Some proponents of quantum mechanics have suggested that objective reality does not exist. However, if it does not how can any. For example, Planck defined his constant by observing the heat radiation given off by vibrating atoms. However, if that OBJECTIVE REALITY did not exist, how could he have observed it? One cannot say that objective reality does not exist based solely on a mathematical definition such as Quantum mechanics does if that math is based on that reality. This is because math allows for defining one in terms of what it is not.

For example, if you were asked to predict why we observed two apples on a table in a dark room you could say that there are four apples and two were taken away or there were 6 and four were removed. However, both give a correct prediction of what we observe however only one correctly defines its reality. One way to determine which one does would be to observe their environment. Granted we may not be able to so in the dark but we could determine the average weight of an apple by weighing and counting the number in a bushel of them and use that information to determine how many of them were present before two were removed.

There little doubt that quantum mechanics makes extremely accurate predictions and that the reality it defines is incomparable with the classical one we can observe.

As was mentioned earlier one way to distinguish which one is correct is to observe its environment which is what Planck did when he observed the heat radiation given off by vibrating atoms.

This suggests even though we may never be able to observe a quantum environment we can observe the mechanisms that interact to create the reality we can observe. This MAY repeat MAY to allow us to separate the reality of a prediction from a non-reality. For example, if we can define a mechanism based on observations of a classical environment for the quantum one or define a reason for the observable properties of classical environment in term of math of quantum mechanics, we MAY repeat MAY be able to determine which one defines reality. However, we should ALWAYS repeat ALWAYS remember that one cannot observe a reality based exclusively on math.

Einstein’s Explanation of the Unexplainable https://www.theimagineershome.com/Einstein%E2%80%99s-Explanation2.html

The post Reality is what is not what can be appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

The definition of a Theory of Everything is that it should completely define the physical properties of OUR universe.

Before we begin, we should first determine how we what to do that.  In other words, do we want find a universal equation to quantify what we observe or explain why we observe it or BOTH.

For example, quantum mechanics ONLY quantifies observations of environment it defines in terms of the mathematically properties of a wave function.  It was developed by using the numerical value of observations to define the wave function that predicts those values

Einstein took a different approach when developing Relativity.  First, he sought to understand and explain how and why the speed of light is constant despite the relative motion of an observer in terms of how things in OUR universe would interact if that were true.  He then developed the math to quantify his explanation.

Both of these theories can be part of a theory of everything however that is only possible if they both define the universe we occupy.

For example, one can use mathematics to determine why we observe 4 apples on a table by assuming that originally there were 2 on it and 2 were added or there were 6 and 2 were taken away but only one defines how and why they actually got there.

However, there is no way using math alone to determine how many apples existed before they were observed on the table. Putting it another way one CANNOT use only mathematical solutions confirm the assumption they are based on.

As was mentioned earlier quantum mechanics ONLY quantifies observations of environment it defines in terms of the mathematically properties of a wave function. This means it may define a universe that we do not live even though it can accurately quantify it. This is because, as with the apples a mathematical solution cannot confirm its assumption the wavefunction defines the quantum universe.

However, if one does as Einstein did first try to explain how and why we observed what we do in terms of how things to interact in OUR universe and then derive the math to it one can be sure the solutions it defines are an observable aspect of it.

This suggests if one takes approach the Einstein did in developing Relativity and apply it to the fact that energy is quantized one may be able to derive a Theory of Everything in OUR universe that not only explains why it is but also quantifies it in terms of the interactions of the observable properties of OUR universe.

As was mentioned earlier quantum mechanics developed its mathematical solutions on the assumption the particle properties of energy ARE fundamental. However, before the development of its theoretical structure no one attempted to determine if it was a secondary outcome of an interaction between an observable component of OUR universe.

For example, in “OUR universe” observations, the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tells us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from moving through space by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in it being confined to specific volume of three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional “walls” of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause the energy of an electromagnetic wave to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency that the wave function associates with a particle.  Putting it another way one does not have to assume that the mathematics of quantum mechanics is the only reason why energy in “OUR universe” is observed to be quantized.

    This shows even though we cannot observe what goes on in a quantum environment we CAN derive the math we use to describe its properties in terms of observable properties of our universe.

    As was just shown there MAY BE solutions to why energy is quantized; other than the one provided for by quantum mechanics which MAY give the same quantifiable results.

      However, this suggests we may be able to use the observable properties of our universe to find a Theory of Everything if, we not only attempt to mathematically quantize what we observe but attempt to understand and explain why we observe it based on how its components interact.

    For example, as was just shown we can use the observations of how wave energy moves through a macroscopic environment to derive its quantized properties in a microscopic one.

    This suggests ONE of the reasons it is so difficult to create a Theory of Everything may be because physicists are focusing too much on mathematically quantifying what we observe and not enough time trying to understand how its components interact to create those observations.

The post Why finding a Theory of Everything is so difficult. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

According to some physicists we live in a universe made up of fixed blocks of space-time while defining the change brought on by time in terms of our movement through each successive block. However, it is also possible it is not the result of us moving THROUGH but IN them.

But before we can continue, we must first define what time is.

Some define it only in the abstract saying that is an invention of the human consciousness that gives us a sense of order, a before and after so to speak. However, many physicists define it in terms of the physical properties of a space-time dimension.

