The Relativity/Quantum Mechanics Conflict

[AnssiH]

Just a quick reply...

 

I understand exactly what you mean- take a picture, and blow it up. Take your theory, or representation, or what have you, and xerox it on to a larger piece of paper, etc. I'm telling you that there exist explanations where blowing up the image DOES change the predictions. You seem to be insisting thats impossible.

 

Yes, I have troubles believing there exist valid explanations whose expectations are a function of the printer settings :shrug:

 

What about flipping things in a mirror (i.e. swapping left and right hands)? This is also a symmetry of Dick's explanation that is not a symmetry of modern physics.

 

That objection is also based on mis-representation of DD's analysis. Weak nuclear force violating parity symmetry is mentioned in the OP of:

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-of-science/23008-the-final-piece-of-the-puzzle.html

And I comment on that part at post #34, after which DD comments on that issue a bit more.

 

Once again, it is not immediately obvious how some aspect of modern physics maps in terms of [imath]x,y,z,\tau[/imath], you shouldn't make intuitive assumptions without actually analyzing it carefully.

 

I understand that. Any set of numbers, however, is unknown information as soon as context is removed. i.e. {3,1,4,1,5,9...}. This is unknown information- there are several explanations of this unknown information. One is that the digits are random. Another is that these are the digits of pi.

 

That objection is also based on mis-representation of the analysis. What constitutes a "single element" in the data has been defined at the get-go, and the symmetry requirements do not apply.

 

Also, its worth pointing out that Dick's model only works if the information is a set of numbers.

 

Eh.... that is also a mis-representation of the analysis, the first parts of the analysis have to do with proving that any information can be represented via numbers.

 

You have completely and totally missed my point. I'll reiterate as clearly as I can

 

Here is a set of undefined information {3,1,4,1,5,9..}

 

Okay, that's still a set of numbers you wrote there. For instance, there's the element "1" appearing twice in there by pre-existing definitions of the meaning of those symbols.

 

If those numbers were representing undefined data in terms of being some data points, then various ways to define the meanings of various groups of numbers would exist (for instance).

 

According to Dick's analysis, ANY CONSISTENT EXPLANATION MUST SOLVE HIS FUNDAMENTAL EQUATION.

 

Here is one explanation: these are the digits of pi (there are many others, including the digits are random).

 

Here is the problem- the explanation "digits of pi" can't solve Dick's equation because the probabilities they give are either 1, or 0 (this character, probability either 1 or 0 cannot be changed by any mapping). Hence, the derivative is an undefined operation, which means Dick's equation cannot apply.

 

That objection is also based on a mis-representation of the analysis.

 

Dick in his last post seemed to indicate that this is because his equation applies to ensembles of explanations, but that is clearly not the original claim .

 

Yes in the sense that the equation refers to universal properties (not sure what you mean by it not being the original claim), but the actual confusion here is in what is meant by undefined information. Just think of some patterns that allow for very loose definitions regarding what sorts of portions or features of those patterns are supposed to refer to "individual elements".

 

Your examples imply restrictions that would not exist if the meaning of the data was entirely unknown. If you allow for a huge number of those digits of "pi" to become encapsulated by a definition of a single individual element, then those defined elements being mapped into an [imath]x,y,z,\tau[/imath] space would yield the same symmetry requirements. That would be essentially a case of "not making undefendable assumptions", but instead basing your expectations on inductive reasoning, i.e. familiarity of recurring patterns. As oppose to this, to guess that the data is based on digits of pi is to make an undefendable assumption (and assigning binary probabilities is a case of making the undefendable assumption that your guess stays correct for all the future data).

 

That all just goes back to the original definition of "an explanation". The point of the whole analysis is to investigate the consequences of those symmetries to the mapping, so insisting on a counter-example that requires undefendable assumptions about the meaning of the data just is not fruitful.

