Thread: Want to talk quantum mechanics interpretations?

For no particular reason, I just read this wiki page on Interpretations of quantum mechanics in one of those Wiki page which I can't put a link here.

I am not impressed with the arguments listed there, since I thought by now we should have been much smarter.
There are some new twisted arguments, but it looks like the Copenhagen is still the best choice out there.

I still like the Copenhagenist the best still, mostly I think because they emphasize the notion of duality, which is one of fundamental aspect of nature.

I think the choices of words like measurement/observation are really misleading or even wrong when they talk about physical reality emerges from the collapse of that ghostly wavefunction.

I am not sure of the wisdom for Copenhagenist in not taking that ghostly wavefunction seriously in ontological sense.

I think one way to fix the Copenhagenist argument is to expand the notion of physical reality ontologically. For instance, instead of talking/think wavefunction as non-physical, we can say wavefunction is still ontologically meaningful, at least in the form of being mathematical – it amounts to something, instead of nothing.

That is, there are degrees of ontologically meaningful BEINGS out there, besides the Newtonian solid goodies or the mysterious QM’s observables.

Talking about the QM’s mysterious observables, and here lies the whole misery of trying to interpret quantum mechanics.
In order to ontologically produce these observables, we have to introduce the concept of some phantom measurement/observation.

Leaving along the questions of who is measuring/observing whom and for what, on what ontological ground/term can we say anything about this act of measurement/observation when we are forbidden to talk any physical reality before the wavefuction collapse as a particle?

Originally Posted by trilosohpical

Talking about the QM’s mysterious observables, and here lies the whole misery of trying to interpret quantum mechanics.
In order to ontologically produce these observables, we have to introduce the concept of some phantom measurement/observation.

Leaving along the questions of who is measuring/observing whom and for what, on what ontological ground/term can we say anything about this act of measurement/observation when we are forbidden to talk any physical reality before the wavefuction collapse as a particle?

Sounds to me as if you've just learnt the word "ontological" and are keen to try it out……….

Next on the menu is Everett’s Many Worlds interpretation.
I like some aspects of Everett’s ideas, like wavefunctions interact/entangle themselves to form new wavefunctions – here Everett is implicitly acknowledging some ontological meaning of wavefunctions.

I am not sure of the wisdom of having many worlds. Just thinking about the overhead of deep copying all entities and their relationships and these relationships themselves can be wavefunctions and subject to their own many worlds and so on, the material cost and logistic trouble, I think Nature should have better way of doing QM.

I am not clear why it is important for Everett to avoid a wavefunction being collapse/obsolete. His argument that wavefunctions interact and form new wavefunctions already implies the possible dismiss of certain wavefunctions.

I suspect that Everett theory’s lack of duality (in ontological sense) is giving him that kind of trouble. He needs this wavefunction alive ontologically so as to produce his QM observables.

For Copenhagenist, because it is based on this yes/no duality, they can ontologically have a clear cut on wavefunction, when a particle emerges from the wavefuntion collapse, the wavefunction finishes its usefulness thus can be ontologically dismissed.

More details on Everett’s Many Worlds.
Universal wavefunction? Why and for what purpose?
Is he talking about Universal wavefunctions or The Universal wavefunction?
OK, at least it explains why Everett needs to keep wavefunction ontologically alive.
But why universal?
Just imagine how unrealistic for the Nature to implement such a scheme?

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by trilosohpical

Talking about the QM’s mysterious observables, and here lies the whole misery of trying to interpret quantum mechanics.
In order to ontologically produce these observables, we have to introduce the concept of some phantom measurement/observation.

Leaving along the questions of who is measuring/observing whom and for what, on what ontological ground/term can we say anything about this act of measurement/observation when we are forbidden to talk any physical reality before the wavefuction collapse as a particle?

Sounds to me as if you've just learnt the word "ontological" and are keen to try it out……….

You are partly correct. I knew the word "ontological" for some while, but am trying out on QM, because I think that is very word that is most needed for interpreting QM.

I see both Copenhagen and Many Worlds have some good arguments, and a good QM story lies in between some where.
But both of them don't tell a good story.

