Archive for the ‘Foundations Of Physics’ Category

FREE WILL SHOWS QUANTUM PHYSICS IS INCOMPLETE

February 15, 2020

Present Day Quantum Physics Is Entangled With Photon Awareness, While Contradicting Free Will, In A Most Peculiar Way…

Abstract: The Axiomatics of the Copenhagen Interpretation of the Quantum is written as if photons were aware of slits-at-a-distance… And as if photons acted accordingly (as if photons cared about slits!)… But the Copenhagen Interpretation of the Quantum provides NO mechanism for photons to take care of slits. This is absurd in two ways. It’s as if an anthropomorphic Mr. Photon was supposed to be telepathetic. Another problem with the Copenhagen Interpretation of the Quantum (“CIQ”) is that CIQ Quantum Physics, being deterministic, denies Free Will.

Conclusion: Quantum Theory is not the final story. Guiding Wave theories with delayed causality, such as SQPR, are necessary to reduce the nonsense.

***

We act, we decide, we initiate actions. Can we insert this faculty for action of our own Free Will, this human agency, into the general picture of nature (“physics”) that we presently have? No! Because physics as we know it is deterministic… And we are not! (Quantum Physics, contrarily to its repute, is deterministic… as long as its nonlocal effects are not considered…) 

Thus the humanity-as-an-independent-agent question leads to the depths of the human mind and its relationship with physical reality, throwing up profound connections to the mysteries of entropy (disorder augments… something biology violates) and the arrow of time (time flowing one way… although fundamental physics flow both ways, contradicting even entropy as fundamental). Even reality gets questioned (what is it?) and consciousness (what could it be?) Surprising answers are readily discernible. 

Quantum fields don’t have any agency. Atoms don’t, do bacteria?” asks physicist Sean Carroll from the California Institute of Technology. “I don’t know, but human beings do. Somewhere along that continuum it sneaked in.

Quantum Determinism a la Copenhagen Means We Have No Freedom Of Choice

Well, it is not even as simple as believing “agency” sprouts between things more complicated than atoms and human beings. Let me make a ridiculously simple observation. 

Take the 2 slit exp. This phenomenon is the conceptual heart of Quantum Physics. If we take the Copenhagen Interpretation of the Quantum (CIQ, pronounced “SICK”), at face value, something astounding occurs: it looks as if an electron, or a photon, has AWARENESS. 

Indeed, according to Einstein, a photon in flight is a localized concentrated “quantum” (Einstein wrote about “Lichtquanten”, light quanta; they got named “photons” 20 years later). 

The following is exactly what Albert wrote, in his otherwise beautiful Nobel Prize winning paper on the photoelectric effect, and has been viewed as definitive truth ever since: “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…” (I view this Einstein unsupported opinion as a grave error which the herd has made ever since… But I am going to proceed, for the sake of argument, as if this ridiculous idea were true, in the next few lines!)

When one cuts two slits in a screen, a photon (going through just one slit, according to Einstein) somehow knows about the other slit. How? Certainly not by having Mr. Photon look over at the other slit. So, then, what is the root, the nature of this photon “awareness”, Einstein and his followers want us to believe in? 

A photon is aware of the other slit: could such an elementary particle’s awareness at a distance be the fundamental “element of consciousness“? (I am sarcastically parroting terminology of Einstein in 1935, introducing the notion of “elements of reality”) 

A shallow philosopher could chuckle that all consciousness comes from sensation, which comes from senses… And obviously the photon has no senses… Except, somehow, according to Einstein and CIQ, the photon (or any fundamental particle) senses the other slit at a distance (always under Einstein’s locality-of-the-quantum hypothesis, which permeates modern physics, a pervading poison gas)… So, according to them, the photon has a sense, somehow. 

Experiments With Bouncing Droplets such as these three above, were started in Paris in the Twenty-First Century. They provide with the first analogy to guide De Broglie’s Pilot Wave Theory of 1927 and the much more sophisticated SQPR… A problem for the Pilot Wave Theories being that we have NO mathematical models… As mathematicians prefer often to focus on silly problems posed by infinities, the modern analogue of the worry an infinite number of sitting angels on pinheads posed to Middle Age Catholic bishops….

The surface waves generated by the silicon oil droplets above are analogous to quantum mechanical waves that guide the dynamics of quantum particles. While the droplets move like quantum particles, they behave like quantum waves.”… says award winning photographer and physicist Dr Aleks Labuda, who took the picture above.

Guiding Wave (GW) partisans, such as yours truly, don’t have the problem of the telepathic, all aware photon endowed with Free Will: the Guiding Waves go through both slits of the 2 slit experiment, and thereafter “guides” the photon accordingly to the presence of these two slits. (The experimental models of the 2 slits, with bouncing liquid balls, exists… and thus have attracted great hatred from partisans of the Copenhagen Interpretation, such as from the grandson of Niels Bohr, himself a physicist. I will not put links, so as not to confuse readers…)

So, basically, if one rejects a strange photon “awareness”, implicitly assumed by CIQ, one is immediately led to Guiding Waves theories. To this people familiar with the Foundations of Quantum Physics may retort that a GW theory such as De Broglie-Bohm is indistinguishable from CIQ. Right. But I don’t think De Broglie-Bohm Guiding Wave can withstand the EPR 1935. Moreover, my own theory, SQPR, is distinguishable from CIQ: SQPR produces Dark Matter… CIQ doesn’t.

In any case, a GW theory is a mechanical, non local, field of awareness (Bohm makes it into a Quantum Potential). [1]

***

With Quantum Physics, we find ourselves back into the ultra-deterministic setting of the Eighteenth Century… But now with a theory which claims to understand everything (whereas in the 18C-19C, some pieces were missing, and not just the two clouds on the horizon  Lord Kelvin saw in the distance…) So the Quantum should explain Consciousness, Free Will… As it explains the universe. But, clearly, it contradicts Free Will… EXCEPT, if one considers nonlocal effects. Nonlocal effects violate local determinism.

The preceding essay stands as a testimony of the usefulness of the philosophical approach to dig deeper into what physics should become in the (hopefully) near future [2]. Not that it was ever different each time physics jumped ahead. All revolutions in physics have been revolutions in philosophy… and the most general revolutions in philosophy often preceded revolutions in physics and science in general [3]. For example, the Renaissance of the Eleventh Century preceded the Buridan (and his schools!) astronomical, physical and mathematical revolution after 1350 CE. In turn it may have accelerated the Fifteenth-Sixteenth Century philosophical Renaissance which clearly led to the Seventeenth Century scientific and technological revolutions, an ambitious protest against more modest understanding.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] One thing that makes SQPR different from De Broglie-Bohm (DBB), is that SQPR supposes the Guiding Field proceeds, expanding or collapsing, at an extremely fast… but NOT infinite… speed. Another is that the Guiding Field carries minute, but non zero mass-energy. Both effects together predict the Dark Matter effect… Also SQPR makes Quantum Entanglement a mass-energy conveyor, hence non-magical, another deviation from both CIQ and DBB…

***

[2] Quantum Computers exploit the Foundations of the Quantum… but not through the brute force of Quantum Field Theory and its (glaringly very incomplete and haphazard) “Standard Model” ….the one with no model for Dark Matter or Dark Energy. So Quantum Computers bring the foundations, such as Quantum Entanglement, crucial for their operations, into focus… Hence expect foundations to become ever more crucial in the common Zeitgeist…

***

[3] This is particularly blatant reading Descartes, who justified his enormous advances in mathematics with a cocktail of philosophical and psychological observations of the most judicious types. Just as I question infinity, Descartes questioned the sort of proofs mathematicians had been satisfied with for two millennia… and did something about it (by inventing Algebraic Geometry)….

(Aaronson) Misleading “Quantum Talk”

December 8, 2019

Of Those For Whom Despising Others Fosters One’s Sense Of Existence:

Aaronson, a renowned Quantum Computation expert thought funny to pretend that what he studies (programming Quantum amplitudes) is the end-all, be-all of the universe. So this is out in a cartoon, complete with arrogant child and even more stupid mom. Although the fact the mom is stupid is not revealed by the cartoon, quite the opposite. When does she go wrong?

Besides having no eyes to speak to, or from? So here is the cartoon. It starts pretty well. It ends up as badly as possible, with plenty of lies about Quantum Mechanics and unsupported assertions that consciousness has nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics (when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, including that QM is at the core of biology). Anyway here is the silly cartoon, from a respected Quantum Computational authority:

I condescend and lie, therefore I think, hence I exist? Too many physicists have succumbed to that temptation, due to their otherwise modest position in society.

There is a partially correct message above not well known by the unwashed multitudes: yes, Quantum Mechanics compute with complex amplitudes. Why is that? Let me reveal it: consider light. It’s the simplest Quantum phenomenon,and it requires Complex Numbers to be described as compactly as possible. Light is made of entangled electric and magnetic fields at an angle to the propagation direction. More precisely: E is the electric field vector, and B is the magnetic field vector of the EM wave. For electromagnetic waves E and B are always perpendicular to each other and perpendicular to the direction of propagation. The direction of propagation is the direction of E x B.

Electromagnetic waves are the solutions of Maxwell’s equations in a vacuum, which abstract the experiments pioneered by at least half a dozen physicists (Monge, Ampere, Faraday, Fresnel, etc.).

E (and thus B!) can rotate, or be in any directions, as long as they are perpendicular to each other and light wave propagation. However one can also fix E, by letting the light through a grid. This is a standard experiment, it’s use in polarized sunglasses, etc.  However it’s very deep, deeper than Aaronson can understand, or that present physics understand: this means the light is somehow extended… If if it’s a single, proverbial photon.

Any light wave coming from the left. The first vertical grid forces the E electric field of the light vertically (any other direction gets captured by the vertical grid). The second horizontal grid kills the vertically polarized light.

