No Multiverse, No Teleportation. Yet Quantum Consciousness?

There is a flaw, at the very root of the definition of the Multiverse:

Multiverse partisans believe anything, any physics, is possible. However if such is the case, among those possibilities, the universe is one of them. But then, if the Universe exists, there is just one universe, and the Multiverse can’t be!

Logic is a terrifying thing for those who have too little…

[The preceding is actually the latest variant, thanks to yours truly, of the 25 centuries old Cretan Paradox.]

We are led by some physicist who, not only have little knowledge, and little imagination, but they don’t have much logic, either! We look up to physics, because we look up to intellectual, or, more precisely, logical, scientific leadership. Prominent statements about the “Multiverse” or “Teleportation”, though, go the other way.

"Teleportation" Is About States, Not Particles. Nothing Simplistic!

“Teleportation” Is About States, Not Particles. Nothing Simplistic!

In one of the world’s major science museum, instruction is conducted for children between the age of 4 and 94 years old. Somewhere above the mastodonts and triceratops’ fossils is an special exhibition of the science of science-fiction.

An exhibit was about “teleportation”. There I was informed that particles had been successfully “teletransported” by “scientists” already.

I was so pleased to be informed of this that I teletransported all those who believe such inanities to a mental asylum.

They make a drastic mistake: confusing “particle” and “state”.

Particles cannot be “teletransported”. To pretend otherwise is a complete affabulation. What can be “teletransported” are Quantum States.

http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-quantum-teleported-a-particle-of-light-across-25-kilometreshttp://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-quantum-teleported-a-particle-of-light-across-25-kilometres

The staff of Sciencealerts, 22 September, 2014, used the following banner: “Physicists have quantum teleported a particle of light across 25 kilometres.”

No, they did not. They teleported the state of a third photon.

This sort of confusion goes to the core of the mental retardation in which physics has spent most of the Twentieth Century. I pointed out that it originated with Einstein. Einstein made the following statement, which I view as an extreme error:

“Energy, during the propagation of a ray of light, is not continuously distributed over steadily increasing spaces, but it consists of a finite number of energy quanta LOCALIZED AT POINTS IN SPACE, MOVING WITHOUT DIVIDING and capable of being absorbed or generated only as entities.”

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/einsteins-error-the-multiverse/

That opinion of Einstein  above,  “the propagation of a ray of light… consists of a finite number of energy quanta LOCALIZED AT POINTS IN SPACE, MOVING WITHOUT DIVIDING” is complete affabulation, a fantasy. Yes, I know, Einstein got the Nobel Prize in Physics for it, and, thus, by saying this, I do not just grab Einstein by the horns, but the entire physics establishment. As Martin Luther would say, though, I see no other way…

I affabulate, and fantasized too, most often. However, when I do, while searching for truth, I try to respect known, well-established facts. In 1905, Einstein could imagine things about photons the way he did. Why not? It was natural: from Lucretius to Newton, most thinkers believed in particles. Particles were supposed to be the ultimate atoms of matter (atom means, in Greek, what cannot be divided).

However, since then, facts have intervened. The “particle” hypothesis became untenable. Indeed, the particular effect, how,  the Quantum shows up, is only how the energy of fundamental processes is released. In complete conflict, how the fundamental process proceeds is all about waves.

Einstein himself, after talking extensively about this with the (physicist and) philosopher Karl Popper, came to write the “EPR” paper… what is now called TELEPORTATION.

Einstein called this teleportation of states a “spooky interaction at a distance“. In truth, it’s an obvious consequence that fundamental processes are computed with waves, and waves are, by definition, NON-LOCAL.

***

Quantum Computing: What’s the Difference, And How Conscious Is It?

Present computing is similar to computing with water canals, one primitive manipulation at a time. Quantum Computing will be about computing with the interferences waves bring.

For more on Quantum Waves:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/quantum-wave/

And there a quandary is presented: Quantum behavior has much in common with the attributes of consciousness. Thus a full computer may well behave unpredictably, and as if it had consciousness, but also, truly, be conscious. We wouild be not just facing Artificial Intelligence, but Artificial Consciousness.

