as its trajectory - like a string fixed in one of two possible angles in this polarizer. If you would like to rotate this string, angular tension would make it more difficult - and it works in both directions. The past-future asymmetry appears only on thermodynamical/statistical level - is not written in the fundamental equations, but is only a property of their solution we live in. Here is simple thought experiment showing that thermodynamics is in fact also deeply symmetric: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62327-thermodynamical-thought-experiment-with-nonorientable-spacetime/ So asking physics to find fixed point of something like that: is analogue of asking to minimize tension of strings (action) ... but sometimes it denotes lying by the way (like for paradoxes) - for example when we rely on statistics, like for such hypothetical backtime channel. Imposing imperfect causal loop constrain to lagrangian mechanics seems to be against intuition, while "standard" quantum computers also do similar stuff (wider explanation). It is said that their strength is the reversible calculations, while we can also make them classically like (x,y,z)<->(x,y,z xor f(x,y)) the problem with trying to reverse such calculations are the auxiliary bits - we don't know how to initialize them... Here is the real strength of quantum computers - that the measurement is kind of attaching trajectories in the future - for example "selecting" arguments leading to the same value of function in Shor algorithm: Another hypothetical possibility of backtime channel I cannot find problem with, is CPT analogue of laser - lasar (stimulated absorption). To see that it seems doable, imagine free electron laser - we enforce electron to move on sinus-like curve, emitting photons ... which finally e.g. are absorbed by some target. Physics is CPT invariant, so let us imagine such tranformation of this picture - excited target emit photons, which fly to the lasar and finally are absorbed by positron going in reverse direction. So such free electron laser should also work as lasar - but to make it work, it has to (anti-)hit target which is already excited to given specific wavelength - it doesn't occur often. Imagine we constantly excite the target to required energy (e.g. is sodium lamp) and it is surrounded in all but to the lasar directions by detectors - they usually get the produced light, but if we turn the lasar on, more energy should goin that direction and so we should see a disturbance in energy balance in the lamp-detectors system ... before turning the lasar on by the optic length. What's wrong also with this picture?

The version from wikipedia article is much weaker - the erasure is made randomly, while here we can control it - let us understand what's wrong here? There is also possible Mach-Zehnder version of this experiment, which seems to be clearer: Here is reported realization: http://singlephoton.wikidot.com/quantum-eraser There is a question of the coincident counter: is it required to get dependency of Ds1,Ds2 counts from rotation of the polarizer? We know about such dependency for coinciding photons - which entangled partner hit Dp. For photons pairs which hit Ds1 or Ds2 but not Dp, one would say that we should get interference - the readings shouldn't depend on the angle of polarizer(?) So without the coincidence counter, while we cannot distinguish which exactly photons were erasured, still the total number should be affected by polarizer rotation - the dependency would be probably weaker, but shouldn't it be still seen on statistical level? Physics from QFT to GRT is Lagrangian mechanics - finding optimizing action history of field configuration. I don't see why it contradict using constrains with causal loops, as long they are imperfect - leave physics a place to lie, breaking such loop. Hypothetical wormholes would allow to construct a perfect loop, like a cannon which shoots to itself if and only if in doesn't do it - it could be so large that thermodynamics couldn't prevent it ... it's why I don't believe in wormholes. But here everything from electronics to such hypothetical backtime channel is based on thermodynamics, statistics - degrees of freedom which seems random for us now, but physics could bend this randomness to optimize the action - e.g. if we could try to impose constrains with causal loop.