I use the word "story" here, because I think we really really need a good story telling for QM.
I know QM is a difficult subject, but I think we can do better than just throwing empty words like measurement and observation.
The story of QM is obviously deep then currently being told by any of the interpretation.
To me, the story of QM is about the ontological nature of things, like a particle or its wave or that wavefunction that describe the wave and more.
and yes, math can also be ontological, I am not rulling anything out.

I don't think I am more crazy to say math is can be a ontological thing when there is a Many Worlds theory out there, and who is more desperate?

This is going to be a long rolling thread in which I will try tell a story about QM.
Right now I'll first try to tell a story about how QM stories are being told by various schools and hopefully to get the ideas of those important ingredients in QM.

I was on to this word of decoherence, but I was lossing interesting in the middle of reading.
I think it is one of those twisted small arguments preteding to be new idea?

I think its better to discuss the issues in QM and then compare what each school is saying about them and see what the differences and why.

So, let start by listing the most important issues in QM, and they are:
1. probability
2. “measurement” that select/destroy the inherent multiplicity in probability. (a.k.a wavefunction collapse)
3. The transcendental nature of this “measurement” that according to Copenhagen, collapses wavefunction into its physical reality dual.

what is probability and what does it mean?
probability means multiplicity - a.k.a manyness.

The first question is the maganiture of manyness, can it be infinity?
if infinity, are they countable non-countable?
if not countable, can they be ordered? Axiom of Choice?

The reason I need to ask these questions on the simple notion of probability is that we need to think like Nature and consider all kinds of possibiltiy. Only when we know the breadth the width of the isseu can we begin to see what possible means Nature might consider in its implementaiton.

So the "measurement" basically selects one out of the manyness in probability.
But how to select?
what are the most natural and genric selection functions out there that can guild the selection?
Well, that depends on what are the elements in the set.
And what are the elements in set - they can be spin up/down, or positions in x directions and so on.
Does Nature care about the class of sets or the particular instance in the set?

Still the questions of how to select?
Does Nature select only one possibility at a time, no multi-selections?
Does Nature keep select (at different time)?

I think the current QM tells us that nature selects only one at a time.
This is acutally a very deep and important assumption. It suggests that nature has a particular way of selecting that can ensure only one is selected.

Does Nature dismiss the set of possibilities after its selection?
Copenhagen thinks so, but Everett does not.
the difference here is ontological.

The notion (and fact?) of oneness as selection result is important since it means there is one-to-one onto relation for a "physical enrtity" to its ontological dual of the set of probabilities (a.k.a the set of values in wavefunction). It is interesting how nature is able to manage this
relations for all enties. In other words, how to keep the dual in synch all the time.

the reason i am interested in this question is that it just occurs to me that in the real phycal world we may have endless different kinds of things, but in the ontological realm of probability, there is only one type of thing - sets of probabilities. maybe that is why Nature likes to use probability - because it reduces all types into one, so that it can deal with them uniformly.

It maybe a good news for Nature that after reducing all physical objects into this mathematical entity of probabilities, it now can deal with all different things uniformly, but for us human, it is a nightmare to tell apart what is real and thus all kinds of desperation trying to figure which certainly includes this author and this thread of posts.

We are not done with questioning this probability business.

We know Nature selects one element from a set of probabilities and we know such act of selection has its physical meaning in reality - ie. the wavefunction collapse, the localization/emerge of the physical particle.

The question is, does Nature count as well?
Like count how many probabilities in the set (a.k.a wavefunction)?
If yes, then what is the corresponding physical consequense of counting the probabilities?

Do we have a "Vague ramblings" sub-forum?
This thread isn't Physics.

If I remember correctly, one of the deperate theory out there is called "hidden variables" - what a horrible name - and for some reason, I simply lost interest in reading its explanation after a few paragraphs.

But if there is any "hidden thing" out there for QM, the number one candidate will the act of Nature counting the probabilities and its physical meaning.