Yet, the observable properties of time are something that most of us can agree upon.

One of the most persistent is that it is not directly perceived as matter or space but as a physical, chemical, and biological change in physical space.

This indicates a unit of time may be measure of sequential ordering of change similar to how a unit of length is measure of the position of an object in space. This is because similar to time, length is perceived only as measurement of where in relation to arbitrary reference point in space an object is located.

However, Einstein defined the energy required for a change in space in terms of a dynamic interaction between space and time.

For example, he defined the change caused by gravity NOT in terms of their rigidity but in terms of a dynamic interaction between them

But in his block universe he did not define change in those terms because according to it each block, with a different spatial configuration already exists and what we perceive as change or the passage of time is caused by our movement THROUGH them.

However, this suggests your birth death and every other moment of your life is out there in space-time waiting for you to arrive.

This also suggests that free will does not exist because your future is etched in a block of space-time waiting for you to move through it and there is nothing you can do to change it.

However, Einstein provided another interpretation for the changes the human consciousness associates with time when he as was mentioned earlier defined gravity in a space-time environment in terms of a dynamic interaction between them. This is because it gives us a physical mechanism for defining the ordering of change.

One can understand why by using an example of two dots “living” on the surface of a balloon. The “surface” of the balloon will represent the “surface” of three-dimensional space and the three-dimensional space outside of it will represent the time dimension in Einstein theories.

For example, if one pushes down on its surface, it will change spatial the configuration of the two dots. The change in its surface would be define not only by the distance it move but by the direction.

As was mentioned earlier, Einstein defined gravity in terms of the dynamic interaction between the space and time dimension. For example, the energy of a rocket will change the configuration of the “surface” of three-dimensional space with respect to the time dimension. This means, similar to the balloon one can define that change NOT in terms of the rigidity of space time but in terms of its dynamic properties.

If true as was also mentioned earlier change is a result of a dynamic interaction between space and time it means the future is the result of an interaction of the past with the present and the decisions we make can and do affect the future.

However, another advantage of assuming that is it is that gives us a way to define why human consciousness perceives it to be irreversible in terms of its spatial properties.

For example, if we removed the pressure on the balloon the two dots would return to their original position. However, that removal causes the dots to move in the opposite direction from were when it was applied. Yet even though their positions are indistinguishable from their original ones the dots “living” on its surface would know they had not moved backwards in time because they can observe the sequential ordering of the changes that brought them there. In other words, it would tell them they had not moved backwards in time even though they occupied same points in space.

Putting it another way the sense of order that tells the human consciousness time always moves forward is a result of the fact that consciousness also gives them the ability to observe the order of the spatial changes take place in our environment.

However, assuming it is a measure of the sequential ordering of change ALSO tells us why the laws of physics are NOT reversible with respect to it even though they appear to be. This is because as was mentioned earlier if it is measured from an arbitrary reference point in space the change caused by their reversal will ALWAYS repeat ALWAYS create a new event (with respect to that point) in the sequence of events that returned it to its original configuration.

Therefore, if one accepts time as being a measure of the sequent ordering of a spatial of change in an environment the future or forward movement of it can NEVER repeat NEVER be reversed.

In other words, if we assume the universe is made up a flexible ball of space-time as Einstein’s definition of gravity suggests instead of rigid blocks one can understand how and why the human consciousness perceives sense of order and why we feel time always moves forward even though the laws of physics it MAY not.

The post Why the arrow of time is irreversible. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

One thing all theoreticians especially physicist should be aware of is the fact there are many ways to predict observations but only one can define the reason why they occur.

History has shown assuming the existence of something based primarily on the predictive powers of mathematics and not on observations of how an environment evolves can be dangerous.

For example, in the Ptolemaic or geocentric system of astronomy, many thought the existence of epicycles, were required to explain the retrograde motion of the Moon, Sun, and planets.

It was not until scientific investigations were stimulated by Copernicus’s publication of his heliocentric theory and Galileo’s observation of the phase of the moons of Jupiter did many European scientists consider the fact that epicycles did not exist.

This is true even though many Greek, Indian and Muslim savants had published heliocentric hypotheses centuries before Copernicus.

However, why did it take almost two thousand years for them to realize their ideas were incorrect?

One reason may have been because the math that used epicycles was able to predict their positions within the observational tolerances of the equipment they used to define them. However, if the scientists who assumed the existence of epicycles had taken the time to observe how objects moved on earth, they would have realized there was a problem because, at least on earth, objects “naturally” did NOT follow the curve path associated with of epicycles.

However, because they were still able to make accurate predictions of a planet’s position based on the existence of epicycles, they were able to ignore those observations and suppress the more accurate Greek, Indian and Muslim ideas for almost 2000 years.

Yet they could not ignore the direct observational evidence provided by Galileo Galilei when in 1610 when he observed the evolution of phases of Venus that planets did not revolve around the earth. This caused a paradigm shift in our understanding of the universe.

Putting it another way, the heliocentric concept of our solar system could have become the dominate paradigm long before 1610 if European scientists had not ignored the how of objects moved or evolved on earth.

However, it would still be possible to use the math associated with the geocentric model along a powerful enough computer to predict the position of the planets within the tolerance of our modern instrumentation even though that math does not correctly define the evolution of their movement.