In quantum eraser experiments, getting information about one entangled photon decides if the second photon behaves classically or quantum (interfere). Optical lengths for these photons chooses time order of these events, so we can delay the "decision" to happen after what it decides about. But in "standard version" of such delayed choice quantum erasure this decision is made randomly by physics. I've just found much stronger version - in which we can control this decision affecting earlier events. Here is a decade old Phys. Rev. A paper about its successful realization and here is simple explanation: We produce two entangled photons - first spin up, second spin down or oppositely. Photon s comes through double slit on which there are installed two different quarter wave plates changing polarization to circular in two different ways. Finally there are two possibilities: u d R L d u L R where columns are: linear polarization of p, initial linear polarization of s, circular polarization of s after going through slit 1, circular polarization of s after going through slit 2. So if we know only the final circular polarization of s, we still don't know which slit was chosen, so we should get interference. But if we additionally know if p is up or down, we would know which slit was chosen and so interference pattern would disappear. So let us add polarizer on p path - depending on its rotation we can or cannot get required information - rotating it we choose between classical and interfering behavior of s ... but depending on optical lengths, this choice can be made later ... Why we cannot send information back in time this way? For example placing s detector in the first interference minimum - while brightness of laser is constant, rotating p polarizer should affect the average number of counts of s detector. What for? For example to construct computer with time loop using many such single bit channels - immediately solving NP hard problems like finding satisfying cryptokey (used to decrypt doesn't produce noise): Physics from QFT to GRT is Lagrangian mechanics - finds action optimizing history of field configuration - e.g. closing hypothetical causal time-loops, like solving the problem we gave it. Ok, the problem is when there is no satisfying input - time paradoxes, so physics would have to lie to break a weakest link of such reason-result loop. Could it lie? I think it could - there is plenty of thermodynamical degrees of freedom which seems random for us, but if we could create additional constrains like causal time loops, physics could use these degrees of freedom to break a weakest link of such loop. What is wrong with this picture?

We are used to stationary Schrödinger equation. Slowly varying potential makes it more complicated. Physics should smoothen rapidly varying potential ... but let us discuss what's happening while theoretical rapid change of potential (no adiabatic approximation). For example imagine that potential has one minimum before the switch moment and a different one after (e.g. capacitor charged in one way then in opposite one) - like in this picture: In minus infinity electron should be in the ground state of one potential and in plus infinity in ground state of the other - the question is how the transition of wavefunction would look like? The main problem is that quantum mechanics is time symmetric - such transition shouldn't be instant, so this symmetry suggests that the middle of this transition is the switch moment ... but it means that the wavefunction has started evolving before the switch??? I have to admit I don't understand the situation from perspective of quantum mechanics. The above picture used Maximal Entropy Random Walk instead (page 48 of http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.2253 ) - corrected Brownian motion to finally become thermodynamical model - not only approximate maximum uncertainty principle, but really maximizing entropy. Thanks of it, it doesn't longer disagree with thermodynamical predictions of quantum mechanics - the equilibrium dynamical state has probability density being exactly the squares of the lowest energy eigenfunction of Schrödinger's Hamiltonian. So this model agrees with the ground state in plus/minus infinities, but also naturally explains the transition - it indeed starts before the switch, but this time there is nothing strange about it: this model is thermodynamical - not fundamental but effective: we already know the history of potential and it allows us to estimate the best probability distribution of the particle. For example knowing that later it will be in another potential well allows us to tell that earlier it should be nearby. There is another strange thing about above picture - its Ehrenfest Newton's equation has opposite sign - the particle accelerates uphill then decelerates downhill ... but it's just required e.g. to transport density between these minimums ... But what's going on here in standard quantum mechanics? Would the wavefunction start transforming in the moment of change or before?

Even if brain washing the whole society for referendum would be (not only possible, but even) cheaper than current bribing a few politicians (I really doubt), once again - I'm not talking about voting. I'm talking about discussion mainly - if someone want to give an argument there and want it to be highly judged (justified and in concrete categories) by other participants to be taken into consideration, he should deeply understand the whole situation, arguments of both sides, read many sources - such actively discussing person becomes much more resistant to influence of lobbyists. And of course such resistance is one of the main priorities while designing such discussion platform: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64446-how-to-design-a-place-for-massive-joint-work-like-creating-standards-legislations/

About your example, do you suggest that it would be easier for lobbyists to enforce their position by e.g. covering everything with posters (and it would work) than current e.g. talking to a buddy politician or a few bribes? And once again: not referendum, but mainly discussion - exchange and joint evaluation of arguments e.g. about this road.

