Quantum Correlations from the Euclidean Primitives

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Re: Quantum Correlations from the Euclidean Primitives

Postby lkcl » Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:27 am

nice! :) i did a mobius strip thing as well, and used it to understand the rotation / angles of three quarks, spin-half. during the opposing spin you move to the other side, which is a really nice way to comprehend spin half. i then stacked the 3 "quarks" one on top of the other, with the middle one's "phase" rotated by 90 degrees to the other (took a while to twist them about so as to line up). turns out that phase-shifting of 90 degrees is what allows the quarks to superimpose in a non-destructive fashion (see wikipedia "Phasor Arithmetic" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phasor)

... and it was just a piece of paper, a pen and some sellotape that allowed me to intuitively grasp it very very quickly :) no "maths" involved!

to make the dodecahedron i made one 5-sided cardboard piece (tried paper... it's really awkward, keeps collapsing) then used that as a template to cut out 11 more. you have to put sellotape on both sides of the faces, otherwise it falls apart very quickly, but try to keep the corners free of tape so that you can poke a needle in to "reinflate" the thing as it will collapse on you quite easily if you put too much pressure on. start by putting 5 around one, that at least gives a stable base, then put the next 5 on. you can still, without too much difficulty, keep adding tape on both sides up until about face 10 or 11. face 12 - the last one - you simply can't put tape on both sides (duuh), unless you use the needle to poke around and push tape against the last face from the inside.

i ended up changing the numbering pattern on the dodecahedron a number of times. the idea is, to put numbers on each face of the dodecahedron, and match incremental jumps in those numbers (2->6->10->2) onto poincare sphere (theta, phi) matrix operations of a line from the centre of the sphere through the centre of the face. as a general rule i'm making sure that increments of 6 are a very very simple operation.

i'm looking for the right "pattern"... ahh... what's the mathematical word... the right... sequence of numbers on faces (1,7,2,8,3,9....) which match easiest with the matrix transformations *but* also match intuitively with left/right-handed quarks and so on, i.e. i expect the left-handed quarks, when you look at the equivalent poincare matrix operations, to be *mirror* operations compared to the use of their right-handed equivalents. so not all possible permutations (ah! that's the word i was looking for) of the 12 numbers are candidates. you can't just slap numbers on faces randomly and go "yeahhh we're done" :)
lkcl
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 5:15 am

Re: Quantum Correlations from the Euclidean Primitives

Postby lkcl » Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:40 am

Image

Image


:)
lkcl
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 5:15 am

Re: Quantum Correlations from the Euclidean Primitives

Postby minkwe » Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:08 pm

lkcl wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:***
Thank you, lkcl, for your comments. My primary purpose in the paper linked above is to understand the origins of quantum correlations in terms of the most primitive elements of the very geometry of spacetime, with the so-called quantum entanglement (and hence quantum mechanics) resulting as a byproduct. Specific problems of particle physics is not my concern in the above paper (for that see https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.06036). Fred Diether and I did try to understand SU(3) symmetry within the framework I have presented in the above paper, but without success. Perhaps we didn't try hard enough, because I got distracted by other mundane things in life.

***


hiya joy (and freddy - read your message too), good to hear from you. my feeling is: SU(3) and so on, whilst technically correct, are red herrings: avenues that, if attempted to be pursued, will not yield results. there are many reasons for this, not least is that there are simply far too many *postulated* values in the standard model which have no explanation.

dr mill's work is, staggeringly, derived from scratch on a firm theoretical basis using nothing more than Maxwell's Equations. however he has to use some rather obscure maths (that's not available in electronic form, only in books) - 2 Dimensional Fourier Transforms which he extends to 3 - in order to do it.

the thing that he missed, however, is the beautiful geometry that you've noted. i really meant it when i said that the geometric patterns are key. in the Extended Rishon Model i noted that there has been a mistake made - including by me - where everyone who has explored the Rishon Model has not noted that the Rishon Model patterns describe twelve PHASES, and that those phases exactly and precisely correlate with a looped photon's EM field in a phase-stable, phase-harmonic pattern. Y(theta,phi), spinors, Poincare Spheres, SU(2)xU(1) - all these things describe exactly the same underlying "thing", just from different perspectives... none of which have the complete picture.