Skynet may not just acquire control, but be sentient…

This, I do believe, is a real “danger”. Working on the Quantum Computer, is working on Artificial Consciousness. However, the proximal danger is that the aura of contagious stupidity has infected what passes for political leadership. To with European “leaders”, leading into the abyss, because the Greek leader has decided to submit the latest austerity measures to a referendum by the Greek People.

Does not the Greek Prime Minister know that the People does not rule? Demo-cracy = Demos Kratos, People Power. Not what we have. How come the Prime Minister of Greece does not know the basics of the corrupto-world we live in? Democracy is just a word polite people of wealth and taste use to mask plutocracy.

The Greeks want a referendum on whether they want to suffer some more? Unforgivable. So negotiations of the worthies with uppity Greece are interrupted. The CE chief, J-C Junkers is little more than a polyglot Mafioso, having managed the tax evasion of hundreds of billions of Euros of hundreds of companies, when he “led” Luxembourg. Now he can talk tough.

Insanity in physics has shown the way to insanity in politics and ethics. Inspired by the Schrodinger cat who is supposed to be both dead and alive, our great leaders thought they could get away with being all about money, and all about the people. If you don’t like this universe, go live in another.

(OK, maybe our great political leaders do not know enough physics to think this consciously; however the little critters who advise them, and write their discourses for them have themselves friends who feel they are very smart, and that physics says one can be all things to all people, at the same time. So the pernicious influence of mad physics go far, that way. And it has penetrated ethics, indeed.)

Even the Pope has noticed that supposedly refined economics, such as “cap and trade” (a European invention now used in California) were obviously inspired by the Devil. He condemned them. But, nowadays, like Schrodinger’s Cat, our great leaders imagine they can be the Devil and the Good Lord at the same time, in different places, and we will still embrace their feet religiously, our hearts frantic with unbounded admiration.

Time to cut the Gordian knot, with a very sharp sword. A sword cannot cut the universe in two (as the naïve Multiversists believe), but it can certainly cut the crap. And teletransport minds to a state closer to reality.

Patrice Ayme’

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , ,

43 Responses to “No Multiverse, No Teleportation. Yet Quantum Consciousness?”

  1. brodix Says:

    Actually a big problem is saying space is three dimensional, because three dimensions are really just the xyz coordinate system, which is only a mapping device, not foundational.
    Now we need space framed and each of us is our own coordinate system, backed by our own narrative, so we are the multiverse!!!!
    There is no such thing as an objective point of view, no “God’s eye view, so the universe is the convenient fiction.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      We are indeed very multiversal.
      My approach is that propagating Quantum Processes (aka “particles”) create space, stochastically, non-locally, through what I call the Quantum Interaction.
      Quantum Mechanics does NOT work just in three dimensions, but in so-called “configuration spaces“… which can be anything a wave can plausibly propagate in.

  2. ianmillerblog Says:

    I think you are being a little tough on Einstein here. Planck showed it is emitted in quanta, the photoelectric effect showed it is absorbed in quanta, and since all light always travels at the same velocity, it is not entirely unreasonable to assume it travels in quanta. And there is no evidence that proves it does not.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      It’s not personal. I take the two lines Einstein got (mostly) the Nobel for (according to the Nobel Committee itself), and I point out that they are, most probably, false.
      Why?
      Dump a huge mass in water. The disruption will propagate as a wave, and lift another huge mass at a distance. This what confused Albert!!! And everybody since!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      So no, that a mass (= quanta) is emitted somewhere, disrupting, does not mean that the disruption propagates as a mass. So, no, it was NOT “reasonable”, it was, it is, rather DUMB. This is the crux of the foundational problem in physics.

