Keep in mind as well, that determinism, that the future is pre-determined, is based on the inertia of this wave of energy, while multiworlds, that the past remains indeterminate, is based on the fact this wave doesn’t really collapse.

Both are wrong. The future is not determined, because the act of determination is the computation occurring in the physical present. While the past is determined by these computations, the wave is simply fluctuating as the effect of this processing, not collapsing.

LikeLike

]]>Basically the energy goes past to future, as any definition we give it goes future to past.

LikeLike

]]>“an electron is what it does, and also a solution of Dirac equation (in spinor space). So the process is pretty much the definition.”

Which goes to the question of time.

Say two billiard balls bounce against one another, which creates an event, affecting both their directions. The billiard balls go onto other events, as that event fades into the past.

So are the billiard balls the events, or the process of events? They go opposite directions of time.

The patterns we see and measure fade into the past, while the process goes onto future possibilities, which we can’t measure, because they haven’t happened. We can’t define what hasn’t happened We can only define it, as it happens, but then it’s past.

LikeLike

]]>“Physics seems intent on finding the ultimate form/pattern, without accepting that definition is part of the process”

Actually an electron is what it does, and also a solution of Dirac equation (in spinor space). So the process is pretty much the definition.

This is why most QFT theorists are reluctant to take “virtual particles” to be real (whatever a real particle is). They are just fundamentally only mathematical terms… To prove they are more than that, would be a triumph…

LikeLike

]]>“because virtual “particles” really happen during/as interactions.

Wave functions also work… in SQPR, they are proportional to the linear, but guiding parts of the wave.”

It’s not that the form/information isn’t real. Think frequency, amplitude, time, temperature, pressure, even color, as expressions and interactions of the energy. There is no other way to describe the energy, other than the forms it expresses.

The problem is, as I see it, that this information is considered cause, with the dynamics of the energy being emergent, or illusionary, because it can only be defined in terms of the form it effects. Definition/patterns are effect.

It’s like two sides of the coin, can’t have one, without the other.

Physics seems intent on finding the ultimate form/pattern, without accepting that definition is part of the process, not just some God-like objectivity. It is reductionist and therefore part of the condensation/distillation/coalescing side of the cycle/coin. Gravity is this consolidation on a material and galactic scale, so as one side of the entire cosmic convection cycle, it starts where light quantizes and continues all the way to the rim of black holes. The ‘dark matter’ is just this contraction outside of the range that is considered mass.

It “curves” light as part of this contraction process, or rather light starts to curve and crest, as it starts to become defined and quantized, as photons.

LikeLike

]]>Epicycles work, because it’s Fourier analysis (deep reason).

Similarly Feynman diagrams/”amplitudology” work because virtual “particles” really happen during/as interactions.

Wave functions also work… in SQPR, they are proportional to the linear, but guiding parts of the wave. They guide, because the describing equations are nonlinear (as all nonlinear equations are).

LikeLike

]]>It’s not so much that the computations work. Epicycles were very effective at predicting celestial configurations years in advance. It is that they are a distillation of the order in a system and certain/many factors are not included.

A map would be next to useless if it tried to model every aspect of the territory, rather than what is required. Much like writing a book, when an essay or even a paragraph could communicate the same idea.

The problem is when we go back and try to reconstruct a territory out of the map, based on our own presumptions.

It would be like boiling a body down to the skeleton and assuming you have found the seed from which it sprang.

Processes create patterns and math is patterns.

It is that our minds recognize patterns and then we have to discover the processes creating them, such as first proposing gods, then developing science.

By treating math as ideal forms, mathematicians are treating it as a god, rather than a mental tool.

Which goes to your point about the waves being real, not the wave functions. They try to make the math the final word.

LikeLike

]]>Please read Einstein within my essay:

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

I have proposed an experiment to detect whom between Albert or Patrice is right… Basically **detecting the gravitational field of the photon. My claim: it will go down, the larger the 2-slit set-up… **

LikeLike

]]>Relativity is easy math. Gravitation theory is harder math… Most of it irrelevant for the big picture (useful, nay, CRUCIAL for GPS, though, and gravity assist next to a Black Hole…)

“Spacetime” is just a slogan: it has no impact on computation… What does have an impact is IMAGINARY TIME, which is used all over Quantum Field Theory, within computations… It also changes the spacetime manifold from pseudo-Riemannian to really Riemannian…. All this just to be able to compute… But them the computations work… ;-(

LikeLike

]]>A photon takes one million years to get out of the Sun. I am a Quantum Entanglement fanatic… But would be surprised it has to do with thermonuclear fusion at the core of Sun. In the brain yes…. But that’s much cooler, especially mine… 😉

LikeLike

]]>