 

-Anssi

[Erasmus00]

Yes, I have troubles believing there exist valid explanations whose expectations are a function of the printer settings :phones:

 

You have no problem with parity symmetry being violated, but this is also a function of printer setting. Why is it ok, in your mind, for parity to be violated in an explanation, but not scale invariance?

 

What constitutes a "single element" in the data has been defined at the get-go, and the symmetry requirements do not apply.

 

Dick's analysis acts essentially on sets of numbers. Any sets of numbers are fine. I agree that shift symmetry will be problematic, as Dick implemented with a derivative which will fail here.

 

Okay, that's still a set of numbers you wrote there. For instance, there's the element "1" appearing twice in there by pre-existing definitions of the meaning of those symbols.

 

Its a set of numbers- since you accept the claim any information can be represented by numbers, its reasonable to say this is a set of undefined data. I've given no information as to what the numbers represent, and suggested some possible explanations.

[Doctordick]

Well Anssi, I am back from Denver. I decided to answer Erasmus because I know his complaints are a little outside your understanding as he is apparently coming from the fundamentally compartmentalized perspective of standard physics and also, I need to make some of those issues a little clearer to you. Referring to his posts seemed to be the most convenient way of doing that.

 

I am not complaining about your presentation as it is quite clear that you understand exactly what I am doing; however, it is also quite clear that, if one does not understand what I am doing, your post does not come off as clear at all. It seems instead to be rambling and incoherent. Your posts are very helpful in pointing out to me why people find me so difficult to understand.

This is the problem is the subtlety that in quantum mechanics measurements can correlate. This means that measurements that Bobs make can effect events in Alice's future even if Bob doesn't communicate with her. I fail to see how this "psi adjusts with data" approach can model that.

You are making a very simple mistake. You are presuming that your explanation is correct whereas I am talking about expectations totally consistent with the known information; quite a different thing. You really should read some of my posts on that issue. Apparently you have never really understood my definition of a “flaw free explanation”.

An explanation is a procedure which will provide rational expectations for hypothetical circumstances.

If it is "flaw free" the known data will provide the required boundary conditions. If you stop to think about it a bit, you should realize that this is exactly what is used to defend any propositional theory (i.e., any explanation of anything). If you examine the “Bob/Alice” experiment of the type you describe carefully, you should come to understand that it describes the outcome of a number of experiments each of which ends up with specific consequences in the final analysis. What you are talking about are your expectations in each case, not the actual specific consequences. You are making the assumption that the specific outcome is due to some presumed cause whereas my underlying presumption is simply that the result is perfectly in alignment with all known information and nothing more. An issue I specifically point out. See my earlier post:

And, as it makes utterly no predictions and does no more than establish constraints upon one's personal expectations required by internal consistency of our world view, it clearly is not physics.

It is actually a totally tautological construct which will yield no more than rational probabilistic expectations consistent with all the known information no matter how that information is obtained.

 

With regard to the “Bob/Alice” subtlety thing, it is your desire to implement “causality” (a characteristic of your explanations and not a provable characteristic of reality) which creates the intellectual conundrum you speak of; in my presentation communication between Bob and Alice never plays a role. If both of them are working with exactly the same theory (doing their own calculations independent of one another), you should be well aware of the fact that their measurements yield exactly their expectations for the other's measurements without any communications of each others results. Note that the mathematical procedures required to calculate those expectations are embedded in the character of the evolution of the quantum mechanical solution and quantum mechanics says nothing about communications: i.e., the fact that Bob and Alice cannot communicate their respective results has no impact upon those results at all.

But this alters what you are claiming- instead of representing any possible explanation, you seem to now claim your solution represents some sort of probabilistic ensemble of potential explanations- this is a different claim.

Not really. It produces “rational probabilistic expectations consistent with all the known information no matter how that information is obtained”. It should be obvious to any rational person that this is exactly the support used by the modern physics community to defend any of their proposed theories (no matter what those theories happen to be).

