In my opinion, you cannot prove a theory. All you can do is say the evidence is consistent with it. Further, you cannot say a mathematical account proves anything because any mathematical account has premises and all the mathematics can do is say that if the pre3mises are correct, this is what you will see. Mathematics computes the answer but it does not create it.

Let me give a simple example. The usual statement of the Uncertainty Principle states Δx Δp≥ ℏ/2. We can arrive at this from the de Broglie equation and from Fourier transforms, where we can say Δx Δk≥ 1/2, where k is the wave vector. ow there are two forms of the wave vector, the simple wave vector which counts the number of cycles per unit distance, and the angular one, and the Uncertainty relationship above is dependent on the angular one. In my guidance wave theory, I argue that from Euler, the wave function is not entirely complex, but becomes real at the antinodes and you can only measure real.Accordingly, we should not use the angular wave vector but rather the linear wave vector, in which case the uncertainty is 2π greater, and worse, if you apply the fact that a wave involves circular motion, and it is the phase velocity that is important, then the uncertainty relation now becomes Δx Δp≥ h. You cannot decide on these by mathematics; you have to use physical observation, and in this case,k good luck with that.

On the question of mathematical formalism, everyone assumes the Born rule is correct, but if E = hν and pλ = h, it cannot be correct because as I show in the open access paper (Miller, I. J. (2024). The Wave Function Must Represent a Physical Wave. J Math Techniques Comput Math, 3(7), 01-02.) if a particle is travelling from A to B in the absence of accelerating forces, the wave and the particle are not even in the same place, therefor the modulus of the wave at a point cannot represent the probability of finding it there, at least I standard quantum mechanics.

I should give lots more examples, and several other thoughts on this, but this will do for now.

Ian Miller

Thank you for your response.

I hope you dont find this offensive, I'm just simply going through the logic and Mathematics as well as physics. I'm going to address each thing you said one by one.

Nature of Theoretical Proofs You mentioned that you can't truly prove a theory but can only show that evidence is consistent with it. I agree with this. Scientific theories are built on evidence and are constantly tested and retested. The rigor comes from the iterative process of hypothesis, mathematical modeling, experimental validation, and peer review. This aligns with the principles of falsifiability proposed by Karl Popper, which suggest that a theory must make testable predictions that can potentially be disproven by experiments. This is why the standards I proposed include a blend of computational simulations, high-energy experiments, and precision measurements, ensuring theories are robust and consistent with empirical data.

The Uncertainty Principle and Mathematical Formalism Regarding the Uncertainty Principle, you correctly noted that it states Δx Δp≥ ℏ/2 and can be derived from the de Broglie equation and Fourier transforms. This principle is deeply embedded in quantum mechanics and has been confirmed through numerous experiments. When you talk about different forms of the wave vector, the core idea remains that there's a fundamental limit to how precisely we can know a particle's position and momentum simultaneously. The principle has been validated through various experiments, including electron diffraction and quantum optics. For instance, consider the experiment where electrons are passed through a double slit and form an interference pattern on the detection screen. This experiment validates the wave-particle duality and the Uncertainty Principle by showing that precise knowledge of the electron's position (which slit it goes through) disrupts the interference pattern, thus affecting the momentum distribution.

Mathematical Accounts and Physical Observations You suggest using the linear wave vector instead of the angular one in your guidance wave theory, arguing that the wave function becomes real at antinodes. This is an interesting perspective. However, the use of the complex wave function in quantum mechanics is not just a mathematical abstraction but a reflection of physical reality, evidenced by phenomena like interference and superposition. For example, the double-slit experiment I mentioned earlier also demonstrates the necessity of the complex wave function. The interference pattern arises due to the phase differences, which are a direct consequence of the complex nature of the wave function. Any new interpretation, like yours, should be tested against experimental data to see if it offers better or complementary insights. If your guidance wave theory predicts measurable deviations from the standard Uncertainty Principle, these predictions should be testable, and any empirical evidence supporting your theory would indeed be a significant contribution to the field

Born Rule in Quantum Mechanics You challenge the Born rule, which states that the probability of finding a particle in a given location is proportional to the square of the wave function's modulus. The Born rule has been extensively validated by countless experiments in quantum mechanics. For instance, quantum tomography experiments reconstruct the quantum state of a system by measuring the outcomes of various quantum measurements, and these reconstructions match the predictions made using the Born rule. However, if your theory offers a new perspective, it should be able to replicate these predictions or provide better explanations for quantum phenomena. For example, if a particle is traveling from A to B in the absence of accelerating forces, and your theory suggests the wave and the particle are not even in the same place, this should lead to testable predictions about particle behavior that differ from those of standard quantum mechanics. New theories must be subjected to rigorous experimental scrutiny to validate such claims.

Authentication of Theories Beyond Mathematics The standards I proposed are designed to ensure theories are not only mathematically sound but also empirically validated. Here’s a detailed breakdown of these standards: Computational verification includes using numerical simulations to compare theoretical predictions against experimental data and ensuring algorithmic consistency by running multiple simulations under varying initial conditions to check for robustness.

High-energy experiments involve using facilities like the Large Hadron Collider to test predictions about particle interactions at high energies, ensuring that detectors are sensitive enough to observe phenomena predicted by the theory.

Standard classical experiments focus on reproducibility, where experiments must be reproducible by independent researchers under the same conditions, and precision measurements, where high precision measurements test predictions of the theory, such as those in electromagnetism and gravity.

Quantum verification entails verifying that the theory’s predictions about quantum states and their evolution match experimental observations, including testing predictions about quantum entanglement and superposition through experiments like Bell test experiments and quantum teleportation.

Computational authentication involves performing and verifying one-loop (and higher-loop) Feynman diagram calculations to ensure the theory is renormalizable and comparing renormalization data against established benchmarks to ensure consistency.

Logical and theoretical framework consistency requires ensuring the theory adheres to established symmetries and group structures, such as those in the Standard Model (e.g., SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1)), and maintaining Lorentz invariance in regions where special relativity holds.

Predictive power and experimental validation require that the theory should predict new phenomena that can be tested and potentially falsified by experiments, ensuring predictions are compatible with existing experimental data, and any deviations are accounted for and explained.

Peer review and publication involve publishing the theory in peer-reviewed journals where it can be scrutinized by the scientific community, maintaining transparency in methods and data, and encouraging collaborative efforts to test and validate the theory.

Research-based comparison entails conducting research-based comparisons against known models with low loop consistency to highlight the advantages of the new theory.

In summary, while mathematical formalism is crucial, empirical validation is equally important. The standards I proposed aim to balance these aspects, ensuring theories are robust, internally consistent, and empirically validated.

Ian Miller

Your example about the Uncertainty Principle and the wave vector raises an interesting point. Before I continue, I'd like to say formatted this correctly, but for some reason it's just appearing as a block of text every time I post it.

The standard form of the Uncertainty Principle states Δx Δp ≥ ℏ/2, derived from the de Broglie equation and Fourier transforms, where Δx Δk ≥ 1/2 and k is the wave vector. You mention two forms of the wave vector: the simple wave vector (cycles per unit distance) and the angular wave vector (radians per unit distance), and argue that the uncertainty relationship depends on the angular wave vector. In your guidance wave theory, you suggest using the linear wave vector instead, making the wave function real at antinodes, thus changing the uncertainty to 2π greater. You assert that this leads to an uncertainty relation of Δx Δp ≥ h, and claim this cannot be decided by mathematics alone but requires physical observation. Here's what I would say to this: The standard uncertainty relation Δx Δp ≥ ℏ/2 is derived using the properties of the Fourier transform. It's a large Hallmark of all of quantum physics, experimentally validated, authenticated in many ways, paired with mathematical results For a particle with a wave function ψ(x), the momentum space wave function φ(p) is the Fourier transform of ψ(x). The product of the standard deviations of x and p (Δx and Δp) wpuld be given by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Δx Δp ≥ ℏ/2 Talking about the angular vs. Linear Wave Vector is important for the point I'm trying to make. The wave vector k can be represented as k = 2π/λ in terms of wavelength λ. The angular wave vector is typically k, and the linear wave vector would be k / (2π). The relation between position and momentum uncertainties derived from the wave properties holds for both forms. Then we get into real versus complex real vs. Complex Wave Functions: the wave function ψ(x) is generally complex because it represents both the amplitude and phase information of the quantum state. The modulus squared |ψ(x)|² gives a probability density. So then, making the wave function real only at antinodes simplifies the description but does not align with observed phenomena like interference patterns. From my opinion, that may potentially make it more unworkable than workable. But that's my point, you could have dressed this, simply by lemmas or theorems, in your theory, and instantly solved the issue, if it even exists. This does not invalidate necessarily, your entire Theory. Interference patterns, especially those observed an experiments which depend largely on the complex nature of ψ(x).

