To Yanniru and others, pilot waves and q. c. maybe

[tkorrovi]

I still think about how my absolutely dynamic systems (ADS) may appear in physics. I don't know so very much about physics, but what else I supposed to do when you say that there is quantum consciousness and I have a possible mechanism. Therefore the following must be taken not more than thoughts at best, I don't even argue that there is quantum consciousness or that my mechanism appears anyhow in physics.

First it seems that the properties of BEC (uh, I read these texts) are not enough to conclude that there is something similar to ADS, what make BEC special is more nonlocality.

So we must look at two slit experiment. What interest me are the Bohm's pilot waves. Please say if I'm not correct. There are equations to calculate pilot waves and quantum field, but these are derived from wave function and give only a static result, they cannot describe the propagation of the pilot wave, and no conventional equation can. But considering particularly how the pilot wave propagates it may be considered that pilot wave is a changing structure. Pilot wave starts when an electron goes to other energy level and then it must widespread following the form of the underlying structure. When it finds a slit and then another slit, then it must find connection with previous slit logically, not spatially, and then create quantum field considering these two slits and the underlying structure. ADS may do such logical connection by marking a slit with a pattern and if other slit would be found, then this would be associated with that pattern of the slit. I don't know how it exactly happens, but it would happen faster than any physical movement if there would be created some logical interface between the structures while pilot wave propagates. This all suggests that pilot wave must be changing structure what depends on topology, not potential or other properties of the underlying structure. And the only known mechanism what may implement such structure is ADS. So if this is true, the quantum consciosness is the implementation of pilot waves what start when particle goes to other energy level and the resulting processes cause other particles to go to other energy levels. If this is true, then we can do anything just by changing energy levels But isn't the particles in BEC all on the same energy level?

This is just how the one who doesn't know a lot about physics understands it. Just doing the artificial intelligence and now being forced to think about physics. These were *just* my thoughts to check what others think, not *any* theory in physics or such, I don't want to argue anything. Perhaps I want some things to be more clear because they just are far from that.

[tkorrovi]

www.cs.caltech.edu/~westside/quantum-intro.html

"Later, in 1985, Deutsch realized that Feynman's assertion could eventually lead to a general purpose quantum computer and published a crucial theoretical paper showing that any physical process, in principle, could be modeled perfectly by a quantum computer."

Don't know about "any physical process" whether it was in Deutsch paper, but at least quantum computer theoretically supposed to be able to implement quantum entanglement, then probably possible quantum consciousness also. So for example if we develop some good teaching algorithms for absolutely dynamic systems (artificial consciousness) and try them on quantum computer, then we may see whether such mechanism exists on the quantum level.

[Richard David Ruquist]

Tarvo,

In response to your discussion of pilot waves and the double-slit:

I prefer to think in terms of photons and EM waves, which my training is in, rather than electrons. The double-slit phenomena is the same for both as I understand it.

In the photon case, the pilot waves are the propagating EM fields. There is no ambiguity in the solution of EM propagation for the double slit. The interference effects come directly out of the solution. The only question is how photons are related to the EM fields. Afterall, the detectors detect photons, not fields.

For most of my life I have assumed that the EM waves , upon detection, collapse into photons on the Planck scale when detected. But that is so ad hoc. There is no theory or evidence that waves can instantly collapse.

There is more theoretical evidence (if evidence can exist in theory) that cosmological inflation happens almost instantly. So wave collapse could be mini-deflations and amenable to GUT analysis. But there is no such analysis.

So two alternatives arise at first: either fields do not exist or particles do not exist. Feyman did his QED theory on the basis of particles only. But he had to assume that anti-particles come back from the future to interact with the forward-time going particles,- in this case photons, in his case electrons and positrons.

The second possibility is that only fields exist and that the fields are the wave functions of quantum mechanics.
But this alternatives is incomplete. No collapse theory or detection theory.

Finally when doing my Dark Matter paper I got to study Bohm theory. It is the only time-forward, yet complete theory in quantum mechanics. It postulates that both fields and particles exist- only the fields are actually pilot waves that someow tell the particles where to go.

