NTuft

Did you do this your self? I don't know it, but I think you had a computer work on re-doing Platonic solids inside of closed circles. Have to get through recent posts, apology.

correction post-edit time: I appreciate the heads/tails dollar\euro quantum money business and various other efforts. Quote from second article, both cite work by: Arkani-Hamed, N., et al.

I do not think we can give Relativity a free-ride-along and hold to QM interpretations re: unitarity. Furthermore I think the reverence for R. is colouring any admissions for faster than light signaling, that R. is given here the preferred reference frame, but here in Speculations we should be free to drop it and say we want a preferred frame where particles are already moving at c and v>c is possible thereby opening up non-local interaction. I want to leave this by the way-side now and impart more in the state of matter in a singularity thread on this aspect. But, to get to unitarity and strict locality... Here, is this the squaring of the amplitudes, squaring of the Psi modulus, or multiplication by the complex conjugate? To quote wikipedia on Local Realism as mentioned by mitcher, and on Counterfactual definiteness(CFD), So ths is the Cramer interpretation that bangstrom has repeatedly referenced, where he takes the opposite tack of what joigus seems to insist -- and will do away with CFD instead of locality. SD referenced seems to be SuperDeterminism. Quoting from Consistent Histories, as espoused by Murray Gell-Mann, So I think there is no consensus here. Furthermore, I've read it that there is a growing consensus that both unitarity and locality are problematic. See, A jewel at the heart of quantum physics, "The amplituhedron, or a similar geometric object, could help by removing two deeply rooted principles of physics: locality and unitarity." Well, I do not like your superpositin business. I think what needs examining is the Hilbert space where the unitarity of the Schrodinger equation. It's been said the Schrodinger equation exists to enforce unitarity. A loosening of unitarity mentioned in the article is isometry, which can be seen there to be equivalent to moving the 2-D complex plane to a 3-D sphere where the 'superposition' now has a new degree of freedom. It makes more sense to me that the Schrodinger equation requires the removal of measuring the phase of the wave, reducing/removing dimensionality for the sake of ease of calculations -- the shorthand you seem to use by saying the Wave equation is not a physical object. However, Heisenberg's matrices and density matrices preserve the phase aspect of the wave. There is a question posed by the amplituhedron, which is able to represent tremendous amounts of Feynmann diagrams. Is the mathematical basis of QM not accounting adequately for other dimensions, possibly confounded as hidden variables, and does QM treatment of time symmetry (unitarity) follow along behind R. space-time block universe or is there an alternative formulation? I think we can say that amplitude in a wave is like the magnitude, or the height displacement, but I'm sure you know that... Yes, what it represents objectively in QM seems to be a core issue. Again, to re-iterate, I think you are set upon dismissing non-locality but O.K., then you must get rid of CFD; and logically, I do not think one is superior to the other, but in this realm as understood by most perhaps our normal logic does not apply. Phew. R.+? We can't have a preferred ref. frame here?? I think you mean Relativity, which is a classical model, but not necessary all classical models outlaw "action-at-a-distance", non-locality, faster than light comm., etc. I think of Feynmann's path-integral formulations to be an alternative to Schrodinger's wave or Heisenberg's matrix mechanics so someone please re-educate that stance if necessary. Also, I know you don't answer direct questions, but do please clarify for a short-cut: is Cramer's theory SD (SuperDeterminism)? Further, from reading here, the W-F absorber is very interesting, because I thought Feynmann in particular wanted to formulate time asymmetry, e.g. by looking at friction. Separability in time? Whether something is instantaneous. Of course it's doubtful we get that under R. "You need antiparticles if you want to guarantee locality and causality". I think Dirac needed antiparticles because he needed unitarity? 🤪 Wow, yes, more maths please. This I think is on track with the loosening of unitarity a la isometry: the normal constraint is to transitions that add to 1 on the (complex) unit sphere in (abstract) Hilbert space. It's been posited that the addition of 1 dimension, circle->sphere, is not going far enough in removing unitarity, but I think we need more math to, in effect, maintain the unitarity and the seemingly valid stochastic results while loosing it from a 2-D plane that facilitates the calculatons. We might need to get into lattice gauges, Wick rotations; but I'm probably being unrealstic to peform like I know what I'm asking. It may tie in with the Amplituhedron, to speculate... In keeping with your philosophical approach, I think we must establish first principles, and I for one do not have a handle on the basic math assumptions that underpin QM, so I strongly recommend you do not completely accept what rolls out, if you don't either. Second, if you like your experiment, I suggest that all you need is a preferred, objective and not-subjective translatable reference frame from the midpoint of where your experimental photons were released. You could look at Proper Time Geometry speculations by Carl Brennan on replacing SR with a different derivation coming from Lorentz's ether theory that does not have the second postulate of SR. But, i likely misunderstand your experimental problem. I think of modelling a system of particles akin to the "ropes" that bangstrom mentioned, but more like quantum harmonic oscillators whose entanglement exists in an extra-dimensional space currently not accounted for by local Hilbert space that underpins most QM formulations. Perhaps, but are they present in the mathematics? I can't parse everything you bring, but, will you say you reject realism, since you hold locality? Are you meaning to say SR classical view? Why do you say again classical does not permit superluminal? I thought it did, as others mentioned. Please! Very specifically, even though you don't answer questions/requests, cite this material and it's interpretations!!! I hope you can see I've tried to keep track of multi-quotes. Please expound on this. Does closed vs. open have any relation to Wave equation/function vs. density/probablity Matrix mechanics? Conversely, one denies superluminal signals by the assumption that a positive-valued probability distribution is the valid description, which is someone else's assertion I can't find reference to at the moment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality#Quantum_mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_definiteness S.E. “literal purpose in life is to enforce unitarity,”, from QuantaMagazine article on Amplituhedron