Experimental Validation: To experimentally validate the Uncertainty Principle and the complex nature of the wave function, think about the classic, old and worn double slit experiment with electrons. When electrons pass through two slits, they produce an interference pattern that is captured on a detection screen. This pattern arises due to the superposition of wave functions, where both amplitude and phase play critical roles. Well then my counter logic would be this; If the wave function were purely real, we would not observe an interference pattern because the phase information would be lost By placing detectors near the slits to determine through which slit each electron passes, the interference pattern disappears, demonstrating the wave-particle duality and the necessity of the complex wave function for describing quantum states So in this way, how you said "k good luck with that" that's actually very doable. .

Phase Velocity and Uncertainty: In your theory, you emphasize the importance of phase velocity. Phase velocity v_p is given by v_p = ω/k, where ω is the angular frequency and k is the wave vector. The group velocity v_g is more relevant for the propagation of wave packets and is given by v_g = dω/dk. The Uncertainty Principle relates to the spread of the wave packet, which is governed by the group velocity rather than the phase velocity. The phase velocity does not affect the fundamental uncertainty relationship. It is literally the group velocity that determines the dispersion of that/those wave packet. Experimental Test of Modified Uncertainty Relation: One could also construct a test to the modified uncertainty relation Δx Δp ≥ h, Let me even for my expertise, just give a brief outline of some things I could do:

one could design an experiment to measure position and momentum with high precision. Obviously, this is been being worked on for a long time and is being worked towards every day by scientists all around the world. Using advanced techniques such as cold atom traps to isolate and measure individual particles allows for the type of calculations you indicated are impossible or unlikely. precise position measurements with laser interferometry. This allows actual physically viewing complex phenomena like you stated. momentum measurements through time-of-flight spectroscopy. These are just ideas, but experiments could most certainly be performed in this vein, and yes, could actually be physically observed. Comparing results with the standard quantum mechanical predictions would reveal if the proposed modification holds. The experimental data so far supports the standard Δx Δp ≥ ℏ/2 relationship When we have a theory, it is our job to seek out these validations.

Finally, my conclusion: While your guidance wave theory presents an intriguing idea, the standard quantum mechanical framework with a complex wave function and the established Uncertainty Principle has been extensively validated through both theoretical derivations and experimental observations. The phenomena like interference patterns and quantum entanglement strongly support the necessity of the complex nature of the wave function and the standard uncertainty relations. Any new theory must not only provide a consistent mathematical framework but also be rigorously tested against experimental data to be considered a viable alternative. And again, even with an inconsistency this big, your theory could still and probably does still work for certain calculations and computation.

That's kind of my point, anything can be technically broken down in a way with seemingly invalidates it, that doesn't actually diminish or supersede the experimental results or Authentication.

The reflection of the intuitive powers of science on the field is only possible through Mathematics. In short, the calculator of science in the field is mathematics.

Theories are valid in this sense. Not everything that is said or written constitutes a theory. The relevant branch of mathematics tests, discusses and concludes it. Mathematics supports these theories by guiding them. It does this within its rules. In cases where it is insufficient, it creates new possibilities and possible situations within itself. Despair is against science. The helplessness of theories creates vicious circles, i.e. they do not come to life.

Theories are presentations and new expressions of theorists over time. If true, new theorems come to life with their connections. It becomes life rather than a dream.

Theory, Theorem Theorist, the triad forms the trivet of science.

Mathematics determines and concludes its accuracy in the field. In doing so, it is strict and ruthless.

Sometimes it tips its hat to science with its agility.

In short, it gathers the trio of Science, Mathematics and Human in one pot.

Mathematics, mathematics, mathematics,...

Hasan Keleş Beautiful words. I most certainly lean towards agreeing. But I try to still understand the other side of the coin, because the problem will never get solved until you can get the theorists and the mathematicians to talk, so to speak. I have a hard time seeing logic other than that all evidence boils down to a form of math. Mainly because on a pointlessly technical way, no one can argue it doesn't. I like the robustness of that simple logic.

There are people who would write an entire book trying to argue against what you said.

Opposing science weakens the opponent and makes the path of science more mature. Cause, how and effect come into play. It finalizes the essence of the expression of the account and moves on. Just as the solar system does not move depending on anyone, science does not produce theories depending on anyone. The condition, events and results...

Alex Wolf Definitely no offence. Any theory must be op0en to logical discusssion.

Taking the second post from the top, and paras 1&2 ( first and second para with debatable points) You say making the antinode real does not sole interference pattern explanations. Four points. (a) Do you deny Euler's complex number theory? Unless you do, the antinode has to be real. (b) I never denied the uncertainty principle and indeed I argued it was 2π more uncertain. (c) I argue there is a physical wave, and if so there must be interference. The antinodes merely give the most probable location of where the particle will strike the detector, but perforce there will be spread due to the uncertainty principle. Interference is described exactly as with any other wave. (d) The wave does not have to be complex to get interference. simple sine waves interfere quite nicely.

(2) You write : By placing detectors near the slits to determine through which slit each electron passes, the interference pattern disappears. This is the old argument if you know which slit the particle went through the interference pattern disappears. Not true, as demonstrated by Kocsis, S. and 6 others. 2011. Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer Science 332: 1170 – 1173. The behaviour is exactly as predicted by David Bohm with his pilot wave theory. (My guidance wave is similar in concept, but with some logical differences and ofcourse, the premise relating to complex number theory.

(3) The argument that the phase velocity does not affect the Uncertainty principle misrepresents what I wrote (I hope). The argument was against the Born rule. How can ψ.ψ* give the probability of finding the particle if the two are not in the same place? Further, I show in the reference I gave why this is, and how to correct it, and it is a premise of my guidance wave that such correction happens, which requires the wave to be physical, and the equation of the guidance wave being the Schrödinger equation.IKt is the particle that has no equation for its motion, thanks to random jostling by the wave that is sweeping it along.

Alex Wolf

Comments about your first post, not covered in my other post:

I disagree that "mathematical formalism is crucial." I agree that mathe4matical relationships are critical, but we have to be careful about formalism. Thus the current formalism for quantum mechanics actually includes premises not present in the Schrödinger equation, and further, Schrödinger considered the "particle" was a wave packet, but that is an additional premise that is not necessarily correct. If there really is a particle, then superposition cannot be correct. Waves automatically superimpose provided the oscillations occur through the same cause, but particles cannot superimpose because particles occupy exclusively elements of space. Thus waves travel through each other unchanged, but particles collide and scatter.

I also disagree that peer review and publication is leading journals is essential. The truth is determined by nature, not by reviewers. Peer review is essential for eliminating nonsense, but some reviewers take it as their god-given right to eliminate anything they do not agree with. If that stands, we get no discussion.

Ian Miller

Thank you for taking the time and care to respond with such technically great messages!

You had said "I disagree that peer review and publication is leading journals is essential. The truth is determined by nature, not by reviewers. Peer review is essential for eliminating nonsense"

Before I respond to everything else, I just want to say, I definetly agree with this on a personal level. And I hope science goes more and more towards the direction of extremely rigorous self authenticating documents being the norm. This matching up with what you said the truth being determined by nature or not reviewers. I have also stood firm, that appear review is not going to undo a universal law. It does seem a vestigial gatekeeping method, from the early days of science.

