Towards a general theory of a nonlocally acting cause?

[merlin wood]

On another thread I said I’d sign of for good. But in response to popular demand…well OK, to one disappointed reader anyway, ie:

 

Aww man! I wanted to see flames flying all over the place!

 

He'll probably be back soon enough...

 

…I thought I'd start a new thread.

 

To describe what this thread is basically about is quite simple. But, I’ve concluded, to effectively argue for a theory of a nonlocal cause just from the consistently confirmed empirical evidence is very subtle and requires an account quite unlike any other in modern science. This and the fact that a very wide range of natural evidence needs to be examined together to adequately support this theory, and just to definitely show both that and how an invisible cause acts in addition to the forces are, I suggest, sufficient reasons why academic scientists have not begun to develop such an explanatory account.

 

So the basic argument here is that there is a single scientific answer to the question of how matter can be and remain in its natural form and organisation both on the smallest and astronomical scale, and given the action of the known causes that have all been called forces. That is, given all the causes that can be generally described as acting by pushing or pulling objects, and which include the four fundamental interactions of gravity, electromagnetism, and the nuclear strong and weak forces.

 

Hence to support this argument, sufficiently clear reasons need to be found from the empirical evidence to consider that there is just one cause with certain universal properties that acts upon matter and energy in addition to and together with the forces. And, rather than acting by pushing or pulling objects, this would be a cause that acts constantly so as to produce and maintain or conserve the form and organisation of matter and energy despite the action of all the forces. That is, matter and energy as:

 

(1) subatomic components of matter and their forms of behaviour called quantum wave, spin and entanglement,

 

(2) atoms, molecules and living organisms,

 

(3) the galaxies of stars and planetary systems, galaxy walls and clusters and cosmic voids, and

 

(4) the light and other energy that radiates from matter as photons and their wave, polarised and entangled behaviour.

 

That this theoretical argument is very subtle and, indeed, may also be thought implausible, can be evinced in the first place from the fact it needs, to start with, to examine the experimental findings of matter and radiant energy on the smallest scale and, in particular, the evidence of the object behaviour described by quantum mechanics. This being behaviour that both cannot be observed or detected by any means from objects in motion and, as described by quantum mechanics, is unlike any behaviour has been directly observed of any objects. And of these quantum findings the conclusion can be that the strongest evidence for the action of an additional cause is that of quantum entanglement.

 

The development of such a theory may seem impossible. But is it though?

[Klaynos]

If you're talking about combining all the 4 forces, I think all you've got is a theory of everything, not impossible, lots of people are working on them!

[merlin wood]

If you're talking about combining all the 4 forces, I think all you've got is a theory of everything, not impossible, lots of people are working on them!

 

But then as I said above:

 

"Hence to support this argument, sufficiently clear reasons need to be found from the empirical evidence to consider that there is just one cause with certain universal properties that acts upon matter and energy in addition to and together with the forces. And, rather than acting by pushing or pulling objects, this would be a cause that acts constantly so as to produce and maintain or conserve the form and organisation of matter and energy despite the action of all the forces."

 

So this would not be a theory that unifies the forces at all.

 

 

But instead a general theory of a nonlocal cause would explain what cannot be explained as or juat as effects caused by any of the forces.

 

So you will find no account in quantum theory that explains the behavour called quantum wave, spin and entanglement by sufficiently justifying and describing enough details of a cause and its effects upon objects in motion. And one can conclude that because this is so, no quantum theory can explain how matter can exist or persist as atoms or molecules, that is, despite these smallest parts of the elements and compounds of matter consisting almost all of the space between their subatomic components as electrons and nuclei and the powerful charge force acting so as to attract between electrons and nuclei and repel between electrons.

 

Also, the thought can be that there need to be details that cannot be described of the charge force to explain how matter can be in their varous and particular forms as the elements and compounds. The Exclusion Principle being an inadequate explanation because the quantum entanglement effect needs to be described to account for how electrons are organised at a distance in relation to one another around the nuclei of atoms and molecules.

 

Then another conclusion can be that if a nonlocal cause acted just so as to maintain the subatomic form and organisation of matter then the properties of this cause could not be described by measurement and mathematical calculation, that is, just as it is not possible to so measure and describe any cause of the effects of quantum entanglement just as such.

 

So physicists often argue that the entanglement correlation, which can be measured beween subatomic and photon components, is an effect without a cause. Whereas it could be insisted that there needs to be a cause that acts so as to maintain the entangled correlation. This correlation has now been experimentally measured between two beams of photons separated to a distance of 144km.