Bohm thought that the particles might be complex enough to read the landscape of the waves. But it is more likely that the waves guide the particles. But frankly that does not seem likely either.

My best guess, which comes from your thoughts on non-locality, is that only fields exist, no real particles, but the fields have a kind of non-locality that is the size of the particle. So when a detector interacts with a field, it graps all the energy in the extent of the fields non-locality.

So in this view, particles are an illusion, at best an approximation of reality, like the Hindus claim. They even claim to be able to see the fields directly.

So in the double slit experiment, the fields have null points where interference is exactly cancelling. The critics of this view say that the propagation can be of such a low energy that only one photon at a time flows through the double slit.

The non-locality counter-argument would be that at such low field strengths, the non-locality is sufficiently large to incorporate an entire photon. So when detection is triggered, the entire extent of the non-locality of the fields are absorbed.

That makes non-locality a function of field strength.

Is that possible? Yes. If the non-locality is given by the uncertainty principle. In fact, tht is exactly what it has to be. But there is still a problem.

For example, the double-slit data at very low field strengths (single photon levels), shows that as the number of detections build up, the interference pattern fills in.

So if the first detection is on one peak of the eventual pattern, it must be that the other detector atoms on that peak are not triggered in that region until photons are detected in many other regions. That also seems unlikely. It seems to require intelligence on the part of the atoms.

So I do not see how non-locality or pilot waves could do that. Those mechanisms are too deterministic. It's almost as if the world is ruled by top down mathematics (quantum theory) rather than bottom up atomic physics. There seems to be no fundamental principles that can yield such data- there are all too deterministic.

Do we live in a completely Platonic world that is ruled by mathematical solutions rather than physical principles. ? Is there a fund**netal top-down consciousness that rules our world, which the detector atoms display minutely, but we display macroscopically?

What do you think?

Richard Ruquist aka yanniru



Also drummerthingy, dumberthingy, and now dizzythingy as I have severe vertigo from the flu

[tkorrovi]

Basil Hiley, who continues the work of David Bohm at Birkbeck College, said at optics.upol.cz/jezek/old_pages/physics/QM_interpretation/interview_with_Hiley.html "What one observes is a statistical distribution of individual events. When one analyses it, it LOOKS as if one can account for the result by some wave-like feature. But we have never actually seen the wave-nature of the quantum." What probably makes the most confusion are the waves what seems to be like waves on surface of water, and because of this analogy pilot waves may be taken as ordinary waves, and in some circumstances they indeed have very strong such property. This is because we may think that there must be the same processes as on the surface of water what cause waves to propagate. We make this conclusion only because the waves on the surface of water or the sound waves are the only similar processes what we know, but it is wrong to think that only because of similarity they must be the cause. The only thing what we may say seeing such similarity is that these processes must have the same cause and because of that waving is a widespread property in nature. So what may be this cause. This is only a suggestion, but it may be iterations (what I previously perhaps wrongly called loops). The first thing what every programmer learns is that usually most of the program consists of iterations (for and while statements in C). So these are necessary for many processes what programs implement or model and therefore an important property of artificial and natural processes. Now what the waves do is that they propagate, ie a process propagates in space. When now this process has also iterations, then it means that certain parameters would change in cycle. For parameters to change in cycle is a general case in regulators for example where is very improbable that they have right values at once, so they approach the right values by "waving". And where interference pattern comes from is simply that in every point the parameters of different parts of the process would add to each other. So the cause of waving may be much more basic and so it may be not only a property of waves but also many other processes. Therefore pilot waves have such property in addition to many other properties, they are a way how processes propagate on the quantum level.