But at the same time unfortunately I must remain impartial to my opinion does not matter. Since this is my opinion, I know that I likely have a weakness in my logic related to this, so of course as a scientist I must attempt to impartially balance this. And try to see both sides of the argument.

The only way we will ever supersede peer review, is by ironically utilizing it as a platform to discuss these ideas. The only other way I feel like, would be of all scientists to stop engaging in an entirely. But I have a sneaking suspicion, that science will stubbornly stick to this tradition, for a very long time past it being helpful. If not already.

congratulation

Well done on your progress, and your achievements are assured.

What is the typical duration for a plant to grow?

What is the reason behind the presence of mathematical patterns like fractals and spirals in both plant structures and galaxies?

This indicates that it is important to conduct experiments over extended periods to substantiate theories.

The presence of Irrational numbers such as Pi and Phi in natural structures implies that even fundamental constants like Planck's constant and gravity can also be Irrational numbers.

In four-dimensional space, we observe that physical constants are related to natural numbers, and as the dimensions increase, they become linked to Pi, Phi, and Euler's numbers.

None of the theories are incorrect; rather, the evidence varies depending on our viewpoint.

A comprehensive theory should encompass the extrinsic geometry of events, approached from an extrinsic geometry standpoint.

Best

This discussion assumes - reflecting the opinion of nearly every scientist in the present and past periods of history - that rigorous mathematical formalism, and experiments, are crucial to scientific progress (math relationships are critical, and potentially capable of being expressed verbally if sufficient intuition plus logic is used). My reply will seek to show the validity of the assumption that experiments and maths can only be the final word in science if that maths and experimentation is conducted by members of a civilisation that, in the far distant future, will produce the universe we currently live in. Many readers will cease reading further now because they believe this post is going to be pure fantasy, science fiction, wild speculation with no basis in real science, or pseudoscience. Some readers will proceed with this attempt to describe the future conclusions of a Theory of Everything / Theory of Quantum Gravity. However, I suspect they'll be dissatisfied since they'll want the hypotheses to be capable of either proof or falsification by experiment. It will take a much more enlightened mind than mine to prove or falsify something which doesn't exist in early-21st-century Earth's frame of reference.

First, experiments -

Objective Reality in Cyclical Space-Time

Conventional physics emphasizes experiments verifying objective reality but both quantum mechanics (QM) and originator of the multiverse hypothesis Hugh Everett suggest there's no such thing as objective reality. Regarding QM - if quantum superposition is taken to its logical extreme, everything in the universe would affect everything else. Regarding Everett - his idea of the universal wavefunction says the observed and observer are all mixed together. These two references mean an experimenter's consciousness can never avoid influencing (technically, biasing) an experiment.

Physicists would be aware of these QM/Everett things but they seem to be unconsciously reverting to a classical view in which objective reality exists in all space-time, and not just in the limited perceptions of humans or animals. Our restricted senses (along with the limited technology and mathematics developed by humans to date) might view a quantum superposition where everything, including consciousness, fills all space and time very differently. For example - instead of occupying the whole of spacetime, a subatomic particle could be interpreted as being in more than one place simultaneously (this is what quantum physics says today).

If the existence of our science was separate from existence of the universe, there would indeed be objective reality for scientific theories to investigate. Suppose the accepted concept of time needs an additional component of not being purely linear but of being curvilinear (recall Albert Einstein's concept of curved spacetime). Future warping of space-time could modify that curve and form a circular time in which far distant centuries and millennia could directly connect with the remote past.

If a civilization is sufficiently advanced (advanced beyond our comprehension), the universe's origin is potentially artificial - without referring to religious beliefs. When circular time entangles science and technology from the distant future (observers) with a created universe (the observed), it'd be perfectly acceptable for objective reality not to exist and for experimenters to unavoidably influence experiments.

This is because studying the universe would have taught the observers how to do the wonders they perform. One of those wonders would be creating the observed cosmos whose fine-tunings would once again ultimately produce observers who'd produce the requisite cosmos. The cyclical nature of space-time would be transferred from current cosmology's repeated Big Bangs and Big Crunches to observers' future science constantly producing the observed universe.

Multiverse of Dimensions

Now to elaborate on the reference to the multiverse and Hugh Everett. To do this, Wick rotation - sometimes regarded by scientists as nothing more than a mathematical convenience - needs to be addressed (in the form of what was previously called "circular time"). The relevance of Wick rotation to the structure and function of space-time is contained in the following paragraph -

Just as the building blocks in chemistry are atoms and molecules, the building blocks physics could use to determine what spacetime is might be binary digits and topology. There are two clues to this conclusion. First - in his book "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking states that quantum spin tells us what particles actually look like. A particle of matter has spin 1/2 and must be completely rotated twice (720 degrees) to look the same. Added to this is - a Mobius strip must be travelled around twice in order to reach the starting point. The second clue was supplied by a paper Einstein published in 1919. That paper asks if gravitation and electromagnetism play a role in forming elementary particles. The clues can produce the following hypothesis.

The BITS or binary digits of one and zero - produced by the presence or absence of electric pulses - code for a Mobius strip (similar to the way that topological figure can be viewed on the Internet). Then two Mobius figures are joined to create a Klein bottle: possibly, the doughnut-shaped figure-8 version of the Klein. The Klein bottle is immersed in the 3rd dimension, with binary digits filling in any holes or gaps to produce a technically flat (the Klein's positive and negative curvatures cancel) and simply-connected result (a flat, simply-connected universe implies a literally infinite space inseparable from infinite [eternal] time). This procedure is similar to computer art's Sky Replacement, where the 1s and 0s can make a smooth blue sky stretching from horizon to horizon. The 1s and 0s naturally exist on quantum scales, and imaginary numbers are essential in quantum mechanics. So the complex (real + imaginary) numbers of Wick rotation could be given a practical use by being a subroutine of the Mobius strips and becoming the 4th dimension of time which can't be separated from the dimensions of space. Trillions of Mobius strips could form a photon while trillions of more complicated figure-8 Klein bottles might form the more complicated graviton. Interaction of photons and gravitons (in a process called Vector-Tensor-Scalar [VTS] Geometry) creates the Mobius-based matter particles. In this scenario, spacetime wouldn't be an abstract thing filled with alleged Virtual Particles which can't be detected and may not even exist. Space-time would be a sea filled with photons and gravitons that travel on curvilinear trajectories.

Now for the connection between Wick rotation and the multiverse. Physics says space and time can never be separated. So interdimensional journeys are more than movement between known space on Wick rotation’s x-axis and the unknown (or “dark”) energy and matter of Wick’s y-axis. Interdimensional trips also are time travel since the “known space on Wick rotation’s x-axis” is actually familiar spaceTIME, and the “unknown (or ‘dark’) energy and matter of Wick’s y-axis” is really unfamiliar spaceTIME. California Prof. Itzhak Bars has said there are actually two dimensions of space and two of time (https://phys.org/news/2007-05-two-time-universe-physicist-explores-dimension.html). In fact, dividing the 360 degrees of Wick rotation into arcseconds would mean there are 360x60x60 dimensions - and further division into millionths, billionths, etc of an arcsecond would result in a literal multiverse of dimensions.

Second, mathematics -

The Fundamental Equation “One Plus One Equals Two” Is Only True Sometimes

Imagine the universe actually is a holographic projection or a computer simulation where every fermion and boson is linked by the AI-generating BITS (binary digits) of 1 and 0. What happens to formal mathematical definitions when every fermion and boson is linked? The linkage means everything throughout time and space can be regarded as one particle. This is reminiscent of John Wheeler's and Richard Feynman's speculation that the entire universe consists of just one electron, zigzagging through time (the weirdness of quantum physics vanishes and no particle can exist in two places at once since the unification of everything in space and time - possibly achieved with Quantum Gravity - means only one place or event (see next section) can ever exist in the universal, co-moving frame of reference where observer and observed are united). If the universe can be regarded as one particle, how can one thing be added to another thing?