Why? What part of your solution gives an interpretation that involves eigenvalues?

I have deduced an equation which must be obeyed by any “rational probabilistic expectations consistent with all the known information”. If the specific known information is such that the boundaries restrict results to eigenvalues then only eigenvalues are obtained. That is what happens when a guitar string is plucked.

To get quantum mechanics to yield reasonable predictions we make the additional assumption that a measurement can only return an eigenvalue, but this is an assumption. Why do eigenvalues have any special importance in your explanation-model?

I think you are somewhat confused here. The issue of eigenvalues come into quantum mechanics via mathematical transforms such as Fourier transforms and other such relationships. Just how far into the subject has your education gone anyway?

No, I'm saying that if you have a data set that is {3,1,4,...} one such explanation is that these comprise the digits of pi. ... I fail to see how I'm requiring any information other than the set of numbers to be explained.

You are just so used to compartmentalization that you simply can't comprehend what I am talking about. You are simply overlooking the fact that you are presuming so much additional data that it would be impossible to write it all out. If you had only the data you explicitly declare above, {3,1,4,...}, what defense would you provide for your presumption that the numerical label “3” referred to a digit in a decimal numbering system? Go add in the data necessary to clarify what those symbols stand for and reexamine the problem you are putting forth.

 

You obviously do not understand what the word “undefined” means! If the data set is undefined, there is utterly no difference between {3,1,4,...} and {1000, 202,6,...} and “the digits of pi” is certainly not a rational explanation of the specified set.

It is my understanding that psi represents the probability amplitudes for a given data set. Even if its an eigenvalue for your operator, the probability (eigenfunction) for any given data point is still continuous.

This comment suggests to me that your understanding of quantum mechanics is somewhat confused.

I agree, but there are clearly many explanations of discrete data that are themselves discrete.

Again, you seem to be confusing specific experimental outcomes with “expectations consistent with known data”. They a very different things.

I honestly don't care if other people read your presentation- I'm trying to figure out what you are tying to say, and raising objections as I see them. Consider the amount of time I've clearly spent trying to get at what you are talking about.

Well, you are not doing a very good job of that. Why don't you go read “Laying out the representation to be solved”. That might at least get you to see what problem is actually being attacked here.

No, I'm not, this is again your philosophical bias- you don't understand how a universal scale symmetry can fail, so you claim its impossible. In a system where a scale is generated dynamically by point particles, scaling won't change that dynamic scale (the point particles don't scale, as points don't scale). There is no scale dependence in the theory (the lagrangian is, in fact, scale invariant). I'm not talking about scaling some subset of everything, I'm talking about scaling literally everything.

No, I am afraid it is you who is failing to include “everything”. You are obviously presuming that there exist physical entities which can not be represented via an ensemble of point entities. You are essentially presuming that your specific theories are the only explanations of interest and using compartmentalized thinking to defend your assertions.

 

You would do much better to look at my proof and not try to guess what I am talking about. Until you show some evidence of having looked at the proof I really don't enjoy being bothered by you.

 

Anssi, some of your points are being missed because of your lack of knowledge of modern physics.

That objection is also based on mis-representation of DD's analysis.

First, I would comment that Erasmus is not going to read your reference; he already thinks he knows what I am saying. Secondly, his representation is actually based upon his compartmentalized view of the situation. The problem with CP violation in modern physics is that they are examining compartmentalized circumstances and not taking into account the full impact of their presumptions. They are setting up experiments under the assumption that their theories of the set up they are using is correct; a subtle error with profound consequences. Another way of seeing the problem is that they are making assumptions without proper defense.

Once again, it is not immediately obvious how some aspect of modern physics maps in terms of [imath]x,y,z,\tau[/imath], you shouldn't make intuitive assumptions without actually analyzing it carefully.

Intuitive assumptions are the bread and butter of modern physics; as they were of medieval theology.