How I understand how process propagates not exactly from a point of view of physics is that a change of a structure widespreads spatially. In fact I can imagine it in absolutely dynamic systems (these are a very simple mechanism, much more simple than wave function, not to speak about string theory.), don't know how other systems can be dynamic enough. What concerns absolutely dynamic systems then I imagine space as a grid of nodes (space determines how we can go from one point to another), this grid must even not be completely regular or it may change. For 3 dimensions we need 4 connections from node and these connections must be marked by patterns (like pentagon, hexagon-like structures etc but the processes on a higher level make no distinction whether something is "up" or "left"), only such regularities can distinguish places. It is not so important how the grid is exactly implemented, it is important how the processes what widespread interpret it. The process propagates so that it creates structure or changes existing structure, moving from node to node. Particles are static structures, the process may change them, create them or move them. Everything must happen so that the whole system can maintain its existence, what may not be very easy sometimes. Well, this was a speculation at best, but to explain I must give some idea how I imagine it.

Pilot waves are a processes what correspond to a particle, so there is most likely separate pilot wave for every particle. Nonlocality may be implemented when the pilot wave propagates so that the structures at the front of the wave would always remain directly connected to the point where the pilot wave originates or between each other. In EPR experiment when the pilot wave reaches one polariser, the direction of the polariser would be immediately received by the front of the pilot wave on the other end of the light source, what affects spin of the photon there. In two slit experiment photon either exists and pilot wave moves it, while its direction depends perhaps on other pilot wave what caused the change of the energy level (don't know these processes so exactly) or it would be created in some form and on that moment all the structures of the pilot wave at the front receive a signal that no more photons shall be created.

But all such explanation doesn't mean that the things are exactly so and may only be necessary to have some idea how things happen, even only because of entanglement it would be extremely difficult to model these processes other than conventional way, except quantum consciousness and other processes what we cannot model by conventional equations.

In the photon case, the pilot waves are the propagating EM fields. There is no ambiguity in the solution of EM propagation for the double slit. The interference effects come directly out of the solution. The only question is how photons are related to the EM fields. Afterall, the detectors detect photons, not fields.

> Unfortunately don't know what distinguishes pilot wave from EM field, they may be the same, just in low frequences only the wave properties of pilot wave remain.


Bohm thought that the particles might be complex enough to read the landscape of the waves. But it is more likely that the waves guide the particles. But frankly that does not seem likely either.

> Maybe it doesn't seem likely because of what we understand waves are, but if waves are propagation of different kind of processes then it doesn't sound so illogical.


My best guess, which comes from your thoughts on non-locality, is that only fields exist, no real particles, but the fields have a kind of non-locality that is the size of the particle. So when a detector interacts with a field, it graps all the energy in the extent of the fields non-locality.

> Rather in my view a signal through nonlocal connections to the structures at the front of the pilot wave where the interaction occurs would ban further interaction.


So in the double slit experiment, the fields have null points where interference is exactly cancelling. The critics of this view say that the propagation can be of such a low energy that only one photon at a time flows through the double slit.

The non-locality counter-argument would be that at such low field strengths, the non-locality is sufficiently large to incorporate an entire photon. So when detection is triggered, the entire extent of the non-locality of the fields are absorbed.

> In Bohm's view quantum field acts because of its form, not energy, so low energy doesn't make the field ineffective. I rather like to imagine it that the particle, or something what corresponds to it, flows or would be created in front of the pilot wave.


> That makes non-locality a function of field strength.

> Is that possible? Yes. If the non-locality is given by the uncertainty principle. In fact, tht is exactly what it has to be. But there is still a problem.

> For example, the double-slit data at very low field strengths (single photon levels), shows that as the number of detections build up, the interference pattern fills in.

> So if the first detection is on one peak of the eventual pattern, it must be that the other detector atoms on that peak are not triggered in that region until photons are detected in many other regions. That also seems unlikely. It seems to require intelligence on the part of the atoms.

In my view pilot wave is associated with particle and so there are separate pilot waves for every perticle. This may be hard to imagine if we think of pilot wave again as just waving, but if it is a propagation of a process, then it's easier to imagine that many processes may exist simultaneously.


> So I do not see how non-locality or pilot waves could do that. Those mechanisms are too deterministic. It's almost as if the world is ruled by top down mathematics (quantum theory) rather than bottom up atomic physics. There seems to be no fundamental principles that can yield such data- there are all too deterministic.

