Wave structure of matter

[Eva]

Hello

I wonder what you think about Milo Wollf proposals? There is not a lot crittical elaborations of his statemants on the internet.
Here is one and very brief:
http://www.paradigmshiftnow.net/fundamental_reality/critical_notes_on_Milo_Wolff.htm

And here are his statemants in few words:

"The proposals of Clifford and Schroedinger were correct that an electron is a continuouswave structure in space, not a material particle, and point particles and electromagneticwaves are merely appearances (schaumkommen).The Schroedinger wave functions mustbe interpreted as the electron itself, not as probabilities.Many classic paradoxes,including, ‘renormalization’, wave-particle duality, and Copenhagen uncertainty, nolonger occur because they were caused by the notion of a material particle that does not
11
exist.There is no causality violation because the in-waves are real and do not runbackwards in time.
The wave medium - the space around us - is the ONE source of matter and the naturallaws.Because the waves of each particle of matter are inter-mingled with the waves ofother matter and all contribute to the density of the medium, it follows that every chargedparticle is part of the universe and the universe is part of each charged particle.Althoughthe dominant portion of each particle wave lies near the center, every wave structurereaches to infinity.
Principle II (extended Mach principle) states that the stars and galaxies of the universeare essential to the laws of Nature and to the existence of the Earth and ourselves.Thisimportant fact is not presently familiar to the physics community.For example, thepresent Physical Society Standard Model of the universe contain no recognition ofMach’s Principle, our dependence on the universe, or the interrelationships of matterthroughout the universe.But it is unthinkable that the Earth, and us, could exist withoutthe presence of other cosmological matter.
The propagation of light in a fiber is a quantum-wave energy exchange betweenmolecules at the input device and molecules at the receiving device.The fiber serves toguide the exchange of waves between them.This truth of Nature will profitably replacethe misleading photon ‘bullet’ which served only to calculate energy conservation.
There is a dark side to the development of science.It is tempting to imagine scientists asnoble pioneers, questing for the greater good of humanity, and transfixed by thewonderful mysteries of the world.However the day to day history of nearly every radicaldiscovery tell an entirely different story portraying a community that usually votes itspocketbook.Scientists are no different than you or I.Recognizing this will helpunderstand why the science community had not avidly sought the Wave Structure ofMatter.It takes a long time to dispel treasured scientific illusions even though followingthe path of the discrete particle led science down a dead end street.".

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/einstein/talks/wolff.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiJiNr3zIPlAhVRXhoKHd5YBkwQFjAIegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw0hkUI4odbhDNSbcPCQX0Gz

[Samiya Illias]

Interesting!
Consider the ayaat quoted in this slide:

[Philip Thrift]

There s a verse:

Thou shalt not quote the scripture one's fed,

but the poets of maverick muse instead.

@philipthrift

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 5:27:15 PM UTC-5, Eva wrote:

Hello

I wonder what you think about Milo Wollf proposals? There is not a lot crittical elaborations of his statemants on the internet.
Here is one and very brief:
http://www.paradigmshiftnow.net/fundamental_reality/critical_notes_on_Milo_Wolff.htm 

Some years ago Wolff's ideas came up. I judged largely that one should not put a whole lot of stock in them. He has these ideas about incoming and outgoing waves with every event in the universe or some such thing. As for these being useful physics there is not a lot there. With every decoherent event or a measurement this happens. Below is a path integration diagram which illustrates how a summation of all possible histories of a decoherence on some set of paths is equal to the whole. This might be similar to Wolff's ideas, but expressed in more rigorous terms.

Mach's principle is a guiding idea that motivated Einstein. In a sense the mass-energy “out there” generates curvature of spacetime that influences mass-energy “here.” So the idea has a bit of relevance. However, the full idea of matter everywhere establishing inertial locally has not really materialized. There is no general principle whereby a local timelike direction can be parallel translated everywhere in general spacetime manifolds. Since mass-energy is the generator of time translations, energy or mass-energy it is then not possible to formulate a principle quite in the form that Ernst Mach may have envisioned. 

LC

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 4:26:44 AM UTC-5, Samiya wrote:

Interesting!
Consider the ayaat quoted in this slide:

I suppose next you will say the Koran has a hidden solution to Riemann's conjecture on the ζ-function. I have met or known Christian who have said such things about the Bible; all that can be known is in scripture. 

Scriptures work because people can twist them around to say almost anything. That is how these things work and why they persist. This only talks about lightning in a way not different from ideas of Thor throwing thunderbolts. It say nothing of real significance.