This FACT tells us that it is even more important now that we use observation of how a system evolves as well math to verify our understanding of their environments today. This is because the advance state of mathematics and computing makes it even more likely that models can be made that are within the tolerance of our observing equipment even though they may be based on a false mathematical premise.

For example, the proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics assume particles exist in a state of superposition or exist in many different places before observed based solely on mathematical evolution the wave function. But it cannot explain why a particle only appears when it was observed in terms of observations of environment it is defining and therefore cannot be validated as a solution to its evolution.

However, it is possible to validate a mathematical solution in terms of the environment by using its observable properties to define the math instead of using math to define those properties.

For example, the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tells us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from moving through time by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in it being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional “walls” of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause the energy of an electromagnetic wave to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency that the wave function associates with a particle.

Putting it another way when an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through space time either by being observed or encountering an object it is reduced or “Collapses” to a form a standing wave that would define the quantized energy quantum mechanics associates with a particle.

The physicist Richard Feynman is credited with saying “The weird thing about Quantum mechanics is that no one really understands it” in part because it defines reality ONLY in terms mathematical properties a wave function which only collapses to it when it is observed or interacts with something in its environment. However. it cannot explain what causes that to occur.

However, as was shown above one can understand why in terms of the OBSERVABLE properties of our universe if one assumes that it represents an electromagnetic wave in a space-time because as was shown above if it is prevented from evolving through space by an interaction with it, it WILL and MUST present itself as a particle.

Scientists ESPECIALLY physicists should realize math is only a TOOL to define define reality NOT a replacement for it.

The post Should we allow math to be our only definition of reality? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

All of our modern sciences take their names from ancient Greek. In the case of physics, that word is “physik” which translates to “knowledge of nature and is dedicated to understanding how and why “our world” behaves the way it does.

Proponents of this definition like Einstein focused on developing mathematical theories which not only quantified how gravity works in terms of a curvature in space-time but why it does terms of how objects in “our world” follow a curvature surface. Putting it another way they gave us the ability NOT ONLY to mathematical quantify “our world” but understand WHY and HOW one made up of space-time behaves the way it does.

However, there is another definition of physics that assumes it should ONLY have to quantify what we observe and therefore we should NOT attempt to understand how and why it exists

Proponents of this definition have developed a system of mathematics called quantum mechanics which ONLY quantifies what we observe. However, it DOES NOT follow the rules that define the behavior of “our world” because it assumes it exists in several superpositioned states at the same time which reduced to one when they are observed. Putting in another way they believe science should only be concerned with defining best way to quantifying observations and not about why or how they come about.

However, we believe the ancient Greeks would disagree because as was mentioned earlier they defined a physicist as someone who was dedicated to NOT only quantifying “our world” but understanding how and why it behaves the way it does. Therefore, they MAY not have felt comfortable in calling Quantum mechanics a valid theory of “our world” or its proponents physicists because they do not attempt to understand why it behave the way it does.

Even so there are some proponents of quantum mechanics who have suggested that because, to this date its system of math is only one that can accurately quantify the quantization of energy in “our world” it MUST be product of that mathematical structure

However, because most if not all of the constants in the equations used to define its mathematical structure are derived from “our world” it is difficult to determine if it is a product of its mathematical structure or if that structure is a product of it

But the math of quantum mechanics may not be the only one that can define how and why we observe what we do in “our world”

For example, one can use mathematics to determine why we observe 4 apples on a table by assuming that originally there were two on the it and two were added or there were six and two were taken away but only one of those equations define how and why they actually got there.

Putting it another way there are in most case many ways to quantify both the number of apples on a table and what we observe in “our world”.

This suggests there MAY be able to find another mathematical system other than the one provided for by quantum mechanics that can define why energy is quantize base on how it behaves in “our world”.

For example, in “our world” observations, the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tells us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from moving through time by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in it being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional “walls” of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause the energy of an electromagnetic wave to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency that the wave function associates with a particle.

Putting it another way when an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through space time either by being observed or encountering an object it is reduced or “Collapses” to a form a standing wave that would define the quantized energy quantum mechanics associates with a particle.

As was mentioned earlier there are in most cases many ways to mathematically quantify both the number of apples on a table and what we observe in “our world”. Therefore, we should not assume the solutions provided by quantum mechanics are the only ones that will make accurate predictions of its behavior.

What we as physicists and mathematicians MUST decide is should we allow math to define our existence or have existence define our math because it is possible a new system of math based on the behavior of “our world” could open doors to new technologies that will enable our civilization to advance beyond were one based on quantum mechanics can.

Einstein’s Explanation of the Unexplainable

https://www.theimagineershome.com/Einstein%E2%80%99s-Explanation2.html

The post Should we allow math to define our existence or have it define our math? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

This question is especially relevant for physicists who struggle on daily basis to DEFINE the “reality” of our universe.

Some attempt to predict it ONLY on the abstract mathematical analysis of an environment.

For example, Quantum mechanics DESCRIBES the “reality” or state of a quantum system in terms of the mathematical probability of finding it in a particular configuration when a measurement is made. However, describing it in those terms means that each probabilistic outcome of an event can become one in the future. This is why some proponents of quantum mechanics assume the universe splits into multiple realities with every measurement.

This also may be one reason why Niels Bohr, the father of Quantum Mechanics said that

“If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet.”

However, others DEFINE it in terms of observable proprieties of our universe.