It is questionnable to call nonlocality deterministic, at least it's not deterministic in a region of space if we don't know what the connections out of it are connected to. Pilot waves have many properties other than ordinary waves, to guide (or simulate) a particle for example.


> Do we live in a completely Platonic world that is ruled by mathematical solutions rather than physical principles. ? Is there a fund**netal top-down consciousness that rules our world, which the detector atoms display minutely, but we display macroscopically?

This is very Platonic view that consciousness and matter exist separately. Bohm's view is rather based on Heraclitus what emphasizes change.


> Also drummerthingy, dumberthingy, and now dizzythingy as I have severe vertigo from the flu

I'm glad that you wrote here even in spite of that, and I'm even more glad that with people like you this very complicated field would go ahead another little step. So another long text was written again, what a relief :-)

BTW Could you log in with the password I sent and could you change it? Or you know what was wrong or what bugs this forum software has, I unfortunately don't know more than I said yet.

Tarvo

[ruquist]

Very briefly, when I log in, I am told that I already exist and I cannot get in. Do you live in another universe with copies of me? No sarcasm intended. But I cannot log in.

We seem to be rather widely separated in our thinking on physics. I told you all I know already. So I do not know how to continue the discussion.

Sincerely,

Richard

[tkorrovi]

> Very briefly, when I log in, I am told that I already exist and I cannot get in. Do you live in another universe with copies of me? No sarcasm intended. But I cannot log in.

I can only recommend to write in the Proboards support forum at support.proboards.com/?board=general with your details. I did everything what was recommended there, including changing the password, if it didn't help, then it's better that they know it.

> We seem to be rather widely separated in our thinking on physics. I told you all I know already. So I do not know how to continue the discussion.

From what you told it doesn't seem to me that our views in physics are widely separated, so you should say what you think is different in our views.

[tkorrovi]

Sorry, in my post marking the quotations went wrong, I did it in the end and too quickly, sure I shall not make *that* mistake again :-) I don't want anybody to think that what I said was what you said or vice versa, so I post it here again with marking quotations correctly (paragraphs beginning with > is what you said and other paragraphs are what I said). You asked what I think and I described the only possible way how I can imagine it, that's all what it is, I don't say that the things *are* like that. And not everything concerning physics is necessarily correct here, you know much more about physics than I do.

Basil Hiley, who continues the work of David Bohm at Birkbeck College, said at <http://optics.upol.cz/jezek/old_pages/physics/QM_interpretation/interview_with_Hiley.html> "What one observes is a statistical distribution of individual events. When one analyses it, it LOOKS as if one can account for the result by some wave-like feature. But we have never actually seen the wave-nature of the quantum." What probably makes the most confusion are the waves what seems to be like waves on surface of water, and because of this analogy pilot waves may be taken as ordinary waves, and in some circumstances they indeed have very strong such property. This is because we may think that there must be the same processes as on the surface of water what cause waves to propagate. We make this conclusion only because the waves on the surface of water or the sound waves are the only similar processes what we know, but it is wrong to think that only because of similarity they must be the cause. The only thing what we may say seeing such similarity is that these processes must have the same cause and because of that waving is a widespread property in nature. So what may be this cause. This is only a suggestion, but it may be iterations (what I previously perhaps wrongly called loops). The first thing what every programmer learns is that usually most of the program consists of iterations (for and while statements in C). So these are necessary for many processes what programs implement or model and therefore an important property of artificial and natural processes. Now what the waves do is that they propagate, ie a process propagates in space. When now this process has also iterations, then it means that certain parameters would change in cycle. For parameters to change in cycle is a general case in regulators for example where is very improbable that they have right values at once, so they approach the right values by "waving". And where interference pattern comes from is simply that in every point the parameters of different parts of the process would add to each other. So the cause of waving may be much more basic and so it may be not only a property of waves but also many other processes. Therefore pilot waves have such property in addition to many other properties, they are a way how processes propagate on the quantum level.