LC

[Philip Thrift]

All paths lead to histories.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9210004.pdf

@philipthrift

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 5 Oct 2019, at 00:27, Eva <evalor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I wonder what you think about Milo Wollf proposals? There is not a lot crittical elaborations of his statemants on the internet.
> Here is one and very brief:
> http://www.paradigmshiftnow.net/fundamental_reality/critical_notes_on_Milo_Wolff.htm
>
> And here are his statemants in few words:
>
> "The proposals of Clifford and Schroedinger were correct that an electron is a continuouswave structure in space, not a material particle,

That is already a contradiction. A continuous wave structure in space is already something material, or I have no idea what is meant by “not material”, unless it is a form of mathematicalism , but sill physicalism.

> and point particles and electromagneticwaves are merely appearances (schaumkommen).The Schroedinger wave functions mustbe interpreted as the electron itself, not as probabilities.Many classic paradoxes,including, ‘renormalization’, wave-particle duality, and Copenhagen uncertainty, nolonger occur because they were caused by the notion of a material particle that does not
> 11
> exist.

OK. It is mathematicalist physicalism (still requiring non-mechanism in the philosophy of mind).

> There is no causality violation because the in-waves are real and do not runbackwards in time.
> The wave medium - the space around us - is the ONE source of matter and the naturallaws.Because the waves of each particle of matter are inter-mingled with the waves ofother matter and all contribute to the density of the medium, it follows that every chargedparticle is part of the universe and the universe is part of each charged particle.Althoughthe dominant portion of each particle wave lies near the center, every wave structurereaches to infinity.
> Principle II (extended Mach principle) states that the stars and galaxies of the universeare essential to the laws of Nature and to the existence of the Earth and ourselves.Thisimportant fact is not presently familiar to the physics community.For example, thepresent Physical Society Standard Model of the universe contain no recognition ofMach’s Principle, our dependence on the universe, or the interrelationships of matterthroughout the universe.But it is unthinkable that the Earth, and us, could exist withoutthe presence of other cosmological matter.
> The propagation of light in a fiber is a quantum-wave energy exchange betweenmolecules at the input device and molecules at the receiving device.The fiber serves toguide the exchange of waves between them.This truth of Nature will profitably replacethe misleading photon ‘bullet’ which served only to calculate energy conservation.
> There is a dark side to the development of science.It is tempting to imagine scientists asnoble pioneers, questing for the greater good of humanity, and transfixed by thewonderful mysteries of the world.However the day to day history of nearly every radicaldiscovery tell an entirely different story portraying a community that usually votes itspocketbook.Scientists are no different than you or I.Recognizing this will helpunderstand why the science community had not avidly sought the Wave Structure ofMatter.It takes a long time to dispel treasured scientific illusions even though followingthe path of the discrete particle led science down a dead end street.".
>
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/einstein/talks/wolff.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiJiNr3zIPlAhVRXhoKHd5YBkwQFjAIegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw0hkUI4odbhDNSbcPCQX0Gz

OK, confirm my feeling that it is mathematicalist physicalism, to be short. It cannot work in the frame of the digital mechanist hypothesis in the cognitive science (as explained in my papers).

Bruno






>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/260d8e6e-96c6-4fc2-8d65-2006bc8954b9%40googlegroups.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

There has been study showing why people extract sense from pure randomness, and even more from any text, when they are motivated to see them there.

Now I use often the bible to shake a bit the witness of Jehovah, when asking them if PI is equal to 3, as said implicitly in the Bible. Some say “yes”, showing the “authority argument” implicit in such reading.

Of course the theology of the greeks was dissociated rather clearly from all myth and legend. Only reasoning was accepted, even if motivated by personal feeling or experience.

Religion is in no text, and concerned the non nameable things, from Cantor collection of all sets, to natural numbers, which cannot be defined (provably so with Mechanism, but also true intuitively when you think about it.

Bruno

LC

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9f2ceaed-2f58-4a5a-a3d1-2550e620f07d%40googlegroups.com.

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 1:39:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 5 Oct 2019, at 15:47, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 4:26:44 AM UTC-5, Samiya wrote:

Interesting!
Consider the ayaat quoted in this slide:

I suppose next you will say the Koran has a hidden solution to Riemann's conjecture on the ζ-function. I have met or known Christian who have said such things about the Bible; all that can be known is in scripture. 

Scriptures work because people can twist them around to say almost anything. That is how these things work and why they persist. This only talks about lightning in a way not different from ideas of Thor throwing thunderbolts. It say nothing of real significance.

There has been study showing why people extract sense from pure randomness, and even more from any text, when they are motivated to see them there.