Then 1+1=2 cannot be true in an absolute or quantum-gravity sense. 1+1=2 would only be true in the human frame of reference (it would also be true in the technology and mathematics which the human frame of reference developed). These conclusions regarding 1+1=2 may be compatible not only with a QG (quantum-gravitational) approach but also with an LF (Leonardo-Faraday) one. Neither Leonardo da Vinci nor Michael Faraday appear to have trained in the formal mathematics of their time but that lack never stopped them from discovering great things.1+1 would equal 2 in the QG/LF reference frame if human mathematics and technology from the 21st century used general relativity's curvature of time - made circular by Wick rotation and warping of spacetime - to create the universe. But I look around and see that our tech/maths is not advanced enough yet.

Flat, Simply-connected Space United With Advanced, Curvilinear Time and Unipositional Quantum Mechanics

Generating a universe which has always existed sounds like the ultimate paradox. How could it possibly be done? Virtual Reality might produce a model of the observable universe. The reality we perceive is entangled with the simulated cosmos because every boundary between our observed and modeled universes is deleted by numbers with the property i² = -1. To be precise, by the imaginary time those numbers describe and which Stephen Hawking popularized. This permits alterations in one to influence the other (Augmented Reality is transmitted from one location in space-time to another). Imaginary time joins with pi and creates an infinite space which is always connected to time and consequently generates an eternal universe. Augmented actuality isn't really layered on “other” points. Precise, merely superficially probabilistic Quantum Mechanics that uses binary digits’ 1s and 0s as Hidden Variables compatible with quantum entanglement unites each quantum object in space, and in every period of time. Macroscopic objects are composed of quantum ones and the two scales should be unified by a QM that produces exact results and is as applicable to the micro as much as it is to the macro. Unification of the microscopic and macroscopic in all of space and time means only one point ever exists (this might be termed “Unipositional Quantum Mechanics” in which transmissions throughout

spacetime are instantaneous because of only one point existing in spacetime).

It's plausible that quantum entanglement by "advanced" and "retarded" components of electromagnetic and gravitational waves will play a role in this UQM. In 2008's "Physics of the Impossible", Michio Kaku writes - "When we solve (19th-century Scottish physicist James Clerk) Maxwell's equations for light, we find not one but two solutions: a 'retarded' wave, which represents the standard motion of light from one point to another; but also an 'advanced' wave, where the light beam goes backward in time.”

(In 1925's "Electrodynamics in the general relativity theory", George Yuri Rainich discovered that Einstein's equations state gravitational fields possess enough data about electromagnetism to allow Maxwell's equations to be restated in terms of them. Therefore, gravitational waves may likewise have retarded and advanced portions.)

Advanced waves were much loved by Richard Feynman. They travel back in time and when combined with the retarded waves which go forwards in time, their entanglement would result in an "eternal present" necessary for time travel. John G. Cramer wrote in his 2022 article "Advanced Waves Detected" - “In summary, it appears that advanced waves do exist and have been detected. Much more work must be done to ensure that this effect is real and can be extended, but the physics implications are gigantic.”

Alex Wolf I thought I would add a thought to the Uncertainty Principle argument. If we use the phase of the wage function is exp(2πiS/h) if we generate S = h quanta of action (i.e. 1 quantum) the phase shift is 1 cycle. Now, if we restrict the ability for a determination to record a result as to when the wave is real, i.e. at the antinodes, the spacing is h/2. (That is the geometric derivation I give in my ebook Guidance Waves).

Further, I should add the intuitive thought that the wider the spacing that you can make a determination, the more uncertain it is.

Finally, I should also add that this concept of only the antinodes being relevant and the guidance wave concept make the calculation of chemical bond properties far easier. As an example, the triply bound molecules P2, As2, Sb2 get their bond energies calculated to within 2 kJ/mol without using any constants other than standard ones (like quantum numbers, electron charge, permittivity etc) and you only need a hand-held calculator. I challenge anyone to do that sort of thing with standard quantum mechanics.

Rodney Bartlett Ian Miller

Thank you guys for taking the time for these competent answers.

I am still formulating the mathematical side to the responses to these, today being a tired day.

The more I speak to scientists, the more I wonder who the people even are pushing that peer review is absolutely necessary to consider something a rule of reality. The more scientist I speak to, the more I find out that the outdated notion of peer review is not supported by even a lot of doctors, physicist and private researchers currently working. I know scores upon scores of advanced individuals and phds, including myself who have completely thrown away the idea of peer review. It makes me very sad on a core level, our entire approach to how we validate and popularize information is deeply flawed.

If we ever want to get rid of peer review, we need to start developing authentication systems like this, and pushing them, as well as encouraging scientists and a mass effort to minimize peer review, or to change the model for peer review. Because I don't think peer review is inherently bad, I think the current model we have for assessing science with it is completely messed up.

As for the One plus One equals two argument, I would be careful bringing this contentious issue up to anyone, but I will play devil's advocate. This is true in a way, but it's a lot simpler than you stated, and only partially true from my perspective.

I don't think people realize that mathematics without units or measurements is literally just a form of abstraction to help understand the universe. So saying 1 + 1 = 2, is just as nonsensical as saying cat in the hat plus cat in the hat equals thing one and thing too. It's literally comparing imaginary things. A line, and A point, as a physics-based assessment, do not in actuality exist in this dimension. It's almost theoretical to the point of being nonsensical, and I feel like somewhere along the line humans forgot that the numbers without units, lines and points, we're simply meant to be tools to simplify the universe, and understand it more.

Numbers only become real and useful in science, and a tool for understanding the universe, when you extend these to measurements, units, processes, and human rules.

On the other side of this, one could also argue that the only real thing is mathematical truths, and one could also further argue that any form of mathematics with human logic factored in, is simply a human based misunderstanding of extensions of mathematical abstractions we designed to better understand the universe.

I think perhaps this is where the argument gets confusing. All mathematical principles should be able to be described verbally, either by Future humans, or by someone of a sufficient skill set. the extremely small lack of individuals capable of doing this, should not indicate one way or the other how important this is.

The hard truth of the matter, is whether you believe in mathematical formalism or not, that the answer does exist, and humans will someday discover it. I'm 100% line of thinking, that we either do not currently have the tools or Frameworks to understand things in this way, and that the answer is likely vastly weirder than we're capable of answering now, or somewhere completely in the middle of the two arguments being made.

Alex Wolf As regards peer review, it is worth noting the responses to Bohm's pilot wave theory. (https://bohmian-mechanics.net/files/A_Theorist_Ignored.pdf) The remarks by Oppenheimer, his PhD supervisor, is particularly interesting. If these guys were his peer reviewers, he would never have even got published. Yet he was to predict the results of the 2-slit experiment (noted above) that contradicted what they asserted was true, while one could say he was wrong, without explaining where he was wrong and providing evidence.

Alex Wolf I am unaware of what review Oppenheimer had for his work, and the nukes would not have been publicly reviewed, but equally I don't think you can blame Oppenheimer for doing the work/leading the team. The US government ordered the bomb to be built, probably in part due to Einstein's letter to FDR.

*the previous one had typos due to text to speech, please read this new version and I will respond to what you said here"

What a powerful and poignant point. From what I understand, Oppenheimer was heavily involved in physics, and of course with the creation of the atom bomb, but had almost no, to very little peer reviews.

That did not affect the reality of the fact that his inventions of work, caused potentially millions of deaths and one of the biggest existential threats to human beings to ever exist.

It doesn't affect the reality either, that even without peer review, and even if he had never gotten any of his peers acceptance, he was still harboring these ideas, which are capable of changing all of humanity good or bad.

It doesn't affect the reality either, that even without peer review, and even if he had never gotten any of his peers acceptance, he was still harboring these ideas, which are capable of changing all of humanity good or bad.

I cannot believe, that with human beings having this vast existential threat to all human life, due largely to the work of one man, and it still seems we did not learn this lesson, that is our duty as a species, to assess any scientifically competent work, or even popularize it to assess the risk and benefit these works to humanity. Peer review essentially destroys this process.

Peer review did not stop, affect or properly assess one of the greatest existential threats to humanity ever, and it's creation. So you make a good point.

With the new genetic sciences, an artificial intelligence, I hope humanity does not make the same mistake again. Because people championing these works regardless of peer review, will completely dominate.