I can bet $1 that counting probability is the missing link for QM becasue counting is a more basic action than selection and a "choiced" selection usually involves some kind of counting.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Do we have a "Vague ramblings" sub-forum?
This thread isn't Physics.

This is called telling a story of physics,
new to you?

I have just reasoned that Nature selects (that we know as fact) but also counts on probabilities.

the question is what could possibly be the corresponding real world physical consequense of the act of counting?
Or the counting is just part of the act of selecting which we vaguely dubbed as measurement/observation?

these questions need some analysis.

Originally Posted by trilosohpical

This is called telling a story of physics,
new to you?

Vague rambling isn't a story.
Get your ideas together, get a point and make it.
Otherwise you're just spamming to no point ¹.

1 Unless your "point" is self-gratification ².
2 And I already have my suspicions on that score.

I'm pretty sure posting several different posts in a row one after the other can be considered to be spamming.

You know you can edit a post to include more text after you've already posted it, right?

Anthoer related question, what is the differnce between selecting with counting and selecting without counting.

If selecting with counting, is such selection is considered random?
selecting without counting seems to be produce randomness.

If the current QM sayings is to be trusted, then the selection is random and this means Nature does not count probability?
Am I going to lose that dollar?

Originally Posted by Daecon

I'm pretty sure posting several different posts in a row one after the other can be considered to be spamming.

You know you can edit a post to include more text after you've already posted it, right?

Can you people READ what I am trying to say?

Originally Posted by trilosohpical

Can you people READ what I am trying to say?

Yeah: it's pointless rambling.

But, still, if Nature do selection, it must also do counting.

the question is, what is the physicas that deal with Nature counting probabilities?
We are missing something very fundamental here, how could we only have the study of Nature selecting but no study of Naute counting.

Originally Posted by trilosohpical

Originally Posted by Daecon

I'm pretty sure posting several different posts in a row one after the other can be considered to be spamming.

You know you can edit a post to include more text after you've already posted it, right?

Can you people READ what I am trying to say?

Yes. And what I'm trying to say is that the "Edit" button is your friend.

Originally Posted by trilosohpical

We are missing something very fundamental here

It's apparent that someone is missing something fundamental.
Three guesses...

I am still not done with this probability business.

Where these probability come from in the first place?
We know where these probability ends - the collapse of wavefunction, but how and when and where these probabilities get ontologically started.

let's think aobut it from the possible Naute's point view.
I speculated earlier, that one possible purpose of turning a "particle" into a set of probabilities (wavefuction) is so that Nature can turn everything into a single generic type and to be able to deal all of them uniform.

But how nature would calculate the probabilites?
Like spins only up/down and so on.
how dose Nature still know spin is spin instead of position on X and why does Nature still care spin as a perticular type of thing.

I am beging to see the point of view of "hidden variables".
here is context, Nature is calculating probabilities spread for all generic wavefunctions that nature likes to deal with them generically.
But such calculation must require detailed information on each "particle" to come up with the right spread of probabilities.
the info contained in a wave (E,P,f etc) is not good enough for Nature to calculate its probabilities. So Nature must care and thus know much more about the wave dual.
It is interesting the simplistic view the nature is presenting to us human of the wave picture, one those E,P,f, etc.
This is very interesting.

I am also begin to appriate Everett's gig in which he tries to construct a universal wavefunction - this is actually a differnt way of saying Nature likes to deal with all things uniformly and generically, but I don't think Everett realize that point.

one of the problems in Evertt's theory I can see is that he does not distiguish the ontological wave as a type or as an instance of type.
When a wave goes to its instance of world, that wavefunction also goes there, there is an issue of instance of wavefunction that I think evertt seems not considered.

This thread is starting to read like a personal blog rather than a discussion topic.

Actually, the question is not that simple.

Is wavefunction a type or can it be an instance of some type.
Ontologically, what does this question mean?
I think the Copanhegan thinks wavefunction is an instance of ontoligcal type.
But Everett has this universal wavefunction that seems to emcompass all wavefunctions and from the set theroy point of view it is a set that contains all instance of this its type.
I am beginging seeing Everett's theory not making sense.

