New theory of quantum world

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
301

Everyone,

This thread was originally about an alternative to quantum mechanics (qm) called the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). TEW is published in the form of a book and a paper in a physics journal, both by Dr. Lewis E. Little. Since all alternatives to qm are welcome in this thread, we are now spending a lot of time discussing a new and unpublished theory of science, physics and everything called Rational Metaphysics (RM) developed by James S Saint. The debate is about how RM applies to physics, rather than all the other areas. Sometimes James has some personal speculations that extend RM, which we call JSSRM (James S Saint Rational Metaphysics).

Typist,

Thanks for the comments plugging me as a possible editor. Actually, my job is a Technical Writer for an IT company, so structuring documentation is a daily habit. I’m not a good choice as editor because I’m biased - I think TEW is the one to bet on. I’m just an interested reader when RM finally gets published.

I agree with James - you’re in a good position to be editor being more neutral and having an overview already. An editor that wants to make the ideas clear and otherwise stay on the sidelines is perfect.

James,

You are the expert on RM and so the weapons side of things may seem obvious. There are at least two ways to publish RM without risking the weapons issue, at least for a time.

The first way is to simply not publish the “Results” book or papers on physics. Just do the other areas. My personal view at the moment is that RM will be of most benefit in the other areas, because they have less chance to do experiments that physics can. Physics might be temporarily confused by the magic of qm, but one day they’ll realize how lost and alone they are without philosophy and after a big crisis they’ll finally get back to making sense and telling us useful things. To me, the other areas like economics and politics are limited in their methodology, and so RM has an obvious opportunity to provide a unified approach to analyzing an idea.

The second way is to publish the “Results” book or papers on physics without the bits about weapons. This may mean leaving out a few results and implications. Poor physics will have trouble taking in anything while it remains addicted to qm, and even when they do finally notice RM, it will take a while to work through it all.

For example, when nuclear fission was first suggested it took years to be accepted - it seemed like mystical transmutation of elements. Even once it was, the idea of a chain reaction was not immediately noticed or considered for a while. So the weapons side of things may not even happen in your lifetime. Hopefully the succeeding generations will have RM to help with politics, and psychopaths will be prevented from gaining power.

Eugene Morrow

302

Aha, I knew it!

Ah, I see, good point.

I’m neutral mostly because I have no idea what you guys are talking about. :smiley:

303

bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-s … ly-web.htm

Can I remind you of a better source without the need for any sort of time travel source.

Also that’s not what the wiki says, that’s what you imagine it says: anyone interested in what it actually says can read this link:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_ch … tum_eraser

I really am not sure where you got the idea it claimed what you say it claimed? Nowhere does it say anything like what you imply, it goes into some detail on why time issues are not actually issues. So I can only assume you misinterpreted the wiki. What it says is when the data is analysed it turns out to be exactly the same as statistical whole as what quantum mechanics already predicts. Why you got what you got from that I don’t know, but it is wrong as usual.

So you still haven’t read the links I provided and still haven’t answered my points. Since you were the one who posted contentions to delayed choice quantum eraser, you clearly believe it is on topic, and you would be right, it is related or at least on topic. I suggest in future if you don’t want to talk about something, then don’t post on the subject. I might add also don’t post very biased claims that aren’t actually backed up by the links as well.

304

I am not defending any theory I am attacking James for speculation and biased prose. I don’t know if ultimately the current favoured interpretation is right (and it is hardly a clear front runner anyway), I don’t really care, because this isn’t about that, it is about James’s specious claims and his unwillingness to provide some sort of evidence for his speculative hypotheses, that anyone can check without dancing around the issues. He seems very unwilling to attempt to put his pet hypothesis out there, I am not really surprised, but what does bother me is that people who have put their theories out there are being libeled with false assertions by people who are not willing to do so.

In fact if I wanted to defend quantum mechanics, or at least one version of it I would be better off attacking you, since you have asserted an alternative theory, that has at least some experimental contentions. I have not done so, because I really am not defending the current theory. I can’t attack nothing, or opinion, because that is all James has atm, I can attack faulty assertions about theoretical concerns though and that was what I was doing.

That is somewhat unfair, whilst it is true anyone can attack anything regardless of their standing or credentials, this is a very esoteric subject that requires a good grounding in the theory, and hence it would be better to say, not that experts believe that people of whatever education can attack quantum mechanics, just that people who don’t really understand what they are talking about should not be taken as seriously as those who do. Note this does not mean anyone is wrong, or that they can’t attack the subject, but in science a resort to authority or credentials, or evidence in the form of citation or papers is and always has been valid. Since we’re talking about a lot of philosophical concerns though, then the bar is obviously lower than it would be for a discussion into only theoretical concerns. Everyone’s opinion is welcome, some opinions however aught to be weighed according to what they say, and indeed how informed and hence how well they can say it. Philosophical issues with interpretations such as determinism or indeterminism in an interpretation of course don’t need to have backing, they are of course pure philosophy.