How I understand how process propagates not exactly from a point of view of physics is that a change of a structure widespreads spatially. In fact I can imagine it in absolutely dynamic systems (these are a very simple mechanism, much more simple than wave function, not to speak about string theory.), don't know how other systems can be dynamic enough. What concerns absolutely dynamic systems then I imagine space as a grid of nodes (space determines how we can go from one point to another), this grid must even not be completely regular or it may change. For 3 dimensions we need 4 connections from node and these connections must be marked by patterns (like pentagon, hexagon-like structures etc but the processes on a higher level make no distinction whether something is "up" or "left"), only such regularities can distinguish places. It is not so important how the grid is exactly implemented, it is important how the processes what widespread interpret it. The process propagates so that it creates structure or changes existing structure, moving from node to node. Particles are static structures, the process may change them, create them or move them. Everything must happen so that the whole system can maintain its existence, what may not be very easy sometimes. Well, this was a speculation at best, but to explain I must give some idea how I imagine it.

Pilot waves are a processes what correspond to a particle, so there is most likely separate pilot wave for every particle. Nonlocality may be implemented when the pilot wave propagates so that the structures at the front of the wave would always remain directly connected to the point where the pilot wave originates or between each other. In EPR experiment when the pilot wave reaches one polariser, the direction of the polariser would be immediately received by the front of the pilot wave on the other end of the light source, what affects spin of the photon there. In two slit experiment photon either exists and pilot wave moves it, while its direction depends perhaps on other pilot wave what caused the change of the energy level (don't know these processes so exactly) or it would be created in some form and on that moment all the structures of the pilot wave at the front receive a signal that no more photons shall be created.

But all such explanation doesn't mean that the things are exactly so and may only be necessary to have some idea how things happen, even only because of entanglement it would be extremely difficult to model these processes other than conventional way, except quantum consciousness and other processes what we cannot model by conventional equations.

> In the photon case, the pilot waves are the propagating EM fields. There is no ambiguity in the solution of EM propagation for the double slit. The interference effects come directly out of the solution. The only question is how photons are related to the EM fields. Afterall, the detectors detect photons, not fields.

Unfortunately don't know what distinguishes pilot wave from EM field, they may be the same, just in low frequences only the wave properties of pilot wave remain.

> Bohm thought that the particles might be complex enough to read the landscape of the waves. But it is more likely that the waves guide the particles. But frankly that does not seem likely either.

Maybe it doesn't seem likely because of what we understand waves are, but if waves are propagation of different kind of processes then it doesn't sound so illogical.

> My best guess, which comes from your thoughts on non-locality, is that only fields exist, no real particles, but the fields have a kind of non-locality that is the size of the particle. So when a detector interacts with a field, it graps all the energy in the extent of the fields non-locality.

Rather in my view a signal through nonlocal connections to the structures at the front of the pilot wave where the interaction occurs would ban further interaction.

> So in the double slit experiment, the fields have null points where interference is exactly cancelling. The critics of this view say that the propagation can be of such a low energy that only one photon at a time flows through the double slit.

> The non-locality counter-argument would be that at such low field strengths, the non-locality is sufficiently large to incorporate an entire photon. So when detection is triggered, the entire extent of the non-locality of the fields are absorbed.

> In Bohm's view quantum field acts because of its form, not energy, so low energy doesn't make the field ineffective. I rather like to imagine it that the particle, or something what corresponds to it, flows or would be created in front of the pilot wave.

> That makes non-locality a function of field strength.

> Is that possible? Yes. If the non-locality is given by the uncertainty principle. In fact, tht is exactly what it has to be. But there is still a problem.

> For example, the double-slit data at very low field strengths (single photon levels), shows that as the number of detections build up, the interference pattern fills in.

> So if the first detection is on one peak of the eventual pattern, it must be that the other detector atoms on that peak are not triggered in that region until photons are detected in many other regions. That also seems unlikely. It seems to require intelligence on the part of the atoms.