From experience of Poland, people often vote for a person because of despair - they feel hopeless, they think ever worse about alternatives and so they choose what looks as the least evil. That's the major problem with representative democracy - you don't vote for ideas you believe in, but for a highly sponsored picture - who doesn't in fact have to share anything with your ideology ... I'm talking about shifting these decisions from prone to corruption unpredictable persons, to concrete problems, ideas ... and not about just voting about them, but discussing mainly. The same Tom Atlee above. For example first discuss given issue to find a consensus and eventually produce a few alternative compromises and then vote between them.

Here is great lecture of Tom Atlee with examples about direct democracy I'm talking about - mainly discussion of the people to find a consensus:

This thread is not directly about creating some law/standard, but to discuss about designing general computer platform for working on them - issues of Internet forums. I think it is enough of general comments - imagine millions of people fighting e.g. to make legislation in their way - how to design such place to make it won't turn into mob fight, but a civilized discussion ... ?

khaled, the problem/difference is that on such forum users would decide about extremely important things like legislation which affects them - casual citizens with their causes and billion dollars lobbyists between them. To make it work, it cannot be just a forum like this one, but really deeply well thought for this purpose - designed to handle massive serious discussions and by construction improve their level. Ben, the initial purpose for serious discussion platform was making a step toward direct democracy, so I've placed it there: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64141-national-discussion-forum-discuss-then-vote-direct-democracy-using-electronic-signature/ But the discussion was only general about direct democracy there, so I thought that: - it is much more universal tool, like for working on international computer standards, - unfortunately even looking very promising Free Internet Act initiative seems to have completely no interest because of current political apathy - I see that going with such initiative from the people has rather no chance now ... but giving politicians tool to improve working on international matters, then expanding it to the people might be more realistic (?), - and mainly because understanding nuances of designing (and maybe creating) such general tool for serious discussions of huge number of extremely interested persons is rather a task for computer scientists ...

Of course there are many involved issues like security, but I think the first step is to discuss how generally it should be designed - how should general rules of such place look like, the basics of its mechanics - to make it able to handle large amount of very interested persons and by the construction itself improving level of discussions. You can comment above brief description or propose alternatives.

Justin, I think internet has already greatly improved transparency of the government - especially because they lost monopoly on spreading information on national scale and made it much easier for people to organize. Such open discussion platform could be at first developed e.g. to massive joint work on international standards and if it would work, we could suggest politicians to use it to improve e.g. discussions/legislations on international scale ... and then natural next step would be allowing the citizens to look at it and then maybe give own perspectives as arguments in discussion... Panic, Fortunately internet has made that the age of people just blindly watching TV is slowly reaching its end - there appears huge amount of uncontrolled by government sources of information. But for society to be mature enough for e.g. frequent referendums there is still much needed - it's why I think we should now rather think of better way of serious discussions on national/world level - where what counts is not how loud is blind mob, but wise arguments.