 

The quantum effect has not been measured to vary with increasing distance and so it can be concluded that any cause of quantum entanglement could not be described as surrouding objects in 3D space. A nonlocal cause could thus be thought to act from spatial dimensions outside the three of the world experienced.

 

So the question could be asked:

 

Does a nonlocal and extradimensional cause act universally so as to maintain the natural form and rganisation of all matter and, if so, could enough observable evidence of where this cause may be thought to act be examined together to clearly show that and how this cause acts upon matter and energy?

Edited June 22, 2008 by merlin wood
multiple post merged

[Klaynos]

So you're proposing something that would act sortof like a 5th force, to explain entanglement... what evidence other than feeling that that would be nice have you got that that's required?

[merlin wood]

So you're proposing something that would act sortof like a 5th force, to explain entanglement... what evidence other than feeling that that would be nice have you got that that's required?

 

Well, the most I can do is to refer you to an 18,000 word hypothesis.

 

This account also provides diagrams that show how a cause acting from additional spatial dimensions can be initially justified and clearly represented in three dimensions. A suitable quantum hyputhesis having thus been developed, this is then related to large scale evidence of where a nonlocal cause could also be thought to act.

 

So, just as with many other scientific discoveries, this one can only be justified and described in a detailed and methodical account in relation to the appropiate natural evidence.

[Klaynos]

I don't see any maths there... how can you draw technical diagrams showing anything without maths backing them up?

[merlin wood]

I don't see any maths there... how can you draw technical diagrams showing anything without maths backing them up?

 

If you read the whole of the account you will see that the rest of it backs up the quantum diagrams only when these are related to the large scale natural evidence examined.

 

As I say, these diagrams can only be justified verbally. So that there is just no way at all of initially justifying or describing these causal diagrams by mathematical calculation since no details can be described of the nonlocal cause by measurement and mathematical calculation (except that in the Bell test experiments entanglement effects have been measured to occur at faster that the speed of light). For entanglement correlations have no measurable strength, they are just measired relationships of quantum behaviour such spin-up to spin-down for subatomic particles. And that this is so is just one crucial reason why physicists are stuck for a causal explanation of quantum entanglement.

 

Think of a cause that, instead of pushing or pulling or attracting or repelling objects, only acts so as to maintain the the subatomic organisation of atoms and molecules. How could you measure and calculate any details of the action of such a cause other than the speed of its effects?

[Klaynos]

As I say, these diagrams can only be justified verbally. So that there is just no way at all of initially justifying or describing these causal diagrams by mathematical calculation since no details can be described of the nonlocal cause by measurement and mathematical calculation

 

So it's urmmm not science then? You've got to make mathematical falsifiable predictions for it to be physics...

[merlin wood]

So it's urmmm not science then? You've got to make mathematical falsifiable predictions for it to be physics...

 

I am not a cosmologist but I've concluded that the theory should be mathematically testable, if not falsifiable, and in detail from astronomical observations. And there is already a measured and mathematically described relationship between spiral galaxy rotation and the acceleration rate of the universal expansion which could be explained as a nonlocal effect - this relationship not having been explained either by dark matter or MOND.

 

And then again, just the direct experimental detection and identification of the appropriate kind(s) of dark matter that could be shown to explain spiral galaxy rotation curves, the behaviour of galaxies in clusters and the observed gravitational lensing effects would as good as falsify a nonlocal cosmological hypothesis, so given this and I have really lost the whole cosmoogical argument.

 

You may call the existence of dark matter a "postulate" but the wikipedia entry calls dark matter a "hypothetical form of matter". Also, cosmologists often write and speak about dark matter as if it has been definitely shown to exist and don't mention the fact that many purpose-built experiments have been carried out since 1987 without finding a trace of the substance, and despite this needing to comprise 90% of all matter in the universe.

 

And then no one has mentioned that fact that the extra dimensional diagrams in the blog hypothesis reveal a clear relationship between the quantum evidence and certain features that can be described of the mind and consciousness that have been discussed in European and English language philosophy for centuries. While it is also shown here how the form conserving property as a species form conserving cause can be related to certain general features of the behaviour of living organisms including human beings.

Edited June 22, 2008 by merlin wood
multiple post merged

[Mr Skeptic]

I am not a cosmologist but I've concluded that the theory should be mathematically testable, if not falsifiable

 

Well, it's not much of a test if the test can't have negative results.