One could design any manner of device, and wait for a peer review. Or they could just construct the device. The scientific and societal limitations preventing this, or dwindling to almost nothing and making this type of thing more accessible. I think, deep down, especially with the new US AI laws stating part of the reason was to "prevent removal of barriers from Fields like genetic sciences" says everything.

Pretty much blatantly put scientific gatekeeping right in the law.

I think that's been the whole purpose of peer review, deep down with the current model we have. Because having peers review your work and validated is of course necessary, but that being tied to popularization so stringently, is very damaging to science. And so is the general current process of peer review.

Ian Miller Rodney Bartlett

So, the real issue is that each and every model can contain a fake position that most people have a hard time recognizing.

Whichever formal system you are using, there will be a position of zero value that is most-important to that formal system nevertheless.

If we do not break free from the restrictions that any formal system places on us, then it will be fruitless to discuss the big picture.

I use normal example, so Money shows how the zero value position is nevertheless enormously important.

When there is nothing in your wallet, then that is not unimportant. No, it is actually extremely important. So, the spot showing a lack of value within a formal system is of utmost importance.

--

Obviously, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems also show that. Gödel also showed that Einstein's Spacetime has a real competitor in Gödel's Metric.

Somehow, people are not awake about the big picture. They are super-awake about their own specialty, but they seem to all fall into the same trap at the overall level. They are standing inside the spot with the zero value, and then look at the rest of the Big Picture. They forget their own footing. They do not include the zero value location in the big picture.

--

Here is my article, and it is not a scientific paper but a paper that points to the unscientific nature of many scientists. You may not like it, because it tells you that you are very awake about everything you know, but you are asleep about the Structure of Everything (i.e. this is not the ToE because it is about structure).

I am just pointing at the subject matter of singularities; it is like eight-year old boys and their fantasy and clinging on to it. If you believe that singularities are real, then this article is for you. If you are stuck in your ideas about the big picture, not seeing it, then this article is for you.

Preprint On Singularities Being Brain Farts!

Fred-Rick Schermer That you do not claim to know everything does not mean you are limited, but rather you recognize there is more that you don't know. I have no idea what happens when the equations for interactions tend to infinity. I my opinion, something else should happen first, but with gravity I don't know what.

Similarly, I don't know what you mean by turning an equation around the other way. There is nothing magic in how it is arranged and the two versions mean the same thing and technically it is not correct generally. It should be E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 as it is hard for anything to be stationary.

Not trying to describe the big picture does not mean you are unaware of it - merely that either you can't or don't want to fill it in. Thus if you are at NASA and planning on sending a rocket to Mars, you do not use Einstein's relativity; it is simpler and as efficient to use Newtonian dynamics and Galileo's relativity. It does not mean you do not believe in Einstein; it merely means you do not control with enough significant figures for Einstein's relativity to be important, so why not use the easier maths?

Ian Miller

I appreciate your reply, Ian. Thank you.

Infinity is a special attribute, and there are just two locations in which it occurs:

* Space.

* Virtual realities (i.e. models).

There is no matter of infinite properties. Any time infinity is associated with matter, reality takes control of the situation sooner rather than later.

Scientists must therefore be very careful when using the term Infinity to declare something, particularly about the whole, since there is very little scientific body to the word other than in models and initial setups that always peter out.

Let's say that a person is going to drive into infinity. Two scientists are at hand to check this out.

* One scientist gets into the car and reports back every month: "Yes, we are still driving toward infinity. No, we haven't gotten there yet."

* The other scientist stands next to the car when it starts driving, and after ten minutes she goes home. "No more data to report."

Infinity is therefore not really a scientific word. But, again, it can be useful in our virtual realities, in models.

--

Recognize with space that space is under normal conditions considered a phenomenon. It is real, but it does not have any attributes of its own. Naturally, Einstein used Spacetime to show us his calculation framework about the behavior of matter, but that is a mathematical position about physics, and not a physical position itself.

Folks still have not the awareness enough that Einstein's spacetime is correct but does not explain the Why. You do know that Gödel also had a correct framework, distinct from Einstein's that Einstein recognized as correct?

--

I like that you include the non-stationary reality of matter in the E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 equation. Good position.

But... the point I am making is that energy is not automatically matter. It is therefore the = sign that is the real problem here. Anyone stating that energy equates to some form of matter is not a good scientist. Meanwhile, one can indeed state that matter equates to some form of energy. In one direction, we have a truth. In the other direction we have the mere possibility.

A dog is an animal, but an animal is not automatically a dog.

Of Energy and Matter, Energy is the larger one.

--

Lastly, not recognizing that there are things one can never know makes for a brain not accepting it is a tool that needs to be sharpened, not dulled. We need smarter physicists, trained in structural thinking.

The Scientific Realm is larger than the Scientific Reach.

Science:

1. That what never can be known. Examples are the beginning of time, the beginning of space, and the beginning of energy. We have no data, and we will never have that data. We should not incorporate what we cannot know into our models. Physicists are not priests.

2. That what is known but cannot be repeated. Example is the beginning of matter. The Big Bang was a one-time event. It is like breaking a vase. One cannot break the vase twice, even when one could break a piece of the vase an additional time. One-time events can still provide solid information. An omelet is 100% loud and clear about the egg being broken, even if we never get to see the egg shells.

3. That what can be repeated. This is the gold standard in science of course. Yet to demand all is based on repeatable evidence is immature.

Thank you once again, Ian. Good comments.

Fred-Rick Schermer Your point about reversibility is a good one regarding the equations of relativity. If we take the Newtonian equation F = ma, we can rearrange this any way we like because mass is considered a constant. So in principle we can say m = F/a and use that as a means of measuring mass.

But if we take E = mc^2, c is the constant, so in particle physics there is a tendency to say m = E/c^2, which, I suppose , is as good a way of ranking particles as anything. Further, if we take the masses of an electron and a positron and add in the kinetic energy of their collision we can predict the gamma ray energy. This is considered to give us the right to say the mass of the particles is "constrained energy" but the mechanism of the constraint is unknown.

This, I suspect, is where our fascination with models runs into trouble. Thus we say the mass of a proton mainly comes from the internal kinetic energy of quarks, but we have never seen a quark. The proposed reason is they are held by the strong force, but really we cannot measure this either. We say it must be correct because the standard model correctly predicts what we see, but nobody independent of the calculations can see how they were reached because there are so many terms with constants that have to be assigned.

In my op0inion, we are getting ahead of ourselves. We assume a lot is true because we can calculate things with it, but that does not mean we understand. My personal view is we can go very wrong. Thus in ordinary quantum mechanics we use the Born rule to calculate probabilities of where a particle will be, but if you think about it, the Born rule cannot be correct because if the Einstein frequency equation and the well-known de Broglie equation are true, then the wave and the particle are not in the same place because the phase velocity of the wave is only half that of the particle. One can correct that with my guidance wave interpretation, but who does? There are a lot of assumptions regarding correctness out there. In my opinion, I have found at least five, but in essence they are ignored.

Ian Miller

Excellent replies, Ian. Thank you. It looks like we are standing more in the same spots than I previously thought, and I like that a lot.

We do know about quarks, and if one looks at the structure how a quark cannot exist by itself, then a very clear conclusion can get established:

* They had to come into being under extreme conditions.

That means we can state that the given situation to start out with was originally one of normal conditions -- and we do not need to explain what normal was because this is just the setup.

Then, the extreme situation got established in which some (and not all) energy ended up being deformed into quarks.

Then, the outbound motion among all energy started to occur due to the damage experienced in parts, and the extreme conditions ended up moving toward normal conditions.

At the CMBR, the normal conditions were restored, and the quarks released of that extreme condition. At first opportunity, the quarks aligned themselves into neutrons and protons. The quarks could not return to their original state, so these are the most optimal outcomes the quarks could establish.

* Neutrons, because neutral in charge, and we can read this as a successful outcome, albeit of a secondary nature, not the original nature.