For example, Isaac Newton derived the laws of gravity by developing a mathematical relationship between the OBSERVABLE movement of planets and the distance between them. He then derived a mathematical equation, defining a “reality” which could predict their future movements based on observations of their previous movements.

Both the probabilities of quantum mechanics and Newton’s gravitational laws give valid DESCRIPTIONS of “a reality” because they allow scientists to predict future events with considerable accuracy.

However, the purpose of theoretical physics is NOT ONLY to define and predict what we observe but WHY repeat WHY we observe it.

For example, at the time of their discovery Newton’s gravitational laws allowed scientists to make extremely accurate predictions of planetary movements based on their previous movements, but they did not define why those laws exist.

However, Einstein, in his General Theory of Relativity, showed there was room for an “alternative reality” that could quantitatively make the same predictions as Newtons laws did.

Additionally, even though it proposed a different “reality” than the one that Newton used to define his gravitational laws it did not affect their validity while explaining why they are in terms of how objects move along a curved surface of three-dimensional space.

This shows, just as there was room for an alternative “reality” which could define Newton’s laws there could be one that defines the predictive powers of quantum mechanics that would not affect their validity. This is true even though many physicists feel there is no room for alternatives because modern experiments, combined with quantum theory’s mathematics give us the most accurate predictions of events that have ever been achieved.

As was mentioned earlier describing “reality” in ONLY terms of the abstract mathematics of quantum mechanics means each outcome CAN become one in the future. But as was mentioned earlier this means one can assume separate ones are created for every event for which we have NO repeat NO observational evidence for.

Yet this would NOT be true if that outcome was the result of an interaction between it and a physical property of our observable universe.

For example, when we role dice in a casino most do not think there are six of them out there waiting for the dice to tell us which one, we will occupy after it is rolled. This is because the probability of getting a six is determined or caused by its physical interaction with the observable properties of the table in the casino where it is rolled and NOT repeat NOT on the probability of a specific outcome occurring. In other words, what defines the “reality” of getting a six is not the probability of getting one but physical properties of how the dice interacts with casino it occupies. Putting it another way the probabilities associated with a roll of the dice does not define the casino, the casino defines those probabilities.

It has been shown Quantum mechanics and Newton were able to define the observable properties of our universe but were unable to explain why we observe what we do in terms of observations.

But that does NOT repeat NOT mean we should not look for a way to do so.

For example, the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tell us an electromagnetic wave would move continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from doing so by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in it being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional “walls” of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause the energy of an electromagnetic wave to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found.

Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency that the wave function associates with a particle.

As was mentioned earlier what defines the “reality” of getting a six when rolling a dice in casino is not the probability of getting one but the physical properties of how the dice interacts with casino it occupies.

Similarly, what defines the accuracy of the predictions of quantum mechanics MAY repeat MAY not be related to abstract math but the interactions of a quantum environment with the properties of its environment.

Putting it another way there MAY repeat MAY be an alternative “reality” that NOT only can define the accuracy of the prediction of quantum mechanics but can also to explain why based on the observable properties of our environment why they are.

What we as theoreticians need to ask ourselves should we not only attempt to predict “reality” but why it is what is it.

Einstein’s Explanation of the Unexplainable

https://www.theimagineershome.com/Einstein%E2%80%99s-Explanation2.html

The post How should we define reality?  appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

There is no one realty because each individual creates one that is unique to him or her in an attempt to organize the physical or classical world through information gathered by the senses.  However, physicists have been given the task of defining a universal explanation of it obtained through, in a large part instrumentation and mathematics. One could say one say “The Physics of Reality” is the science that attempts to define a universal reality or one that most can agree on by integrating the information provided by instrumentation and mathematics to that provided by the senses.

For example, cosmologists use telescopes to determine how our universe came to be because it allows them to observe an environment that is too far away to stimulate our sense of sight. They then attempt, in most cases to use mathematics to organized and provide an explanation of how both, the one that directly available to the sense and the one seen through telescopes appear the way they do. The reasons mathematics is the primary tool use by physicists is because many feel it is the only tool that can accurately describe the physical steps involved in defining what we see through both the senses and telescopes.

However, even though mathematics can be used to provide an explanation for the physical reality of the universe it can never replace the reality is it defining. This is because, as was mentioned earlier each person defines his or her reality in terms of the information he or she receive about physical world through the senses.  However, all mathematics is abstract in nature, therefore, it does not have a presence in the physical world and because of that it cannot be part of the one that interacts with the senses.

Some may disagree and try to tell you that the mathematics is the reality because they feel it is the only way to describe what the senses tell them about how the world is organized.  This belief is widely held by the proponents of quantum mechanics because they believe that it is the only way to describe the observations of a quantum environment

For example, many feel the entanglement of some particles which the mathematics of quantum mechanics predicts and observations have confirmed is at the heart of the disparity between classical reality and the quantum one because it is one of the features that is lacking in a classical world.

In the classical environment the one that encompass our senses we only observe objects interacting when they make physical contact. However, quantum mechanics predicts that particles which are entanglement can interact with each other regardless of how far apart they are.

Yet, the fact that many experiments have verified that two particles that are not in physical contact can interact with each other have led some to say that we must replace the classical reality of our senses with the mathematical one of quantum mechanics because they both cannot be right.  However, because entanglement has been observed the mathematics of quantum mechanics many bel should replace the physical reality of our sensory environment.