      • ianmillerblog Says:

        For me, Patrice, there is a problem with the water wave analogy, in that the amplitude falls off with distance as the wave spreads. Yes, you can get around that with non-local “collapse of the wave function” but that does not explain that you can send a laser beam immense distances with essentially no spread. My answer to that is yes, there is a wave and a particle, but they reset each other (which requires limited non-locality) each period. Yes, that too is something of an assumption and there is still wave spread, but the spread becomes limited.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Pulsating particle-wave? Like the RAM engine in the Meteor ramjet missile? That’s not going to explain the EPR and other non-local effect, I would think.

          I just introduce collapse speed TAU ~ 10^10 times the speed of light, and make the real wave AB.
          B is de Broglie wave.
          A is a non-linear amplitude wave, which is highly non-linear in x (the space dimension), and pulsates (so to speak) at TAU.

          A either spread fast at TAU, or explodes up (“SINGULARIZATION”, when the particle effect happens) at TAU, depending upon what happens to its first, or second derivative.

          At cosmological distances, there are (small) losses during singularization. We know the building-up of these losses as Dark Matter.

          All this makes plenty of predictions, so is testable. First prediction is Dark matter, of course.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Not really a water wave, anymore than Dirac’s wave is water. My version of the waves has them creating space.

    • brodix Says:

      Ian,
      Here is an interesting argument for the “loading theory” of light. That quantization is primarily a function of emission and absorption, rather than a quality of light in and of itself;
      http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1344
      As the only quantity that can be measured of light in motion is its velocity, it would seem to be presupposing more structure than is necessary for it to travel in a quantized fashion.
      Logically if light traveled as a quantum, then presumably some energy would go to hold it in this form, so even more energy could be released by breaking the light quanta. I suspect instead that the quantization of light occurs with its interaction with mass.
      Not only would this provide a way for cosmic redshift to occur, without the actual recession of galaxies, but if gravity is not just a quality of mass, but of the vacuum resulting from energy coalescing into mass, this initial quantization of light would be the initial effect and start to go a long way to explaining “dark matter.”
      So while we can only infer that light propagates as a wave, it doing so fills in various other gaps in the puzzle.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Before I look at the link (I will make an independent comment on it), let me point out this: for me, light does not just propagate AS a wave, it IS a WAVE, when propagating.

        That gravity would “quantize” light is an idea initially from some Italian physicists (others have since attributed it to themselves… such as more or less, my friend Penrose). That idea is itself a very particular case of my general theory, where quantization is due to interaction with other “particles” Dark Matter foam (so to speak). Gravity can cause quantization from gravitons’ Dark Matter (OK, gravitons have not been proven to exist, so Dark Mattering what is not yet proven is a bit far out, but, well…)

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Interesting. Yet, have to throw out most of established physics?

      • ianmillerblog Says:

        EugenR, Let us suppose light is emitted as a quantum, and in doing so it takes δt units of time for the emission to take place. Accordingly the length to the emission is δt.c. Now, let us assume from the principle of microscopic reversibility it is absorbed the same way, as observation suggests. Then my point is that it is far from silly to suggest that since all parts of the length must travel at velocity c that there quantum train retains the length δt.c while travelling, as to change the length would require some part to travel at a velocity different from c. There is no requirement for something to hold its structure because with constant velocity it has no option but to retain the same shape. I am not saying that happens, but merely that Einstein was quite logical to assume the simplest explanation is the correct one, as any other option falsifies his theory of relativity, and for that matter, Maxwell’s electrodynamics.

        • ianmillerblog Says:

          oops, sorry Eugen and Brodix – I misattributed.

        • brodix Says:

          Ian,
          What if those quanta were to become “entangled” with other, similar photons, they spread out, wave fashion and the reception was of the wave front, not the specific quantity released.
          Basically there would be no reason why the energy of one photon would be distinct from another of the same batch, given they all spread out over the same area.
          Otherwise if light didn’t expand out, what force would cause it to be emitted? If it just retained that point particle form, would it be light, or mass?

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            The diagram I reproduced say it all. The distances can be cosmological. Cosmological is certainly, “at a distance”. That’s proven experimental science.