That objection is also based on mis-representation of the analysis. What constitutes a "single element" in the data has been defined at the get-go, and the symmetry requirements do not apply.

For others, what Anssi is saying is that Erasmus is asserting unspecified definitions of the supposed “undefined data”; a common event in any example of compartmentalized thinking.

Eh.... that is also a mis-representation of the analysis, the first parts of the analysis have to do with proving that any information can be represented via numbers.

I would have said, “can be referred to via numerical labels” (although I probably have probably failed to make that distinction myself).

Yes in the sense that the equation refers to universal properties (not sure what you mean by it not being the original claim), but the actual confusion here is in what is meant by undefined information. Just think of some patterns that allow for very loose definitions regarding what sorts of portions or features of those patterns are supposed to refer to "individual elements".

I think the major error here is failure to recognize that the patterns are a creation of the theory used to explain the data, and are not in the data at all. That is why I keep referring to the thing as a “data compression mechanism” analogous to the Dewy decimal system; it is essentially a mental mechanism to provide easy recall of “what you think you know”. Once again I point out that it is a tautology I have constructed. The fascinating aspect of the construct is that the expectations turn out to be almost exactly all the expectations predicted by modern physics; a result which seems to me to imply that modern physics is itself a tautology: i.e., there is no difference between modern physics and the theological tautologies of the dark ages; just much more complex and more extensive. The simple statement that ones expectations are enhanced by familiarity with similar circumstances seems to be as good a hypothesis as any “scientific theory”.

Your examples imply restrictions that would not exist if the meaning of the data was entirely unknown. If you allow for a huge number of those digits of "pi" to become encapsulated by a definition of a single individual element, then those defined elements being mapped into an [imath]x,y,z,\tau[/imath] space would yield the same symmetry requirements. That would be essentially a case of "not making undefendable assumptions", but instead basing your expectations on inductive reasoning, i.e. familiarity of recurring patterns. As oppose to this, to guess that the data is based on digits of pi is to make an undefendable assumption (and assigning binary probabilities is a case of making the undefendable assumption that your guess stays correct for all the future data).

 

That all just goes back to the original definition of "an explanation". The point of the whole analysis is to investigate the consequences of those symmetries to the mapping, so insisting on a counter-example that requires undefendable assumptions about the meaning of the data just is not fruitful.

A perfect expression of the flaws in the reasoning of Erasmus. But Erasmus will not see it that way. I don't think he can! :shrug:

Its a set of numbers- since you accept the claim any information can be represented by numbers, its reasonable to say this is a set of undefined data. I've given no information as to what the numbers represent, and suggested some possible explanations.

Erasmus clearly has no concept of the expression “undefined”. He apparently cannot comprehend the difference between a “defined set of numbers” and an “undefined set of numbers”. He continually manages to overlook any correction either of us make as to the difference between “represented by numbers” and “referred to by undefined numerical labels” and my use of “x” for such references seems to elude his comprehension. I use “x” because these labels are both undefined and unknown!

 

I actually suspect he is intentionly trying to "misunderstand" because it gives him a feeling of power.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[AnssiH]

I am not complaining about your presentation as it is quite clear that you understand exactly what I am doing; however, it is also quite clear that, if one does not understand what I am doing, your post does not come off as clear at all. It seems instead to be rambling and incoherent. Your posts are very helpful in pointing out to me why people find me so difficult to understand.

 

It's funny you said that because I sure had a lot of difficulties writing that post. I had written it once the day before, but decided to abandon it because it was too messy for anyone to understand. I wrote the thing again the next day and decided to post, even though I thought it would still come across as a bit messy.

 

You have no problem with parity symmetry being violated, but this is also a function of printer setting. Why is it ok, in your mind, for parity to be violated in an explanation, but not scale invariance?