* Protons, with a charge, so no perfection here, yet an outcome also of a secondary nature. The way I read a proton is that both up quarks demand being in first spot (yes, I use simple analogies), whereas the down quark agreed that both were indeed up. Hence, we have a general agreement together with a specific dispute. Since this was the most optimal outcome (but short of establishing a full balance), we have the protons with a charge.

* Then, the electrons got pulled in from the very, very large remainder of original energy that did not get damaged, all with as goal to neutralize that positive charge of the protons (neutralize and not annihilate).

From this, one must conclude that the electrons are from a different energized reality than the quarks. In plain words, the electrons did not get damaged, they are their original selves. Yet the positive charges of the protons forced them into the material environment nevertheless. So, we can see the original energy albeit under duress/tension.

Lastly, we have an enormous amount of energy still that is immaterial. Two options are available: All that is remaining is just immaterial energy, like it already was. Or... most is then immaterial energy as it already was plus compacted immaterial that was deformed during the extreme conditions but that did not sustain damage. I hope you see that I am referring to dark matter here, if we truly need dark matter in our model.

--

So, I am with you, and at the same time I have to warn about embracing the not-knowing as a location in which we can brainstorm our way toward better answers. We should never stand in the area where data will always be missing, and the focus should therefore be with the data that we do know.

I have seen many a good scientist desiring the unification of parts, and I cannot believe that they do not call themselves priests. Unification is something that belongs to the original state and we do not exist in the original state. We live in the resulting outcome.

I cannot look at my ten fingers and then declare that I must be God. That is a structural faux pas of very immature stature. We cannot look at the material outcome and then declare there must be some way to unify all. Even when one can try to see the Vase in all the broken pieces on the floor, we cannot declare that the pieces will unify themselves. Once broken, the breakage itself is omnipresent. Separation is the most important aspect of the universe in which we exist. Unification is a falsehood.

The task is therefore to structurally mature these physicists because they are not looking at structural setups at all. They are Cyclopes in their minds, no matter how much I respect them in any other way.

QM needs to be understood as QM. Nothing more, nothing less. Extreme conditions caused this secondary outcome to come into existence.

Gravity is gravity. Einstein forgot to include the original sent-off motion of the Big Bang in his model, so he worked with existing forces only, whereas the original sent-off was based on a force that got spent 13.8 billion years ago.

First law of physics is very clear. A mass put in motion by a force will continue to follow a straight line unless an additional force is exerted on that mass.

Therefore we have First Motion + Gravity. There are four motions in total and Einstein incorporated just three of the four. He missed the most important motion, although his calculation framework is fine as is. It's just not about the universe. He explained the HOW; he did not explain the WHY.

Thank you, Ian, much appreciate the conversation.

Here is my article about how Quarks tell the story best. Yes, some folks needed to read it several times before it started to make sense for them. It is all about structure.

Preprint On Quarks Explaining Our Universe

Fred-Rick Schermer An interesting post. I shall have a look at your preprint soon. In the meantime, you may (or may not) be interested to know I have my own ideas of quarks. Originally inspired by the string co9ncept, I considered a d quark to have a one-dimensional vibration, and if you insert this concept into the calculation procedure I made for the hydrogen molecule, then the calculation of the bonding strength of deuterium is such that it can be (bot not necessarily is) of electromagnetic origin, plus the requirement that action is quantized. This would mean the quark is an entity, but not like the classical particle. I published that in my ebook "Guidance Waves", which, as an aside, also includes my proposition that the usual assumption that the atomic orbitals of electrons correspond to the excited states of hydrogen is wrong.

As to why I published in an ebook as opposed to a scientific paper, with the orbital concept, I put it in a such a paper, but as far as I can see it was ignored, yet nobody has found a fault with it. (The concept is that when the reis more than one quantum of action, the orbital is a linear sum of two possible orbitals and their geometric equivalents.) The data fits reasonably well with no assignable constants like screening constants, and the deviations from the ionization potential usually essentially cancel when calculating chemical bobd energies,)

Ian Miller

I like it a lot, Ian. So, let me congratulate you on your work. Of course, I will have some side remarks, but in essence you describe an important aspect of quarks; its one-directional aspect.

When quarks are forged under duress, then they will not exhibit energy in all directions. As such, we may consider calling it one-directional, or in reverse we could call it out as missing-one-dimension. Either way, we share the position that a quark represents an imperfect energized quality.

--

Moving from the quantum level to the overall level, one must account for a changing framework.

For instance, when I roll a die, I cannot know in advance what the outcome will be. Yet when I roll a die one million times, I know that one in six times I will roll a 3.

That means there are two realities at the same time that seem to contradict one another. Uncertainty at one level becomes certainty at another level.

Gödel already mentioned how matter is convergent at the specific level, whereas matter at the universal level is pure divergent.

Same is said with planet Earth, indeed a singular unit. Yet already the step up from planet to solar system, we are doing something funny in our minds if we want to view the solar system as a unit. Rather, it is more a unit of units.

One step larger and the Milky Way is then a unit of units of units. Less and less convergence, more and more divergence.

One step larger and there is hardly any cooperation remaining among all matter; the universe does not show any convergence at the universal level.

--

Energy-wise, I use the term direction. I view energy as directed (but I will not go for the religious position of then seeking a Director in it all). As you mentioned, matter is on the move, which is another way of stating direction.

One more word of caution, since I see the word cancel in your response. There is nothing wrong here, but sometimes I have witnessed folks canceling physical situations because some calculations allowed for cancelation of charges.

The fine point is said most quickly with the fact that we can see what a Cyclops sees by closing one eye. This is fine, nothing wrong. Yet the part that can lead to a fallacy is to then accept how the open eye moved toward the center of the face.

I see this happening with the Black Hole model in which physicists created a center position for matter of incredible proportions so the matter collapsed onto itself, and we can't point at it directly. That would be a fantastic magician's trick, if not for these folks considering that their thinking is correct (because it is not).

--

Congratulations once more on your article, Ian. Many good scientists are being ignored because the other scientists are missing the framework.

Our feet need to stand on:

1. Repeatable evidence (easiest results, easy to share).

2. One-time events (really there, but somewhat more difficult to share, particularly when others want repeatable evidence).

3. And never stand on that what cannot be known. The space to fantasize is fine, but no bicycle should fly through the air with just pedaling and all of us then saying how that is likely correct.

Will you share your eBook?

Fred-Rick Schermer

1. Re the cancellation, this is assumed to arise from linearity. Let the energy of an electron around atom 1 be A + X, and around atom 2 be (B + Y), And in the molecule be E + X + Y, then the bond energy is E + X +Y -A - X -B -Y.

The assumption is that whatever causes the X and the Y, it does not change when the bond forms. For example, it could be the interference with inner orbitals. It was not actually assumed as that, but rather I ignored the discrepancies to see if I could find the form of what happened when I did some calculations, and there were no significant discrepancies. Thus in my ebook on the chemical bond, I could calculate the bond dissociation energies of the triply bound P2, As2 and Sb2 to within about 2 kJ/mole from observed energies. Only standard constants were used and the assumption of using p orbitals. The bond distance of P2 was almost exact, but distances of As2 and Sb2 are unknown. The calculations use essentially the same analytic equation, but with the obvious different values of the quantum number n. As a small fly in the ointment, bismuth is somewhat erroneous, but bismuth is also erroneous for the ionization energies of the free atom, so I assume whatever causes that also applies to some extent in the molecule. I left out N2 in that. N2 works out quite well if we assume sp3 orbitals are used.

As for sharing the ebook, I am busy putting out a second edition, and I am only in the second draft so more work is required. It is still fairly rough. However, if you want to make comments on what you don't follow or disagree with, I could send you a draft PDF. I would need somewhere to send it.

Ian Miller

Very interesting, Ian. I am doing a quick structural assessment; your assessment appears appropriate.

Let me discuss a view, of the electron not belonging to the same setup as the protons. With the proton, we have the action of establishing a positive charge. With the electron, we have the counter action of inserting a negative charge. Yet the proton is established, whereas the electron is 'merely' the reaction.

That means that the proton is self-based at a less-'perfect' level, whereas the electron (indeed material) is produced by a field itself holding on to a perfection not wholly there anymore.