the point is: it is purely a coincidence of *geometry* - sin(30) = 1/2 - that the Rishons in T (which represents the "real" part of the looped photon's phase...) and V (representing the "complex) happen to add up to a total of 1.... but it's the *phase angles* represented by Rishon Triplets that *also* have to add up, matching specifically to a N,S,E,W compass point (1, -1, i or -i in complex space)... and this is only possible to achieve with equilateral triangles, hence why we only have 12 fundamental particles.

what i did not realise until some time at the beginning of this year is that the phases of the fundamental particles (electron, quarks, neutrino) happen to match precisely and exactly with the weinberg mixing angle (12 phases, 30 degrees apart), which happens then when you combine them to obey geometric patterns which *happen* to fit precisely with the E8 Lie Group.

you have a huge piece of the puzzle here. unfortunately.... i am a computer scientist with extremely advanced reverse-engineering skills. i am not a mathematician. if i were to tackle the required mathematics to deal with the (key) mistakes that Dr Randall Mills made, it would be about.... 4 years of full-time work before i had the necessary expertise. i simply can't do that... and feed myself and my family at the same time. or complete any of the other goals that i have set.

by contrast: someone who has the prerequisite mathematical expertise - which doesn't actually involve anything more complex than differentiation and integration, FFTs and so on, where there are plenty of pre-existing formulae to start from, and even Mathematica scripts - could probably complete this in about 2-3 months flat, without really having to think very hard about it.

i'd really love for this to be tackled in a public and open fashion, as that's what i am used to dealing with. i just haven't yet found a suitable forum or environment. do you have any suggestions?


Hmm, I have the feeling you are onto something huge with this approach.
minkwe
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 9:22 am

Re: Quantum Correlations from the Euclidean Primitives

Postby lkcl » Sat Dec 02, 2017 1:38 pm

minkwe wrote:Hmm, I have the feeling you are onto something huge with this approach.


appreciated. minkwe. when i relay to people that dr randall mills managed to derive - from first principles - a simple equation with 4 terms for g/2 with a FULL and complete unbroken chain with ZERO postulation that is accurate to 10dp to experimental measurement, there is a sort-of... mental blank of disbelief... through which it is impossible to further guage their interest any further.

i've been studying his work and have spotted flaws which nobody else would notice... because the level of disbelief is too high and their time is taken up with pursuing and maintaining the Standard Model.

the only people whom i have been able to persuade so far to consider taking this seriously are those people who are on the fringes of particle physics theory, and most of those either have their own theory, are studying or maintaining a fringe theory, or have been in fights with mainstream peer-controlled science and been pushed out. *even they* are having a hard time grasping the significance of dr mill's work (mistakes / limitations and all).

the bit that's driving me nuts is that i am a reverse-engineer, software engineer and my mathmatics pretty much ends at A-Level ability. i substitute brute-force algorithms and creative approaches to finding solutions, yet have still managed to piece together a puzzle which basically supports - with no contradictions yet found - that particles are phase-synchronised (phasor) superimposed photons, exactly as dr mills describes, smeared out over a sphere / event-horizon (micro-black-holes in effect).

the cosmological significance and implications of this alone are explosive: it means that any given black hole *IS* an entirely new Universe with its own uniform gravitational / electro-magnetic field *within* the event horizon, protected from outside interference beyond a certain *massive* energy level (collision with another black hole would do it) by that same event horizon.

the question that's bugging me for years now is: how the hell do i draw people's attention to this in a way that will get capable mathematicians to band together and start working on putting a coherent working theory together, bearing in mind that i'm outside of the academic / peer-review system?
lkcl
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 5:15 am

Re: Quantum Correlations from the Euclidean Primitives

Postby minkwe » Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:31 pm

Hi Ikcl, I have a similar story to yours in that, I'm not a theoretical physicist or a mathematician for that matter. I'm an experimental biophysicist. I became interested in theoretical physics because I was convinced the textbook explanations in my field (crystallography) were garbage. Crystallography is a field that is anchored on the phenomena illustrated by the double-slit experiment. Despite being a very productive field in terms of the numbers of scientific breakthroughs (more Nobel prizes than any other field), the very basic explanations of the central phenomena of diffraction are nonsensical. We have become skilled at inventing mathematical frameworks that work and produce reproducible results (like epicycles) but utterly lacking in physical content and or advancement of understanding.