In general, the electric field E can adopt any direction or rotate. To depict this mathematically, there is a handy instrument: the Complex Number field, which is the one and only generalization of the Real Number field [1]. Light is also the simplest Quantum phenomenon known. Thus, to fully depict the simplest Quantum, one needs Complex Numbers. More Quantum will naturally mean more Complex Numbers.

Aaronson claims that “physicists had a customs when describing these matters with outsiders, they want to avoid being… too graphic too explicit … too *gulp* mathematically correct“.

The Schrodinger Cat, and nonlocality are caused by “talking to outsiders”? This is what Aaronson says explicitly lower down in the cartoon. This is hogwash bullshit. Physicist didn’t understand much of the very basics of the Quantum Mechanics they were in the process of inventing. Even the most trivially blatant features of Quantum mechanics were not understood for more than a generation, although they were the first thing one wrote on the subject. Let me explain.

The basic equation (De Broglie-Schrodinger) reads basically as:

i(change W relative to time) = (change acceleration of W) + (W)(A)

More “mathematically”: i dW/dt = ddW/dxdx + AW

Where W is a complex wave, and A a potential W interacts with (say the electromagnetic field for an electron) [2].

It’s obvious from this most basic equation, that W reacts to the potential A. However, it took 33 years or so to notice this: Bohm and Aharonov did it… and all the big geniuses of Quantum Mechanics, even Einstein and De Broglie, let alone Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Pauli, Born, the hyper arrogant Von Neumann, Dirac, etc… Didn’t notice it.

Notice Aaronson describes physicists as “insiders“. In other words, physicists make a tribe… just like many philosophers around “French Theory” have claimed…

However, the real truth is that physicists were too ignorant to describe WHY the COMPLEX Quantum Wave well to “outsiders“, because there was not enough inside the heads of these insiders. But here I come.

So I take my right arm, and project it forward, like your standard Kung Fu master. I open three fingers. My index points in the direction of motion of my arm, ready to punch inside the eye of the tribal physicist “insider”. My major points perpendicular to the index (because physicists insiders get my symbolic finger; it also represent the E field above). My thumb, representing the B field, is perpendicular to the other two extended fingers. At this point the whole assembly of these three fingers progressing forward can be described by three real numbers. But then I impose a rotation of the entire hand: there is your Complex Numbers field. The rotation requires the complex numbers

Some could sneer that one complex number is a pair of real numbers with weird multiplication rules, so we don’t really need Complex Numbers, bla bla bla… But Mathematics is not just a language: mathematics is the most compact, most efficient language: it does that by compactifying the logic maximally.

What does Patrice mean by “compactifying the logic”? How to measure that? Simple, count the symbols: the fewer symbols, the most compact… [3]

***

Aaronson claims that “classical events have probabilities and quantum events have amplitude“. That’s false. They have probabilities too (from the square root of the norm squared of the amplitude). Before Aaronson showed he had no modesty, didn’t know the history of physics and was a tribalist. Now he throwing through the window not just the philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, but also the entire Theory of Measurement, and what the refined analysis of what an “event” is.

A basic axiom of Quantum Mechanics is that an unobserved event is not an event. As long as one has “amplitudes”, the quantum system computes quantum mechanically, but one had no “event”. “Event” happens after the collapse, when there are no more amplitudes. I call that singularization. Other more or less equivalent concepts are “collapse” and “decoherence” (collapse frightened the children so they opted for decoherence as they became snowflakes).

So what Aaronson presents as the one and only axiom of Quantum Physics is actually a self-contradicting ERROR.

Actually Wikipedia offers nine different complicated and independent axioms for Quantum Mechanics.

So why does Aaronson speak only of amplitudes? Because it’s all he needs for his job, computer programming. Forget physics: Aaronson doesn’t seem to know the difference between “amplitudes” and “waves”: waves have “amplitudes”, but do not reduce to “amplitudes”. Moreover, Quantum waves don’t behave like classical waves with their (only) local behavior: Quantum waves are global. In the author’s own SQPR,, the waves propagate at an enormous speed, tens of trillions of trillions times faster than the speed of light (so they appear “instantaneous” as the present Quantum mechanical axiomatics has it…)

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/quantum-waves-are-real/

The  (so-called “Heisenberg”) Uncertainty Principle is a direct consequence of De Broglie hypothesis. Yet, the basic idea is pre-Quantum… Or rather Quantum in the pure electromagnetic sense… as I said, the very basics of Quantum mechanics is electromagnetics, thus optics. Let me explain a bit more.

To find out where something is, one shines a light on it, one hits it, say, with light. However the light’s precision is greater, the shorter its wavelength (otherwise light turns around objects for the exact same reason as radio waves do). But the energy of the light is proportional to its frequency which is inversely proportional to its wavelength. So the more precise one tries to ascertain where an object is, by looking at it, the greater the kick one imparts to it. It’s obvious one will get an uncertainty, and, at this point, one doesn’t even need De Broglie’s equation, the relation between wavelength and momentum, but plain 19th century physics, mostly that light has momentum… the very same property tremendous genius Jules Henri Poincaré used in 1899, to demonstrate E = mcc, the famous mass-energy relationship usually attributed to fluffy parrot Einstein, then a young brat who tried to make us believe he invented all of physics besides telling God how to organize the universe (as Quantum Founder and nobel Niels Bohr told him).

To get the best numbers of the exact inequality, one needs De Broglie…

Notice that what is important here is WAVES, not just amplitudes. And the relationship between momentum, energy, and wave frequency, direction. Right the waves are complex and they have amplitudes.

By the way, Waves are not all one needs for Quantum Mechanics: SPIN, for example comes from a different logical source, purely geometrical. Spin was discovered by another tremendous French genius, Elie Cartan, before World War One. A generation later, Spin surfaced in Dirac’ s fertile mind: Dirac wanted the most simple equation possible to describe the electron… That required a new space, to enable spinors to live on it… (The mathematics of all this are not well understood at the deepest level; it’s a bit as if one took the square root of space, I have not much clue beyond that, nor does anyone else…)

Aaronson also claims that Quantum nonlocality is just a matter of amplitudes. Well, it’s not. Between the EPR paper of 1935 and Bell’s inequality of 1966, there were 33 years during which physicists were perplexed more than perplexed: they ignored nonlocality all together (until Bohm-Aharonov). Experimental tests started much later, and some physicists have received the greatest prizes for it … Albeit not the Nobel… which was attributed for realizing the Bose-Einstein condensate, some 70 years after it could become theoretically imaginable…

With the end of his silly cartoon, Aaronson demonstrates he doesn’t know physics (the beginning is pretty good though…), and it is teaching lies.

Aaronson demonstrated that he may have had a condescending mechanical mom without eyes, and the arrogance simpletons comes with, by definition.

***

Authorities (such as politicians, economists, media owners and physicists in position of authority) have several reasons to lie. Yes it manipulates people but more precisely:

  1. It prevents people to access to truth, thus power.
  2. It confuses people, leveraging on 1).
  3. It fills the public with awe, because, confused and powerless, they view the authoritative figure as quite a bit of a magician, because lying enables the authority to apparently master the (otherwise) incomprehensible.
  4. In manipulating We The People into submission, it is crucial not to reveal that the incomprehensible has been made incomprehensible by the authorities, by deliberate design of an immense distraction (following the misleading Aaronson, good luck trying to deduce nonlocality from “amplitudes”: there are “amplitudes” in my bathtub, but that doesn’t make nonlocal… So this is an impossible task, which Aaronson pretends to have mastered; economist and politicians, bankers and other high finance types, even ecologists on government payroll, do the same. day in, day out, 24/7: outrageous lying, to confuse the multitude)

All too many “intellectuals” in recent decades have been for sale…

Teaching Quantum Physics to all is teaching the universe as it is to all. Knowing Quantum Physics enriches one’s arsenal of understanding schemes, all over. So teaching it correctly is a mission civilisatrice. When humanity is more intelligent in the future, it will be in part because of this. For example the meta observation that everything is made, in the small, of waves is most enlightening, and impact sensibilities…

Thus la trahison des clercs, here lying about the nature of the Quantum, while posing as an “insider” is the sort of pseudo-intellectual posturing humanity really doesn’t need. This sort of deliberately dishonest and malicious posturing has brought deplorable racism such as imposing the notion that fearing Wahhabism is racist… and has distracted from the most major problems at hand such as global plutocratization and the man-made mass extinction.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

P/S: A friend of mine, a professional university researcher in Quantum Computing, long working for a GAFAM, sent me the cartoon above, in an apparent slight to my essay on brain modularity making consciousness necessary. I am grateful as the paper was intelligently stupid.

***

[1] Quaternion make a non-commutative division algebra.

***

[2] i is the square root of (-1), a rotation by 90 degrees in the complex number field. I put Planck constant = 1… As I am limited by the WordPress software, I denote the second (partial) derivative relative to space as dd/(dx)(dx) which is what it is… but different from the usual symbolic… which also use the psi Greek letter instead of W…

***

[3] Maxwell equations initially covered an entire page. Now they can be reduced to nine symbols: dF = 0 and d*F = A.

To understand that, you have to learn more advanced differential geometry: exterior differentiation, the * operator, etc. But will admit, that’s compact… And thus in the only sense that makes sense, MOST intuitive.

WANT BETTER PHYSICS? GET BETTER PHILOSOPHY

November 1, 2019

Philosophical progress, the art and desire of guessing new utmost significance, guided our progress in understanding physics for the last three million years, and always will, indeed. 

We can’t experiment before we guess what experiments to conduct, according to the obscure light of a half-baked theory (in other words, philosophy)

So why has the philosophical training of physicists become so abysmal in the last century? The symmetrical question is why most of those called philosophers have had no training in physics and math? Plato would have scoffed that those were not philosophers. 