305

Everyone,

This thread was originally about an alternative to quantum mechanics (qm) called the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). TEW is published in the form of a book and a paper in a physics journal, both by Dr. Lewis E. Little. Since all alternatives to qm are welcome in this thread, we are now spending a lot of time discussing a new and unpublished theory of science, physics and everything called Rational Metaphysics (RM) developed by James S Saint. The debate is about how RM applies to physics, rather than all the other areas. Sometimes James has some personal speculations that extend RM, which we call JSSRM (James S Saint Rational Metaphysics).

Typist,

You wrote:

If you have no idea about RM, then you’re a perfect editor - insist that James writes so that you can understand him ! :smiley:

Helandhighwater,

I think qm supporters would probably agree that James did not accurately represent the position of qm on the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment. I am enjoying the obvious debate in qm about whether the delay can be used to communicate backwards in time or not. TEW explains the experiment with all effects happening in normal time, so I claim the TEW explanation is a more realistic explanation.

Thanks for pointing out where qm is not accurately described. Others do so from time to time, and it makes this thread more credible. I think there is no need to be so heavy handed - just pointing out the inaccuracies and summarizing a better treatment is all that is required.

You’ve criticized James for not giving more details of his theory, and not answering some direct questions I have asked. I am happy to suspend judgement on new theories. To me, the details will eventually come out when it is published, so there’s no need to require details on the spot. TEW regards the Bell’s Theorem experiments as proving nothing of any value, so I an accept if RM claims some experiments are proving nothing of any value too. I’m still happy to learn more about RM and find out what things it definitely claims.

Are you interested to learn more about RM and TEW?

Eugene Morrow

306

That seems to pretty much sum it up.

Eugene, this has been a great thread. You have been very civil and considerate. QM doesn’t actually have any explanations for the results that they present. They leave it with “Just as QM predicted, you can’t trust your eyes or minds.” It is an attack on intelligence amongst the population (“Leave all thinking to us”), which is why it wouldn’t matter if TEW was exactly correct or not. QM didn’t actually predict anything. You have to have an explanation in order to predict anything. TEW has some issues in that regard as well. For TEW to fly, it needs to predict something that couldn’t happen unless TEW was correct. TEW experiments need to eliminate any alternate theories in order to prove its viability. Until then, it will remain merely a theory, one of many. In such an environment, whoever has the most money, voice, or influence gets to name “truth” and makeup whatever magic and superstitions they want the masses to believe.

RM isn’t interested in superstitions or magic, nor even axiomatical presumptions. RM is unique in that regard. But of course, RM isn’t so developed as to have an opinion concerning all possible experiments other than the issues of local determinism. RM fully proves that issue is unquestionable even without experimentation which is how I can know in advance that no Quantum Mysticism is ever going to be valid. RM doesn’t depend upon experimentation. But the Quantum Magi are in charge of public science shows, so they get to spread their fantasies as they please, dumbing down the population.

307

Because I am certified as a perfect editor by a recognized expert in the field… :smiley:

And because the detailed portion of the thread may now be (not sure) careening to some kind of conclusion…

In my role as the most perfect editor of all time (I got a promotion!) I hereby INSIST that James summarize his theory in language which I, your average Florida swamp rat bubba with chigger bites to prove it non-science citizen, can actually understand.

As the editor, I intend to ruthlessly and without mercy slam my red editing pen down on any kind of condescending sigh or other mysterious implications of great unspoken wisdom and other such ego manifestations apparently irrelevant to RM.

My proposal is simple James. The big shot scientists will never take you seriously until you provide evidence of being a big shot yourself. So, we of the mundane rabble babble appear to be all you’ve got. Edit your language to talk to us, or you’re talking only to yourself.

308

Aww bless you still haven’t answered my questions, and when you are wrong about something it is not an opinion that really deserves any respect, you are just wrong.

Little early to be playing the martyr card though isn’t it?

Opinions with some basis in reality are welcome, I should of said, my bad.

Yes despite you and your unsubstantiated speculative fluff and downright errors, this is not a bad thread.

I don’t think you even know what that word means, no it does not prove anything because it’s your fantasy and has not even remotely been subjected to scrutiny by anyone except you, and you don’t count. Hell no one’s seen anything of it on this thread really, except when you are making outrageous errors, and dismally unscientific claims about proof and wot not.

It’s not even wrong, that’s what it is. As a scientific proposition it does not even register.