I've looked at Mill's work early on, and I thought he has been unfairly treated by the community despite clear evidence that he has significant contributions to make. I think the current theoretical physics establishment is rotten to the core and I wouldn't bother to convince them or publish in their journals. There are not many physicists left. There are a lot of mathematicians with unhinged imaginations. Therefore, IMHO, lack of mathematical ability may be an asset which forces you to think first before calculating -- which is badly needed nowadays. As someone who writes software and algorithms on a daily basis, I understand where you are coming from. Though I think you are doing great without my advice, here are some thoughts I have about how a person might go about establishing a new theory:

Start small, Identify the core idea that is new and different from existing ones. It should be physics, not mathematics! (Many go astray at this point) As early as possible, make sure you can explain experimental results already explained by previous theories, and if your explanation is simpler/shorter, that is a plus. If you can explain experimental results not explained by existing theories, the better you will be. If you can find a prediction of your theory for which existing theories differ, and the experiment is performable, that will be the golden opportunity. Once you have done all that, approach an experimentalist who has resources to do the experiment and present your full case. If you haven't done your homework, on the first part, it will be a hard-sell.

As you indicated, you may need some help with doing some math at the early stages. It is very important not to get lost in the math because there are many temptations there. In that case, a good approach would be to ask a mathematician a very specific bite-sized mathematical question, not a physics question. Be patient and it will pay off. Don't worry about getting mathematicians to band together. That is the wrong approach, mathematicians can't solve a physics problem. They will never give you a physics theory. The current problem in theoretical physics is due to the invasion of physics by mathematicians. Get the theory first, develop the core ideas you are pursuing, then worry about peer-review later. Mills was too ambitious and went too big too quickly. Not only that, he tried to monetize his work before it was fully baked. That resulted in even more skepticism of his motives and gave his detractors ammunition.

One other thing: I'm highly skeptical of black-hole theory for some of the reasons I explained above, do you really need to bring it into the discussion?
minkwe
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 9:22 am

Re: Quantum Correlations from the Euclidean Primitives

Postby lkcl » Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:07 pm

minkwe wrote:Hi Ikcl, I have a similar story to yours in that, I'm not a theoretical physicist or a mathematician for that matter. I'm an experimental biophysicist. I became interested in theoretical physics because I was convinced the textbook explanations in my field (crystallography) were garbage. Crystallography is a field that is anchored on the phenomena illustrated by the double-slit experiment. Despite being a very productive field in terms of the numbers of scientific breakthroughs (more Nobel prizes than any other field), the very basic explanations of the central phenomena of diffraction are nonsensical. We have become skilled at inventing mathematical frameworks that work and produce reproducible results (like epicycles) but utterly lacking in physical content and or advancement of understanding.


hmm yeah i get the feeling that if mill's work was properly understood, it would form the core basis of an *actual* understanding of diffraction, i.e one where the fact that particles are "sphere-smeared" photons would be both key and fundamental. you're aware that mills' background actually comes from NMR scans? he got the whole basis of particles by having to fit a proper theory - involving REALLY strong magnetic fields of course - to NMR Medical data. the kinds of discrepancies that you'd get through such massive E.M. fields *doesn't allow* you to get things "wrong". i.e. where everyone else was going "ummm we don't know because the error bars are too large" he would have been going, "wow these huge E.M. fields affect particles so strongly that the signal-to-noise ratio has gone through the roof, and i can actually develop a proper testable theory".

the trouble being, it was *such* a different approach, nobody believed him. whoops.