Neglecting the importance of the philosophical method in physics, for the last two generations may have been caused by the militarization of physics: obeying and pleasing those who order military spending requires yes men, shutting up and calculating, not deep thinkers [1]. History is full of examples of period of stasis, or even massive backsliding, of the understanding of nature, due to the hostility of the establishment to further understanding. This is why the Greeks’ progress in “Physis” stagnated after the establishment of Greek (so-called “Hellenistic regimes”) and Roman dictatorships. Soon after the Macedonian dictatorship grabbed Greece, Euclid wrote his elements… completely forgetting the non Euclidean geometry established a century before! (And it stayed forgotten for 21 centuries!) one wonders which other parts of Greek science got also immediately forgotten: these were times when thinkers would be killed on sight (Demostenes actually argued with the guy dispatched by the Macedonians to kill him: they knew each other; the assassin at the head of his squad pointed out to the philosopher he had to earn a living, and him not Demosthenes would have no effect, as somebody else would do the deed. Best to go with a friend!) 

Greatest physicist ever? Du Chatelet discovered… ENERGY, no less! Not just infrared (which she also discovered)! She was also a first class philosopher, and of course, a feminist. She left extensive writings.

Once the will, desire, and methodology of deep thinking has been forgotten, it takes a long time to get it restarted: Europe tried half a dozen attempts at a sustainable Renaissance, over a millennium [2]. What had happened? Books and scholars got deliberately eliminated for 250 years: starting  in 363 CE, religious fanatics systematically burned libraries and tortured to death intellectuals (see Hypatia’s tragic assassination directed by Christian “saint” Cyril).

Spending in physics is good… if nothing else, new technologies can be developed, especially involving high energies. But it shouldn’t focus on only a few avenues of inquiry. However, “High Energy” physics is a revealing term: do we live in a “High Energy” world? No. So why don’t we also focus on “Low Energy” fundamentals? 

Sociological considerations of career advancement show it is safer within the herd, and the herd thinks alike. This is why university physicists form a herd.

Cathedral schools” were mandated 13 centuries ago, and then turned into universities. However, when one looks at quantum jumps in understanding, one realizes that most such jumps happened outside of the career mainstream. The greatest thinkers tend to not follow the most prestigious path at the time! Obviously on the path less traveled are the diamonds found. Master thinkers such as Abelard, Buridan, Leonardo da Vinci, Kepler, Descartes, Fermat, Leibniz, Papin, Du Chatelet, Lavoisier, Lamarck, Cuvier, Faraday, Darwin, even Poincare, De Broglie… are examples of master thinkers who didn’t have conventional careers [3].

There are too many of the most towering intellects standing straight out of all society and academia, for it to be an accident, or a coincidence [4]. And the reason is very simple: it’s easier to be an intellectual hero, and jump out of the box, if you are mostly out of the box of obsolete logic already.  

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] Military science has been hard core high energy physics, ever since the French army ordered research on tanks, under the Ancien Regime (now viewed as the first “cars”, but, truly, tanks…18 C). New high explosives saved the French at Valmy. Within a few weeks the first production combat lasers will start protecting some US air bases…

***

[2] Clovis immediately made a reinterpretation of Christianism into something milder, tolerant, compatible with other faiths (~ 500 CE). Within a century, Frankish bishops were teaching secularly, ignoring lethal threats from Rome. In the Eight Century, a law was passed making schooling and its teaching by religious establishments mandatory. In the Eleventh Century, full Renaissance in north-west France brought a violent territorial expansion (England, Sicily, Italy, etc…), a booming economy, the Duke questioning the geocentric system and his protege Berengar assimilating god to reason… 

***

[3] Abelard, Buridan, Leonardo da Vinci, Tycho, Kepler, Descartes, Fermat, Boulliaut/Bulaldius, Leibniz, Papin, Du Chatelet, Lavoisier, Lamarck, Cuvier, Galois, Faraday, Darwin, even Poincare, De Broglie…

    1. At twenty-two, Abelard set up a school of his own, although opponents barred him from teaching in Paris. Eventually without previous training or special study, triumphed in theological debates, and stepped into a chair at Notre—Dame. The rest of his life was a “calamity” (his word) reminiscent of the adventures of all too many an intellectual of Antiquity, and others in my little list: he got emasculated and nearly killed in an attack… Abelard fought Saint Bernard, Christianism most important person,  nearly to death, and, though an abbot was excommunicated… twice. 
    2. Buridan chose not the faculty of theology but the much lower one of arts. 
    3. Leonardo da Vinci was a serious physicist… Yet took to painting and direct regalian support…
    4. Kepler was Tycho’s assistant. Tycho lived off a grant from the Germanic Roman emperor. Kepler spent a lot of energy preventing the execution of his mother as a witch.
    5. Descartes, discoverer of Algebraic Geometry (“equations”), and calculus, an army captain, was on the run, and was not dumb enough to return to France where the Catholic fanatics ruled.
    6. Fermat, co-discoverer of calculus, was a lawyer and MP.
    7. Boulliaut/Bulaldius was a French priest. He got the idea of the 1/dd law of gravitation… As Newton pointed out.
    8. Leibniz was all over the place, even an ambassador. Nobody knows where he is buried.
    9. Papin made the first working steam engine, and the first steam boat (which worked very well). He had to flee France (being a Protestant), then he ran in trouble in England as locals stole his invention, and after legal action, fled to Germany (where he interacted with Leibniz… Same Leibniz of infinitesimals, who made preliminary work on energy which Du Chatelet extended. 

 

  • Gabrielle Émilie Le Tonnelier de Breteuil, Marquise du Châtelet was top nobility, and hot to trot. She had no academic career, but converted her castle into a lab on her own dinero… Lavoisier did something similar, but the Revolutionary Tribunal found he had used taxpayer money to do this (so what? He should have had an exemption and got an award instead of being shortened…)
  • Buffon, Lamarck, Cuvier were research professors at the Museum of Natural History, where they established evolutionary science, but they were not university professors… Darwin, who pointed out natural selection by itself was enough to cause evolution, without the arsenal of contingence deployed by Lamarck and Cuvier two generations earlier, was not a professor at all, but an independent scholar.
  • Galois, an absolute revolutionary. He invented groups, and  demonstrated some equations couldn’t be solved. He got in big trouble for his republican politics, under a dictator, and was killed age 20 (!) spending his last night writing down Galois theory.
  • Faraday, not a university professor, and little schooled in mathematics, was directly funded by the king.
  • Poincare followed an unusual, secondary career path, until he shattered mathematics and physics (he established Relativity, including E = mcc), De Broglie, a prince, studied Medieval history, before pivoting and decreeing Quantum Waves, inventing Quantum uncertainty and the “Schrodinger” equation on the way… (Germanophiles did the rest by attributing his discoveries to… Germanophones; however he got the Nobel within 4 years of the ebauch of his thesis). He was never a professor, but I met him in person… Fellow minds…  

***

[4] Just restricting oneself to Paris, the largest city in Western Europe for most of the last 15 centuries, one could get evaluations of the number of professional intellectuals. Those who really brought progress, were very few, and they have in common that, even though sometimes they were part of the establishment, they were also continually at war, because their advanced ideas alternatively seduced and infuriated the powers that be. But 99.9% of intellectuals, most of the time, didn’t cause a ripple…

 

 

Absence of Presence Is Not Presence of Absence: QUANTUM JUMPS PREDICTED, Copenhagen Interpretation SHATTERED

June 10, 2019

A bit less than a century ago, the formidable computational arsenal of Quantum Mechanics Interpretation Copenhagen (QMIC) was erected. The whole enterprise consisted in no less than deciding what reality was about. Grotesquely erroneous principles of the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM such as: “Only what can be observed is real”…. Had tremendous effects on the collective psyche of the intellectual leadership of the world.

For example, if only what is observed is real, then what Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, or the Khmer Rouge, or Franco, did was not real… as long as it couldn’t be observed. As per this philosophy of appearances, some of the leaders of physics in Germany were fanatical Nazis.

This sort of philosophy worthy of a two year old held sway in the mind of the collective. To make fun of it, Schrodinger and einstein (they were writing to each other, there is some evidence einstein originated the idea) invented the “Schrodinger Cat”.

According to the idiotic QMIC, a cat in death mechanism box was a mix of dead and live cat. Schrodinger’s point was that we all know very well that, at any given moment the cat is not alive and dead, but alive OR dead.[1]

***

Applied French Physicist Michel Devoret Reveals (At Least Part Of) Copenhagen Interpretation Is Hogwash:

If I understand the experiment well, what Devoret and the youngsters he is directing succeeded to do is this. They illuminate an atom A, and A gives back a light L, which they continuously monitored. When A stops suddenly emitting L, they know they atom A is going to undergo some so-called “Quantum Jump”. [2]

It turns out that, contrarily to what the Copenhagen Interpretation pack of irrational beings believed 100%, Quantum Jumps have more to do with the situation above than with what Bohr, Heisenberg and their sycophants believed…

In other words, Devoret and al. found a way to predict a Quantum Jump, one should call it a Quantum ERUPTION (so the speak).  

This means that there is an inner machinery inside the atom, just as there is an inner machinery inside a volcano (so Einstein, De Broglie, Schrodinger were right to hypothesize that it was ignorance which showed up, to some extent, as ignorance).

***

Here We Have Atomic “Quantum Jumps” neither instantaneous nor random:

The researchers built a superconducting electrical circuit that behaves like an atom with three energy levels. These are: the ground state; an auxiliary “bright” state that can be connected to the ground state by a transition stimulated by microwave light; and a “dark” state into which the atom can jump.

They managed to control the quantum jump once it engaged in its preparatory phase, by applying an electric pulse to the artificial atom. In this way, they intercepted it and sent it back to the ground state. They are only able to do this because the quantum jump is not truly instantaneous and random. Instead, quantum jumps take the same trajectory between the two energy levels every time, so it is possible to predict how to send them back.

According to the Yale team, this is an important point: “while quantum jumps appear discrete and random in the long run, reversing a quantum jump means the evolution of the quantum state possesses, in part, a deterministic and non-random character,” say Devoret and Minev. “The jump always occurs in the same, predictable manner from its random starting point.”.