In fact I’d say your average Science fiction novel has more substance than your hypothesis. Why don’t you show us something instead of just refusing to do anything at all to further your ideas, and then claiming you have solved all sciences problems. What’s worse is you actually try and sully others work that is recognised and credible with what I can only assume is either wilful slanders or downright deliberate sophistry.

309

HEY!!
I never gave you permission to publish my pic online. :angry:

Rational Metaphysics;
Existence is defined as that which has affect Existence Meaningfully Defined.
For affect to take place, there must be potential to have affect, “PA”.
The potential to have affect is what is being affected such as to cause what we experience (an affect) as the universe.
The universe is merely the changing of the potential to have affect.
But an affect cannot occur instantaneously, else it is not “affecting”, but already “affected”.
Time is the measure of how much one PA is changing compared to another changing (being affected).
Distance or location is formed by the propagation of affect upon potential to affect.
That is why spacetime exists. Spacetime IS the changing of potential to affect, PA.
The entire field of all affects within a region is called, “affectance” or the “field of affectance”
Within any field of affectance, it is logically impossible for any portion to be infinitely homogeneous.
Because there is no alternative to areas of potential to affect being greater or lesser than others, the greater potential affects the lesser through time.
But any potential to have affect cannot be infinite, thus any affect taking place takes away potential to affect from its source.
The final balance of affect upon affect is necessarily zero for that reason - “conservation of energy”.

Questions?

310

Yeah how does that differ from any other theory?

Potential to have an effect seems like another way of saying work in relation to energy, gravitation has a potential to have an effect, it’s called gravitational potential energy. It has a field of potential effect called a gravitational field too, who’s strength is determined by the relation to itself an other objects. You’re just describing the current theories using different words. Einstein’s theory of gravity or general relativity says exactly the same thing as you have said there. He though uses words like differences in mass energy concerns, gradients of potential and non euclidean geometry, the fleshing out of the maths can be credited to colleagues also, such as Ricci and Minkowski as they relate to special and general relativity.

Also how does this solve the indeterminacy problem, something you claimed to have done?

311

I wish people would read links. Quantum mechanics explains it without any need for time travel as well, in fact it expressly forbids it, this issue is now practically dead in science and people have moved on to areas more likely to be actual loopholes in quantum theory and the two slit experiments and or quantum effects at distance. Many of those have now been closed too.

You can explain it differently and use different terms, but it doesn’t distinguish you from any other interpretation.

I don’t see any thing on this thread where you have substantiated this.

Also the published literature is not peer reviewed, or the papers are not in physics journals, which is a major stumbling block for the “theory”, which also seems to be rather ignored. A quick interweb search turns up a few pages about debunking the theory and a link to the author. Not that internet success = scientific veracity but it sure does indicate success.

I don’t think the claims made by TEW really stand up to scrutiny, or distinguish themselves experimentally from what I have read. Much of the issues seem to boil down to an interpretation rather than direct experimental values, so it’s perhaps not surprising this is not published in a physics journal, most philophical interpretations or work there on are not, with the notable exception of string hypothesis which somehow seems to avoid the whole scientific process entirely. :wink:

312

That’s MY pic you dufus! Sheesh… :smiley:

Yes, when will an English translation of RM be available?

313

Oh. Wow. We are brothers… from a different mother, I hope.

When my editor (you) finishes editing what I said. :mrgreen:

314

Probably the fate of the worlds crackpots, no one will buy their contentless waffle in the field so they end up publishing a book that does not have the sort of rigid criteria journals require, like logic, experiment, and all those inconvenient sciencey things that get in the way of a good novel, I mean work of “non-fiction”.

315

Ok, let’s back up. Who is your desired audience? Who would you like to share RM with?

316

That is the first question I used to ask myself. So the first effort was to share it with myself.
Next is my editor’s turn. You are the audience.

317

Ah, ok, that’s clear enough and definitely helps. Let’s start with small steps. Please take some small part of RM, whatever fragment most lends itself to translation, and translate your description of that fragment in to 10th grade level English language.

If your target audience was fancy philosophers or scientists, you could keep many or all the big words. If the target audience is me, your average bozo walking down the street, they all have to go.

If it’s simply impossible to do the requested translation, then the next question would be, what relevance does RM have to 95% of the people on Earth?

The question after that might be, if the enterprise can not include big grand concepts that make us feel big and grand by using them, are we still interested in RM?

318

I’d take a look at that translation as well.

319

Emm… you mean the really big words like “existence” and “potential”?
What would you suggest?

And could you point out what other words just seem too “big”;

Emm… I suspect your former request might contradict your latter assertion.

320

Thank you for the assistance, we’re surely going to need it.

James, it’s your theory and your audience. You’re free to run with what you’ve got so far if you feel it will connect. How about starting a new thread with your summary, and we’ll see what happens.