  3. EugenR Says:

    Dear Patrice, as I so often prised you for your articles, this time I can’t do it. What you mean by not excepting quantum as a phenomena observed in our world? Did I understand you correctly?

    Waves are non local as contrary to quanta, but still it doesn’t mean they are everywhere. It means they travel as wave at certain speed up to speed of light. Then if same information is observed in distance in the same instant moment, this is a spooky action. Einstein himself could not believe it can be right. And yet, it was observed.

    As to multiverse, I agree there is no physics beyond the horizon of the universe, unless some effect of certain event can undirectly be observed in the universe. At the end multiverse may be an other good joke of Andrey Linde, or be proven to be right. What’s to be so sencerely against this theory?

    Politicians don’t know many things including phisycs, except of Merkel. The problem of Greece, unfortunately for them is not only financial. Money comes and goes and nothing must happen, as seen with financial crash. But country to it, where entire population lives on debt, without creating an economy, that produces products for buyers, (when last time have you seen made in Greece product in the supermarket? ), can’t be changed overnight to a productive society. I love Greece, espacialy their overnight dances in every square of every city or village. I just wonder, when they get up next morning.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Eugen: In your apparent indignation, your objection is not too clear. I slightly rewrote the essay after the first version, to make it clearer. One of my main objection to the Copenhagen Interpretation is the confusion between STATE and “particle”. It’s the STATE which gets TELEPORTED, not the “particle”.

      My (new) objection against the Multiverse is purely logical.

      The Greek problem is vast, and the plutocratic system, much involved. It’s not just a question of dancing all night. Germans work like 1500 hours a year, Greeks well above 2,000 hours. Presently Greek plutocrats are exploiting the Greeks, with full cooperation of German, French and Swiss institutions (among others). That 200 billion Euros went to “Greece”, Marine Le Pen rejects, as she points out, as I long did, that the money went actually to (private) banks.

    • ianmillerblog Says:

      EugenR – The argument of spooky action at a distance stands or falls depending on whether the variable is determined by observation. If it was determined at creation of the event, then there is no action at a distance. Note that the only reason the second object has its variable known is because a conservation law applies. It is just as easy for the conservation law to be applied when the objects are entangled at creation.

  4. Chris Snuggs Says:

    Patrice: “Greeks want a referendum on whether they want to suffer some more? Unforgivable. So negotiations of the worthies with Greece are interrupted”

    Chris Snuggs: The last time a Greek PM dared to suggest a referendum on the euro for his people he was removed within weeks by Imperatrice Merkel and her court jester Sarkozy ….. will Tsipras last till next weekend?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      He will. Varoufakis and Tsipras know what happened before to Papandreou (who is from one of the top three pluto families of Greece). The little idiotic dictators who imagine themselves to be leaders are exhausting the patience of We The Peoples. It would be better if the object of ire was correctly identified, though.

  5. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Brodix called attention to:

    http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Reiter_challenge2.pdf

    The problem, though, is that this requires to throw out much of established physics. I don’t, and can’t go that far…

  6. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Ian suggested there was no “action at a distance”. However that there is action at a distance, is officially proven in official experimental physics. That’s why Alain Aspect of France (Universite’ Orsay) got the Wolf Prize in Physics (and so I think did Zeilinger the Austrian).

    Teleportation of STATES (another word for action at a distance) is pretty much so completely proven, tech COMPANIES use it.

    I suggest to make new physics by re-interpreting what can be re-interpreted. But contradicting known facts is not re-interpretation, but contrary to the very principle of figuring out the real world.

  7. Chris Snuggs Says:

    “Multiverse partisans believe anything, any physics, is possible. However if such is the case, among those possibilities, the universe is one of them. But then, if the Universe exists, there is just one universe, and the Multiverse can’t be!”

    Alexi Helligar and Ramona Weston like this…. But our official grouch, Chris Snuggs does not:

    Chris Snuggs: There are more important things to worry about …..

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Chris: tell me, what’s more important than basic logic?