 

BTW, I probably won't be able to see your replies anymore...

[merlin wood]

Well, it's not much of a test if the test can't have negative results.

 

BTW, I probably won't be able to see your replies anymore...

 

Who said the tests couldn't have negative results? The point is that negative test results needn't disprove or falsify a theory or hypothesis or postulate, if you will, as all the 20 odd years of negative experimental results for the direct detection of the right kind of dark matter clearly illustrate.

Edited June 22, 2008 by merlin wood

[Klaynos]

Who said the tests couldn't have negative results? The point is that negative test results needn't disprove or falsify a theory or hypothesis or postulate, if you will, as all the 20 odd years of negative experimental results for the direct detection of the right kind of dark matter clearly illustrate.

 

There's a difference between experiments that fail and experiments that are negative.

 

Show me an experiment that has been negative for say WIMPs...

 

You've brought this up and been challenged on it before, can we not go over it all again?

[merlin wood]

There's a difference between experiments that fail and experiments that are negative.

 

Show me an experiment that has been negative for say WIMPs...

 

You've brought this up and been challenged on it before, can we not go over it all again?

 

Go on then, tell us the exact distinction between failed and negative experiments. Because you haven't done so up to now.

 

I can imagine that failures could include ones that haven't been properly constructed but this wouldn't apply to over 20 independent dark matter direct detection experiments that have not detected the appropriate kinds of particle.

[Klaynos]

Go on then, tell us the exact distinction between failed and negative experiments. Because you haven't done so up to now.

 

I can imagine that failures could include ones that haven't been properly constructed but this wouldn't apply to over 20 independent dark matter direct detection experiments that have not detected the appropriate kinds of particle.

 

Failed is one that for some reason doesn work, whether this is because they're build badly or something that isn't known about taken into account.

 

A negative experiment is one that works but give a different result to that expected.

 

If an experiment is predicted to show a particle which does not appear that would probably be a negative result, show me these "20 independent" experiments, and what particles they were looking for and whether these were part of the standard model or not. Dark matter is a hypothesis we are trying to find out what causes the effect...part if it seems to be due to neutrinos but there's not enough and they don't explain the distribution we see.

[foodchain]

On another thread I said I’d sign of for good. But in response to popular demand…well OK, to one disappointed reader anyway, ie:

 

What I wonder is how much of a barrier to observation QM applies also at the macroscopic realm. I mean when you say detect for dark matter you have certain intrinsic barriers to viewing right? As say you are probably using some instrument compiled from the periodic table in some form or another. If dark matter could also be a particle-wave deal maybe its just to different to interfere with other quantum stuff.

 

I mean with light or ordinary matter you get at least ordinary behavior, save for decay and things like that. why would dark matter have to have anything in common with our material universe? I mean can this be demonstrated somehow using QM or is it an unscientific question? I would think the lack to have quantum interference occur would prove something not to exist? In that no measurement can occur or observation period on it.

 

So to me entanglement occurring seems odd, even if its directly tied in some way to measurement or observation, this is one of the questions that sparked my interest in decoherence because I think it can actually work with entanglement a bit.

Edited June 23, 2008 by foodchain
i for an a

[merlin wood]

Failed is one that for some reason doesn work, whether this is because they're build badly or something that isn't known about taken into account.

 

A negative experiment is one that works but give a different result to that expected.

 

If an experiment is predicted to show a particle which does not appear that would probably be a negative result, show me these "20 independent" experiments, and what particles they were looking for and whether these were part of the standard model or not. Dark matter is a hypothesis we are trying to find out what causes the effect...part if it seems to be due to neutrinos but there's not enough and they don't explain the distribution we see.

 

Here's an overview dated July 2002 that includes a list of 24 WIMP cold dark matter experiments that wrere then either operational or completed, with another 14 that were planned or under construction.

 

But whether you call any of these projects failures or negative - and I can hardly imagine that they could all be poorly constructed they've now had plenty of practise at setting them up - the fact is that the appropriate WIMP particles have not been found by such effort since the first experiement in 1987. And I'd call that overall result pretty negative anyway.

 

Meanwhile, I feel I need very much to emphasise that there's still this crucial factor that from this extradimensional model of a nonlocally acting cause I 've constructed - plus the form conserving property of the cause - an essentially quite simple theory (or hypothesis) can be developed that, as I have argued, clearly solves the problems of the identity of many immaterial or invisible minds and the indivisibiliy of consiousness, as well as providing a basically simple explanation for the reproductive and species protective behaviour of organisms generally. And so I can reasonably insist that this part of the nonlocal causal hypothesis cannot be separated from the cosmological argument and ignored.