+1, studiot Also second mentions by exchemist, and the point towards Heisenberg's wiki article by MigL. I'd point to the section, "Matrix mechanics and the Nobel Prize", where Born and Jordan get honorable mention for formalizing Heisenberg's work.

Large-scale milk sugars and grow guns, oh my. If it were so, and one had lactase, one might be... a galaxydestroyer. Are you been shanghaied?? How is it not Friday there already.

Preferred reference frame? is this like dt2 = ds2 + dx2 + dy2 + dz2, or Lorentzian ether theory? waht, is it J/J now? or is that some weird natural units. action, quanta , relevent to bh What is there was variation in the speed of light? Or, if in your preferred reference frame, everything was moving? Further, oh, haha, no aether for you.

This is the nature of 4-D spacetime conjunction, as I understand it: it morphed out from the start and it's the same t=0->t=. Yes there are other theories questioning time, although I dont know exactly if it's such that "time over tme as non constant" is the consideration; I sent a PM. This is, I think,the adaptaton of the equivalence principle as swansont referred to it: it is taken as proved that we can apply the Lorentz transformations to compare these events at different time points t=0 and t= and they will be invariant if done properly. From Relativity, short-bus version, pg. 148, Appendix V, Null result for aether? Or does Dayton Miller's interferometer experiment point at anisotropy of light and undercut SR and GR? Unverified A.E. quotes: No, I don't think it would show up, precisely because we take our ticking clocks on Earth to be uniform and relatively undisturbed. Once that is solidified, we can do Fourier Transformations on data. They are bound together in the spacetime paradigm, and I do think that time is presumed to be constant unless there is a relative acceleration that causes a dilation or contraction; similarly distances are contracted or dilated under a relative acceleration. my inference here I think is that it could go both ways assuming some deceleration; officially it may be length contractions and time dilations. support or disprove either that time is constant or non-constant. To repeat myself, I think the definiton of time is that it is a repeating period, or interval, or what you called a Gap. Think of a metronome, or an oscillator like a penduluum: the repetitive period, the constancy, is what we use time for measuring other things against. To figure on whether the rate of passage of time in a reference frame could be dilated, we need another time measuring device to compare with.. so the thinking goes. We really need that Fourier transform data to be valid. Yes, I think we would have to get two observation points, let's say one on Earth, and one at the midpoint between here and the apparent edge/end of the universe, in order to try to triangulate a non-local measurement to the boundary. Whether optical or other frequency range would be valid I don't know. I don't have it in the multi-quote, but you allude to the difficulty of an observation frame outside time. I don't have the hardest time conceiving such a thing, it only requires you split space from time. Presuming conception of a 3-Dimensional space translating over the course of time we have a trace of the development of all worldlines, not in the proper relativity sense I don't think, but just a common sense idea. The aggregate over all time you could call eternity. So as a thought experiment I think it's easy, although I can't actually extricate myself from thinking in terms of causality here. Hey Bufofrog, Can we conclude that the spectral emissons are traveling uniformly through space? For the sake of the premise here, what if at some point in transit there was a time dilation effecting the frequency or perhaps amplitude of spectral data received on Earth?