If you meant "Personal blog of a madman" I'm inclined to agree.
(I've already reported it and suggested it go in Personal Theories. Although, thus far, Trash might be better suited).

Originally Posted by Daecon

This thread is starting to read like a personal blog rather than a discussion topic.

yes, you are right. I think this is my thinking and writing style, since I have been doing social media in rencet years and got used to this kind wrinting.

I hope it does not impede people's reading.

I think I am moving too fast. I want back up a little bit to talk about some earlier points.

The difference of seleting with or without counting...
As I pointed out earlier, selecting without counting (on a set of propabilities) will surely produce randomness.

This can be a very telling way of pointing out the source of randomness that dominates QM.
But if natue can selet without counting, Nature surely will also do selecting with counting.
What is the physics that corresponds to this kind of selection?

the question here is more complicated becasue unlike selection without counting which we can be sure of randomness, selection with count does not ensure lack of randomness or certainty.

Then I suggest that you post your ramblings on one of these.
And don't come back until you have a point.

I think I should explain.
As I mentioned earlier, I intend to make this a rolling thread with a lot of short posts of my thoughts on things relatyed to QM.

My way of thinking on QM and physicas in general is bit out of box and in this case intentionally so.m

Also my wrinting (and lately thinking as well) style is of social media type with short text.

I am new here and I hope you don't find me too unusual.

And also i very much welcome comments and discussion.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Then I suggest that you post your ramblings on one of these.
And don't come back until you have a point.

I thought I already made a lot of points, like seleting with or without counting...
Just becasue you have not heard does not mean it is not a point, right?

Originally Posted by trilosohpical

I think I should explain.
As I mentioned earlier, I intend to make this a rolling thread with a lot of short posts of my thoughts on things relatyed to QM.

That kind of posting style isn't really appropriate for a discussion thread on The Science Forum.

I almost forgot that there is something called ensembles in thermodynamics, and there is distinctive way like Bosons and non distinctive way of counting.

But these are macroscopic way of counting “particels”, not the same as counting probabilities of single entity.
This is interesting, let’s see, when nature counts “macroscopic elements in ensemble”, it does not care whether the element is a particle or its ontological wave dual.

How does Nature count elements in an ensemble?
Is the act of count in this case also a kind of measurement?
Because it gives Nature the total number of elements and it must be also considered a measurement of type, even though in this case the "observer is what we call Nature.

When Nature counts/measures the number of elements in an ensemble, does it collapse wavefunctions? I think it should but the question is who’s wavefunctions, all wavefunctions in the ensemble?

how does Nature know the INDIVIDUALITY of elements in an ensemble?
Nature must have collapse each and every element in the ensemble to obtain thier indiviuality and thus perform the count on each of them.
the question is, does this happen simultaneously?

this is getting interesting, in what posible ontological sense can we have the notion of time for this dubious wavefunction of which its own ontologica meaning is yet to be understood.

Originally Posted by trilosohpical

I thought I already made a lot of points, like seleting with or without counting..

No.
You've made a lot of statements: not the same thing.

Just becasue you have not heard does not mean it is not a point, right?

Just because you've written it down doesn't mean it's a point, right?

Originally Posted by trilosohpical

As I mentioned earlier, I intend to make this a rolling thread with a lot of short posts of my thoughts on things relatyed to QM.

Yeah, and your background in QM is... what?

My way of thinking on QM and physicas in general is bit out of box and in this case intentionally so.m

By "out of the box" are we to take it that you mean "consisting of wild guesses"?

And also i very much welcome comments and discussion.

Okay:

Originally Posted by trilosohpical

For no particular reason, I just read this wiki page on Interpretations of quantum mechanics in one of those Wiki page which I can't put a link here.

And your prior knowledge of QM and its interpretations is what?

I am not impressed with the arguments listed there

Why not?
What do you find incorrect or incomplete about them? Or is just an aesthetic judgement? Or because you don't like the colour of the page header?

since I thought by now we should have been much smarter.

What?
This is a meaningless claim/ thought/ statement.
"Smarter" judged against what? Interpretations that you don't like? Some timetable the rest of us aren't privy to?