 

If you had read the references I gave, you probably would not have asked... Just in short, flipping all 4 axes is symmetrical, but flipping everything but [imath]\tau[/imath] is not. Remember that [imath]\tau[/imath] axis is projected out. The differential effect of massive boson exchange (which appears to account for weak nuclear force) comes off subtly different when you flip everything but [imath]\tau[/imath], and shows parity violation. DD is careful to comment that this is only speculation though, as it has never been worked out in detail. Intuition might fail us obviously.

 

...Inversion of tau is essentially changing particles into antiparticles so the above suggests that the interaction differences showing parity effects should be related to which version of the exchange pair is involved. What is above is really speculation as I have never honestly worked out all the details of the thing and there are a couple of things about the deduction which bother me. That is another reason I would like some well educated people to look at it.

 

At any rate, it is pretty good example of how something just may fall perfectly in place if you manage to take all the definitions into account properly. Sort of like the rotating disc conundrum in relativity (which is in my mind very difficult to figure out in intuitive terms, but instead requires very analytical approach to make any sense)

 

-Anssi

[Rade]

So long as no measurements are made, the distribution of probabilities consistent with all valid explanations are given by the specific solution consistent with the known data (which, of course, can be seen as “evolving” because of that “t” parameter). Note that the “present” is defined to be a change in the known data thus this “evolving” only happens “out of sight” so to speak.

DD, your explanation is exactly as I presented to you for a definition of time (well, it is the definition of Aristotle). TIME = THAT WHICH IS INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN MOMENTS.

 

Your comment about "that "t" parameter" is TIME for Aristotle. This is where the unitary evolution of the wavefunction "evolves"--within "t" = TIME. Note that your concept of the "present" must logically be outside of "t" = TIME. In fact, all moments (present, past, future) are OUTSIDE of "t" = TIME. Where are they (the MOMENTS) ? -- within your "tau" parameter !!

 

This is exactly how Aristotle explained, but of course he not know about a "tau" concept. The "present" (now) is a MOMENT that places the limits on PAST "t" and FUTURE "t". It is within the "present" MOMENT that your "change in known data" occurs, that is why this change process happens outside of "t" = TIME. I have suggested to you that the process of this change in the present occurs within the smallest "time" possible, Planck Time, which you must agree is also outside of "t" = TIME. When you say that the "t" evolving process of the unitary wavefunction occurs "out of sight" (so to speak), this is exactly the same as saying "the moon is not present if you do not look at (measure) it". But, as you correctly argue, of course the moon is "real" and exists during "t" = TIME (it must be since it is evolving). Within the mind the set of known data are not be added to or removed during "t"--they are being moved to make new combination--what is called concept formation, it is just that this process is "out of sight" . See how the process of the brain forming new concepts from data already known occurs within the mind -- "out of sight" !--thus I argue that the process of concept formation within the brain occurs within your "t".

 

Thus, for me, you make the valid claim that the positivists are incorrect, the moon (or any entity that exists) does not only exist at the MOMENT someone is in the act of measurement (your change in data transformation in the present), the moon exists "out of sight" and is evolving within "t" =TIME at all times that no measurement (no new data being added) occurs. The question of what about moon prior to any measurement by humans, well, as you claim, it is "undefined" --but all this means is that moon not "measured" by a human mind--however, long before any human mind the moon was being "measured" by the gravity waves of the earth and sun. Thus, as you correctly must conclude, of course the moon (or reality) must exists prior to human measurement--there is just no way to "know" it.

 

DD, I continue to be confused why you cannot realize that your thinking is very close to, if not exact, the thinking of Aristotle about time. Aristotle concept of time leads naturally into Euclidean geometry for space and time, as does your Fundamental Equation. Please, DD, read about Aristotle concept of time (for introduction, see pp. 383-385 in Roger Penrose, 2004, The Road to Reality). I look to know how you, DD, think your concept of "t" differs from Aristotle TIME ? If you do not understand the connection between your thinking and Aristotle please ask, I am happy to work with you.