I've looked at Mill's work early on, and I thought he has been unfairly treated by the community despite clear evidence that he has significant contributions to make. I think the current theoretical physics establishment is rotten to the core and I wouldn't bother to convince them or publish in their journals. There are not many physicists left. There are a lot of mathematicians with unhinged imaginations. Therefore, IMHO, lack of mathematical ability may be an asset which forces you to think first before calculating -- which is badly needed nowadays.


ha! very funny, and insightful

As someone who writes software and algorithms on a daily basis, I understand where you are coming from. Though I think you are doing great without my advice, here are some thoughts I have about how a person might go about establishing a new theory:

Start small, Identify the core idea that is new and different from existing ones. It should be physics, not mathematics! (Many go astray at this point) As early as possible, make sure you can explain experimental results already explained by previous theories, and if your explanation is simpler/shorter, that is a plus. If you can explain experimental results not explained by existing theories, the better you will be. If you can find a prediction of your theory for which existing theories differ, and the experiment is performable, that will be the golden opportunity. Once you have done all that, approach an experimentalist who has resources to do the experiment and present your full case. If you haven't done your homework, on the first part, it will be a hard-sell.


i was lucky enough to have been advised something similar, about 15 years ago. it was something along the lines of, "a theory has to be one of two things to be 'valuable'. either FAR more elegant (simpler) but effectively equivalent to an existing theory, or it has to have something new - a prediction that can be verified experimentally". which is pretty close to what you said.

As you indicated, you may need some help with doing some math at the early stages. It is very important not to get lost in the math because there are many temptations there. In that case, a good approach would be to ask a mathematician a very specific bite-sized mathematical question, not a physics question.


that is *extremely* good advice, and i've accidentally applied it in the past (using stackexchange). huh. i like it. the only slight problem being in this case: whilst i can look at the equations in dr mill's work, i *know* that i need to do a phase shift and/or a rotation of the Y0(theta,phi) equation he has for the electron in order to turn it into a "quark"... but i have *no idea which way to make the turn*... if indeed it is actually needed.

so until i know that, i really am stuck as far as actually asking a mathematician for help in tackling the equations. from a reverse-engineering perspective: i have *two* unknowns, not one.

Be patient and it will pay off. Don't worry about getting mathematicians to band together. That is the wrong approach, mathematicians can't solve a physics problem. They will never give you a physics theory.


and that's where the problem lies: i have a physics *theory* "unknown" on top of which i have a *mathematics* unknown. the two are unfortunately directly inter-related.

The current problem in theoretical physics is due to the invasion of physics by mathematicians. Get the theory first, develop the core ideas you are pursuing, then worry about peer-review later. Mills was too ambitious and went too big too quickly. Not only that, he tried to monetize his work before it was fully baked. That resulted in even more skepticism of his motives and gave his detractors ammunition.


... so he went ahead and carried on with the theoretical derivation regardless, increasing the volume of work until it reached a whopping 1,700 pages and approximately 30 separate self-consistent and self-supporting papers... none of which have been peer-reviewed because he's *too far ahead of the curve*. yeah....

One other thing: I'm highly skeptical of black-hole theory for some of the reasons I explained above, do you really need to bring it into the discussion?


do i *need* to? no. is there an (extremely long) logical chain of empirical evidence that made me think of that particular hypothesis? yes. have i ever encountered any evidence which would CONTRADICT that hypothesis? no. the similarities between the model for particles (a la mills) and the understanding of black holes is too great to ignore. if you look at Mill's model of the electron you will notice that he says that there is a UNIFORM field inside the electron's radius. when you have more and more photons "smeared" on the surface of the sphere, you get a larger and larger radius. is there a limit on how large that could be? no i don't think there is. keep increasing its size - keep throwing more and more photons at it - and eventually i believe you get to a size that is so large you actually have to give it a different name: "black hole". what's interesting is: there would *still be a uniform field inside the boundary*. and that, i believe, is what we call "background radiation".

the parallels are too similar to ignore, basically, and if there's one thing i will always stick to is: i will never remain silent about a hypothesis. if on the other hand, someone *demonstrates* to me that it's clearly false, i am absolutely fine with that, no i'm better than fine i will be *hugely relieved*... because i will no longer feel obligated to pursue that hypothesis :) also if someone shows me that there are logical inconsistencies *in the hypothesis itself* then again i will be hugely relieved.

the other thing is: i came across a beautiful phrase recently, from a surprising source (bob podolski, son of boris podolski - EPR paradox and other famous things). bob told me, "Certainty is a PATHOLOGICAL state of mind". so if ever you hear me say "i am absolutely certain that this is right", please feel free to take a big baseball bat (preferably one covered in or made from foam) and smack me over the head with it, ok? :)
lkcl
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 5:15 am

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library