In my view pilot wave is associated with particle and so there are separate pilot waves for every perticle. This may be hard to imagine if we think of pilot wave again as just waving, but if it is a propagation of a process, then it's easier to imagine that many processes may exist simultaneously.

> So I do not see how non-locality or pilot waves could do that. Those mechanisms are too deterministic. It's almost as if the world is ruled by top down mathematics (quantum theory) rather than bottom up atomic physics. There seems to be no fundamental principles that can yield such data- there are all too deterministic.

It is questionnable to call nonlocality deterministic, at least it's not deterministic in a region of space if we don't know what the connections out of it are connected to. Pilot waves have many properties other than ordinary waves, to guide (or simulate) a particle for example.

> Do we live in a completely Platonic world that is ruled by mathematical solutions rather than physical principles. ? Is there a fund**netal top-down consciousness that rules our world, which the detector atoms display minutely, but we display macroscopically?

This is very Platonic view that consciousness and matter exist separately. Bohm's view is rather based on Heraclitus what emphasizes change.

[richard]

Well, regarding our differences: Most of your post was explaining how your program can explain wave propagation. If I am wrong here, do not bother to read on.


I was a mechanical engineer as an undergraduate and was immersed in fluid dynamics, which is very much a wave-like medium, with some nonlinearities like hydrualic jumps. I was less expert on the Navier-Strokes equations for gas flow. But their solutions include wave like behavior. So my conception of what makes waves is based on billard ball theories. Dynamic programming hardly seems necesary.

Then in grad school I became immersed in Maxwell's equations, which are exactly wave-like in their solution. If your dynamic programming can reproduce Maxwell equation solutions, that would be interesting. Is that so? Otherwise, I have to reject dynamic programming as an explanation for waves either of balls or EM.

That is probably enough to discuss for now.

Yours,

Richard

[tkorrovi]

> Most of your post was explaining how your program can explain wave propagation.

No, I wanted to explain how I understand it, whether my program can explain it or not. But unfortunately the only way how I can understand it is through my program, this is a part of my understanding, unfortunately I'm programmer and not physicist. But this doesn't mean that the conclusions are necessarily wrong for other approach, if they are wrong then it may be due to my little knowledge of physics.

> I was a mechanical engineer as an undergraduate and was immersed in fluid dynamics, which is very much a wave-like medium, with some nonlinearities like hydrualic jumps. I was less expert on the Navier-Strokes equations for gas flow. But their solutions include wave like behavior. So my conception of what makes waves is based on billard ball theories. Dynamic programming hardly seems necesary.


This is one thing what I wanted to say - waving is a property of many processes, billiard balls can also do other things than waving. I never argued that my program or similar systems are necessary to model most of the physical phenomenons, in the contrary, I said that these can be much more easily modeled in the conventional way. I am Automatic Control engineer and I saw wave like behaviour when the regulator approaches the correct value. The other thing what I saw was that even the most simple problems cannot be solved in regulators without a huge number of parameters, at the same time when man can do it easily, even without any previous knowledge. This means that a different approach is necessary to model even the simplest human behaviour.

> If your dynamic programming can reproduce Maxwell equation solutions, that would be interesting. Is that so? Otherwise, I have to reject dynamic programming as an explanation for waves either of balls or EM.

I (and nobody else yet) don't see any reason why absolutely dynamic systems (I didn't talk about dynamic programming) or other artificial consciousness system cannot reproduce Maxwell equations, but these are certainly extremely difficult to implement. Maybe you don't understand that difficulty because you used to deal with things what can be much more easily localised, but imagine something where everything *literally* can be connected to everything, the huge problem is even how to localise every little thing so that a single connection would not let other process to spoil it. Of course you may reject absolutely dynamic systems because they are not practical for you, I even didn't say that they are the explanation, but they are not necessarily wrong because at present they cannot yet implement the Maxwell equations.

[Thangalin]

Kind of a quantum entanglement for dummies:

www.joot.com/dave/writings/articles/entanglement/