The findings are in complete agreement with the predictions of modern quantum trajectory theory,” Devoret told Physics World, “with essentially no adjustable parameters. One of the applications for the type of experiment performed in our study is an efficient method for detecting very weak signals buried in quantum noise, and real-time intervention based on the results of this detection.” [3]

The results should also provide new ground for exploring intervention techniques to control quantum systems, such as the early detection of error syndromes in quantum error correction,” adds Minev, Devoret’s Post Doc. An unexpected jump could signal a mistake in calculations, for instance, and might allow researchers to spot the beginning of the jump and account for the error – or perhaps even reverse it before it is enacted. This is not the first time Quantum Jumps are found to have structure: when a laser ionizes an atom, it waa found in 1916, that there are two possibilities and they last different durations.

Devoret and his lab reported their work in Nature 10.1038/s41586-019-1287-z, will try to generalize their experiment to a situation involving two distant measurements on a common entangled system and see how the two distant jumps correlate. “This would be analogous to dissecting a Bell-inequality violation measurement,” says Devoret.

I always thought that SUB QUANTUM PHYSICS REALITY (SQPR) would appear in experiments. This is evidence of existence thereof.

It’s also of general interest. The pre-toddler philosophy established by Bohr and company may have in turn led to the extreme relativism of “French Theory”, a disease which has affected viciously not just philosophy, but politics, economics, sociology (present day “populism” is a long-delayed reaction to it). Supposedly, according to these extreme irrealists, there are “no savages”!

…and all these ideologies, characterized by the deep denial of reality, served plutocracy well.

One mistake the Copenhagen Interpretation pack of deliriously irrational physicists was to confuse absence of evidence for evidence of absence. An elementary error of the most basic type which toddler learn to master. But you know, they were infected with expert arrogance.   

Yes, there are savages, and yes the Copenhagen Interpretation was for idiots, by idiots. Bohr, Heisenberg, etc. idiots? Of course. Smart in the physics they did (most of it direct consequence of De Broglie’s breakthrough work), didn’t’ make them philosophically competent. Watch Heisenberg directing the Nazi atomic energy program…. [4]

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] Schrodinger believed there were no Quantum Jumps”… so he called them “Quantum Jerks” to make fun of them…

***

[2]  That’s an example of “indirect quantum non-demolition measurement

***

[3] How does Quantum Trajectory Theory (QTT) sits with my own SQPR? Well, pretty well: SQPR says, basically, that the particle hump will dissipate, extend, linearize itself away. That means that, for short times, QTT ~ SQPR…

***

[4] Not to say that all the physics done by the Copenhagen School and its followers (“Shut up and calculate” school) was bad and useless, far from it: QED, QCD, etc. are all excellent and true. As I said above the main damage of the Copenhagen Interpretation may have been the damage it did to reason in general. Now it’s history. That and the Inquisition…

Mathematical Beauty, Physics, And Truth

June 23, 2018

Mathematical beauty can guide physics: this is what happened for the foundation of QED by Dirac. At least, so it looks at first sight, and so he said. However, Dirac was guided by one intuition deeper than “beauty”: finding an equation of maximum simplicity to describe the electron… while knowing the Klein Gordon relativistic equation didn’t describe the electron, finding a simpler (first order) PDE that would be “relativistic” guided his search. Then see what happened. He knew that the simple wave equation are first order (although conventional strings are second order PDEs). Doing so Dirac re-invented unknowingly part of Cartan Spinor theory, a pure mathematical theory invented 15 years earlier. The Dirac equation he found led to experimental predictions, which were found to be true.

General Relativity too had a mathematical origin: Riemann, in the 1860s, got the idea that force will manifest itself as a deviation of geodesics. The idea is actually even older, in 3 dimensions, going back to Buridan (1350). That’s how Buridan superseded Aristotelian physics with his “Impetus” theory (the first order of the mechanics we have now).

Special Relativity was invented differently: a number of equations were found to explain effects observed, until Poincaré built a coherent logical whole resting on the idea that the speed of light should always be measured to be c. In particular electromagnetism was found to the essence of Relativity.

The picture is from CERN. The waves are from beaches of Western North America. Ultimately, it seems likely to me that nonlinear phenomenon are needed to understand hydraulics in full. But present day hydraulics, like Quantum Physics (away from collapse), is linear…

So the opposition is not so much between mathematics and physics, it’s between shallow ideas and deeper ideas. Physicists had no deeply new ideas, ideas which can stand-under, understand, for generations. Much of that has to do with denying that the Foundations of Quantum Physics are worthy of consideration.

Mathematical beauty can guide physics: but who guides mathematical beauty? 23 centuries ago, mathematicians then in power decided that Euclidean mathematics was beautiful, and non-Euclidean mathematics (invented prior) was ugly. Let’s not talk of the ugly anymore, or, at least, too complicated, they opined. After a few generations of pounding that notion, it became a claim that nothing existed in geometry, but for the beauty of geometry in a plane. Mathematicians got so dumb they forgot that the axiom of parallels was just an axiom, not a theorem (they tried to demonstrate it for nearly 20 centuries, whereas it would take ten seconds to explain to them what idiots they were, had they a brain in that direction…)

Indeed, never mind that Pytheas of Marseilles and his successors had, thanks to spherical geometry, computed the size of the rounded Earth most precisely. So, clearly mathematics on a sphere was extremely useful! In particular, true, and in existence!

Some say equation are beautiful. Equations themselves are subjects to interpretations. For example Henri Poincaré’s E = mcc, rolled out at the Sorbonne in 1899, is not clear. Similarly Einstein GR equation, basically: Curvature – Mass-energy, is not clear, as Einstein pointed out: right side is ill defined. After Dirac discovered his equation he realized it had to live in “Spinor Space”. So interpreting an equation gave the space where it had meaning.

***

Right now the most fundamental problems in mathematics and physics are clear to yours truly:

First, mathematics use an infinity axiom, namely that there is infinity. In the formal language of the Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms, the axiom reads: There is a set I (the set which is postulated to be infinite), such that the empty set is in I, and such that whenever any x is a member of I, the set formed by taking the union of x with its singleton {x} is also a member of I. Such a set is sometimes called an inductive set.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_infinity

This, this Infinity Axiom, in my opinion supposes too much, relative to the physical and practical realms, just like Euclidean geometry supposed too much relative to the practical and physical realms. Indeed, in practice, flat geometry does not exist. Same for infinity: in practice infinity cannot exists (not enough particles to count all the numbers). The Infinity Axiom introduces infinities in physics which are a mathematical artefact. This philosophical point is too hard for most top theorists to understand, the ones the Wall Street Journal is in love with (because of there are leading minds officially sanctioned in physics, thus as higher principles, so it is in in economics, sociology, hence plutocracy is rightfully supreme; see below).

Second, Quantum Physics is about WAVES. This enormous conceptual breakthrough was from Louis de Broglie. Waves are beautiful, especially Quantum Waves. Yet, in practice, waves are NOT linear. They are often nearly linear, right, but not quite (just like Euclidean geometry doesn’t quite exist, except as a figment of the imagination, and even then… ). However, present day mathematics has not been focused on nonlinear waves, so we don’t have a notion of “mathematical beauty”of nonlinear waves.

And guess what? The formalism of quantum Physics itself says that the “collapse” it can’t do without is nonlinear.

And now for a word of wisdom from that rather tall little thief friend of ours, Richard P. Feynman: “Physics is to math what sex is to masturbation.” There has been too much self dealing in physics, too much nonsense at the highest level! Bohr’s philosophy, which underlays his satisfaction with the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics, is a surrealistic horror: he thought that clarity contradicted truth (or idea to this effect… actually the exact contradiction of the beautiful idea of equation).

Want new physics? Do like Buridan, Oresme, and their friends and students, seven centuries ago: invent new mathematics (they invented the second page of calculus, the first one was from Archimedes himself, 16 centuries before). That’s done by working on the axioms, introducing new ones.

So when is a system of thought X deeper than another Y? When X implies Y, by under-standing it, namely introducing deeper (“under”) reasons for its standing.

String theory has been the equivalent of the crystal spheres and epicycles construction which replaced the evidence all could see, that Earth, the small thing turned around the Sun, the big thing (the Greeks knew from computations, looking at the Moon, and shadows, that the Sun was millions of kilometers away…) Right now the big thing is Quantum Collapse, that’s what needs to be understood. String Theory does a few things, like cancelling some infinities as a problem (my proposal above is much more radical… also, unavoidable…)

Meanwhile, while those self-esteemed super brains make super theories of supersymmetries of super strings (their concepts involve the word”super” very much…), to make a theory of Quantum Gravity, little Patrice has noticed this: there is NO experiment, and, a fortiori theory of gravity in the double slit… Why? Because the super minds, too busy being super, have not noticed that we lack experiments there (after they read this, they will steal the idea, and run to the closest physics journal edited by their friends to publish it as their great insight).

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Note 1: the preceding was inspired by the following WSJ article:

Einstein’s character was more like that of an artist than a scientist, his older son, Hans, said: The great physicist reserved his highest praise for theories that are beautiful, rather than ones that merely fit the facts. When, in the latter half of his career, Einstein spent most of his time trying to discover a unified theory of gravity and electromagnetism, he paid little attention to new experiments and focused mainly on trying to find the best mathematical structure. Alas, the strategy got him nowhere.

According to the physicist and prolific blogger Sabine Hossenfelder, Einstein and others who work in a similar way are “lost in math,” the title of her lively and provocative book. Until the early 1970s, few theoreticians fitted such a description—most of them were taking inspiration from the results of experiments. It was this strategy that led them to the so-called Standard Model, which describes the inner workings of atoms with remarkable success. Over the past four decades, however, theoretical physics has gone astray, in Ms. Hossenfelder’s view. Part of the problem, she feels, is that so many theoreticians have allowed themselves to be seduced by the aesthetic appeal of mathematical theories that are going nowhere.