* As such, the electron is not self-based in two manners: it is the response to the proton's charge, and it is from a field.

The electron does not annihilate the charge; it neutralizes the charge. Because of this, we have two realities. The subatomic level is charged, whereas the overall level is not charged.

The specific point is perhaps how as scientists one must be very suspicious of the = sign. It can trigger the mind to go into 2D mode instead of sticking in 3D reality.

It appears you are doing the right thing, Ian, but I just wanted to double check with you about not doing "Everything, Everywhere, All At Once" because that is the 12-year-old wet dream we need not follow.

--

Let me know when you are ready for my email address. I am interested in reading your article (as I hope you have some comments to make about my universal quark article). : - )

Fred-Rick Schermer You sent an email address, but it seems to have disappeared for me. You can send me an email address using the link on my website https://ianmiller.co.nz. (You can also listen for free to some music I have composed ) However, I should warn you, the draft ebook is just over 300 pp.

Ian Miller I'm sorry I got busy preparing for a conference I had. I had some things to respond too. . .

I presented this authentication scheme. Ian, I posted a cool document recently. I have attached it.

Glad to see this conversation has been generating good questions and engagement. Coming back to it I was delighted to see this.

Ian, I don't know if you are more of a math person or a theoretics person, but what do you think about fractional loops Feynman loops? I'll definetly check out the music you composed.

Will respond to all these questions soon.

Alex Wolf Hi, you say you attached a document, but I can't find it.

I am more z theoretician than a maths person, not that I can['t do maths. However, I tend to be more a concepts person. For example, in my guidance wave theory, I started from three points. The first was historical. During my honours year I quickly came to the conclusion my lecturers did not understand what they were teaching. I actually stopped a lecture to protest that one equation, which went across most of the blackboard had to be wrong because it had the wrong functionality. For the chemical bond of H2, instead of going to infinity when R = 0, it went to minus 4 times a horrible b batch of terms. So in desperation I went to the library and found all the quantum mechanics books were missing except one by de Broglie. t was then that I realized I had found someone who understood what he was proposing.

However, point 2 was that much later (I had to earn a living) it occurred to me that the wave function could not always be complex - from Euler, the antinodes are real. Point three was that the Born rule can't be right, and if the wave was to guide the particle, it had to be in the same place, In my guidance wave interpretation, the equation for the wave is the Schrödin ger equation, in the form originally written.

I am not quite sure what you mean by Feynman loops, but I once published a paper in which the wave functions for ground and excited states of atoms heavier than helium are linear combinations of the excited state s of hydrogen and something similar to the ground state, The period of the wave, which gives what others think is a screening constant, is twice (because a cycle generates h/2 of action in the ground state of hydrogen) the number of possible circulations. Thus the period for a p orbital is actually 12 cycles as the electron flows Feynman's concept that it explores all paths. This has big consequences for the chemical bond. All chemical bond calculations to date, if I am right, are wrong because another quantum effect is missing. (I am a bit of a heretic.)

Ian Miller

I see you are quite the accomplished writer. Great.

I sent you my email address. Thank you.

Ian Miller

Thank you, Ian, I received your pdf and I am reading it. So far, I really like your approach, and compliments on the human tone in which you entice the reader to follow you.

--

I provided you my On Quarks Explaining the Universe article, but I also want to share the following with you.

https://fred-rick.medium.com/its-a-shell-game-bf705a597025?sk=838f0af06f14101fe387321dc8c6baf8

It is an article about the structure of shells in atoms. There is something spectacular going on here, and I have not heard anyone ever comment on that.

From the article (last sections):

"2, 8, 8, 18, 18, 32, 32, (50), etcetera.

"The first shell of electrons already contains a complete disconnect from the protons but the protons are seen as their reason to have come into being. Later on with the other shells, each interior shell is seen as the source. One shell sees the interior shell the same way as the first shell sees the protons, while the next shell sees its interior shell as preventing a direct line with the protons.

"In effect, a fundamental separation is expressed in all shells that copies and pastes the original setup of first one or two protons and their electrons. Where the protons have no problem remaining themselves while occupying space in close proximity of others, the electrons must have their own space. Electrons are trying to establish a completion that is nevertheless not going to happen."

Fred-Rick Schermer As far as shells go, my views are in the pdf I sent you, but you will have to go some distance to find it. The squares you mention could be considered as the surface area encompassed by the increasing distance, but that is really illusory. I think it is more a coincidence of the dependence on quantum numbers.

Ian Miller

Structure-wise, illusions do not exist, Ian. Structure is structure, and one reads a structure for what it is. One can discuss whether it is important, but one cannot place the structure to the side, particularly not in atoms building out to larger and larger outcomes. The observed structures tell us some of the story of the materialization process.

Obviously, there is the spatial aspect you mention, but that is not where all has then been said.

Let me phrase an important insight in the following manner:

Would you rather have one eye (the eye of science), or two eyes (science & structural thinking)? I think the choice is obvious which option can show depth much better than the other option.

In this case, I believe there is no other conclusion then seeing this structure as extremely strong. There is a story there, an important one, it provides a structural look at the resulting outcomes of the materialization process itself.

Yes, I know. Most people do not focus on structure, so they are missing out on the view. They rather be one-eye blind.

So, allow me to show something important about science, structure-wise.

Science has three areas.

1. That what cannot be known.

- examples are the beginning of time, the beginning of space, and the beginning of energy. There is no scientific data about these beginnings, nor will there ever be any data about these beginnings.

2. That what are one-time events.

- prime example is the materialization process itself. I support the Big Bang model, though I remove the fantasy positions of structures that cannot be.

3. That what can be repeated.

- this is of course the gold standard; yet the mistake many scientists make is their demand that the gold standard is applied to the other areas, too, which is non-sensical.

Particularly one-time events need to be 'read'. The example I often use is the omelet. Without seeing the egg shells, we know the egg did get broken. We do not need to see the egg shell pieces; we do not need to investigate the contents of the omelet. We have all the evidence we need: the omelet shows us something additional, how there once was an egg. Plus it tells us that we should not try to put the omelet back into the egg.

The true problem I see, structure-wise, with a good number of physicists is that they do not recognize Area #1 -- that what cannot be known using the scientific method. Structural thinking provides the extra view that enables us to see just a tad more, and that little tad more matters.

Allow me to say it one more time: people can really be one-eye blind, and their brain functions then on inaccurate grounds.

Thank you for reading the article and your reply.

I put the article on ResearchGate:

Preprint On the nuclear shell counts

Seyed Mohammad Mousavi

Seyed, I may be nitpicking here, but I am reading a conflict in your introduction words. I do appreciate what you are doing here in general (I appreciate it a lot, thank you), but this conflict has me scratching my head.

Allow me to point out the parts.

Lots of people in research gate have their own and unique theories. There's lots of technical discussion about the technicalities which may invalidate these theories, but in reality, invalidating or authenticating theories such as this is a highly rigorous process more akin to hard mathematics than it is to anything which can be put verbally.

and:

I fully believe, that there is a range of unified theories possible, all based off of competent identification of similar mathematical principles, and general principles, with a range of uses and complexity all adhering to these principles based off of personal development and usage needs.

It is awkward to see a scientist write the word 'believe' after having stated the need for an approach akin to hard mathematics.

I consider it scientifically more correct to declare that unified theories are automatically disqualified. We should not embrace beliefs in the scientific realm.

--

A good scientist acknowledges that what cannot be known (that what never can be known), and does not meld unknowable data together with knowable data. To state this quickly in popular words: there cannot ever be a scientific Everything. There will always be important and insurmountable gaps.

We do have data on the beginning of Matter, and we place this at 13.8 billion years ago, and we can bring in as well that Energy does not get lost.

Yet we do not have any data about the beginning of Energy, nor anything about the beginnings of time and space. We will never have that data.

The point is that a good scientist starts with the data and then extrapolates or theorizes with that data in hand. A good scientist knows his or her footing, and does not fly off like Superman with a fist stretched out in front of him, with that action allowing him to fly.

Will you please explain how it is possible for a scientist to declare that unification is possible, while we are living in a material universe in which separation is the prime scientific aspect among all scientific aspects?