However, Einstein provided an alternative by giving a us explanation in terms his Special Theory Relativity for the how and why two particles become entangled that is also supported by the classical or physical world of the senses.

As was mentioned earlier many experiments have verified, most using polarized photons that entanglement does occur.  However, Einstein showed us that this is not because some mathematical equation defines its properties but because his theories tell us that photons which are moving at the speed of light can never be separated with respect to an external observer no matter how far apart he or she perceives them to be.

This is because he tells that that there are no preferred reference frames by which one can measure distance. Therefore, one must not only view the separation of a photon with respect to an observer who was external to them but must also look at that separation from a photon’s perspective.

Yet, his theory also tells the distance between the two objects A and B would be defined by their relative speed with respect to an observer.

Specifically, he told us that it would be defined by

However, because according to the concepts of relativity, one can view the photons as being stationary and the observers as moving at the velocity of light the distance or length between the two points use to take the measurement confirm entanglement from the perspective of photons moving at the speed of will be zero in the observer’s reference frame. Therefore, according to Einstein’s theory the entanglement of photon’s is not due to the mathematics of quantum mechanics but due to the relativistic properties of the classical world of the senses.  In other words, from the perspective of two entangle photons they are still are still connected even though they appear to an observer to be physical separated.

However, coming to that conclusion does not require us to deny the existence of the physicality of the reality encompassed by our sense.

As was mentioned earlier, each individual creates his or her own reality based on the information he or she receive from physical world through the senses.  Therefore, because the information regarding the relationship between velocity and length is readily available to the senses is would be integral part of their reality.  However, the abreact properties of the equations of quantum mechanics that predict entanglement are not and therefore are not part of the reality available to the senses.

For example, the effect velocity has on time and length has been confirmed by atomic clocks placed in airplanes as well as orbiting satellites by comparing them to those on the ground.  Therefore, the explanation given above of the causality of entanglement in terms of Einstein theories is observable part of the physical world that the senses use to define reality.

Therefore, one could say difference between the reality defined by the mathematics of Einstein and those of quantum mechanics is that his theories gives each individual a way of integrating his explanation of entanglement with their sensory information obtained through the use of atomic clocks in airplanes whereas the purely abstract mathematical explanation of it that quantum mechanics does not.

As was mentioned earlier “The Physics of Reality” is the science that attempts to define a universal explanation of it or one that most can agree on by integrating the information provided instrumentation and mathematics to that provided by the senses.  Therefore, because Einstein’s mathematics provides an explanation of entanglement in part by using the senses to directly observe instruments such as an atomic clock along with the mathematics of his theory shouldn’t we consider his explanation more creditable or real that the one provided by quantum mechanics.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2020

Please visit our Facebook group The Road to unification of Quantum and Relativistic theories if you would like to comment or contribute to our project

The post The Physics of Reality appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

Many think the quantum mechanical world of probabilities define our reality.  However, the Greek philosopher, Plato around 375 BC would disagree.

In Plato’s allegory "The cave" he describes how people who have been chained to a cave wall view the world outside of it.  "The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows. According to Plato’s Socrates, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.

However, he could have been talking about today’s scientists who are locked into a worldview that projects shadows that cannot be made to agree with the reality of the world they are living in.

For example, Quantum theory defines the existence of particles in terms of a mathematically generated probability function and that they do not exist until a conscience observer looks at it.  In other words, it assumes the act of observation or measurement creates the physical reality of our particle world.  However, because only conscience beings can be observers it implies that it cannot exist without them being there to observe it.

However, if one assumes reality exist only after someone observes it one must also assume that we humans evolved out of something that did not exist.

This seems to contradict the most common definition of reality: that it is an environment with a set of physical properties that exists even when there are no observers present.  In other words, most believe the world exist in even when no one is there to observe it.

Plato’s in his allegory "The Cave" he tells us that one should base his or her interpretation of reality on direct physical observations of the "shadows" they cast on the cave walls because he feels it is the only way to connect their existence to the reality of the world outside of it.

However, the  proponents of quantum mechanics face an even greater problem than those who reside in Platoâ€s cave because they assume that reality and existence is defined in terms of abstract mathematical probabilities which by definition do not have physical properties; Therefore, they are unable to cast shadows on the reality of the non-abstract environment that exists all around us.

In other words, the reality defined by quantum mechanics cannot create or define the physicality of the shadows projected on the walls of our world or cave as Plato calls it because they themselves do not have any.

Some would argue the fact that quantum mechanics can accurately predict what we observe in the world in terms of the abstract nature of probability functions means that what we perceive as the reality does not exist.

However, as Plato pointed out our only connection to reality is though the observation of the "shadows" it displays on our physical or material world.  Yet because of the abstract nature of probability functions of quantum mechanics they, by definition can never be part or interact with that world.  Therefore, because we can physicality observe of the "shadows" of the quantum mechanical world in our environment isn’t it more likely the abstract one defined by quantum mechanics does not exist while those of the world that we can see and touch do.

Einstein was often quoted as saying "If a new theory was not based on a physical image simple enough for a child to understand, it was probably worthless."

He realized as Plato did that reality can only be discovered by forming a physical image of what its shadows are telling us.

For example, Newton in a letter to Bentley in 1693, talks about a conceptual problem he has with his gravity theory by rejecting the action at a distance that it requires.