There are situations when huge amount of people has to jointly work on extremely important documents. For example HTML standards where a few large players like web browser producers discuss between each other and potentially millions of web designers around the world ... or thousands of politicians/lobbyist while working on compromises of legislations on scale of e.g. USA/EU/world. How such looking impossible tasks are conducted? Do they use some kind of e.g. TortoiseSVN? Are they transparent enough for interested sides? I don’t even want to imagine how it is made in politics, but for standards there are for example mailing lists, so to e.g. get to information you are interested in or would like to comment on, you would rather have to dig through huge list of multi-plot comments … Let us think about designing and maybe creating an open source tool for such serious discussions of potentially huge amount of people ... which then could be applied for different purposes of optimized and transparent work on important documents. How would a perfect situation look like? I imagine that from the page of the document we/they work on, I can click on paragraph/sentence to get to a page describing multiple related issues, summarized discussions which lead to its current form, links to these discussions I could participate in, proceeding votes between alternatives … So e.g. looking at the legislation, everyone could trace each sentence (e.g. to a lobbyist) and understand its evolution to the current form - thanks of this better understanding, interpretations could be closer to the expected result and generally people could better identify with e.g. the law. So how to design such a place? Here is a brief description how I would imagine it. First of all there shouldn't be anonymity there – for really serious discussions, the best would be if every action is digitally signed and this information and generally the whole history is available for all users. So statements there have legal status similar to signed article published by a journalist – think a few times before writing something there. All information about mechanisms used by this tool should be easily accessible (and also discussed and eventually modified). Digital signatures are usually equivalent to the real ones, so by the way this place could be used also e.g. for direct democracy. Secondly, statements should be relatively compact and rather focusing on a single issue – they should have one main link to what they refer to (and eventually additional links) – the discussion generally is a tree (with eventual less important transverse links), like on reddit but a bit more complicated. Thirdly, there is required well thought marking system – much more complicated than of reddit. To prevent pathologies, each mark should be signed and well justified … and marks also can be judged and so on. There would be rather required many different categories of marks - to not just give plus/minus, but also specify and well justify what for. Their direct purpose is to be able to freely customize the order of the list/subtree of related topics to display – from standard chronological through by some category of marks, up to different mixed custom criteria. Another purpose is using these marks in discussions or e.g. to nominate persons with high marks to take care of sites of some issue (his actions would be still fully traceable and evaluated). There is required some limit of points – for example 1/category/day and can accumulate up to 10/category. They can be spent (with justification) for pluses/minuses in selected categories (e.g. +1 patriotism, -1 realism). The weight of point depends e.g. on total marks of the author in this category. The "/category" is to motivate to look from perspectives of different values on others statements and so on one's own. Marks of marks influence their weight and generally the weights of marks of the author - there would be required some kind of page-rank to calculate final weights. Example of list of categories of marks (to discuss): - Morality / empathy (as external evaluation of situation) - Altruism/hard work (as own work/sacrifice, minus for selfishness, lazy distributing points) - Justice/objectiveness (e.g. unjustified marks, lack of objectivity) - Realism (awareness of the broader situation) - Patriotism (good for the nation) - Originality / innovativeness (minus for obviousness, plus for interesting idea) - Compactness (plus for good essence/form proportion, minus for leading nowhere comments) - ... ? Some may have subcategories - like realism in politics, economics, physics ... More controversial examples: - Coherence / consistency / transparency - minus for lies, frequent change of opinion (have to be distinguished from the legitimate evolution), plus for mature defense of an idea, the internal consistency, honesty in a difficult situations, - Openness / flexibility - minus for not adapting to changing realities, ignoring strong arguments, blind fanaticism ... plus for openness to different views, evolution of own thinking. Besides statements, there would be: - Profiles of persons/institutions/organizations/companies (with part edited by this subject and part everyone can discuss), - voting sites - secret (e.g. for final vote) or open (e.g. while choosing between alternatives), - sites for working on given petition, bill, referendum requests – with links to sites focusing on single sentences, planed deadline to stop working and start gathering signatures, - wiki-like pages on different subjects and specific topics for discussion, briefly introducing to the problem and results of discussions – with statistics and lots of links. Another important issue is changeability. I think people could change judges/marks. The main link of statements should be unchangeable, but additional links can be added/updated. Someone could comment on (a part of) the text, so there should be rather possible only adding succeeding updates. How would you imagine constructing a tool to improve working on important documents? A tool for serious discussions of potentially huge amount of sometimes extremely interested people? To increase their level by its construction? One of many applications could be some National Discussion Forum improving the work on legislations – by making it more transparent and easier for people to express their perspective on concerning them created law.

