Collapsing the wave function

=============
 (Would you hubris on that?)

 [rf2]   Also,  if QM is fundamental or a close approximation of partial fundamental, wouldn't we naturally observe quantum effects or quantum-like effects at various enfolded resonance points?  I mean, photovoltaics are macro-physical as are the stacked nested structured~duality  of Higgs-boson detectors.    So, from my perspective, stacks of magnets exhibit the alleged quant effects ~because reality is nested structured~duality  (NSD). If I add extra hubris, I suppose the quantum effects actually turn out to be NSD effects, manifesting at different scales...

Excerpt from post in  https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/EpjvabjxXuA   Sep 27, 2017
=============



Thanks, Paul.   To try to stay clear, your last expressions are marked [pw1 and my current reply is [rf2].

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 10:29:34 AM UTC-4, paul.werbos wrote:

Hi, Ralph!

Things may be confusing to others, due to the old issue of who said what. 

So let me tighten a bit:

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Also, with that stated I am afraid I must admit to having impressions on
>> measurement, collapse, and ~how 'consciousness' may have gotten injected
>> into the physics description to begin with from features in my own rather
>> odd 'NSD analog model'.  I sketch this out below. ....... [giving a concrete experiment example]
>>
>
>
[pw1] PW: > I don't immediately see how true quantum mechanical effects could be in play
> here. Karl Pribram like you was also intrigued by the use of quantum
> mechanics as a kind of metaphor,  of varying precision, for classical
> systems like general brain organization. But at this moment, I am sorry I
> can't say more.

[rf]  Are the  true quantum effects you refer to:  tunneling,
confinement, exhibiting discrete energy levels (like w/ line spectra),
jumping from one energy level to others,  influences of increments of
one-half spin, having two ways to express one thing, exhibiting
'particle-like' AND 'wave-like' behaviors?  Those type of things?


[rf] I have puzzled over ~this, too.  If "Quantum mechanics (QM; also known
as quantum physics or quantum theory), including quantum field theory,
is a branch of physics which is the fundamental theory of nature at
the small scales and energy levels of atoms and subatomic particles "
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics ),  then how is it
that stacks of magnets exhibit quantum or quantum-like behaviors and
can exhibit and convey  some appreciation for at least some of the
small-scale quantum effects?

=======

[pw1] Because I can't afford to really dig into the example you gave this morning.. I can only guess.

[pw1] But I certainly remember folks who talk about "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle" in discussing totally classical phenomena (like how government measurement of economic data can change the data themselves). SOME of the things which people discuss in concrete examples in quantum theory are actually general things which exist at a classical level. Another important example is the similarity between quantum mechanical coherence (or entanglement) and simple statistical correlation, which is quite common in the classical world as well. In fact, that's my first guess as to what might be happening in your example, but it's just a wild hunch, no specific logic involved. 

 [rf2] There's not that much to dig into in my prior three-four paragraph account.  I recall reading years ago that magnets and magnetic fields don't have a classical definition/description, but ~only have a non-classical or quantum mechanical one. You'd likely know better on that than I.  So, on my side, that item seems part of the 'explanation'.   Also,  in my own experiments with two handheld magnets, I observe there are two ways to obtain repulsion (differing in increments of one-half spin). That is the finding. If I do not get too anxious and resort to convention to metaphorically 'collapse the uncomfortable dualic informational wave function' and correlate or apply the ancient north-south navigational labelling/knowledge so as to  make the dualic thing appear to be two separate, more well-defined and less ambiguous   items, then I am perhaps someplace back in science history, as in like Faraday's era, holding evidence of spin- and structure-related wave-particle artifacts and behavior, but lacking or awaiting a bootload of important vocabulary.  Yet,  applying the ad hoc labelling convention is not a complete or absolute fix, which is sort of evident looking at the structured~duality of  diagrams of Hall effect detectors, or considering that results would vary from planetary system to planetary system depending upon the odd or even number of enfolding magnetic fields between the two systems (or local procedural choices). 

   [rf2]   Also,  if QM is fundamental or a close approximation of partial fundamental, wouldn't we naturally observe quantum effects or quantum-like effects at various enfolded resonance points?  I mean, photovoltaics are macro-physical as are the stacked nested structured~duality  of Higgs-boson detectors.    So, from my perspective, stacks of magnets exhibit the alleged quant effects ~because reality is nested structured~duality  (NSD). If I add extra hubris, I suppose the quantum effects actually turn out to be NSD effects, manifesting at different scales...