There are some new twisted arguments, but it looks like the Copenhagen is still the best choice out there.

Why? According to... you?

I begin to see the point of Bohr of not allwoing people talking about this wavefunction thing.

So let's see if we can analylize the situation.
So we start with this mathematical thing called wavefunction, and we say it has some ontogolical meaning since it can help predict probabilities, (it is a set of probability with the potential of only one of them being selected), so it is something instead of nothing.

Then what?
we know this wavefunction thing has this relation of p= h/lamda and we know it may have a reality dual denpending on "measurement".
We know Nature counts on it but in an "ensemble" fashion in which it should collapse.
A sidie bar Q here: is nature counting elelements in ensemble counts as a wave collapsing measurement?

Then the question is how often nature likes to count elements in ensmeble and how nature organize/divides things into ensembles.

There seems to need a notion of temporal quantization in terms of limiting how often Nature can count elements in a ensemble, perhapse one way/need/type of temporal quntization?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by trilosohpical

I thought I already made a lot of points, like seleting with or without counting..

No.
You've made a lot of statements: not the same thing.

Just becasue you have not heard does not mean it is not a point, right?

Just because you've written it down doesn't mean it's a point, right?

Originally Posted by trilosohpical

As I mentioned earlier, I intend to make this a rolling thread with a lot of short posts of my thoughts on things relatyed to QM.

Yeah, and your background in QM is... what?

My way of thinking on QM and physicas in general is bit out of box and in this case intentionally so.m

By "out of the box" are we to take it that you mean "consisting of wild guesses"?

And also i very much welcome comments and discussion.

Okay:

Originally Posted by trilosohpical

For no particular reason, I just read this wiki page on Interpretations of quantum mechanics in one of those Wiki page which I can't put a link here.

And your prior knowledge of QM and its interpretations is what?

I am not impressed with the arguments listed there

Why not?
What do you find incorrect or incomplete about them? Or is just an aesthetic judgement? Or because you don't like the colour of the page header?

since I thought by now we should have been much smarter.

What?
This is a meaningless claim/ thought/ statement.
"Smarter" judged against what? Interpretations that you don't like? Some timetable the rest of us aren't privy to?

There are some new twisted arguments, but it looks like the Copenhagen is still the best choice out there.

Why? According to... you?

I like your nitpicking, please do more on my other posts.
like my anticipation of how to implement QM in a possibly reasonable way and like some of basic acts of select or count may entail.

Answer those questions first.
Get the foundations right before you start building random sh*t on top.

For those who maybe confused by the words Iam using, let me clarify a bit.

An important idea/notion that I keeppounding on but have not explicitly stated is that I regard this ghostly wavefunction as an ontologically meaningful entity. I am leaning towards Bohr and his friends in thinking that each wavefunction is an instance of such ontological entity.

Also, I am using Nature as The ontological measurer/observer.That is why I can say Nature selects or Nature counts.

I am not sure the Nature I am refering to here is the class of Nature or an instance of Nature. I think both are needed in The nature.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Answer those questions first.
Get the foundations right before you start building random sh*t on top.

plase stop being childish.

So, contrary to your claim otherwise, you aren't actually interested in discussion, and can't be bothered to justify or support your position.
In other words you're simply piling random shit on top of prior random shit in some sort of stream of consciousness pseudo-physics.

wow, I already has 43 posts. I think it is time that I do some analysis on my own to see what I have thought and said so far and to see if I can tie them up into a story.

I start with roughly agreeing with Bohr that there is duality, with the subtle difference that my notion of duality is more ontological than Bohr's in the sense that I treat wavefunction and in general the mathematics that produces (can we say collapses?) this wavefunction as an instance of something.
I then poist a/the Nature and regard it as the observer, side note: I have yet to distiguish what a or the Nature may entail.
now that I have a/the Nature as the observer, I can do some thought experiments on what that a/the Nature may do in some physically know situations, like making a selection on the set of probabilities.
Since I have this personalfied Nature, I can make thougth experiment on some other possible act, like counting the elements in a probability set (a.k.a roughtly values of a wavefunction).
So far, I can alrady see my story telling has yield something every interesting:

for instance, I don't think our current QM has this notion of probability being counted, we only know being selected on of one choice. So this idea of counting can be a very interesting new lead into something new.

