Call it what you will…

[_Robert_Participant]

As we studied the Chua circuit I was also concurrently ditching my catholic religion and concluded that chaos theory and the big bang are the only avenues that even allow for some sort of creation and the implications and complexity and scale immediately rule out the validity of all religious claims. As Hitchens said of the universe ” It’s much much more impressive than that”.

[michael17Participant]

<li class=”d4p-bbp-quote-title”>PopeBeanie wrote:

michael17 wrote:

I have an unpublished paper that was submitted to the Journal; physical review A, that combines chaos and QM. In one section I used a recursive transform typically used to generate Julia sets (similar to the famous Mandelbrot set to generated the 2p orbital shell around a hydrogen atom using the Bohm model and not the Heisenberg model which is more advanced.

If you’re willing to accept me as a peer, we can publish this. Just don’t expect me to understand it. 🙂

Thanks for the offer. The multi-spatial frame work can use help if you have a background in mathematics. Particularly formalizing the new theorem.

The recursive orbital transform is based on David Bohm’s orbital model which is old school yet interesting. It will be next on the list.

• This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by  michael17.
• This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by  michael17.

[michael17Participant]

_

_Robert_ wrote:

As we studied the Chua circuit I was also concurrently ditching my catholic religion and concluded that chaos theory and the big bang are the only avenues that even allow for some sort of creation and the implications and complexity and scale immediately rule out the validity of all religious claims. As Hitchens said of the universe ” It’s much much more impressive than that”.

If you want to dabble in the apparent metaphysical, I would suggest you read; “The Emperor’s New Mind” and “Quantum Reality”,as prerequisite material.

• This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by  michael17.
• This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by  michael17.

[_Robert_Participant]

Not that interested in conjecture however I enjoyed the fictional ‘Dr. Ian Malcolm’ character from the Jurassic Park 😉

[michael17Participant]

_Robert_ wrote:

Not that interested in conjecture however I enjoyed the fictional ‘Dr. Ian Malcolm’ character from the Jurassic Park 😉

My Master’s thesis was on the chaotic vibration of a flexible cantilever beam. I had to tackle that after watching my introduction to chaos on Nova.

Jeff Goldblum did an excellent portrayal by the way.

• This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by  michael17.
• This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by  michael17.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

I have an unpublished paper that was submitted to the Journal; physical review A, that combines chaos and QM.

Thinking about “chaos and QM” I find that I am unable to define what the difference is.  I visualize “everything” as existing in a field of particles, like the fuzz on an old TV set, stuck between channels. I even “see” solid objects (a chair) as structures that are just a temporary formation of individual particles. Everything, including light. space and time are all made of individual quanta and these make up all the “dots in the fuzz”. This is the basis of the Quantum universe. If we can understand the “rules” of quantum gravity then we will figure the rest out and get our “Theory of Everything”. It is in this “tiny arena” where the answers lie……maybe it is not chaos we need to understand but probabilities.

Note: A small percentage of the fuzz on your old TV set is from the CMBR, the earliest light in the Universe.

• This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by  Reg the Fronkey Farmer.

[michael17Participant]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

I have an unpublished paper that was submitted to the Journal; physical review A, that combines chaos and QM. Thinking about “chaos and QM” I find that I am unable to define what the difference is. I visualize “everything” as existing in a field of particles, like the fuzz on an old TV set, stuck between channels. I even “see” solid objects (a chair) as structures that are just a temporary formation of individual particles. Everything, including light. space and time are all made of individual quanta and these make up all the “dots in the fuzz”. This is the basis of the Quantum universe. If we can understand the “rules” of quantum gravity then we will figure the rest out and get our “Theory of Everything”. It is in this “tiny arena” where the answers lie……maybe it is not chaos we need to understand but probabilities. Note: A small percentage of the fuzz on your old TV set is from the CMBR, the earliest light in the Universe.

i see QM as being unbounded by space and time. Filling all space and time as a wave function. That’s where the debate begins. Is the wave just a mathematical construct or is it a reality?