"It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact…That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it."

Einstein looked at the shadows of reality cast by gravity and realized they could be created by a universe made up of four-dimensional space-time.  He extrapolated the physical image of how objects move on a curve surface in a three-dimensional environment to a curved four-dimensional space-time manifold to show that it can explain and predict how gravity "may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum" in terms of a curvature in space and time.  This allowed him to understand the reality behind the shadows we can see in our three-dimension world in terms of a physical image based on the existence of four-dimensional space-time.

In other words, he was able to explain the gravitational shadows on the Newtonian cave walls in terms of a physical image cast by four-dimensional space-time on them.

As Plato would say he perceived the true form of reality based on a physical image of the shadows seen by its prisoners.

Unfortunately, many of today scientists seem to be ignoring the lessons taught to us by Plato and Einstein.  They chose to look for reality in terms of abstract mathematics instead of the physical imagery given to us by its shadows.

The reason may be because it is easier to alter an abstract environment based on mathematics to conform to an observational inconsistency that it is to alter one based on physical imagery.

For example, Quantum theory makes predictions based on the random properties of a probability function.  However, because its abstract properties are not connected to any physical images of our world all observations no matter how inconsistent they are with the physical world it is describing can be incorporate into it.

This is in sharp contrast to the space-time environment defined by Einstein in that projecting the physical image of objects moving on a curve surface in a four-dimensional environment directly connects it to the physicality of the shadows it casts on our three-dimensional environment.

For example, a mass that was repelled by gravity instead of begin attracted would contradict the physical model define by Einstein and would be extremely if not impossible to explain according to that model because that would mean that we should observe objects rolling up hill in our three-dimensional environment.  In other words, because he defined gravity in terms of a physical image based on how objects move on a curve surface in a three-dimensional environment it makes observations like two masses repelling gravitational each other impossible to incorporate into it.

If However, if some observation happened to contradict complimentary principal of quantum mechanics such as simultaneously observing both the particle and wave properties mass it could easily explained in terms of the fact that its probability functions tell us that anything that can happen eventually will  This makes it impossible to find an observation that would contradict it because it tells us the even the impossible is possible if we wait long enough.  However, this can only happen in an abstract environment which is not bound by the physicality of our observational world because in that world we observe that some things just cannot happen.

But why should science put in the effort to understand the physical reality behind the shadows of our world when both the abstract mathematical foundation of quantum mechanics and the physics imagery of Einstein’s theories make very accurate predictions of future events based on the past. 

Because the mission of a science is to define reality in terms of what we perceive in the world around us which by definition is not abstract.

Later Jeff

Original Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2012

Please visit our Facebook group The Road to unification of Quantum and Relativistic theories if you would like to comment or contribute to our project

The post Plato’s lesson on Quantum Mechanics appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

Yet if true it means it has a physical presence because it would be part of that observable existence.

However it can also be represented in the abstract as an invention of the human consciousness that gives us a sense of order, a before and after so to speak.  But this would not explain how the before and after can into being.

Even physicists who study time agree these questions are very difficult to answer even though many believe it is an ontologically “basic” or primary concept, of our existence and not made up of, or dependent on, anything else.

Yet if it is part of our physical existence we should be able to answer some of these questions by examining our existence.

For example we can directly observe or perceived matter or space however time can be perceived only in the abstract as an irreversible physical, chemical, and biological change in our existence which does not agree with the physicists who assume that it is basic part or our existence.

This is especially problematic for those who use Einstein’s theories to define gravity because they believe that it is the result of a physical curvature in a space-time dimension is responsible for it, the evolution of the universe and our existence.

This belief is bolstered by the fact that to this date his theoretical predictions are in complete agreement with observations.

However, there is another interpretation of his theories that would not be dependent on the physical existence of time making it possible for life to exist for these physicists without time.

The standard interpretation of his mathematics suggests that gravity is cause by a displacement in a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to time.

However an equally valid one defines gravity in terms of an environment consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions because by defining its properties in terms of the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light gives one the ability to redefine a unit of time he associated with the casualty of gravity in his space-time universe to unit of space in one consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions.

In other words one could explain gravity by assuming that it is a force created by a spatial displacement in a "surface" of three-dimensional space with respect to fourth *spatial* dimension as well as one in a space-time dimension.

This allows one to define gravity and evolution of the universe not in terms of physical properties of time but those of space which as mentioned earlier we are more familiar with.

But why should we care if they give us the same numerical results.

Because understand the true nature how forces interact to create our environment may opens doors to new and more accurate understanding of how our universe works.

For example the caloric theory of heat assumed that it was an interaction of a self-repellent fluid called caloric that flows from hotter bodies to colder bodies. Caloric was also thought of as a weightless gas that could pass in and out of pores in solids and liquids.

However the realization heat is transferred by the interactions of particles allowed for the development of thermodynamics and for our modern understanding of entropy which serves one of the physical foundations of our modern understanding of the evolution of our universe.

Similarly many physicists assume Einstein’s mathematics defines the forces that control the evolution of the universe depend on the physical existence of time in conjunction three-spatial dimensions.

However as was mentioned earlier an equally valid interpretation of his mathematics would be to assume that it is a result of the interaction of a higher or fourth *spatial* dimension with three-dimensional space. 

