Phi for All Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 2 hours ago, JosephStang said: Right. Toroid, not circle. Thanks for the correction. The rest of it is just you admitting you can't visualize the geometry. ! Moderator Note Listen, our #1 rule is civility. You need to stop making this personal, because it isn't. If you can't attack an argument, don't start attacking people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 (edited) 7 hours ago, JosephStang said: It shows how information can be carried at faster than light speed This is an example of non-locality, or 'action at a distance'. ( IOW, an effect that cannot be realized with local variables, hidden or otherwise ) Edited March 20 by MigL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephStang Posted March 21 Author Share Posted March 21 It's an example of Bohmian locality. Please understand the difference in the definitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 On 3/19/2024 at 1:46 AM, JosephStang said: Bohm thought of this possibility but didn't imagine a geometry that can accomplish it. This geometry can. Here's a technical description. A geometry requires a metric. I have yet to see any relevant metric. Please describe your theory under the mathematical holonomic restraints. this is a holonomic test equation see link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_constraints as the link shows the term holonomic has precise mathematical implications, including the time dimension. On 3/21/2024 at 12:21 AM, JosephStang said: It's an example of Bohmian locality. Please understand the difference in the definitions. perhaps you can demonstrate your understanding of Bohmian nonlocality including holonomy under your metric. keep in mind Bohm was an excellent mathematician, he would also describe nonlocality under mathematical definition. Good example of how he goes about this is his pilot wave theory. So at least you will have a source of the relevant equations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephStang Posted March 23 Author Share Posted March 23 (edited) Bohm might have been an excellent mathematician, but I am not. I'm excellent at logic and programming. I was asked by a NASA engineer to help him program his theory, but it didn't explain quantum physics. I added a travelling wave to his theory and it now explains quantum physics. I described a geometry no one has described or conceived before. I can't do the math. Occam's razor says this is the theory. It can obviously be used to explain logically with words alone every aspect of quantum strangeness. Why should I also have to do the math? Einstein got help with the math. Why can't I? As far as Bohmian non-locality, I suppose that would be action on the other side of the time manifold in the Holonomic field, but no one has ever measured that so I don't feel the need to explain it. Bohmian locality with my theory as the base explains all apparently spooky action as deriving from 3D hidden variables. Edit: A geometry does not require a metric. The platonic triangle has no metric and yet no serious person would argue it isn't a triangle. In fact, the essence of the platonic triangle is that it has no metric. If it had a metric, it would not be the platonic triangle. Dear Moderator: let's agree this isn't personal. I've said quite a few times I can't do the math while describing this totally new geometry. How should I characterize responses that demand I do the math after I've said repeatedly I can't do the math? Thanks in advance for the rhetorical advice. Edited March 23 by JosephStang Misspelled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 (edited) 28 minutes ago, JosephStang said: Bohm might have been an excellent mathematician, but I am not. I'm excellent at logic and programming. I was asked by a NASA engineer to help him program his theory, but it didn't explain quantum physics. I added a travelling wave to his theory and it now explains quantum physics. I described a geometry no one has described or conceived before. I can't do the math. Occam's razor says this is the theory. It can obviously be used to explain logically with words alone every aspect of quantum strangeness. Why should I also have to do the math? Einstein got help with the math. Why can't I? As far as Bohmian non-locality, I suppose that would be action on the other side of the time manifold in the Holonomic field, but no one has ever measured that so I don't feel the need to explain it. Bohmian locality with my theory as the base explains all apparently spooky action as deriving from 3D hidden variables. Edit: A geometry does not require a metric. The platonic triangle has no metric and yet no serious person would argue it isn't a triangle. In fact, the essence of the platonic triangle is that it has no metric. If it had a metric, it would not be the platonic triangle. pray tell how do you program a traveling wave without applying some form of mathematics ? I've done enough programming to know unlikelyhood of programming a travelling wave without some mathematics. Considering I've written programs in well over 30 different languages over the years. 32 minutes ago, JosephStang said: Edit: A geometry does not require a metric. The platonic triangle has no metric and yet no serious person would argue it isn't a triangle. In fact, the essence of the platonic triangle is that it has no metric. If it had a metric, it would not be the platonic triangle. Yet another claim, here is the think Unless you can make testable predictions which requires mathematics. Any claim is worthless. That's the simple reality in Physics the very fundamental purpose is to be able to make testable predictions of cause and effect. That's precisely why The Pilot wave, Including its guiding wave has relevant formulas where the interpretations can potentially be testable. Aka EPR, vs Copenhagen vs Pilot wave etc tests constantly being conducted with each of the aforementioned having its own variations of mathematical treatments. The mathematics are readily available for each of the mentioned theories. Any interpretation of any given theory should always involve the mathematics of that theory otherwise what's the point. Edited March 23 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephStang Posted March 23 Author Share Posted March 23 Someone asked me to describe the Aharonov Bohm effect with the theory, so I did. I'm not even saying anyone's math is wrong. All I'm saying is that the geometry I'm describing is the logical explanation. It's true that mathematical testing is one purpose of experimentation but logical understanding is just as important. This is the most logical understanding. As far as the program, the NASA engineer did the math and gave me the equations and I tried programming it into a simulation. It was a team effort. That isn't a complicated thing to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 So mathematic were supplied by him yet even knowing that the mathematics were required in that scenario. You still can't see that you may require the mathematics for your theory ? In order to be a theory mathematics are required its a simple fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephStang Posted March 23 Author Share Posted March 23 30 minutes ago, Mordred said: So mathematic were supplied by him yet even knowing that the mathematics were required in that scenario. You still can't see that you may require the mathematics for your theory ? In order to be a theory mathematics are required its a simple fact. It seems you are incapable of logic. The description of the geometry satisfies any sane criteria for the word "theory". To program it we need math. To understand that it logically describes everything requires no math. In fact, adding math is opposite from logical understanding. Math provides a quantized understanding, not a logical one. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufofrog Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 3 hours ago, JosephStang said: In fact, adding math is opposite from logical understanding. Math provides a quantized understanding, not a logical one Really?? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVat Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 5 hours ago, JosephStang said: Why should I also have to do the math? Einstein got help with the math. Yeah, to formulate his famous field equations of 1915 he spent a couple years learning tensor theory from his friend Marcel Grossman, instead of bellyaching that he couldn't do math and insisting others do it for him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 5 hours ago, JosephStang said: It seems you are incapable of logic. Please learn what logic is, and not from Mr Spock. Formal logic is an a priori study for maths and philosophy, not an empirical study for science. The word you're looking for is "reason". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 (edited) 6 hours ago, JosephStang said: It seems you are incapable of logic. The description of the geometry satisfies any sane criteria for the word "theory". To program it we need math. To understand that it logically describes everything requires no math. In fact, adding math is opposite from logical understanding. Math provides a quantized understanding, not a logical one. considering I hold degrees in Physics and actually understand and regularly use the mathematics of the theories you mentioned. I would suggest I understand those theories far better that you do. Hence why I have provided you the opportunity to prove me wrong. For example you cannot have a holonomic state that had any dependency on coordinates. Any state in curved spacetime would inherently have this dependency unless you can ensure translational and rotational invariance. Another related key detail is that one entangled particle does not cause a change of state in another entangled particle. Entanglement requires a correlation function, this is part of statistical mechanics. Positive, negative and no correlation has no need for any causation. a simple example is place an orange on one bag and an apple in another. Give a bag to two other people. You have a 50 % chance the bag held by Alice has an apple as well as a 50% chance its held by an orange. So the apple/orange probability state is in superposition. Once you open Alice bag that superposition state collapses as you have now determined the state and also automatically know the state in Bobs bag. If Alice had an orange then Bob can only have the apple. Particle entanglement is much the same way. In order for two particles to become entangled they must have first interacted in some fashion. An example of interaction is parametric down conversion used in entanglement experiments. Parametric down conversion further results in numerous conservation laws being applied. Conservation of energy/momentum, isospin, color, flavor, charge, lepton number etc. From these details and the experimental setup ie number and position of detectors. One then sets up a correlation function. So from this you can easily see that there is literally zero logic in trying to interpret Bohmian non locality, EPR, Copenhagen interpretations with regards to any experimental evidence and ignore the mathematics of those theories. Edited March 23 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephStang Posted March 23 Author Share Posted March 23 This 3D geometry explains gravity without the need of curved spacetime. Your appeal to authority is unreasonable in the face of your clear inability to understand the simple geometry I am describing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 3 minutes ago, JosephStang said: This 3D geometry explains gravity without the need of curved spacetime. Your appeal to authority is unreasonable in the face of your clear inability to understand the simple geometry I am describing. Look simple geometry and how you mathematically describe a triangle has little to do with your claims. You claim a Holonomic guiding wave which you call your travelling wave has an interaction that violates the maximum rate of information exchange. Referring to its hidden variable characteristic yet have not even told us what that variable is or how it would even apply to the state of a quantum system. You have event described any quantum system state. You cant even validate your travelling wave is holonomic as you claim. There is a very good reason Why Bohm himself couldn't do what you claim to do. That very reason is that the mathematics do not support your theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephStang Posted March 23 Author Share Posted March 23 You clearly don't understand the thing I have clearly described that you are attempting to discuss and failing. I never said anything about a Holonomic guiding wave. That's obviously impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 (edited) On 3/19/2024 at 1:46 AM, JosephStang said: I. Travelling waves of smaller and smaller wavelength can be added on top of the first travelling wave, and there is no limit to the amount of smaller waves that can be added. I call this the Holonomic Toroid. It doesn't disprove Bell's inequalities, but it is a geometry that can be engineered to accomplish the superposition space. Bohm thought of this possibility but didn't imagine a geometry that can accomplish it. This geometry can. Here's a technical description. The Holonomic Toroid. Description: Each electron/proton is a ring. The ring is pure velocity. The velocity is the substance and the motion. The only law is like attracts and unlike repels. The ring spins at light speed. The energy spins in the circumference as it twists in the cross-section. These two velocities create the electric and magnetic force effects. The ring is at equilibrium when the attractive force generated by the twist in the cross section counteracts the repulsive force generated by the spin in the circumference. then explain how your holonomic toroid applies and show that it is truly holonomic. While your at it you can further apply Bells inequality via the following. set a correlation function between Alice and Bobs measurement apparatus and how a measurement on Bobs apparatus does not depend on a measurement on Alice apparatus. You can use spin of electron so you should have a statement such as used in Bells inequality as \[P(A,B|a,b\lambda)=P(A,|a,\lambda|)P(B|b,\lambda)\] where\[\lambda\] is any possible hidden variable if hidden variables are involved the outcome would give \[E^(HV)(ab)=\int d\lambda f(\lambda)\bar{A}(a,\lambda)\bar{B}(b,\lambda)\] Edited March 23 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 Here is an example of how to examine Bohm Non locality with regards to Bells inequality. This is the sort of math one can apply inclusive to experimental results using said math. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.01568.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 ! Moderator Note We need more focus on the science, and less on disrespect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KJW Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 6 hours ago, JosephStang said: This 3D geometry explains gravity without the need of curved spacetime. 3D geometry doesn't explain gravity. And if there is no need for curved spacetime, why do we have it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now