Another interesting story I tried on is that we do know Nature counts things but in the "ensemble" type of way as an ensemble in thormodynamics.
The question is does Nature count the number of elelments in an ensemble, does it collapse all waves in ensemble. I think it should since when counting requires individuality and i think you have collapse the wave to have individual element emerge.

These are just two examples of how my style of story telling is helpful in revealing things that other naratives may not be able to do.
the reason my story can do this is that my observer a/the Nature can be proactive while in QM, the oserver is passive.

There is some overhead/probelm for the observer being proactive though, that is the how active (in frequency of action) can it be. This question requires the notion of time, and we are force to think how to slice/stop/quntize time so that ensembles are not constantly being counted.

Notice that this story about the need to quntize time rises naturally, instead of trying to fix into quntization bandwangen, here we have a real use case need to quntiza time so that nature does not constantly count/collapse waves inensemble.

there are more story to tell but my wife is yelling at me now, so i'll stop right here.

Originally Posted by trilosohpical

wow, I already has 43 posts.

This really isn't something to be bragging about. Seriously, use the edit button. Or better yet, use a word processor, collect and edit your thoughts and then post them here for discussion.

my brain is runing faster than i can write, so i'll just note down something so that I don't forget later on.
1. the rise of ensemblistic entity as the natural results of counting - the ensembles of one element, 2 , 3 ....n elements.
2. counting elements in sensembles is a type of selection with count because each count also naturally 'collapse" the ensemble that includes the elements being counted - don't know what it means in current QM
3. the rise of the notion of time and its quntiztion because the need to stop the continuous count actions - the time here is ensemblistic.
4. duality swith, the rise of the notion of motion as the ontological thing in between 2 switches.
5. swithes are intrinsic and binary and not seen in current qm
6 spin is also intrinsic and binray - any possible connection?

It is against forum rules to make post after post when no one else is replying. Gather all your thoughts together, then put them all into one post. This is a discussion forum, not a blog.

Originally Posted by trilosohpical

my brain is runing faster than i can write

It's just a pity that what results from your brain isn't worth writing down.

1. the rise of ensemblistic entity as the natural results of counting - the ensembles of one element, 2 , 3 ....n elements.
2. counting elements in sensembles is a type of selection with count because each count also naturally 'collapse" the ensemble that includes the elements being counted - don't know what it means in current QM
3. the rise of the notion of time and its quntiztion because the need to stop the continuous count actions - the time here is ensemblistic.
4. duality swith, the rise of the notion of motion as the ontological thing in between 2 switches.
5. swithes are intrinsic and binary and not seen in current qm
6 spin is also intrinsic and binray - any possible connection?

Meaningless crap.

Originally Posted by trilosohpical

Originally Posted by Daecon

I'm pretty sure posting several different posts in a row one after the other can be considered to be spamming.

You know you can edit a post to include more text after you've already posted it, right?

Can you people READ what I am trying to say?

NO! Not like this, no. Have you no understanding of what motivates people to read things?

One of the first rules of communication is to give your intended readers a motive to continue. Do you imagine we all have so little to do that we are likely to wade through post after post of apparently unordered, stream-of-consciousness meandering, about God knows what? Nobody owes you the time and effort to make sense of all this. You need to do the hard work on articulating your ideas, in a way that engages readers, rather than expecting them to do it all.

As others have said, get your ideas together and make a few main points concisely and clearly. (If you can't, that should tell you you have nothing worth saying yet.)

Originally Posted by trilosohpical

there are more story to tell but my wife is yelling at me now, so i'll stop right here.

A major disappointment!

For some reason my QM story is working, which is by itself is very interesting and I want to analyze a little bit to see why it works before I dash further.

I know my story works mostly because I have this Nature who can observe as required by standard QM but nature can do more for my story.

Since Everett also has this universal wavefunction thing, let’s compare them to see what the differece.