Could be Snowman rolled 'er, over.

I see you say, "...the classical Lorentz...". To reformulate, what is this ds; ds invariance you refer to? I think we have to ask, are we actually looking at a function there? We have an inverse relation equated, and I proposed that we were going to select a value, T, to create an arbitrary frequency or 'time period'. I don't think the bare calculus does us much good here, but I always think it is worth the exercise. What is it we would want to see from this integral? I'd say we want the summation of successive periods, creating an interval of time. Similarly, if we had it graphed appropriately, we could say we want the area under the curve. However, graphing the function here as 1/x (and note: our T selected above is not a variable, per se, we had chosen a specific value) we have I think the rectangular hyperbola. I do not think this function serves us for our abstract idea of a time period, but maybe I am not thinking broadly enough.

to paraphrase @swansont, "time is the integral of frequency". f, units Hz, or s(econds)-1, ergo, period T in units s1 I think vibration is more fundamental than distance. What about distance as in wavelength? I don't think I agree that time needs a motion -- it sounds like you're referencing speed. I think I agree with @md65536 that we can simply, arbitrarlly, define a period, and then we have a time period... though in some fashion this may entail an abstract clock. Now, as for space, @Mitcher, do you suppose we can look at geometry à la mode de group theory, as non-circular defined? Could it not be said it is self-sufficient, that it is defined through mathematics, or do you suppose there is recursion there to circular definition?

Well, you finished with, "Discus..". To, "think with a hammer", in my mind, means to apply reason or rationality, perhaps even to minimize emotional influence on the thinking. That wisdom can only be come to by asking philosophical questions, and likely also through philosophical discourse. Let me ask you, instead of metaphorically, how does your mirror come into play in actuality? I do think I alluded to subjectivity, which I think encompasses judgement and assumption one cannot see beyond. Given the prior injunction that I am trapped in subjectivity, I think it follows that a potential road out is through mirroring in some fashion so as to know together; I do not see what subtext you're reading to say what I agree with on the matter -- the point was that we ought to presume we're subjective, because only from that point does striving for objectivity even become a notion. Or please elaborate on what you saw wrong here. or, hold your horses. sure we can have emotion enter in. I'm apt to do somethin gbodily to try and draw up the tripartite interface of my common being presence if consciousness calls.

Any thoughts/experience on/with methylene blue for that purpose? Or what do you suppose could treat in the aquarium? I should correct my over-selling of Palmolive -- they make a claim about efficacy that is limited to a few bacterial strains, so even my altered claim of efficacy is probably still an over-statement. I do not think ethanol directly interacts with cell membrane lipids, but rather has a dehydrating action by drawing water out through or away from membrane proteins. That said, we ought to be discussing peptidoglcan cell walls of bacteria or outer membrane of lipopolysaccharide/protein. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gram-positive_bacteria I do not think bacteria make cholesterol.