Now I use often the bible to shake a bit the witness of Jehovah, when asking them if PI is equal to 3, as said implicitly in the Bible. Some say “yes”, showing the “authority argument” implicit in such reading.

Of course the theology of the greeks was dissociated rather clearly from all myth and legend. Only reasoning was accepted, even if motivated by personal feeling or experience.

Religion is in no text, and concerned the non nameable things, from Cantor collection of all sets, to natural numbers, which cannot be defined (provably so with Mechanism, but also true intuitively when you think about it.

Bruno

The brain is a sort of puzzle solving system. We have a compulsion to make sense out of things. We see this with gambling, where people will persist in playing games that have odds weighed in favor of the house. People will drain away their entire savings by running to a casino. Religion is something similar, where believers will spend a lifetime working to make some consistent sense out of a jumble of mythic narratives.

LC

[Bruno Marchal]

Only because religion/theology has been taken out of science by those who want to do easy money with it, as religion is related to the fear of death, which is is the easiest to exploit to make money in a fraudulent way. 

If you read the serious theologian, or some who can be both serious and non serious (yes some do both, like Pythagorus), and study the line from the pre-platonciens (Pythagorus, Parmenides for example) to the official last one, Damascius, you will see believers depending their lifetime to make sense of the observation versus a possible mathematical reality, only/ There is no mythic narratives others than the idea that there is some reality to explore and try to understand.

Religion got its bad reputation, because when a new serious theologian appears, it has been burned at the stake in a way or another, by people opposing to them the dogma.

With mechanism, we get that there is no creator, nor creation, which is a problem for all materialist believer, who still want that the brain is a sort of machine. Mechanism has been the main tools by the materialists to mock the theist or the idealist, or the immaterialist, so it is normal they have some difficulties to accept the conclusion that mechanism and materialism finds themselves at the antipodes of the conception of reality.

Some people imagine that the platonicians adds something to Aristotle’s Universe, and some indeed do that. But there is a line of platoncians who are just skeptical about the Universe, and believe that the explanation is simpler than we thought, which makes harder for them to explain what we observe, but somehow, the progress in mathematics illustrate what they search, and the discovery of the universal machine allows us now to make such type of theories more precise and testable. And quantum mechanics provides enormous evidence for mechanism, provides a simple theory of everything, like the theory below, and the theory explains why personal realities develop and get divided into sharable and non sharable realities. It notably distinguish clearly the qualia from the quanta, and explain their relations, And the quanta part is testable, and indeed gives something promising to extend Quantum mechanics in some way.

The fake religion are only the one who claim to know the ontology, and refuse to test them. Some are simply materialist and asserts that the physical material reality explains everything, some add a designer, but if they claim they know; it is sort of fraud (not always conscious). 

The serious people are just searching the solution, and propose refutable theories, and that is the scientific attitude, which can be held in *all* domains, be it gardening, or theology (in the original greek sense, where it is the theory searching for the more economical explanation of most of what os observable or not observable (like 1+2=3, or KKK=K, that you should be able to derive from the theory below).

My favorite presentation of the universal dovetailer, or theory of everything, (needing mathematical logic at the metalevel) is the fry elementary theory of combinators. Contrary to Robinson arithmetic, it does not requires logic, so it is given here in extenso.

There are three inference rules:

1) If A = B and A = C, then B = C
2) If A = B then AC = BC
3) If A = B then CA = CB

And there are two axioms:

4) KAB = A
5) SABC = AC(BC)

Well sometimes people add S ≠ K, to avoid the “trivial” combinatory algebra which contains only one “bird” (as Smullyan called the combinators), the identity bird I (such that Ix = x). Indeed it is easy to show that III = I, and that IIII = II(II). See the combinators thread where I have proven with all details that this theory is Turing universal. It is far easier and less cumbersome than showing that Robinson arithmetic is Turing complete. But of course those are equivalent theories, and you might understand that theology and physics are independent of which Turing)-complete system we start with.

---

Mechanism might be false, but asserting that metaphysics is not a testable science is usually done by those who take physics as metaphysics, which is the Aristotelian metaphysics, and to say that science has decided between Plato and Aristotle, is jut a fraud.

Now, I provided a test, and retrospectively QM assess Mechanism, and shows the violation of all conception of matter proposed since Democritus. If the physics in the head of the universal machine/numbers contradicts nature systemtiacallu-ly, then we would at last have indirect evidence for primary matter, but that has not yet happened.

Bruno

LC

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/06107aa2-a8c5-4f36-9609-d4e848b77c65%40googlegroups.com.