 

For it can be pointed out that there just is this universal problem of explaining how the particular form and subatomic organisation of matter as atoms molecules and living organisms is possible given just the known properties of the forces. And by constructiing a diagrammatc quantum hypothesis and by considering such a wide range of various natural evidence together, I'd say I've put the strongest case yet that I've found anywhere for the existence and nature of this additional cause. While since this cause cannot be described in any way as acting by poshing or pulling objects then it cannot be properly described as a force.

Edited June 23, 2008 by merlin wood
typo

[Klaynos]

The experiment described there could be either, I'm not a particle physicist, and some of the notation in s meaningless to me, but from what I can get is that it could be the WIMPs didn't annihilate as expected or move atoms as expected after collisions, or the cross sectional area they considered was way too large. They were taking 10 kg/day exposures and one of the predictions was 1 event/100kg/year! Of course it might have measured nothing because there was nothing there to measure whether this is because there's no dark matter here (hard to believe) or because it doesn't exist. There are too many unknowns with the experiment.

[merlin wood]

The experiment described there could be either, I'm not a particle physicist, and some of the notation in s meaningless to me, but from what I can get is that it could be the WIMPs didn't annihilate as expected or move atoms as expected after collisions, or the cross sectional area they considered was way too large. They were taking 10 kg/day exposures and one of the predictions was 1 event/100kg/year! Of course it might have measured nothing because there was nothing there to measure whether this is because there's no dark matter here (hard to believe) or because it doesn't exist. There are too many unknowns with the experiment.

 

Er... "Experiment" singular? I'm sorry?? On this link to a review of past and, in 2002, current and proposed dark matter experiments - as provided at the beginning of my post #16 above - they are talking here about 39 of them carried out since 1987 and listed on the third page as:

 

1. IGEX

2. ORPHEUS

3. NaI

4. NaIAD

5. ZEPLIN I

6. ZEPLIN II/III

7. ZEPLIN-MAX

8. DRIFT-I

9. DRIFT-10

10. COSME

11. IGEX

12. ANAIS

13. ROSEBUD

14. COSME

15. IGEX

16. ANAIS

17. ROSEBUD

18. Saclay-NaI

19. EDELWEISS I

20. EDELWEISS II

21. Hdlberg/Mscw

22. HDMS

23. Genius

24. DAMA

25.LIBRA

26. Xenon

27. CRESST-I

28. CRESST-II

29. CUORICINO

30. CUORE

31. XMAS

32. Elegants V

33. Elegants VI

34. LiF

35. SIMPLE

36. CDMS-1

37. CDMS-II

38. XENON

39. PICASSO

 

...and costructed at 14 different sites in Russia, Switzerland, UK, Spain, France, Italy, Japan, France, USA and Canada.

Edited June 23, 2008 by merlin wood
typo

[Klaynos]

He lists many but talks in depth about one. Or at least one type.

[merlin wood]

He lists many but talks in depth about one. Or at least one type.

 

OK then, here are some details about more experiments in a review that also happens to be dated 2002.

 

In the goonle search it looks like there are no more such reviews for "non-specialists" at later dates. One could wonder why, I suppose. So this one says:

 

"Chances are good to see an exciting year 2002/3 for the direct detection of dark matter particles."

[Klaynos]

So the DAMA may well have been positive.

 

So we're primarily talking about supersymetry particles here, the lack of knowledge of the mass and cross section means it's not surprising that results are negative, have a look at neutrino experiments and according to all best guesses the neutrino is ALOT more interacting than proposed WIMPs.

 

So the summary of the paper seems to say the experiments arn't good enough yet...

[merlin wood]

So the DAMA may well have been positive.

 

Or maybe not on the other hand. So from the wikipedia entry on Dark matter:

 

"Although dark matter was detected by its gravitational lensing in August 2006,[13] many aspects of dark matter remain speculative. The DAMA/NaI experiment and its successor DAMA/LIBRA have claimed to directly detect dark matter passing through the Earth, though most scientists remain skeptical since negative results of other experiments are (almost) incompatible with the DAMA results if dark matter consists of neutralinos,"

 

So we're primarily talking about supersymetry particles here, the lack of knowledge of the mass and cross section means it's not surprising that results are negative, have a look at neutrino experiments and according to all best guesses the neutrino is ALOT more interacting than proposed WIMPs.