Hear hear. Vastly preferable to these other explanatons in my estmation. Mathematically constructed into a probability distribution, collapsing any semblance of reality. Something is rotten in Denmark. Beables, being mentioned elsewhere by joigus (whom I have deduced is actually a supercomputer), seem worthy of an introduction here given the discussion and questions you're asking: From Local Beables and the Foundations of Physics by Tim Maudlin New York University Physics itself aims at more than just predicting the outcomes of experiments. What more is easily stated: physics aims at a complete and accurate account of the physical structure of the universe. Of course! And the different “interpretations of quantum theory” are really different physical theories, which happen to make exactly, or nearly, the same predictions as the standard quantum-mechanical algorithm. But what general features should such a physical theory have? One of Bell’s signal contributions to this problem is what he called the theory of local beables. There is a certain irony here. For while his most famous achievement was to show that the non-locality that Einstein long ago identified in the standard “interpretation” of the quantum formalism (the Copenhagen interpretation) could not be eliminated, his attention to local beables highlighted just the opposite problem: the standard story fails to be clear about what exists locally. So the standard account, if one tries to take it seriously, both contains a nonlocality that was not acknowledged and lacks a different kind of locality that it requires. It is this second sort of locality I want to discuss here. Any clearly formulated and articulated physical theory should contain an ontology, which is just a statement of what the theory postulates to exist. The word “ontology” can perhaps look a little intimidating, or overly “philosophical”, so Bell invented his own terminology for this: the “beables” of the theory. Stating what the beables of the theory are is nothing more nor less than stating what the theory postulates as being physically real. Once what the ontology is has been made clear, then (and only then) can one go on to ask what the ontology does, how it behaves. This question is answered by a dynamics: a mathematically precise characterization of how the beables change through time. The dynamics might be deterministic or might be stochastic. But according to the professional standards of mathematical physics, the dynamics ought to be precise. It should be specified in sharp equations relating the beables, rather than by using vague words (such as “measurement”). [...] okay so only just an amateur. Ohmygod we're going into soft science. An inter-dimensonial leprechaun wearing different colored socks (as a distraction) is going to peaky blinders you with occam's razor; or, how is MWI any worse than your non-local, hidden variables FTL solipsistic "it only exists once I look at it" interpretation? Again, I must be Mr. diehard, I refuse; I would prefer super-luminal as an explanation, but maybe that's the easy way. I mentioned to you elsewhere that QM wants to have it's classical angular momentum and it's nebulous probability cloud, too; Murray Gell-Mann did not go home, he went to go camp outside with James Hartle and Roland Omnès, "The consistent histories approach can be interpreted as a way of understanding which properties of a quantum system can be treated in a single framework, and which properties must be treated in different frameworks and would produce meaningless results if combined as if they belonged to a single framework. It thus becomes possible to demonstrate formally why it is that the properties which J. S. Bell assumed could be combined, cannot. On the other hand, it also becomes possible to demonstrate that classical, logical reasoning does apply, even to quantum experiments – but we can now be mathematically exact about how such reasoning applies." Not that I understand this QM interpretation either. I concur, it seems that a "weakening of the concept of reality" is required to take on board the results of QM's mathematical construction's interpretations. They want to grab the lowest hanging Bohr electron then remove any concept of it having an actual velocity in an orbit... I say, "God does not play dice", but sure, has probably been to Monte Carlo, and helped develop many good methods. As for back to the OP, no, not likely we can increase bandwidth, unless we can suss out the demon in the details because I'm pretty sure we're missing something fundamental and it's causing fundamental confusion.Hence, I think I can safely say noone understand quantum mechanics.

At the risk of preaching to the choir, It is within formulating the operator method for developing the Schrödinger wave equation. In "the transition from the complex basis into the real one...". Instead of the power series expansion, the operator method creates a wave value number, k, in the Schrödinger equation: ; a quantity that varies continuously in the radial () direction. Hence our woowoo probability superposition? Can you please elaborate? Dope... Combined, dopest thing I've read in a long time. I basically wrote about this to someone in an email but was calling that space in between (on the hyperbolic complex plane) a time interval... I guess you elaborated on hidden variables/FTL(action at a distance) here in a way already. I want to link @Mitcher to @joigus post here: , #comment-1218003, on gauge invariance b/c it too is super doped and he could perhaps make sense of it or weigh in over there. I lost the mustard I had to try and lay on consistent histories there, like anti-solipsistic QM to me, but I do not understand QM.

Thank you, @studiot, for various explanations and recommendations. I think I see it there and will need more study.

this was a tease as I suppose he saw the word paper. Then @Eiseteased it out. Funny quote! @RSolomon Scroll geo./phys. looks interesting to me... but, one of A.E.'s colleagues already developed this into a physical Theory. May be in more broad strokes, you would say.

Sorry, this is basic Lorentz ds, I see from Studiot in a book by Eddington, "The interval between two neighbouring events with coordinates and in any coordinate system is given by Where the coefficients , etc. are functions of x1,x2,x3,x4. That is to say, ds2 is some quadratic function of the differences of coordinates.