As she explains, the use of beauty as a proxy for truth has an impressive pedigree: Not only was it espoused by Einstein, it also became the obsession of the almost comparably brilliant English quantum physicist Paul Dirac. In 1975 he wrote: “If you are receptive and humble, mathematics will lead you by the hand . . . along an unexpected path, path where new vistas open up . . . from which one can survey the surroundings and plan future progress.” Toward the end of his life, he declared that any theoretical physicist who disagreed with him should give up research and do something else.

As a result of this misguided focus on beauty, Ms. Hossenfelder says, her generation of theoretical physicists has been “stunningly unsuccessful.” The multiverse—the idea that our universe is only one of a vast number—is one of the fashionable concepts that she believes is a dud… 

Ms. Hossenfelder believes string theorists are deluded. “Nature doesn’t care” about mathematical beauty, she declares. Clever physicists have been led up the garden path before, she stresses, pointing to the once-fashionable theories of the ether that Einstein later demonstrated to be redundant.

Ms. Hossenfelder has paid a high price for her counter-orthodoxy…”

And the WSJ to conclude by discreetly celebrating the Fuhrerprinzip which Hossenfelder violated:

“The best string theorists are confident that they are heading in the right direction not only because of the theory’s mathematical beauty but because of its huge potential, despite its formidable challenges.

When Ms. Hossenfelder reiterates in her final chapter that many of the world’s most accomplished theorists are “lost in math,” we cannot help wondering whether it is she who is lost. Time will tell whether many of the world’s leading theoretical physicists have spent decades barking up the wrong tree. Meanwhile, it is pleasing to read that Ms. Hossenfelder now has a research grant and has resumed work on the subject she plainly cares deeply about, no doubt steering well clear of what she regards as bandwagons. In that respect, at least, Einstein would have been proud of her.”

***

***

After the plutocratic horror critique above, I must re-establish some justice to Sabine (and myself, indirectly). Here is Nature:

Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray Sabine HossenfelderBasic (2018)

“Why should the laws of nature care about what I find beautiful?” With that statement, theoretical physicist and prolific blogger Sabine Hossenfelder sets out to tell a tale both professional and personal in her new book, Lost in Math. It explores the morass in which modern physics finds itself, thanks to the proliferation of theories devised using aesthetic criteria, rather than guidance from experiments. It also charts Hossenfelder’s own struggles with this approach.

Hossenfelder — a research fellow specializing in quantum gravity and modifications to the general theory of relativity at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies in Germany — brings a trenchant new voice to concerns that have been rumbling in physics for at least two decades. In 2006, Lee Smolin’s The Trouble with Physics and Peter Woit’s Not Even Wrong fired the first salvos at the trend of valuing mathematical elegance over empirical evidence. Both books took on string theory, a ‘theory of everything’ in which the fundamental constituents of nature are strings vibrating in many more spatial dimensions than the familiar three. Since its entry into mainstream physics in the mid-1980s, the theory has failed to make predictions that would unambiguously verify or falsify it.

Hossenfelder, too, tackles string theory, but her broadsides are more basic. She points to the paucity of experimental data, exacerbated as the machines needed to probe ever higher energies and smaller distances become more costly to build. Given that, she is worried that too many theorists are using mathematical arguments and subjective aesthetics to judge a theory’s validity.”

By the way, my own theory of Quantum Foundations predicts Dark Matter and Dark Energy… It also predicts unpredicted, in contradiction-with Einstein, mass behavior in, say the 2-slit experiment… Namely a dispersion of mass during translation…

Here is more of Nature:

For example, Hossenfelder questions the desire for naturalness — the idea that a theory should not be contrived or have parameters that have to be fine-tuned to fit observations. The standard model of particle physics feels like such a contrivance to many physicists, despite its spectacular success in predicting particles such as the Higgs boson, discovered at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, Europe’s particle-physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland. In the theory, to prevent the mass of the Higgs from ballooning beyond reasonable bounds, certain parameters have to be set just so, rather than be derived from first principles. This smacks of unnaturalness.

To get rid of this ugliness, physicists developed supersymmetry — an elegant theory in which every known particle has a hypothetical partner particle. Supersymmetry made the Higgs mass natural. It also showed how three of the four fundamental forces of nature would have been one at energies that existed shortly after the Big Bang (an aesthetically pleasing scenario). It even unexpectedly provided a particle, the neutralino, that could explain dark matter — matter that is unseen, yet thought to exist because of its observed gravitational effect on galaxies and galactic clusters. Hossenfelder explains that in combining everything that theoretical physicists value (symmetry, naturalness, unification and unexpected insights), supersymmetry has become “what biologists fittingly call a ‘superstimulus’ — an artificial yet irresistible trigger”.

CONSCIOUSNESS, ATOM OF THOUGHT, Atom of Computing: All Found In Electrons?

May 7, 2018

Consciousness: we know we have it, we know many other animals have it, but we don’t know what it is.

Before we can answer this, a question naturally arises: so what is it, to know what it is? What is it, to be? “To be” is something our consciousness knows, when it perceives it. But we also need to know when something “is” to know when, how and if our consciousness is. 

In order to simplify our thinking on this arduous subject, existence entangled with consciousness, consider our most fundamental, hence simplest, theory. Consider Quantum Physics. Surely “existence” is defined there, as Quantum Physics deals with what is most fundamental. Take the simplest examples: photon, electron. What is an electron? In Quantum Physics, an electron is what one electron does. Isn’t that enlightening?

Shouldn’t consciousness be, what consciousness does?

Initially, electrons were just negatively charged particles. At least, so it was until Bohr. Then the description of the electron became much more complex. It turned out that electrons did occupy only some energy levels. Then came De Broglie, who said electrons did as waves he attached to them did. And it was found, indeed, that electrons did so. PAM Dirac then proposed the simplest “relativistic” equation for the electron (a more complicated, second degree PDE had been proposed before and couldn’t be made to predict what was observed). That requested something called “spinor space”…. Then in turn predicted electronic spin and the anti-electron, and both were observed.

(Important aside: the French mathematician Cartan had invented spinors earlier in pure geometry. Yes, invented: he built-in his brain the relevant neurological connections, that is, the relevant geometry.)

Thus what we now call the electron has become higher dimensional in logical space (logical space is the space spanned by independent axioms; I just made it up; that means there is a connection between logic and geometry… thus, in particular, arithmetic and geometry…).

By adding axioms to its description, the concept of electron has become richer… The electron is a richer concept in our consciousness.

Confronted to 2 slits, the electron acts as if it were choosing where to go, after them. Is that, not just a computation, but a primitive form of consciousness? What consciousness is made of? Hard to say for sure, at this point, but certainly a guess worth exploring: any theory of consciousness may have to take this, that the electron acts as if it were conscious, into account. 

We evolved as living beings, and the more complex we became, the more conscious. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck’s law of increasing complexity applies, and is exemplified, by the evolution of consciousness.. Consciousness is probably a law of physics, not an accident of history.

Some say:’oh, well, consciousness may not be that important’. Well, first at least three different phyla evolved it, independently, on Earth, vertebrates being only one of them. (As all trout fishers know, trouts act as if they were conscious, that’s why the experienced ones are so hard to catch, when the water is clear…)

But there is a much deeper objection to considering consciousness unimportant: what is the connection of consciousness to thinking? Could the atom of consciousness be the atom of thinking…. And precisely defined as Quantum Computation?

Indeed, consider programming as presently done with electronic computers: one thing after the other, just so very fast, yet, it is fundamentally desperately dumb. Present day computing, pre-Quantum Computing, can result in desperately slow computations. Whereas the electron can compute instantaneously (says a hopefully naive Quantum theory) that problems too complicated for our (pre-Quantum!) computers to handle, and find out, where the low energy solution is. That’s the superiority of Quantum Computing: tremendous, instantaneous, stupendous computation, right.

So, what looks like a type of consciousness, found in the translating electron, is not just an incredibly efficient way of computing, it is at the core of the efficiency of the world. Could it be the most primitive form, the atom of thinking?

Identifying fundamental quantum and fundamental thinking is an idea whose time has come… Philosophically speaking, in the most practical manner, it means that discursive logic will never cover the last mile…

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Very Tangential Observations:

  1. Albert Einstein ascribed properties to the photon, and the electron, which I claim, have not been observed (thus leading physics astray, straight into the Multiverse). However the ulterior formalism sort of implemented Einstein’s design (which is older than Einstein), attributing (sort of, or maybe not) a strict position to elementary particles… and was found to give excellent  results (namely QED, QCD, the “Standard Model”…) But Ptolemy too, gave good results. Thus, now, elementary particles are endowed with properties which, if I am right, are fake… It has often happened in science that a fake, or grossly incomplete theory will masquerade as true for a very long time: math is full of them (Non Euclidean geometry, etc.).
  2.  The example of Non-Euclidean geometry is revealing: it was abandoned for brain-dead Euclidean geometry… Why did those Hellenistic regime Greeks opt for that silly form of mathematics? Because their superiors, various kings and tyrants, prefered silly. Because geometry in the plane was easier, a case of looking for the keys only below the lampost, because it’s simpler, and one is drunk. Let’s not repeat the mistake of having only simple thoughts, in the case of pondering consciousness, just because our superiors prefer simple thoughts, and are drunk on their power… Soon to be extinguished in great balls of nuclear fire…

LOGIC IS MATERIAL

April 11, 2018

Logic doesn’t just matter, it is matter.

FUNDAMENTAL PROCESSES, INCLUDING COMPUTATIONS, LOGIC, ARE MATERIAL OBJECTS:

Is there something besides matter? No. What is matter? Ah, two types of things, corresponding to wave-particle duality… Or, as I put it often, process-quanta duality.

***

We should have come a long way in 24 centuries, yet some keep repeating ideas of Plato, an Athenian plutocrat. Plato (and his teacher Socrates and student Aristotle) had an extreme right wing agenda, much of it pursued later as the “Hellenistic” regimes (dictatorships), imperial fascist Roman Principate, and the rage against innovation. Plato’s metaphysics has much in common, if not everything, with Christianism (this explains its survival…)

And now for a word from this essay’s sponsor, the gentleman contradicting me. Robin Herbert replied to me: …”many don’t seem to grasp that the classical logics are not tied to any physical assumptions… the classical logics are not tied to any physical assumptions. I think the problem is that we have this term “classical physics” and another term “classical logic” and people think they are related. They aren’t.”

Are we that stupid? I guess, our enemies wish we were…

***

Only those who have never heard of Platonism would not be familiar with the notion that logic is not “material”: it is at the core of Plato’s view of the universe. And also at the core of Christianism, so help me not god!

I beg to oppose the dematerialization of logic. Differently from Plato, I have a careful observation of nature, Quantum theory, the mechanics of atomic theory, to back me up. Frankly, relative to what we know now, Plato is an ignorant twerp. So why the reverence for his antique antics? My unforgiving mood is driven in part by the observation that the Ancient Greeks had plenty of holes in their axiomatics… Especially in mathematics (where they made several ludicrous mistakes, such as forgetting non-Euclidean geometry, generations after discovering it).

If logic is not tied to “physics”, or what’s material, we want to know what that is. But, as I am going to show, all we do is go back to the Gospel of John as the ultimate authority (itself straight out of Plato!)

Twentieth Century physics has revealed that physics is made of “Fundamental Processes” (see the very nice, pre-QCD book by that title from Feynman)… And Quanta. The former, the processes, are described by waves, the second, those lumps of energy, by particles.

Thus, saying that “logic is not physics” is tantamount to saying that logic is neither a fundamental process (or set thereof), nor quanta (or set thereof).

Orbitals to an electron around a proton (the Hydrogen atom), visualized in 2013 (Phys. Review). What you are looking at is one electron, when it is delocalized. The electron is the cloud. The cloud is a process. The process is what an atom of hydrogen is, 99.9999999% of the time… At least…

There are several problems with such a claim: far from being immaterial, any logic shows up as quanta (aka “symbols”), and is itself a process (classical logic rests on implication, the simplest process:”if A then B”, and chains therefrom). Logic shows up as nothing else, so that’s what it is: a bunch of fundamental processes and quanta. This is the modern philosophy of physics, in action! (It originated with Newton and Laplace, and was then amplified by Jules Henri Poincaré)

There was a famous exchange between Heisenberg and Einstein; the latter, at the peak of his glory, accused the young Quantum physicist to have only put observables in his matrix quantum theory. Heisenberg coolly smirked back that it was Einstein who taught him to do so! (Constructively infuriated, ten years later Einstein rolled out the EPR thought experiment, alleging a contradiction between Quantum Mechanics and LOCAL “elements of reality“. The effect was relabeled “entanglement” by Schrödinger, now the central notion in Quantum theory… Einstein should have realized that it was this very delocalization which made atoms wholes…)    

So what’s “material”? What’s observable! And what is observable? (Delocalized) fundamental processes and (localized, yet ephemeral) quanta. Claiming that the logos is neither is (implicitly) done in the first sentence of the Gospel of John, and John adds that its name is god. We of the natural school shall excommunicate those evoking god. Those who claim “logic”, the logos, escapes nature (= physis) are just followers of whom John followed, namely Plato. They are Platocrats, a particular prototype of plutocrats…

Fundamental processes are described by equations, but that doesn’t mean the equations are “real”, beyond symbols (“quanta”) of a medium. First of all, equations are approximations: a classical computer can only make a finite number of operations (differently from a full Quantum computer, which works with a continuum, the circle S1). Instead what is really real is the fundamental process(es) the equations approximate.

Indeed, consider atoms: they are real, “indivisible” (sort of)… and yet mostly made of delocalized processes known as electronic orbitals.  It is the delocalization which creates the substance: see the picture above… 

So is a classical computation a real object, in the aforementioned sense? Yes, because it is a FINITE set of fundamental processes (moving electrons and photons around). However, if the proposed computation, or logical deduction, takes an infinite amount of time, it becomes something that never comes to exist. (That’s an allusion to a classical computer trying to duplicate Quantum computers; in the case of the chlorophyll molecule, no classical computer could do what the molecule, viewed as a Quantum computer, does!)

In this view, call it material logic, time, whether we want it or not, whether logicians realize it, or not, is an essential part of logic: the time-energy principle de facto granulates time (we need infinite energy for infinitely small time intervals, hence for would be infinite logical computations). To say time is not part of logic is another of these oversights (as Archimedes did, implicitly using what non-standard analysts, Robinson and Al. called “Archimedes Axiom”, which excludes infinitely small (or large) integral numbers). Any piece of logic comes with its own duration, namely how many steps it needs in its simplest form.   

Quantum computing uses one (hypothesized) infinity: the assumed instantaneity of what I call the Quantum Interaction (aka Quantum Collapse). That enables to delocalize Quantum logic (no distributive law of propositional logic!), as delocalized Quantum processes, and this is why it can’t be classically duplicated (aka “Quantum supremacy”).

Happy processes!

Patrice Aymé

Dwarf Galaxies Contradict Standard Cosmology, BUT NOT SQPR!

February 21, 2018

Standard Cosmology Threatened, SQPR Proven?

Cosmology matters, it has always mattered, ever since there are reasons, and we humans try to refine them. Cosmology is the laboratory of pure reason.

The standard cosmological model is called the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model. “Lambda” is for the Cosmological Constant, an invention of Albert Einstein (hey, you see, Albert invented a few things, on his own, contrarily to what he claimed in self-derision…). Lambda basically says that space, spacetime itself, could have an energy independent of the mass-energy tensor (the energy of all and any particles). Dark Matter, in that model, is assumed to be some, so far mysterious, thing, spread all about, right from the start. A type of particle, so far undiscovered (standard physicists would guess).

After the Big Bang, in the ΛCDM, the universe expands: light takes ever longer to go between the developing clumps of matter which will end up as galactic clusters. In these clumps, Dark Matter concentrates, like the rest. Dark Matter reacting only to gravity, it ends up forming the next generation, more concentrated clumps (it’s not held back by radiation pressure from lighting stars, ect.). These Dark Matter kernels in turn attract material which ends up more or less rotating (the bigger, the more rotation), and we call that galaxies. Dwarf galaxies stay irregular and often don’t rotate as flat disks. Giant galaxies such as the Milky Way, Andromeda and Centaurus A, rotate mightily, and find themselves with dozens of smaller galaxies as satellites.

Centaurus A (NGC 5128) is an unusual giant elliptical galaxy crossed by a dust lane. The yellow halo is made of billions of yellow stars. It is ten billion light years away (5 times further than Andromeda, and is the largest closest giant galaxy we can see, after Andromeda (others may be hidden by dust). It is accompanied by 16 Dwarf Galaxies rotating in the same plane as Centaurus A itself. Something absolutely not predicted by ΛCDM. Width of the picture is 16 arc minutes, half of the full moon (which 30 arc minutes, half a degree).

***

The ΛCDM model is, at first sight, impressive. Computer simulations of the model with observations are considered to be very successful on very large scales (larger than galactic clusters, up to the observable horizon). But  it has a “small scale crisis”:  too many dwarf galaxies, too much dark matter in the innermost regions of galaxies, too much Dark Matter halos (which are not observed). These small scales are harder to resolve in computer simulations, so it is not yet clear whether the problem is the simulations, non-standard properties of dark matter, or a more radical error in the model.

However, worse is now surfacing: the distribution of dwarf galaxies in a flat disk around their mother galaxy is absolutely not predicted by the ΛCDM paradigm.

ΛCDM predicts Dwarf Galaxies around a giant galaxy, but also predicts their orbits should be left to chance, there is not enough time since the Big bang to develop a huge rotation of the supergalactic cloud. ΛCDM says galaxies formed nearly instantaneously, after being torn on the outskirts by Dark Matter clumps which then make Dwarf Galaxies.

An international team of astronomers has determined that Centaurus A, a massive elliptical galaxy 13 million light-years from Earth, is accompanied by a number of dwarf satellite galaxies orbiting the main body in a narrow disk. This is the first time such a galactic arrangement has been observed outside the Local Group, home to the Milky Way, and anchored by it, Andromeda and the much smaller Triangulum galaxy. (By the way, it turns out that Andromeda is roughly the same size as the giant Milky Way, and not larger, as previously thought. The error came from overestimation of the Dark Matter in Andromeda, from too gross an application of the Virial Theorem. All this may have consequences for life in the universe, as it is easy to find reasons for zones in giant galaxies more hospitable for life, which less organized galaxies won’t have… But I digress.)

***

Dwarf galaxies move in unexpected ways in Milky Way, Andromeda and Centaurus A. This contradicts Standard Cosmology:

Giant galaxies like our Milky Way are orbited by satellite dwarf galaxies. Standard cosmological simulations of galaxy formation predict that these satellites should move randomly around their host. Müller et al. examined the satellites of the nearby elliptical galaxy Centaurus A. They found that the satellites are distributed in a planar arrangement, and 14 members of the plane (out of 16) are demonstrably orbiting in the same direction. This is inconsistent with more than 99.5% of comparable galaxies in simulations. Centaurus A, the Milky Way, and Andromeda all have highly statistically unlikely satellite systems. This observational evidence suggests that something is wrong with standard cosmological simulations.

In other words, ΛCDM predicts that there should be a halo of Dark matter and Dwarf Galaxies. There is not. (Whereas SQPR predicts planar structures, see below!)

“The significance of this finding is that it calls into question the validity of certain cosmological models and simulations as explanations for the distribution of host and satellite galaxies in the universe,” said co-author Marcel Pawlowski, “Hubble Fellow” in the Department of Physics & Astronomy at the University of California, Irvine.

He said that under the lambda cold dark matter model, smaller systems of stars should be more or less randomly scattered around their anchoring galaxies and should move in all directions. Yet Centaurus A is the third documented example, behind the Milky Way and Andromeda, of a “vast polar structure” in which satellite dwarves co-rotate around a central galactic mass in what Pawlowski calls “preferentially oriented alignment.

The difficulty of studying the movements of dwarf satellites around their hosts varies according to the target galaxy group. It’s relatively easy for the Milky Way. “You get proper motions,” Pawlowski said. “You take a picture now, wait three years or more, and then take another picture to see how the stars have moved; that gives you the tangential velocity.”

Using this technique, scientists have measurements for 11 Milky Way satellite galaxies, eight of which are orbiting in a tight disk perpendicular (!) to the spiral galaxy’s plane. There are probably other satellites in the system that can’t be seen from Earth because they’re blocked by the Milky Way’s dusty disk.

***

SQPR Versus ΛCDM:

To avoid the concept of Dark Matter, MOdified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) have been suggested. It seems to me clear that they don’t work. Moreover, MOND is an ad hoc explanation: have problem, invent specific axiomatics to solve problem. Besides solving what looks like Dark Matter, without Dark Matter, and this, only around galaxies, not during collisions, MOND has no reason for being. The more evidence piles up, the less plausible it looks.

My own theory, SQPR is quite the opposite. It is a MODIFIED Quantum Dynamics (MOQD): it predicts a Sub Quantum Reality, to make Quantum Mechanics logically complete, and causal, with a nonlocality that will not be as “spooky” (to use Einstein’s bon mot). SQPR predicts Dark Matter, and it predicts that Dark Matter is CREATED inside giant galaxies, just the same as Black Holes are created inside giant galaxies (at ten times the rate of growth inside smaller galaxies). So, with me, Dark matter becomes a Quantum effect. The exact predictions are these:

Young giant galaxies will have little Dark Matter. Dark Matter is emergent.

Dark Matter will form in disks… And Dwarf Galaxies too.

SQPRs predictions are completely different. But fit observations…

My scenario is this: giant gas clouds, galactic size, of normal matter, coalesce first from the pull of gravity. As they do, conservation of angular momentum will augment the rotation speed (there always will be some rotation to start with, it’s nearly the same phenomenon as in cyclones formation). Implosion of the galactic size cloud, in conjunction with the rise of angular speed, creates a flat disk. This disk will contain lumps in the outer zone: dwarf galaxies, similar to planet formation in a solar system. Meanwhile, the Quantum Interaction, at cosmological distance, will churn out Dark Matter.

So we will typically end up with a flat disk of Dwarf Galaxies rotating in the same plane as the growing disk of Dark Matter of the giant galaxy. (Notice that I predict Dwarf Galaxies will have less Dark Matter, in the typical case).

Objectors may brandish the fact that the Dwarf Galaxy disk of the Milky Way is perpendicular, a glaring contradiction with my model. Well, my retort to that: something happened which yanked one relative to the other. The local group contains more than 54 galaxies, and it’s not even clear the large ones have all been found out, because of Milky Way dust: so a large galaxy passing by could have disrupted the dynamics of the Milky Way with its Dwarf Galaxy disk. There are plenty of observations such vast distortions between galaxies (and in the Solar System, Uranus can be contemplated, whose rotation axis is perpendicular to that of all the other planets, and where common sense would put it, perpendicular to ecliptic: clearly something big and weird happened which rotated the rotation axis spectacularly; by the way, Mars rotation axis also wobble spectacularly, although it’s coincidentally the exact same angle on the elliptic as Earth’s, right now, another spectacular coincidence (strange occurrences are not a proof of the existence of gods; however the case of Dwarf Galaxies, considered here, is 3/3… And actually more, and it becomes very statistically significant, if we look at the set of all Dwarf Galaxies around MW, A, Centaurus A).

***

Mavericks, such as yours truly argue that, like much modern physics, and related to that, the ΛCDM model is built upon an intricate foundation of conventionalist stratagems, rendering it unfalsifiable in the sense promoted by Karl Popper. Mavericks have to be taken seriously: several experts howled, for many decades, that there was Dark Matter. They were viewed as having fallen to the Dark Side (naturally enough). Then a serious mathematician called Segal pointed out that there was a Dark Energy problem: the cosmic acceleration itself accelerated, he insisted, and wrote an entire very serious book about it. In spite, or because of, these graves accusations, the entire field was ignored for more than 50 years (entire books about Dark Matter and the accelerating acceleration of the universe, were discarded as cranks): governments prefered to finance militarily useful physics (“high energy” physics) rather than potentially revolutionary physics.   

Anyway, things are quickly coming to a head. Astronomy is finally getting financed much more than it used to be. Astronomy, experimentation contemplated, on the largest scale, is shattering physics. Noble high energy physicists were studying only 5% of the universe, says astronomy…

ΛCDM says Dark Matter was always there. I suggest instead that it was created, by standard Mass-Energy and how (as Black Holes were created, albeit from a Quantum, not gravitational, mechanism). We will see. First we see, then we think.

Patrice Aymé

Perverse Logic: Saving the Multiverse with Unhinged Cosmic Inflation!

February 1, 2018

When The Unobservable Universe Is Used To Justify Various Follies, Such As The Multiverse, Civilization Is In A Bad Way:

Physics is the laboratory of reason. This where the most advanced, most subtle logics are forged (even more so than in pure mathematics, where the navel’s importance is too great). So what physicists ponder, matters to the entire civilization which nurtures them. When physics goes to the dogs, so does civilization. The follies of state of the art theoretical physics, reflect an ambient madness which pervades civilization. (If you don’t believe this, may I sell you some imaginary bitcoins for millions of dollars?)

Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel, a continual source of excellent articles in physics, wrote an interesting essay which I disagree with. His reasons are interesting, and have the merit of honesty. My answers are even more striking, and I bring the full weight of 24 centuries of history as meta-evidence for crushing the feeble, pathetic, short-sighted considerations of my fellow physicists. Ethan’s essay is entitled: “Yes, The Multiverse Is Real, But It Won’t Fix Physics
Surprisingly, the evidence points towards the existence of the unobservable multiverse. But it isn’t the answer you’re looking for.

Ethan proposes to use cosmic inflation to provide for the proliferation of Schrödinger cats and Wigner’s friends. One folly would thus provide for the other, and they would thus stay up, like two drunks falling into each other’s arms. I will instead humbly suggest to do away with madness altogether. But first a little recap.

The universe is expanding. This experimental evidence was established around 1920, by a number of astronomers in Europe and the USA, the most famous of whom was lawyer turned astronomer, Edwin Hubble. Hubble had the biggest telescope. The expansion is presumed to be looking everywhere the same, and this is what seems to be observed. That also means that, if one looks far away, galaxies will seem to be receding from us at speed ever closer to the speed of light. As the apparent speed of these galaxies approach c, their light gets shifted to lower and lower frequencies, until they become invisible (same reason as why Black Holes are blacker than black).

Where the transition to invisibility occurs is called the “event horizon”. Beyond the event horizon is the unobservable universe (we can’t detect it gravitationally, as gravity goes at the speed of light, a theoretical prediction now experimentally verified).

The observed universe is “flat” (namely there is no detected distortion in the distribution of clouds, filaments and superclusters of galaxies). That sounds unlikely, and indicates that the observed universe is a tiny portion of a much larger whole.

This unobservable universe has nothing to do with the “Multiverse” brandished recently by many theoretical physicists who have apparently run out of imagination for something more plausible. Eighty years ago, Schrödinger pointed out that Quantum Mechanics, as formalized then (and now!) was observer dependent, and filled up the universe with waves of dead and live cats (when applied to macroscopic objects). That’s called the Schrödinger Cat Paradox. Instead of calling for a re-thinking of Quantum Mechanics (as I do!), Ethan Siegel (and many other physicists and astrophysicists) embrace the dead and alive cats, settling them in “parallel universes”. So basically they reenact Solomon Judgment: instead of cutting the baby in two, they cut the universe in two. Zillions of time per second, in zillions of smaller places than you can possibly imagine… Here is a picture of Schrödinger cat: as the branches separate in that movie, two universes are created. This is what Ethan Siegel wants to justify, thanks to cosmic inflation…

Ethan’s revealing comment: “The idea of parallel Universes, as applied to Schrödinger’s cat. As fun and compelling as this idea is, without an infinitely large region of space to hold these possibilities in, even inflation won’t create enough Universes to contain all the possibilities that 13.8 billion years of cosmic evolution have brought us. Image credit: Christian Schirm.”
To explain crazy, we will go more crazy, thus making the previous crazy sound more rational, relatively speaking…

The Multiverse”, with baby universes all over the universe, has more to do with the “Many Worlds Interpretation” of Quantum Mechanics, a theory so absurd that the great popes of physics ruling around 1960 rejected it outright. Wheeler was ashamed of himself for having had a PhD student, Everett, who suggested this folly(Everett couldn’t get an academic job, at a time when academic employment in physics was booming!)

Ethan wrote: “In the region that became our Universe, which may encompass a large region that goes far beyond what we can observe, inflation ended all-at-once. But beyond that region, there are even more regions where it didn’t end.”

This sort of statement, and I say this with all due respect to the divine, is equivalent to saying:”Me, Ethan, having checked all that exists, observable by simple humans, or not, thereby informs you that I am either God, or that She is an interlocutor of mine. We checked that cosmic inflation thing, and saw it all over all the possible universes. Don’t talk, just learn.”

There is no way for us humans to know, for sure, or not, what is going on beyond the observable universe (aside from having no gravitational field distortions when approaching the event horizon, as I said above when considering “flatness”).