>
[pw1] > PW: The choice of polarization angles θa and θb and θc is extremely important
> but not unconscious.
[rf] Who picks, and when? Or do you mean such angles are related w/
other features?

[pw1] When Clauser and Holt designed and set up the very first Bell's Theorem experiments, they set up specific sets of choices for 

θa and θb, so that the results of the experiment would be decisive in discriminating between "quantum mechanics" and "local, causal, hidden variable theories" 

according to the theorem they and their collaborators had proven. (I would imagine they thought about possible choices even as they proved the theorem.) To get the story more precisely than this, simply look up their paper which I cite in the arxiv papers whose URL I sent you. 

So Clauser and Holt who physically set up the experiment did physically select θa and θb for each run of the experiment,  by manipulating the polarizers in their apparatus.

For the all-angles triphoton experiment which I proposed at www.werbos.com/triphoton.pdf (published in Quantum Information Processing), I show how 

different triple counting rates are predicted for different choices of the set of angles θa and θb and θc according to the old time-forward collapse model of the polarizer and the new time-symmetric models. When Yanhua Shih asserted he knew how to build a source of triply entangled photons (as he had in the past!), I funded him from NSF to do that experiment among others, and he chose sets of angles which could differentiate between the two prediction formulas, as shown in

http://drpauljohn.blogspot.com/2016/02/new-experiment-as-important-as.html. I was a bit shocked when he decided not to publish his results, or even to give me full access to them, as he had promised not only to me but to NSF. Certainly the graduate student who did the work, from a village in China near Mao's birthplace, was a key player in all that.

 [rf2]  Did they just lie or fail, badly, or discover something disruptive?

[rf] Your MQED is some type of nested apparatus, isn't it? ,,,Reliant
upon nested structure(s) or relationships?

[pw1] You did mention the mathematical relation between t, psi(t) and either Pr(psi(t)) or rho(t). That could be considered to be a kind of nesting, though the same applies to 

David Deutsch's many-worlds assumptions and other versions of QED.

   [rf2] Like I said, reality is nested structured~duality  (NSD). It's the underlying general principle. 

[rf] I think my general beef with the dominant scientific model is really a
lot more with it being an instance of NSD that begins with and
enforces the initial condition of the Cartesian XYZ-cubic notion of
distance in three orthogonal directions and therein instantiates the
imagined xyz-empty space container, with compensating epi-cycles.
Initial conditions influence outcomes, and just look around! Yes, it's
a handy approximation, but anomalies accrue into large stacks of
overwhelming unintended consequences.

[pw1] Yes, all versions of QED including MQED treat "space" as a Euclidean three-dimensional space, with attached analysis to show that their predictions will

not violate special relativity. All people using QED quickly say it is not a theory of everything, and they support in principle the efforts to unify it with gravity and nuclear forces, though there is no consensus on how to do that. 

[pw1] But there are no epicycles required by adherence to special relativity as such. It is as mathematically clear, consistent and elegant as humanity has ever produced, unless you count words which are grossly incomplete and thus unable to predict experiments. 

[rf2]  Pardon me if I seem/ed to disrespect really fine statements made by some of your tribes' priest-kings.  When I refer to epi-cycles, I'm referring to something like:

1. Assume the xyz-cube empty space,

2. Oops, add absolute time,

3. Oops, make that relative time,

4. Oops, relative curvy space-time 

5. Oops, in small-scale one-half spin related multiple states...

Now, within that bubble or in the various valleys on those shifting paradigmatic tectonic plates I have some appreciation, vaguely, sort of, that the abstract math recipes and incantations have been and do polish up well with complementary measures made within the 3+1 and various other structures also specified within that bubble.  My beef, like I said, more or less is with the Cartesian xyz-cubic empty container initial conditioning, which, from my perspective, biases and slants the gameboard in a terribly convoluted and deeply unhelpful manner.  The empty container syndrome is not so accurate. The xyz-cube relations apparently is nice for abstract mathings, but the count on many life- and surroundings-significant components is wildly tilted towards tetrahedral structure as actually being 'natural'.   Thus, the educational question, worse than metrification in the west, is re-orienting education to start out  with tetrahedral coordination prior to adding the cubic imagery. Again,  I'm talking about initial conditions being important and also starting out rather directly with a four-dimensional orientation. 

[rf1] But, specifically, I'm referencing starting out with the analog math of the five ways to align four rod magnets along the radii of tetrahedron.  This gives, n4,n3s,n2s2,ns3,s4 -- five states exhibiting variable mass density, differing by increments of one-half spin. These five patterns also model the look and feel of  sp^3 hybridized molecular bonds -- water, organic chemistry, etc., -- ourselve and our surroundings. 