Granted we may never be able to directly observe a time or a fourth *spatial* dimensions but that does not mean we cannot use those concepts to help us understand the world around us.

For example changing our perspective on the casuistry of the forces causing gravity and the evolution of the universe such as reinterpreting Einstein’s equations in such a manner, may allow us to answer some unanswered questions in modern physicists such as the true nature of Dark Energy that is causing the accelerated expansion of the universe.

If the walls of an above ground pool filled with water collapse the elevated two-dimensional surface of the water will flow or expand and accelerate outward towards the three-dimensional environment sounding it.

 Yet we know from observations of the cosmic background radiation that presently our three-dimensional universe has an average energy component equal to about 3.7 degrees Kelvin.

However this means if we reinterpret Einstein’s mathematics in terms of their spatial properties gravitational energy would be defined by a depression in the three-dimensional "surface" of our universe with respect to a four spatial dimension while the potential energy component of 3.7 degree Kelvin of the cosmic background radiation could be defined as an elevation in that surface with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Similarly to the water in a pool if the "surface" of a three-dimensional manifold was elevated with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension as Einstein tell us as it would be if one redefined his space-time universe in terms of a four spatial dimensions then it would be accelerated outward for the same reason as the water in a pool whose sides had collapsed.

Changing one’s perspective on the physical structure of our environment can have far reaching consequents for our understanding of it   For example 1543 Nicolaus Copernicus proposed that the sun not the earth was the center of the universe.  That change in perspective enable Johannes Kepler to formulate his laws of planetary motion which then gave Issac Newton the ability to derive the laws of gravity.   Without that change in perspective none of that would have happened.

 Maybe physicists should try to live without time at least for a while.

 Later Jeff

Copyright 2019 Jeffrey O’Callaghan

Please visit our Facebook group The Road to unification of Quantum and Relativistic theories if you would like to comment or contribute to our project

The post Life without time appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

However I disagree with his statement that only a direct application of "sense-transcendent mathematics and hardware" is the only way for us to make sense of the world around us because one advantage human beings have over them is that we can change our perspective on what our senses are telling us whereas they cannot.

For example an artist can "direct the mind" to perceive three-dimensional objects on a two dimensional canvas by using techniques that give one the perspective of three-dimension space.

Similarly scientists can and should direct the mind of the "average person" to see the four-dimensional aspects of Relativity by using techniques that would allow them to perceive them in our three-dimensional universe.

For example in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity he derived gravity in terms of a curvature in the geometry of four dimensional space-time which one can connect to the "real world" by showing how that a planet to revolve around the sun for the same reason a marble revolves around a curvature in a rubber diaphragm.

However he was unable to do the same for electrical forces as was documented by the American Institute of Physics even though he felt "that electromagnetism and gravity could both be explained as aspects of some broader mathematical structure" .

“From before 1920 until his death in 1955, Einstein struggled to find laws of physics far more general than any known before  In his theory of relativity, the force of gravity had become an expression of the geometry of space and time  The other forces in nature, above all the force of electromagnetism, had not been described in such terms  But it seemed likely to Einstein that electromagnetism and gravity could both be explained as aspects of some broader mathematical structure  The quest for such an explanation — for a “unified field” theory that would unite electromagnetism and gravity, space and time, all together — occupied more of Einstein”s years than any other activity.

One reason he could not define a common mathematical structure for electromagnetism and gravity may have been because human beings do not have the ability to perceive or sense the physical properties of time or a time dimension.  However they can perceive the physical properties of three-dimensional space.

In other words he may have been able to make the connection between gravity and electromagnetism by mathematically viewing their associated forces in terms of how our senses perceive the properties of three-dimensional space.

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he used the velocity of light and the equation E=mc^2 to define relativistic properties of space-time because it allows one to convert a unit of time in his four dimensional space-time universe to a unit of space in a one consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions.  Additionally because the velocity of light is constant it is possible to defined a one to one correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

In other words by mathematically defining the relativistic properties of a space-time universe in terms of the constant velocity of light he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of redefining those properties in terms of the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions thereby giving one the ability to define electrical forces in terms our sense perception of the multi directional properties of the spatial dimensions while maintaining those relativistic properties.

The fact that one can use Einstein’s equations to qualitatively and quantitatively redefine the curvature in space-time he associated with gravity in terms of four *spatial* dimensions is one bases for assuming, as was done in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of energy including gravitational and electromagnetism can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

This would have allowed him to direct his and the mind of the "average person" to define electrical force in terms of our real world perception of a wave by extrapolating that perception to the movement of a wave in an environment consisting of four spatial dimensions.

For example, a wave on the two-dimensional surface of water causes a point on that surface to be become displaced or rise above or below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.  A force will be developed by the differential displacement of the surfaces, which will result in the elevated and depressed portions of the water moving towards or become "attracted" to each other and the surface of the water.

Similarly, as was shown in the article "What is electromagnetism?" Sept, 27 2007 an electromagnetic wave on the "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension would cause a point on that "surface" to become displaced or rise above and below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.

Therefore, our sensory perceptions of three-dimensional space, if extrapolated to four *spatial* dimensions tells us a force will be developed by the differential displacements caused by a matter wave moving on a "surface" of three-dimensional space with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension that will result in its elevated and depressed portions moving towards or become "attracted" to each other.