      [I won’t hold my breath for the answer!]

      • Alexi Helligar Says:

        I have learned not to pay Chris any mind. He is not interested in the pursuit of knowledge.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Well, he is sort of debating, his way. Motivated by an interesting rage. Because he has been around much of Europe a lot, in teaching jobs, higher up. I guess the infuriating ways of the infuriating elite have infuriated him. And if he can get infuriated, against the EU, many will follow.

  8. Alexi Helligar Says:

    Alexi Helligar: Patrice Ayme now that you have described what you know exists, what is your theory of nothingness?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Alexi: Hmmm… I embed (math sense) all of reality in a very high dimensional euclidean manifold, so, whatever is outside of waves and Dark Matter (a type of topolologically mangled waves, in my book) is nothingness.

  9. brodix Says:

    Patrice,
    It seems to me there is an implicit equilibrium to the vacuum, in the observation that clocks slow in moving frames, due to the speed of light in a vacuum being constant.
    Since the frame with the fastest clock would be closest to that equilibrium of the vacuum.
    Now this neutral equilibrium would be analogous to zero and as such, have no physical properties.
    The consequence is quantum processes don’t create space, they create feedback.
    Which would be why clocks slow in moving frames.

    • brodix Says:

      “have no physical properties.”
      ie, no aether.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Why clocks slow in moving frames is perfectly understood by anyone who has taken the first week of a Relativity Undergraduate Course (something I have taught, BTW). No need for pataphysics (with all due respect, hahahaha) ;-)…

      • brodix Says:

        Patrice,
        I think the issue of space and whether it can be created/destroyed is one physics will have to re-examine.

  10. Alexi Helligar Says:

    I think a more detailed description of nothingness is important. I think we should be able to build new physics from such a description.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      QFT has a whole theory of the vacuum… Which is not empty, thanks to filling it up with what is not explicitly forbidden (thanks to the mass-energy uncertainty relation). It’s crucial at high energies.

      In my theory, one is beyond this, as it’s a theory of the “particle” in propagation itself. Outside of “particles” then, and shreds of them (“Dark Matter”), there is plain nothing

      • Alexi Helligar Says:

        Alexi Helligar What are the properties of “plain nothing”?

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          You are assuming there are some. But consider the empty set in set theory. It has no element, no “property”. It would be like considering a non diagram in category theory: it has no property.

          • Alexi Helligar Says:

            So pure nothing could be described as a perfect symmetry?

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              I am not a fanatical believer in the symmetry-Noether cult. This is more basic. If I embed all of physics in a 10^500^500 dimensional Euclidean space, I can use this as base space for a fiber space, and nothing can prevent me to make the fiber above some points into the empty set, closing down all talk about it, including talk about “symmetries”. 😉

  11. Alexi Helligar Says:

    I don’t understand the description you gave of the large Euclidean space leading to a fiber space. Could you explain this in regular language?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Patrice Ayme: Hmmm… Quantum Field Theory rests on these fiber spaces with Erhesman Connections. It’s not just a set of theorems, but a set of notions and constructions, abstracted by semantics. Any book on fiber spaces would be a good begining… Someday, it WILL be “regular language”. It’s all about connecting the geometries of associated spaces.

  12. Chris Snuggs Says:

    “Multiverse partisans believe anything, any physics, is possible.”

    Presumably “anything” includes fairies with 356 heads each with 9 billion ears? Why on earth does anyone bother to even think about lunatics? What happened to the Enlightenment? I thought that taught us to base beliefs on evidence and reason? Obviously that was just a weird and temporary phase that humanity was passing through. Now we really are back to normal.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I agree with you 100% here Chris. It’s even much much much worse than that. Those sickos believe that a quadzillion universes are created at any instant, in any volume. Even the Middle Ages most ridiculous theologians never got that ridiculous. I have made the argument that this, indeed, is a direct assault against reason, and thus the Enlightenment. So we agree 100%. We are back to complete insanity, comme d’hab.

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: