Dihymo

Karma: −17

Dihymo 3 Jun 2008 0:35 UTC
−2 points
on: Principles of Disagreement
I tend to just avoid identity fetishes, symmetry fetishes, and structural fetishes. Structural fetishes bite me from time to time but only when I’m feeling extra geeky and I’m trying to reduce everything down to Jack’s magic bean.

Probability and provability are not one and the same.

The dependency of both collapse and many world on the design of the experiment makes me very fidgetty. Also the fact that QM keeps dodging the question of what goes on at the filter/splitter/polarizer bugs the bejeezus out of me. You would think one the multilapse twin theories could create the probabilities from subspaces existing at the decision boundary. That would impress me.

I still haven’t heard why your counterpart has to be you. Why not one of the rats of NIMH?

And since there are multiple entanglements wouldn’t it be necessary to make every part, the polarizer, the detector, and the photon superpose?

I always try to attack a problem from where it tickles. Can a macromechanical system be built such that without any modification of the photon substitute or the polarizer substitute the results would match the micro scale results?

If so then just shine a light on that sucker while it does its business.

I’ve come to the conclusion that:

#1 the use of amplitudes and complex numbers is really an unholy marriage between logic and arithmetic. The structure of multiplying by imaginary numbers and adding resembles logical arguments rather than a mysterious quantum recipe.

#2 the use of complex numbers implies the encoding of two interdependent variables into one construct like the way you can replace i with t in RC circuit equations. Soon as you do that you get a time dependent value for the voltage.

i by definition when squared transforms one variable (or member of a vector/quaternion/octonion) into its neighboring term without the usual fuss of inverting equations. just square and subtract or reduce to restore the form you are seeking.

Dihymo 2 Jun 2008 23:05 UTC
−2 points
on: Principles of Disagreement
I tend to just avoid identity fetishes, symmetry fetishes, and structural fetishes. Structural fetishes bite me from time to time but only when I’m feeling extra geeky and I’m trying to reduce everything down to Jack’s magic bean.

Probability and provability are not one and the same.

The dependency of both collapse and many world on the design of the experiment makes me very fidgetty. Also the fact that QM keeps dodging the question of what goes on at the filter/splitter/polarizer bugs the bejeezus out of me. You would think one the multilapse twin theories could create the probabilities from subspaces existing at the decision boundary. That would impress me.

I still haven’t heard why your counterpart has to be you. Why not one of the rats of NIMH?

And since there are multiple entanglements wouldn’t it be necessary to make every part, the polarizer, the detector, and the photon superpose?

I always try to attack a problem from where it tickles. Can a macromechanical system be built such that without any modification of the photon substitute or the polarizer substitute the results would match the micro scale results?

If so then just shine a light on that sucker while it does its business.

I’ve come to the conclusion that:

#1 the use of amplitudes and complex numbers is really an unholy marriage between logic and arithmetic. The structure of multiplying by imaginary numbers and adding resembles logical arguments rather than a mysterious quantum recipe.

#2 the use of complex numbers implies the encoding of two interdependent variables into one construct like the way you can replace i with t in RC circuit equations. Soon as you do that you get a time dependent value for the voltage.

i by definition when squared transforms one variable (or member of a vector/quaternion/octonion) into its neighboring term without the usual fuss of inverting equations. just square and subtract or reduce to restore the form you are seeking.

Dihymo 2 Jun 2008 5:19 UTC
0 points
on: Class Project
I am here to report that the reasons QM and GR don’t like each other are: Short answer: they are competing with each other

Long answer: There is a term that appears in perhaps different forms in both sets of equations that is counted twice. This possibly involves a factor that one of them is multiplied by. That factor may be as Psy-Kosh said a question of flat space versus curved space.

The existence of that factor prevents cancellation or some other thing which gives us infinities.

First find that term and the factor and eliminate them from the equations. Recalculate the constants so that it is no longer necessary. Next make sure the constants are the same over both theories. Combine the final shape of both theories. The next step is critical:

If you still get infinities, make them go away. Relate the way you made them go away to that term and factor.

Dihymo 2 Jun 2008 1:49 UTC
1 point
on: Mach’s Principle: Anti-Epiphenomenal Physics
Centrifugal is running away from the center. Centripetal is the wrong name for it. It’s just the instantaneous tangent force.

Mach is wrong because physics only obeys instantaneous velocity. Changes in velocity produces/implies forces. Acceleration (rotation) causes all sorts of funk. Acceleration that isn’t a rotation could work alright.

The only way you could argue is in a perpendicular way to Einstein. It is true that were the center of rotation the Earth, then the Universe rotating around the Earth (Earth included by its own rotation), then if you were the only one not cosmically superglued to the Universe then it’s no different from you going for a run around the Earth.

EXCEPT… if the universe and Earth were rotating, you wouldn’t need to move your legs while the Earth slipped by right under you.

Dihymo 2 Jun 2008 0:05 UTC
1 point
on: Einstein’s Speed
Einstein was able to arrive at all that because he submitted his own thinking to serious constraints. He never invented new things (multilapse theory worldpretation) but actually destroyed them.

What I don’t buy from his arguments though is that somehow gravitational waves would accelerate you. The universe is already accelerating, there is only the need for the waves to appear to main relativity. They don’t need to be the cause of acceleration, only if you assume the universe is not accelerating.

Of course there’s also the question of other reference points like looking at the stars and how they behave, but that would be too anti-dialectical for the last 300 years of philosophysical thought.

Dihymo 1 Jun 2008 22:48 UTC
−3 points
on: Science Isn’t Strict Enough
A rising sun might increase the data pointing to the provability that it will rise tomorrow, but the probability remains the same.

The discovery that the Earth rotates, easily done by studying the stars from two different places, would dramatically send the probability to 100% because the provability went there first.

So if you want to know about the sun rise you’ll have to study the stars first. At night. It’s like trying to figure out why ice melts without having any source of heat.

Stop with the dialectics. Try three not two not one and not zero.

Dihymo 1 Jun 2008 20:16 UTC
1 point
on: Many Worlds, One Best Guess
Live in your own world. Sure except when I need the MWI Spaghetti Monster to get the opposite of my result.

Collapse/MWI are the new wave/particle duality. The metaphysical cube fell over and rotated 90 degrees. Collapse/MWI only looks different because the cube looks unchanged.

A superposition doesn’t imply that the simpler component waveforms exist. It can also mean you drove the speakers to eleven, reached the limit the fabric of spacetime could handle, and are receiving distortion.

Dihymo 1 Jun 2008 10:07 UTC
−2 points
on: Decoherence is Falsifiable and Testable
Oh and if in this many world interpretation photons would have to appear opposite to what is detected in our world, then when the experiment is over and the experimenters leave in opposite directions, does that mean the experimenters on the other side continuously crash into each other.

Both collapse and MWI have a it happens for an instant quality. As soon as the experiment is over they go back into the box like the Rosicrucians do with God’s angels.

Wait it gets better. If there is a probability of your mothers getting pregnant here should there not be the opposite effect such that your double couldn’t have been born?

Since both you and he are around that means the other world only begins with the original photons flying apart.

MWI has both local extent, good, and a divergent local behavior at every point in space, pathological. It requires a disjunction between neighborhood elements since the results have to be complementary. The fabric of complementary MWI layers have an increasing tendency to explode the minute something happens in their partner. Which would suggest in fact that collapse is the true picture, but we already know it’s a collapse of a description not the event. This is a bit like how water waves travel but no water molecule actually goes beyond the next crest. The collapse is a figment and MWI is unstable. My God what have we done to reason?

Dihymo 1 Jun 2008 9:42 UTC
−5 points
on: Decoherence is Falsifiable and Testable
Both MWI and collapse make me nervous about whether people are losing their ability to see their own shadow or their own reflection in the mirror. A collapse of something which does not represent a physical extent to begin with is like the vanilla ice cream cone which does not taste like chocolate. Genius. Many worlds fails the conservation of mass and energy, although its general shape is on the right track. It also fails the fact that there either are no such things as experiments isolated in their own category separate from every other interaction or that every interaction is an experiment.

I’ve said before many colors of light combine to produce exactly one color because our eyes cannot Fourrier transform the mixed frequencies the way our ears can do with sound. It’s mixed and stuck there way before the brain gets the signal.

Collapse is silly because there is a collapse of a description not of an event. Not worth fighting over. MWI ignores every other interaction. Why does there have to be an exact you as long as the result is complementary? Why can’t it be a detector that keeps notes?

Both lack the same information: What could shut down a collapse or a split midway? Can we see half a collapse? Forget the half dead cat. What about the half cracked container of poison? Or maybe even the half loaded pistol that half broke it?

Why can’t the the other side have a half cracked bottle while this side has a half crack box? Why can’t the other world have a hammer while this one has a pistol? Or for that matter a high pitched opera singer woken up by the decay of the radioactive material?

Experiments distract us from the other parts that are more mundane but still crucial to the experiments.

And why is it multi world if in fact it is the superposition rather than the division?

I use a heuristic that says, if the theory is all shiny it’s begging for someone to dent it.

Dihymo 1 Jun 2008 8:14 UTC
0 points
on: Spooky Action at a Distance: The No-Communication Theorem
Hal Finney: From that pdf

Spooky correlations between separate photons were demonstrated in an experiment at the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment in England. In this simplified depiction, a down-converter sends pairs of photons in opposite directions. Each photon passes through a separate two-slit apparatus and is directed by mirrors to a detector. Because the detectors cannot distinguish which slit a photon passes through each photon goes both ways generating an interference pattern.… Yet each photon’s momentum is also correlated with its partner’s. A measurement showing a photon going through the upper left slit would instantaneously force its distant partner to go

through the lower slit on the right.

I’m so glad that paper says measurement is entanglement because what I’ve been thinking is that consecutive photons, in a dimmed to one photon at a time two-slit experiment, are the ones interfering not the photon interfering with itself.

Also everything so far from this series says that polarization also determines the slit that is chosen.

What would happen if you had three sources on a rotating platform each taking turns firing at the two slits?

Dihymo 1 Jun 2008 6:42 UTC
−6 points
on: Bell’s Theorem: No EPR “Reality”
Well, until I get my circular wavefront cellular automata, I will have to try a different way of disagreeing with Bell. I think MWI is on the right track but I don’t think there’s a necessity to split the world. And besides why do we call it splitting when in fact the result comes from the combination of both worlds? MWI suffers from a popularized science artifact which got stuck in science fiction.

#1 A is at 0 and B is at 20. 5.8% of the time they both pass through. This just means that at that moment when A passed through, B was the type that if measured at 0 it would not have passed through. Or if A had been measured at 20 same deal.

#2 A is at 20 and B is at 40. 5.8% of the time they both pass through. Again same deal.

#3 A is at 0 and B at 40. 20.7% of the time they both pass through.

Now you are asking how could the same splitter produce these photons? I submit that they are not the same ones which match up. If you had a history of rainbow colored photons which you could capture and reuse then the history of those which match up would cause the rainbow colors to rotate like Caesar’s cipher.

It is an explanation. Hard to falsify, but it is an explanation.

The experiment assumes that we are measuring the polarization of the photon. We are only measuring that these photons had polarizations close enough to the polarization of the filter to pass. Like a small pebble which goes through a large hole. That in no way says the pebble was as large as the hole.

No dopplegangers necessary.

It could also be that the hidden variable/other you is the other photon and the other experimenter, which of course implies not ignorance of details pertaining to a particle but lack of attention to the known properties.

Incidentally, why in this split world should your counterpart be you and not a computer capable of research?

Why can’t completely different multi worlds be counterparts? And for that matter, why can’t there simply be an experimenter who is exactly like you across the universe who gets the complementary result. It gets better. Suppose the experimenter in the other world is measuring A and B, just A. Why can’t he get your complementary result all the time?

MWI makes huge leaps we couldn’t see existed before MWI was conceived. Ow! That hurts my brain. It’s the broom in front of the door which you trip over which reminds you to tie your shoelaces.

MWI is the Quantum Spaghetti Monster.

We have to overcome identity fetishes (Thor makes lightning; Demeter makes the harvest plentiful) as well as symmetry fetishes (One deity causes fortune, the other misfortune; spirit good, body bad).

I’d also like to suggest why God must play dice. When you are in a rut and your rational reactions cause you to get deeper in that rut, only a flip of a coin can get you out because you keep dismissing the choices that can help you escape.

Dihymo 1 Jun 2008 5:10 UTC
0 points
on: Decoherence as Projection
Hair splitting? I hardly think so. That’s too close to confirmation bias.

If you look at the hyperphysics page on light you’ll find many frequencies of color A and color B mixing to match one color C. Our eyes only measure the energy and call that a color.

low A (the lower frequency) + high B (the higher frequency) equals high A (the lower frequency) + low B (the higher frequency).

If anyone can see both the energy and the interference pattern then they could tell them apart. It seems that most people can’t.

But there you have a case where information is destroyed because it is indistinguishable.

Dihymo 1 Jun 2008 4:24 UTC
0 points
on: The Born Probabilities
If anyone can produce a cellular automata model that can create circles like those which relate to the inverse square of distance or the stuff of early wave mechanics, I think I can bridge the MWI view and the one universe of many fidgetings view that I cling to. I know of one other person who has a similar idea, unfortunately his idea has a bizarre quantity which is the square root of a meter.

Dihymo

Hal Finney: From that pdf

through the lower slit on the right.