This would allow the "average person" to understand the causality of the attractive forces of unlike charges associated with the electromagnetism in terms of a force developed by a differential displacement of a point on a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However, it also provides a mechanism for understanding why similar charges repel each other because observations of water show that there is a direct relationship between the magnitudes of a displacement in its surface to the magnitude of the force resisting that displacement

Similarly the magnitude of a displacement in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension caused by two similar charges will be greater than that caused by a single one.  Therefore, similar charges will repel each other because the magnitude of the force resisting the displacement will be greater for two charges than it would be for a single charge.

One can define the causality of electrical component of electromagnetic radiation in terms of the energy associated with its "peaks" and "troughs" that is directed perpendicular to its velocity vector while its magnetic component would be associated with the horizontal force developed by that perpendicular displacement.

However, our sensory perception of three-dimensional space also tells us a horizontal force will be developed by that perpendicular or vertical displacement which will always be 90 degrees out of phase with it  This force is called magnetism.

This is analogous to how the vertical force pushing up of on mountain also generates a horizontal force, which pulls matter horizontally towards the apex of that displacement.

This shows how one can explain electrical forces by extrapolating our perception of a three-dimensional environment to one consisting of four *spatial* dimensions and would have allowed him to mathematically integrate them into his space-time model of the universe because, as was shown above they are mathematically identical.

However another advantage to viewing the relativistic properties of our universe in terms of its spatial instead of its time component is that it would allow one to integrate the quantum mechanical properties of electromagnetic energy into the mathematics of General Relativity in a manner that is consistent with our sense perceptions of three-dimensional space.

For example the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct  4, 2007 showed one can derive the quantized wave properties of electromagnetism by extrapolating our understanding of a resonant structure and perception of a wave in a three-dimensional environment to a electromagnetic wave on a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a three-dimensional environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would occur in one consisting of four spatial dimensions.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give an electromagnetic wave the ability to oscillate spatially on a "surface" between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital.  This would force the "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

The oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or "structure" to be established space.

Therefore, these oscillations in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or "structure" in four-dimensional space if one extrapolated them to that environment.

In our three-dimensional environment the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with it fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.

Hence, these resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions would be responsible for the discrete quantized energy associated with the quantum mechanical properties of a photon or an electromagnetic field.

Yet one can also define its boundary conditions of its resonate structure in the terms of our perceptions of a three dimensional environment.

For example in our three-dimensional world, a point on the two-dimensional surface of paper is confined to that surface.  However, that surface can oscillate up or down with respect to three-dimensional space.

Similarly an object occupying a volume of three-dimensional space would be confined to it however, it could, similar to the surface of the paper oscillate “up” or “down” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

The confinement of the “upward” and “downward” oscillations of an electromagnetic wave with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension is what defines the spatial boundaries associated with a particle in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?" Oct 4, 2007.

Additionally one of the most advantageous results of viewing the relativistic properties of Einstein’s theories in terms of their spatial instead of its time components is that it allow for the integration of one of most perplexing aspects of quantum mechanics; that of how and why a particle position when observed is based only on probabilities.

The physics of wave mechanics tell us that due to their continuous properties the energy waves the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?" Oct. 4, 2007 associated with a quantum system would be distributed throughout the entire "surface" a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

For example the energy of a vibrating or oscillating ball on a rubber diaphragm would be disturbed over its entire surface while the magnitude of those vibrations would decrease as one move away from the focal point of the oscillations.

Similarly if the assumption that quantum properties of energy are a result of vibrations or oscillations in a "surface" of three-dimensional space is correct those oscillations would be distributed over the entire "surface" three-dimensional space while the magnitude of those vibrations would be greatest at the focal point of the oscillations and decreases as one moves away from it.

As mentioned earlier the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” shown a quantum particle is a result of a resonant structure formed on the "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Yet the science of Wave Mechanics tells us resonance would most probably occur on the surface of the rubber sheet were the magnitude of the vibrations is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point,

Similarly a particle would most probably be found were the magnitude of the vibrations in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point.

This shows how one can physically connect the probabilities associated quantum mechanics to our observable environment by redefining them in terms of the relativistic properties of Einstein’s space-time universe in terms of four *spatial* dimensions.

In other words by changing our perspective on fundamental make up of our universe from one of quantized parts to the relativistic properties of four *spatial* dimensions or four dimensional space time may allow us to ingrate the world of quantum mechanics into the space-time-universe of gravity defined by Einstein because as was shown above his mathematics tell us they are interchangeable.

Additionally as mentioned earlier Einstein felt "that electromagnetism and gravity could both be explained as aspects of some broader mathematical structure".

The above discussion vindicates that belief because it shows that one can not only incorporate gravity and electromagnetism but also its quantum properties into a broader mathematical structure by rewriting the mathematics of space-time in terms of the relativistic properties of four *spatial* dimensions.

It also shows the advantages of "directing the mind" to perceive how three-dimensional space would interact with four by using techniques such as those outlined above to understand how they are responsible for the reality we all see around us.

It should be remember that Einstein’s genius allows us to choose whether to create physical images of an unseen "reality" in either a space-time environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when he defined the geometry of space-time in terms of the constant velocity of light.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2019

Please visit our Facebook group The Road to unification of Quantum and Relativistic theories if you would like to comment or contribute to our project

The post The direction of the mind. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.