Being unbounded explains what Einstein described as spooky action at a distance. The distance can be in space or time.

• This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by  michael17.
• This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by  michael17.
• This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by  michael17.
• This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by  michael17.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Yes, Michael, that mirrors my thinking.

UNBOUNDED BY SPACE AND TIME

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

That’s where the debate begins. Is the wave just a mathematical construct or is it a reality?

I have written here before that there is good reasons to consider the wave function itself to exist in reality.

[michael17Participant]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

That’s where the debate begins. Is the wave just a mathematical construct or is it a reality? I have written here before that there is good reasons to consider the wave function itself to exist in reality.

You are in prestigious company. Roger Penrose for one. I also subscribe to this.

[UnseenParticipant]

Wow, when I posted the original post, I never expected all this!

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Yes, in all probability it would have been difficult to predict we would get to this point. Seems rather a chaotic path to have taken but we will remain determined to freely post some more.

[UnseenParticipant]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

Yes, in all probability it would have been difficult to predict we would get to this point. Seems rather a chaotic path to have taken but we will remain determined to freely post some more.

LOL

Let me throw a philosophical/logical wrench in the works. How can an infinitely branching system of universes be possible under determinism? It would seem that if determinism is anything, it is abolutely linear. How could a branching even be possible?

• This reply was modified 3 months ago by  Unseen.

[michael17Participant]

Unseen wrote:

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

Yes, in all probability it would have been difficult to predict we would get to this point. Seems rather a chaotic path to have taken but we will remain determined to freely post some more.

LOL Let me throw a philosophical/logical wrench in the works. How can an infinitely branching system of universes be possible under determinism? It would seem that if determinism is anything, it is abolutely linear. How could a branching even be possible?

Hilbert space is similar to multiple universe accept it does not exist in event space it is uncollapsed in the posited Hilbert space. If a volume is to be tiled aperiodically with quasicrystals there are multiple solutions yet each must be known a priori in order not tile into dead ends. How does nature know in advance if nature progress linearly?  A Hilbert space of determined possibilities would be the answer. A cloud of working possibilities preceding everything    or a wave. I posit based on the Penrose referenced experiment in his book “The emperors new mind”, that light will always find its way out of a periscopic maze comprised out of mirrors having 50% reflectivity going in the original direction it was traveling with a solution collapsed from Hilbert space just as in the original  simple periscopic assembly experiment. This stuff is just as counter intuitive as a Hilsch tube.

 

• This reply was modified 3 months ago by  michael17.
• This reply was modified 3 months ago by  michael17.
• This reply was modified 3 months ago by  michael17.
• This reply was modified 3 months ago by  michael17.
• This reply was modified 3 months ago by  michael17.
• This reply was modified 3 months ago by  michael17.

[UnseenParticipant]

michael17 wrote:

Unseen wrote:

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

Yes, in all probability it would have been difficult to predict we would get to this point. Seems rather a chaotic path to have taken but we will remain determined to freely post some more.

LOL Let me throw a philosophical/logical wrench in the works. How can an infinitely branching system of universes be possible under determinism? It would seem that if determinism is anything, it is abolutely linear. How could a branching even be possible?

Hilbert space is similar to multiple universe accept it does not exist in event space it is uncollapsed in the posited Hilbert space. If a volume is to be tiled aperiodically with quasicrystals there are multiple solutions yet each must be known a priori in order not tile into dead ends. How does nature know in advance if nature progress linearly? A Hilbert space of determined possibilities would be the answer. A cloud of working possibilities preceding everything or a wave. I posit based on the Penrose referenced experiment in his book “The emperors new mind”, that light will always find its way out of a periscopic maze comprised out of mirrors having 50% reflectivity going in the original direction it was traveling with a solution collapsed from Hilbert space just as in the original simple periscopic assembly experiment. This stuff is just as counter intuitive as a Hilsch tube.

I’m many things to many people but one thing I’m not is a physicist. Any way to put that in a nutshell?

[Author]

Posts