 

So the summary of the paper seems to say the experiments arn't good enough yet...

 

That is, over five years ago they may have been inadequate and so still aren't?

.

Or alternatively, why can't one begin to wonder: surely it shouldn't take over 20 years of all this experimentation in 10 diferent countries to directly and definitely detect at least some of this postulated 90% of all matter in the universe?

[Klaynos]

Takes a long time to build these experiments, most are down mines are are ENORMOUS! Hopefully the LHC will create some of these particles and shed some light on whether their cross sections are as tiny as some say they should be....

 

Lots of people are working on other models other than dark matter of course, but they've got to explain the distribution which as I understand it is rather hard.....

[merlin wood]

Takes a long time to build these experiments, most are down mines are are ENORMOUS! Hopefully the LHC will create some of these particles and shed some light on whether their cross sections are as tiny as some say they should be...

 

Or, on the other hand, perhaps the Large Hadron Collider will just create new particles that only last for fractions of a second, like all the other high energy collision experiments.

 

Lots of people are working on other models other than dark matter of course, but they've got to explain the distribution which as I understand it is rather hard.....

 

But then, of course, no physicist is going to come up with a theory of a nonlocally acting cause is s/he? And even if any did no one would listen to them.

 

So no self-respecting modern physicist would (dare to?) take seriously such daft, speculative/pseuodiscientific notions as these:

 

Despite all the measured uncertainty and probability in quantum theory, matter been found to be of a very varied and particular form and organisation as the atoms and molecules of the elements and compounds, with all their distinct and predictable physical and chemical properties. And no known properties of the atomic or other forces can be described to explain how all this material organisatiion is possible. Or, indeed, how matter can remain composed in their atomic and molecular forms and organisation.

 

But rather, matter has been detected and measured to consist almost all of the space between its subatomic components called electrons and atomic nuclei. And a force that is measured to be 40 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity is found to attract between electrons and nuclei and repel between electrons.

 

Also, when separated from being components of atoms or molecules, in suitable experiments, single consecutive subatomic components in a beam can be detected to arrange themselves one by one into what can be called wave interference and diffraction patterns, even though being directly detected on a screen as point like objects or particles. While much the same results have been obtained from very low intensity beams of photons. And the Schrödinger equation describes what may be called a standing wave property in the behaviour of elctrons as atomic components, thus accounting for their discrete energy states and the emmission and absorption of photons resulting from changes in these states.

 

Of course, given an indeterminate, Copenhagen type interpretation of quantum mechanics, the wave properties of photons and matter particles need not be thought to represent particular forms of behaviour beyond the experimental results. And many experiments have been performed and predictions made of the results of more experiments given the quantum mechanics that just describes the directly detected and measured behaviour of quantum objects.

 

So that the very large majority of physicists can completely ignore or else disparage the peculiar and predictively quite unsuccessful Bohmian quantum mechanics. This being an interpretation that does account for the directly detected experimental results in terms of a description of the hidden variable behaviour of quantum objects in motion. That is, even though Bohmian mechanics has been systematically justified and mathematically described in detail, and developed to be entirely consistent with a wide range of experimental results, as well as eliminating the paradoxes of indeterminate interpretations.

 

Thus, rather than describing quantum behaviour in terms of an unvisualisable superposition of states while undetected, the Bohmian account describes quantum objects as both extended waves and particles with continuous and definite trajectories while in motion, and which involves the description of an additional cause called the quantum potential that would need to be nonlocally acting.

 

Given that very few physicists take Bohmian mechanics seriously then, probably none would accept the idea that any cause could act nonlocally on the astronomical scale and together with the force of gravity.

 

So, obviously, its just airy fairy nonsense to suppose that, because the atomic and molecular (as well as organic) form and organisation of matter on the small scale can’t be explained by describing the action of the atomic forces, this could also be true of gravity in relation to the formation and form of the galaxies of stars and planetary systems, and the galaxy walls and filamentary clusters around cosmic voids on the very large scale...

[Klaynos]

The interpretation is just that it's unimportant for the maths. You know you don't have a theory here.

The interpretation isn't important the maths is important, again we're back to this.

 

You also seem to be confused about what is and isn't possibly, you can describe sub atomic actions using "the atomic forces" which I assume you mean the strong and weak, that's what the whole of nuclear and particle physics does!