There is a lot of talking about E-democracy, but I agree the society is not mature enough (yet?) - I'm talking 'only' about improving discussion level between the people and the government. The majority is not ready for too much power (what is conjugated with weakening identification with the system), but for being citizens and taxes they pay, they deserve for transparency and the feeling that they can show their perspective in discussions. There is a continuous spectrum of possibilities between current system and ochlocracy. There are required experts to make legislation, but what percent of country's experts on given topic really takes part in it? The legislation's role is not just to be pushed, but to solve some problem - full-time legislators may have their own agenda, confirmation biases, they are often theoreticians very distant from lower living people they decide about ... What I'm thinking about is a tool to allow all experts in the country (and e.g. people who knows the situation directly...) to participate in the discussions - show new arguments, missed perspectives, lacks of reasoning, weaknesses ... To combine the potential of all citizens to make better legislations. Sounds impossible? Many of what surrounds us today would sound impossible a few decades ago ...

'The people' are often short-sighted, egoistic etc. ... but the politicians are also not perfect, they make mistakes, there is corruption involved ... but most importantly they don't always understand well the perspective of people they decide about - the interface between the people and the government can be improve to give people more faith in the system and the government a better understanding. Another important issue is transparency required for preventing pathologies and so giving trust. Frequent referendums work well in Switzerland, but I completely agree that generally we should be very careful about it, it has a danger of turning into ochlocracy ... and for example can make life of minorities difficult. And so I'm emphasizing not voting, but rational democratic discussions - transparent exchange and evaluation of arguments of potentially all citizens. And democratic vote should be when discussion has lead to a few possible compromises. Discuss then vote - wisdom then equalizing. There are positive initiatives from the top, like televise proceedings of Supreme Court, but there are also needed for example ways for people to create legislation they believe is required and not trust politicians enough with it, like Free Internet Act to protect the net. Let me briefly write how I imagine such place for really serious discussions – shifting people’s energy from fb and rage in current political apathy age, toward organizing in social work for our better future. To join forces with the government, instead of fighting with each other. Created by the people to use direct democracy, but later maybe accepted and used by the government. A basic unit should be a ‘statement’, which - always has a text and one main link it refers to, - eventually ‘judge’ of what its main link points to and a few additional links. The link can refer to the whole/part of the site on given topic or a statement. If the purpose of the statement was to make judgment, the text should be only the justification. These judging statements can also be judged, for example because of poor justification. The marks of statements affect the mark of its author and weight of its judging. Finally, there is required some kind of page-rank algorithm to evaluate final marks of statements/persons and use them while sorting search results - in one of many ways, customized by the user. Everybody would get e.g. 10 points/day, which can be spent on marks in different categories, for example a statement could be “+1 patriotism, -1 realism” and explanation. Points in category given person has higher marks would have larger influence. Example of list of categories of marks (to discuss): - Morality / empathy (as external evaluation of situation) - Altruism/hard work (as own sacrifice/work, minus for selfishness, lazy distributing points) - Justice/objectiveness (e.g. unjustified marks) - Realism (awareness of the broader situation) - Patriotism (good for the nation) - Originality / innovativeness (minus for obviousness, plus for interesting idea) - ... ? Some may have subcategories - like realism in politics, economics, physics ... More controversial examples: - Coherence / consistency / transparency - minus for lies, frequent change of opinion (have to be distinguished from the legitimate evolution), plus for mature defense of an idea, the internal consistency, honesty in a difficult situations, - Openness / flexibility - minus for not adapting to changing realities, ignoring strong arguments, blind fanaticism ... plus for openness to different views, evolution of own thinking. Besides statements, there would be: - Profiles of persons/institutions/organizations/companies (with part edited by this subject and part everyone can discuss), - voting sites - secret (e.g. for final vote) or open (e.g. while choosing between alternatives), - sites for working on given petition, bill, referendum requests – with planed deadline to stop working and start gathering signatures, - wiki-like pages on different subjects (e.g. euthanasia, nuclear power ...) and different specific topics for discussion, briefly introducing to the problem and results of discussions – with statistics and lots of links. ?