Ethan notices that Many Worlds fanatics have tried to use cosmic inflation to save their (ridiculous) theory. (“Many Worlds” is ridiculous, as Schrödinger tried to show, long ago, because there would be as many ways to cut the universes into “Many Worlds” as there are observers. So, so to speak, the “Many World Interpretation”, call it MWI, is actually MWI ^ {Observers} (MWI to the power of the set of all possible Observers, the latter set being itself something of an uncountably infinite function of MWI.)

Ethan says: “But just because variants of the Multiverse are falsifiable, and just because the consequences of its existence are unobservable, doesn’t mean that the Multiverse isn’t real. If cosmic inflation, General Relativity, and quantum field theory are all correct, the Multiverse likely is real, and we’re living in it.

What Ethan is saying is that if a number of crazy (cosmic inflation), or incomplete (Quantum Field Theory), ideas are “all correct”, then something as useful as angels on pin heads is real.Yes, indeed, if one believes that Muhammad flew to Jerusalem on a winged horse (!), one may as well believe all the rest of the Qur’an. That is a proof by crystal balls. After Ptolemy and company had established their (half correctly) predicting “epicycles” theory, one could have used it in turn to “prove” Aristotle ridiculous theory of motion.

23 centuries ago a much saner theory existed, that of Aristarchus. It was rejected at the time, precisely because it was not insane, and even though it was used to make a nearly correct prediction of the distance of the Moon. Aristarchus underestimated the distance of the Sun, but a telescope could have changed this (by showing more precisely the angle of the terminus on the Moon). If astronomers had the time had accepted heliocentrism as a possibility, it would have led them to invent the telescope. Similarly, right now, rejecting Many Worlds and Multiverse will lead to develop instruments which don’t exist yet (I have proposed at least one).

Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel suggests that: “The Multiverse is real, but provides the answer to absolutely nothing.” My opinion is that the Multiverse is worse than useless: the unhinged mood it provides prevents to develop more fruitful avenues of research, both theoretically and experimentally.

Insanity is the rule in crowds (Nietzsche). Thus follies are the truths crowds love, at first sight, before being corrected by higher minds. Why? Follies bind, because they are so special.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/02/20/commonly-accepted-delusions-follies-that-bind/

In Aristarchus’ times, heliocentrism, the fact Earth and its Moon rotate around the Sun, should have been obvious. Indeed, people, let’s think for a moment: where was the Sun supposed to be, considering the phases of the Moon? If the Sun turned around Earth, the Moon’s illumination should have changed all day long! It didn’t require much geometrical analysis to discover that this source of light could only be where Aristarchus computed it to be, far away from the Earth-Moon system.

It took 19 centuries to correct that (obvious!) mistake. Interestingly, Jean Buridan, circa 1350 CE, did it in the most theoretical fashion.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2016/03/20/momentum-force-inertia-middle-ages-buridan/

Buridan first showed that Aristotle’s ridiculous theory of motion made no sense, and had to be replaced by inertia and momentum (what Buridan called “impetus”). Having done this, the motion of the planets in a heliocentric system could be explained by “circular impetus”, Buridan pointed out (then he observed sardonically that we couldn’t observe the difference between epicycles and heliocentrism, so may as well go for “Scripture”).

Similarly, nowadays, instead of arguing with the “angels on a multiverse pinhead” authorities, we better point out to the glaring inconsistencies of Quantum Mechanics.

Civilization without reason is like a chicken without a head: it can run, but not forever.

Patrice Aymé

Discrepancy In Universe’s Expansion & Quantum Interaction

January 17, 2018

In “New Dark Matter Physics Could Solve The Expanding Universe Controversy“, Ethan Siegel points out that:

“Multiple teams of scientists can’t agree on how fast the Universe expands. Dark matter may unlock why.
There’s an enormous controversy in astrophysics today over how quickly the Universe is expanding. One camp of scientists, the same camp that won the Nobel Prize for discovering dark energy, measured the expansion rate to be 73 km/s/Mpc, with an uncertainty of only 2.4%. But a second method, based on the leftover relics from the Big Bang, reveals an answer that’s incompatibly lower at 67 km/s/Mpc, with an uncertainty of only 1%. It’s possible that one of the teams has an unidentified error that’s causing this discrepancy, but independent checks have failed to show any cracks in either analysis. Instead, new physics might be the culprit. If so, we just might have our first real clue to how dark matter might be detected.

20 years ago it was peer-reviewed published, by a number of teams that we were in an ever faster expanding universe (right). The Physics Nobel was given for that to a Berkeley team and to an Australian team. There are now several methods to prove this accelerating expansion, and they (roughly) agree.

Notice the striking differences between different models in the past; only a Universe with dark energy matches our observations. Possible fates of the expanding Universe which used to be considered were, ironically enough, only the three on the left, which are now excluded.  Image credit: The Cosmic Perspective / Jeffrey O. Bennett, Megan O. Donahue, Nicholas Schneider and Mark Voit.

Three main classes of possibilities for why the Universe appears to accelerate have been considered:

  1. Vacuum energy, like a cosmological constant, is energy inherent to space itself, and drives the Universe’s expansion. (This idea comes back to Einstein who introduced a “Cosmological Constant” in the basic gravitational equation… To make the universe static, a weird idea akin to crystal sphere of Ptolemaic astronomy; later Einstein realized that, had he not done that, he could have posed as real smart by predicting the expansion of the universe… So he called it, in a self-congratulating way, his “greatest mistake”… However, in the last 20 years, the “greatest mistake” has turned to be viewed as a master stroke…).
  2. Dynamical dark energy, driven by some kind of field that changes over time, could lead to differences in the Universe’s expansion rate depending on when/how you measure it. (Also called “quintessence”; not really different from 1), from my point of view!)
  3. General Relativity could be wrong, and a modification to gravity might explain what appears to us as an apparent acceleration. (However, the basic idea of the theory of gravitation is so simplest, it’s hard to see how it could be wrong, as long as one doesn’t introduce Quantum effects… Which is exactly what I do! In my own theory, said effect occur only at large cosmic distances, on the scale of large galaxies)

Ethan: “At the dawn of 2018, however, the controversy over the expanding Universe might threaten that picture. Our Universe, made up of 68% dark energy, 27% dark matter, and just 5% of all the “normal” stuff (including stars, planets, gas, dust, plasma, black holes, etc.), should be expanding at the same rate regardless of the method you use to measure it. At least, that would be the case if dark energy were truly a cosmological constant, and if dark matter were truly cold and collisionless, interacting only gravitationally. If everyone measured the same rate for the expanding Universe, there would be nothing to challenge this picture, known as standard (or “vanilla”) ΛCDM.

But everyone doesn’t measure the same rate.”

The standard, oldest, method of measuring the Hubble cosmic expansion rate is through a method known as the cosmic distance ladder. The simplest version only has three rungs. First, you measure the distances to nearby stars directly, through parallax, the variation of the angle of elevation during the year, as the Earth goes around its orbit. Most specifically you measure the distance to the long-period Cepheid stars like this. Cepheids are “standard candles”; they are stars whose luminosities vary, but their maximum power doesn’t, so we can know how far they are by looking how much they shine. Second, you then measure other properties of those same types of Cepheid stars in nearby galaxies, learning how far away those galaxies are. And lastly, in some of those galaxies, you’ll have a specific class of supernovae known as Type Ia supernovae. Those supernovae explode exactly when they accrete 1.4 solar mass, from another orbiting star (a theory of Indian Nobel Chandrasekhar, who taught at the University of Chicago). One can see these 1a supernovae all over the universe. Inside the Milky Way, as well as many of billions of light years away. With just these three steps, you can measure the expanding Universe, arriving at a result of 73.24 ± 1.74 km/s/Mpc.

The other methods makes all sorts of suppositions about the early universe. I view it as a miracle that it is as close as it is: 66.9 km/s/Megaparsec…

Ethan concludes that: “Currently, the fact that distance ladder measurements say the Universe expands 9% faster than the leftover relic method is one of the greatest puzzles in modern cosmology. Whether that’s because there’s a systematic error in one of the two methods used to measure the expansion rate or because there’s new physics afoot is still undetermined, but it’s vital to remain open-minded to both possibilities. As improvements are made to parallax data, as more Cepheids are found, and as we come to better understand the rungs of the distance ladder, it becomes harder and harder to justify blaming systematics. The resolution to this paradox may be new physics, after all. And if it is, it just might teach us something about the dark side of the Universe.”

My comment: The QUANTUM INTERACTION CHANGES EVERYTHING:

My own starting point is a revision of Quantum Mechanics: I simply assume that Newton was right (that’s supposed to be a joke, but with wisdom attached). Newton described his own theory of gravitation to be absurd (the basic equation, F = M1 M2/dd. where d was the distance was from a French astronomer, Ishmael Boulliau, as Newton himself said. Actually this “Bullaldius” then spoiled his basic correct reasoning with a number of absurdities which Newton corrected).

Newton was actually insulting against his own theory. He said no one with the slightest understanding of philosophy would assume that gravitation was instantaneous.

Newton’s condemnation was resolved by Laplace, a century later. Laplace just introduced a finite speed for the propagation of the gravitational field. That implied gravitational waves, for the same reason as a whip makes waves.

We are in a similar situation now. Present Quantum Physics assumes that the Quantum Interaction (the one which carries Quantum Entanglement) is instantaneous. This is absurd for exactly the same reason Newton presented, and Laplace took seriously, for gravitation.

Supposing that the Quantum Interaction has a finite speed (it could be bigger than 10^23c, where c is the speed of light.

Supposing this implies (after a number of logical and plausible steps) both Dark Matter and Dark Energy. It is worth looking at. But let’s remember the telescope (which could have been invented in antiquity) was invented not to prove that the Moon was not a crystal ball, but simply to make money (by distinguishing first which sort of cargo was coming back from the Indies).

We see what we want to see, because that’s we have been taught to see, we search what we want to search, because that’s what we have been taught to search. Keeping an open mind is great, but a fully open mind is a most disturbing thing… 

Patrice Aymé