It has appeared to me that is reduced to either when the momentum operator is multiplied by itself in the operator method of deriving the Hamiltonian for the Schrodinger equation or when squaring (normalizing?) the probability amplitude a la the Born rule under Copenhagen. In the first case I think -i*-i is resolved to -1, and in the second multiplication by the complex conjugate simplifies the complex number. The interpretation I've read says that the azimuthal of the wave we're left with a description of is constantly varying on that line unlike any other wave form, but the interpretations of probabilistic clouds of potential locations fits that.

I'd like to hear about it. The contingency was there is a potentially decaying radioisotope in the box, no?

Is this ds arclength? You're speaking here under relativity's concern with spacetime bound together? Is that why you say they're circular defined?

Hammer dross. The love of wisdom. I think the point is a somewhat informal discussion, the goal of which is to bring agreement which could contribute to common ethos. I do not think that it is using a mirror with the same reflective index with everyone. That to me sounds like egotism in a way, in that you are not making accomodations to read your counterpart and try to comport your rhetoric or argument to them, but instead are holding to your own preconceived notion that you have objectivity, which is unlikely. Perhaps it is though that we could recognize we are trapped in subjectivity and by holding mirrors to help each other see ourselves whilst also trying to see each other we could in that way try to grasp a more objective perspective. I don't think the purpose is to index answers for you. I think it can serve to help you fashion your own mind, and decide what you take on by what accords to your reason. I think the necessary first step in a logical discussion is to have a set of agreed upon terms.

Thanks, MigL. I'd still like to hear back from you about what I addressed to you vis a vis Hilbert spaces as a bulk of small local spaces and how that relates to entanglement and locality. I'd also like some explication of S. Hossenfelder's argument, not just your bare synopsis and a video link, seeing as you insist on tilting at MWI with such vigor. Occam's razor can be formulated to say that complexity of phenomenon dictates necessary complexity of explanation, and MWI is not comparable to Leprechauns wrangling rainbows with pots o' gold. As to how you figure a ratio cannot be a speed, I do believe you're missing the mathematical description of reality there. It's certainly not in units of kilometers per mile, and by c +/- v I take it you want me to add a scalar to a vector(v, velocity), not a speed(c) to a speed(v), and you think that's impossible? I'd take the magnitude then add them. Granted, c should be the constant speed of light in a vacuum so I doubt what I'm alluding to previously means much, but I do think there's more to argue there. Nonetheless, I appreciate your input and noted the paradox and various other data throughout here. You propose that the act of measurement caused the spin state of the unmeasured particle? Talk about anthropometry. It was spinning down before that.

@jmf I presume you looked at the study based on your comment about sodium hypochlorite. "Concentrated original Lysol" performed well, as did sodium chlorite with an activator (sounds like MMS, which might be good for disinfecting aquarium tools; but double check). I would suggest Palmolive with lactic acid or some other things, but again, the concentrated Lysol at 1% seemed effective in a study so that carries it. Perhaps the Palmolive in a strong solution for cleaning gross contamination, followed by the soak in 1% lysol. Appreciate the mention of mycolic acids... doubt a regular soap saponifies those cords. Plus if they're acid resistant then they're the 0.1% that escapes the lactic acid, and they're catalase positive, but I doubt they'd enjoy the l-lactic acid or peroxide regardless. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238046154_Efficacy_of_Common_Disinfectants_against_Mycobacterium_marinum

Piers Corbyn disagrees with the global warming science, partly on economic grounds. What are these new electrical and thermal storage technologies?

Bollocks, you say?. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intricate#English (not the OED, humor me): From Latin intricatus, past participle of intricare. Verb intricate (third-person singular simple present intricates, present participle intricating, simple past and past participle intricated) (intransitive) To become enmeshed or entangled. (transitive) To enmesh or entangle: to cause to intricate. Someone made it that way, so we use an adjective to describe that. Examine how the OP(original post) conflates a theological idea of salvation only inside the church or salvation of the elect (not by works) with in-group vs. out-group preferences, commonly known as rayyyyyyyycism. This intricates the issue to one including two hot button issues that are then resolved into not an actual question, random capitalization, and a declaration of might makes right in an intricate display of sophistry. This is my supporting evidence for my claims, and, I SAY GOOD DAY, SIR. BALLOCKS!