The World’s situation is far from being perfect and it doesn’t seem to have perspective to repair itself(?). So there are growing in strength on one side e.g. - idealistic utopian visions, like Zeitgeist movement/Venus project expecting that the system will itself transform into resource-based, or - rage movements on the other side, like occupy movements or Anonymous which doesn’t seem to have realistic alternatives to what they are against. Let us think here about reasonable constructive possibilities which are both achievable in this moment and giving hope for the real improvement for our future. The general feeling is that the main problem is that the power corrupts – not only the rich/politicians/lobbyists should decide about the future of our world, but the power should be somehow shifted toward the ones it directly applies to. On national level it is generally called direct democracy and is already included in constitution of many countries. However, in only a few of them it has some real influence, like in Switzerland or e.g. recent writing constitution of Iceland by its citizens . Fortunately we have Internet now, which could make direct democracy quite realistic. There remain conjugated questions: how should it look like and how to make it accepted on national/world level? Many countries accept electronic signatures as the real ones, making such signature perfect tool of direct democracy - to sign below initiatives and then use constitutional direct democracy. The problem is to organize these hundreds of thousands of willing people – create the place to gather them and find initiatives people would indeed agree to. The best would be if they could identify with it … believe in it – if they could take a part in its carving … Very promising example is recent initiative of creating Free Internet Act as counterattack on SOPA/PIPA/ACTA, which could wake people up from political apathy and make them believe that their action may indeed improve situation ... which literally translates into real organizing. But there is extremely important danger of direct democracy - it looks similar to ochlocracy ... it cannot be just mob shouting to e.g. lower taxes, but there is essential discussion phase before: on which there are considered realistic alternatives, basing on reasonable arguments. It should formulate a few possible compromises and then the people could choose one in pure democratic act. The main question is who should be involved in these discussions. I believe the priority is to shift this "discussion phase" of e.g. legislation toward the people. For this purpose, there would be extremely useful some specialized place designed for this purpose: National Discussion Forums – an open source project of forums for serious discussions of potentially millions of citizens, which could be then applied as the single additional discussion place on given level: state/country/union/world. For example to collectively work on legislations, then collect signatures there after finding the compromise. It should be discussion place without anonymity - in which all statements would be electronically signed and the whole history would be stored forever – everybody could express his opinion, but one should think a few times if he can indeed identify with what he is saying and want this information to be accessible. Alternatively he could ask someone braver to represent his point, for example by linking to the statement in an anonymous forum and commenting it. It would be a place where the politicians/government would be expected to express their transparency and discuss with citizens. In such a place new politicians would be born, by consequently building trust and support thanks of social work they have made and presented in this place. With time it could be officially accepted by government and among others became a place for referendums or even take some part of government’s role. It is extremely difficult to imagine discussions of millions of people on important for them matters, so it would require really well thought-out system of sorting/searching/(signed!)marks … also with required marks of marks and so on. It should be completely transparent, open source but still extremely safe. It shouldn't have some native moderators (to take care of e.g. legislation wiki-like pages), but some could acquire such status thanks of high marks from other citizens - but still all their actions would be traceable by everyone. Can a place for serious discussions of millions of interested people be realistic? How to design such a place to improve the level of discussion by the construction itself? If the system is not going to repair itself, is direct democracy a good direction for repairing it? If so, how should it look like and how to make the world to go in this direction?

Unless being in a singularity like a center of black hole or BB, general relativity says spacetime is semi-riemanian manifold: locally is Minkowski space (up to second order: curvature) - from microscopic QFT point of view (which CPT concerns), differences could appear on some hundreds decimals. GRT alone is both T and P symmetry. There indeed appears a problem with that CP symmetry is believed to be violated ... but I'm not entirely convinced that it is on fundamental level (equations) not symmetry breaking on solution level, like Higgs potential is symmetric while its solutions aren't? (...or fundamental physics is CPT symmetric, while its solution we live in has thermodynamical time arrow...). The question is how such T or P loop would transform particles? Ok, short living kaons could be transformed in long living ones - I would say they look the same in our description, but they are just different particles? But would transformed nucleons/electrons be different than ours? I don't think so - the eventual violation is on about tenth decimal, while we know there are no different stable field configurations (particles) so near ?