We do see units (planet/stars) and we do see collectives (solar system, Milky Way), but we do not see a collective behavior among all matter in the universe (and if we do see it, then this is one of all moving apart).

The forces have not been unified.

QM is in its own field.

Even Mathematics is not just simply Mathematics. There is algebra, there is the decimal system, there is trigonometry, there is the binary system; we have many mathematical fields that stand by themselves. We cannot make Mathematics all one (set theorists and number theorists just one example of a mathematical conflict that exists only when we want all to adhere to one system).

Additionally, when working with tools, or working with models, then we can incorporate fallacies that are very difficult to recognize. Scientists will incorporate fallacies when they desire to unify everything, when they desire to have an omni-comprehensive view on the most basic aspects of science, making the essential aspects all fit a single foundation.

The example I often use is the drawing of a Cyclops, which is possible, even very realistically so, on paper. Yet the single eye makes for a falsehood. In nature, we do not see any singularities at all. There is no scientific data to support singularities. The support for singularities are all found inside models, not in nature.

So, I do have to ask you how you can support a belief after demanding we are rigorously investigating our theories? How come you did not challenge yourself in your beliefs?

Naturally, I am asking with my utmost respect. I really appreciate all you are doing for our ResearchGate community.

Fred-Rick Schermer

One point about your most recent post relates to your comment is that there is a very good reason why science is separated into a very many fragments: a scientist can only read and understand a very few papers a day. Worse, there are very few critical reviews written that analyses in sufficient depth that anyone can come to a conclusion on anything outside their specialist field. Basically, we don't know what we have found out.

I think we cannot rule out a theory of everything, but if there is one we may well be going about finding it the wrong way. If you get to the third part of the draft I sent you you will see the case that nuclei are actually bound by quantized action and electromagnetism. That would partly unify if it stands up, but equally it would indicate most of the other models are on the wrong track. See the problem?

Ian Miller

I see the issue, but I do not recognize it as a problem, Ian.

If we view things from the largest of levels (which is generally an approach done by priests and not by scientists), then a good observer will discover that there are always two distinct parts at the overall level that are 'in conflict' with one another.

Take matter and how it appears in the universe.

Matter shows that it is both convergent and divergent, which is a paradox (easy to solve).

We find a unit in planet and star, yet from then on out we only find collectives and to make matters worse the collectives stop being collectives at the overall level. We have solar system and Milky Way as material collectives. Yet at the universal level, we do not have any material collectives. The only general aspect we can ascribe to all matter at the universal level is one of collectives moving apart from other collectives (happenstance notwithstanding).

The subatomic level shows us the same duality. We have the protons with their positive charge and the exact same number of electrons with their negative charge. And yet they do not annihilate one another. That can only mean one thing: they each exist in their own reality and additionally share a common reality. They can both originate from energy, are energy, yet they do not exist in the same energized condition. One is the action, the other the reaction. And the reaction is incomplete, does not annihilate the charge, does not undo the existence of the proton.

How about this one: When I use formal systems only, and I combine all known formal systems into one large system, an amalgamation, then that largest of systems will not be a formal system. All ingredients are X in their inherent essence and their total will not be X in its inherent essence.

We have two brain hemispheres, and it is fine to see units (unification) at various levels, yet the two levels will never meet. As above, so below is a lie. We have two eyes; we are not Cyclopes.

Allow me to also compare potential religious structure(s) and scientific structure(s).

In religion, we can start out with the top position, for instance, stating there is a monotheistic God. Anything we follow up from that point on out is subjected to that highest position (hopefully a good fit, right?).

In science, however, we start with the data. We do not jump to the highest levels because we are not priests. We can jump to a higher level (theorize) if the data tells us there is something special going on with the data that warrants us to move to that higher level.

Sometimes, we can make a real jump up (hypothesize), yet that is only as a scouting method. We jump to that level and look around. When we find something for real, we can declare that the beginning of a theory. But... if we don't find anything substantial, then we do not dwell at that level. A good scientist gives up on his or her hypothesis when there is nothing to substantiate the hypothesis.

Science: Feet on the ground.

Religion: The mind controls the outcome, feet are secondary and can even be ignored to some extent.

--

Obviously, I agree with your assessment how folks focused on their small area of expertise discover fantastic aspects yet cannot come to a larger view due to their specialty. But... the outcome is then not a problem with the data or with reality. The problem is then found inside these scientists' heads. If they fantasize about the big picture based on their specialty, then they are doing something that they are not allowed to do, except as priests.

Is there data to confirm that the overall reality is a broken state/not unified? Yes, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems point in that direction. Completeness is available at the axiomatic level itself, yet no axiomatic system can be a stand-in for the big picture, none of them.

I have evidence myself about the mathematical building blocks that show that zero is always there. The top level is therefore one that (mathematically speaking) is made up of 1s and 0s (binary system) and 0 to 9 (decimal system), and in all comprehensive cases the 0 is present.

Exceptions occur when we simplify things, such as with dualities. Like male & female appear to be a completed set, yet there is then a falsehood included. A rock is neither male or female, so the duality is complete only in as far as the axioms themselves are concerned. Dualities are black & white views; they do not show solid footing in the big picture. Good & evil, in another example, is a rather unintelligent view on the nature of things. Can we see good and evil? Yes, we can, but like beauty they always include the eye of the beholder.

The universe shows us that separation is the single most important aspect we are witnessing. There is indeed data to support the importance of zero, yet most folks ignore the importance of zero. They push it outside their frame of thoughts because they are focusing on what is not-zero.

Lastly therefore Rubin's Vase. We either see a Vase or we see Two Faces. The data is totally the same, and it is inside our brain that we view the vase or the two faces. It is such a great example, because everyone can see both versions.

Yet the underlying structure of both outcomes is distinct.

In numbers:

The Vase is 0 - 1 - 0, with 1 representing the Vase, and the 0s representing the unimportant background.

The Two Faces are 1 - 0 - 1, with each 1 representing a Face, and the 0 representing the unimportant background.

Yet where the 0s are unimportant indeed with the Vase, the single 0 with the Two Faces is most important. It is still nothing but unimportant background, yet it separates the Two Faces from one another. Without that 0, there could not have been Two Faces.

Each Face is unified by itself, at the specific levels, whereas the Vase had that unification placed at the overall level.

The Vase is therefore the same as Unification.

The Two Faces represent therefore the same as Unification = Fantasy, except at their own specific levels.

As stated, unification is possible at the lower levels of reality, such as planet Earth being a unit. Yet lift the axioms up to the overall level, and unification turns out to be nothing but a brain fart. Only priests can declare that all is one (at whichever level they like). Scientists must stick to the data and not meld things at the bottom for which there is no data. Scientists do not embrace fantasies (for long).

We can all be Superman, but no one can create a fist and stretch their arm in the air, and then fly away.

Thank you, Ian, for engaging me in this. My real point is what I just said: Scientists should accept that they cannot know the entire picture, and the claim I make why that is the truth is because reality is never based on a single platform. Two fundamental levels is the absolute minimum.

We live in a result. We do not live in the original state of the universe.

Apologies for the very long reply.

I can't contribute directly to to your discussion, but I do have some unpublished works. Actually my work was and still is about solving problems, specially inverse problems and creating algorithms. I never published my code, it's kind of funny/sad to see that more than 12 years passed and no fundamental new research has been made, I guess because solitons studies is a quite small field. It's also hard to believe but Mathematically and computational background in nonlinear dynamics has GPTs as a trivial case. I have mathematical proof of some implementations I can't share neither I can publish directly, although I guess sometime I will, as people don't seem to care.

In my view, a theory that really describes observable aspects of physical reality can only be grounded on physically collected experimental data that can be repeatably obtained anywhere on the planet, for example like the data that underlies all of the successful applications developed over time by the engineering community.

Theoreticians have stopped grounding their theorizing on such data in the early years of the 20th century, and maybe should reconsider. All the historical sources of such data are now in the public domain, and a large sample of these sources is now provided in this article:

Article From E=mc2 in normal space to E=m0cIcK in the complex config...