 

[pw1] One of the key issues which would drive me to something deeper than MQED or other forms of QED is the ADDITIONAL assumption that physical particles are perfect points of zero radius in "space", which does lead to a requirement for renormalization and regularization which I do view as being as ugly as epicycles.

[rf2] Sort of like nesting space within space and forgetting wave-particle in all particles.   

 

[pw1] But the other key issue is that "space" as in your last statement is not really the mathematical space assumed in MQED or in the older KQED many-worlds version. (Actually, the Feynmann and Glimm-Jaffe and Streater-Wightmann versions of QED work directly over Minkowski 3+1-D space, not 3D space.) MQED and KQED represent the space of the cosmos as an infinite dimensional Fock-Hilbert space, constructed mathematically by a kind of iteration or induction OVER the old Euclidean kind of space. If the resulting many-worlds dynamics looked natural, and if there had been no need for renormalization, I would have taken such theories more seriously as possible
"laws of everything", but they don't, not if you look closely at that Schrodinger equation to see what it really says. 

[rf2] Again, pardon my criticism, but notice the "3+1" and the resorting to nesting OVER Euclidean space and resorting to infinite-dimensional whatever...   Something is amiss in the lower levels of that set of epi-cycles. 

 

[pw1] But the best hope for a fix, as I see more and more after many years, is actually an Einsteinian kind of theory which IS grounded in curved Minkowski space

(easily integrated with Einstein's general relativity). That gets rid of both "epicycles". 

[pw1] There is a kind of nesting, here, between that deeper theory and MQED, just as there is between Newtonian gravity and general relativity. Part of the Great Chain of Approximation, which is closely related to the great Chain of Being. 

[rf2] I sort of think that ALL alternatives that rely upon or invoke one item of abstract math are automatically ~wrong. [Not just because I sure lack the abstract math ability to contribute in that area.]  That is,  look and/or feel around at ALL the instances of quantum gravity in the local region. They are ALL running in the analog math, within the nested fields within nested fields -- even within our internal primary analog math and nested structural coding. So, as soon as one invokes an abstract math symbol they've already resorted to the secondary math and invoked secondary, non- or a-synchronous representations into the model that is supposed to be a little bit representative of the on-going synchronous quantum gravity.  Abstract math breaks the model. Analog math doesn't.  That is 'round about way of  saying again that empirical is still the proof of the pudding.   Also, no doubt there are many abstract approximations.

[rf2] Not that it is helpful in your quest, but the closest I might offer toward any abstract math is the story about taking the total edge length of a tetrahedron, L, and adding increments of L, using each to connect the mid-points of the prior edges of tetrahedra. The first increment creates four tetrahedra stacked about a central octahedron (within the initial tetrahedron).  Adding another L, splits each of the four smaller tetrahedra each into  four tetrahedra stacked about a central octahedron.....  etc.,  on downward, or inward. If you make the rule to discard octahedral volume and only account for tetrahedral area, then  adding increments (quanta), the area stays constant as the volume tends to zero. It's like a poorman's introductory incremental math model (which I attribute to R. Buckminster Fuller.)  

[rf] If you had a choice AND could have both, which initial condition would
you choose?

[pw1] Am not so clear about what you are really asking here.

[rf2] Don't you mind read ill-stated phrases scrawled at wee hours?   My question, I believe, is about intelligent people making  choices on the initial conditions in early science education.  I observe the current standard or dominant path is to start with the Cartesian cube/subject-object instance and along the STEM path,  basically repeat and replicate the 380+ years of development  of  the ~Newtonian, relativistic, quantum electro-dynamic phases.     An alternative path diverging in the woods, and certainly less traveled by -- call it STEM2, would initialize with the magnetic tetrahedra to rather instantly provide and establish physical intuition on multiple states and variable mass density, plus the patterns of self and surrounding BEFORE introducing cubic and related xyz abstract math. ...Most likely also diminishing the "empty container syndrome",  and then backfilling or stepping through the classical and then non-classical science history.  

[rf2] Perhaps a question to you, since you obviously fared very well along the standard path, is   what might you guess if the ordering was changed in your education?   Would you have been hurt by acquiring some common physical intuition on some 'quantum effects' and tetrahedral patterns at the start of your education rather than, say, later or at the end of it?

[rf2] ....~if you had a choice AND could have both, which initial condition (magnetic tetrahedral w/ some physical intuition followed by abstract math  vs. cube/subject-object with abstract math to start and perhaps some physical intuition later, or not),  ...which would you choose?

Best regards,

   Ralph