Everett’s universal wavefunction if I read him correctly, has all the wavefunctions and since each wavefunction can ontologically represent its reality dual, by universal wavefunction we roughly refer all physical goodies in one of worlds – it is one physical world.

The Nature in my story is quite different. He is an/the observer. When make selection that causes those collapses. He also counts that should also collapse ensemble of things. I am not exactly sure what kind of ontology this Nature thing is going to endow, but for now let stake out the familiar ground as the observer.

So in my QM story, I have three things: the usual Bohr’s duality plus Nature and that is the key difference of my story vs all other QM stories out there.

In my story, I analyze the act of collapsing wavefunction, which no other stories do as far as I can tell.
I let nature select, which is a proactive act ranther than passively let wave collapse, that is another important difference that im pact greatly story telling as well as the analysis of the details in story.

for instance, i can analyze the act of selection and see if the selection involve counting of number of probability - which give us the notion of select with or without counting. I can further analyze to say if the select is without count, the result will be random which agrees with QM, thus we can say that QM is a study of nature selecting without counting.

my poist on nature should count, desides the know fact of nature selects, is also very revealing but in a different way.
I am prepare to say that since count is a more basic and simpler act than select, the physics consequense of count is equally if not more profound. I am already on my way in the form of thought experiments in developing a line of story telling that can demenstrate how a certain notion of time can arise out of nature's act of counting.

In my story, I analyze the act of collapsing wavefunction, which I think no other stories do.
I let nature select, which is a proactive act ranther than passively let wave collapse, this is another important difference that impacts greatly in my story telling and leads to more meaningful analysis of the details in story.

for instance, i can analyze the act of selection and see if the selection involves counting of number of probability - this gives us the notion of select with or without counting. I can further analyze to say if the selection is without count, the result will be random which agrees with QM, and thus we can say that QM is a study of nature selecting without counting.

my poist on nature should also count, besides the known fact of nature select, is also very important and revealing but in a different way.
I can say that since count is a more basic and simpler act than select, the physics consequense of count is equally if not more profound. I am already on my way in the form of thought experiments in developing a line of story telling that can demenstrate how a certain notion of time can arise out of nature's act of counting.

I think I need to point out that while I keep saying "story telling", the real benefits of this turns out is much more than just telling a story. it is actually the details that my story can offer and the analysis on these details that really make the differnce.

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'
aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf


“When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles.”


“any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium”
The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the aether. The “energetic contact” is the state of displacement of the aether.


"For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant, forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity."


A particle is a moving singularity which has an associated aether displacement wave.


In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path which takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the aether passes through both.


As the aether wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Detecting the particle strongly exiting a single slit destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave in the aether and the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling.


In a boat double slit experiment the boat always travels through a single slit and the bow wave passes through both.


The boat travels through a single slit and the bow wave passes through both whether you detect the boat or not.


The bow wave is the boat's water displacement wave.


In a double slit experiment the particle always travels through a single slit and the associated aether displacement wave passes through both.


The particle travels through a single slit and the associated aether displacement wave passes through both whether you detect the particle or not.


'New 'Double Slit' Experiment Skirts Uncertainty Principle'
scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-double-slit-experiment-skirts-uncertainty-principle


"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits."


'Team 'sneaks around' quantum rule'
bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13626587


"For his part, Professor Steinberg believes that the result reduces a limitation not on quantum physics but on physicists themselves. "I feel like we're starting to pull back a veil on what nature really is," he said. "The trouble with quantum mechanics is that while we've learned to calculate the outcomes of all sorts of experiments, we've lost much of our ability to describe what is really happening in any natural language. I think that this has really hampered our ability to make progress, to come up with new ideas and see intuitively how new systems ought to behave."
Seeing intuitively how a double slit experiment behaves is understanding the particle always travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.


"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University


Matter, a piece of window glass and stuff have mass.


In a double slit experiment it is the stuff which waves.

my social media style of communication seems piss off some people here.
I am not sure why.
I am sure they are nice pepole but I don't think they need to be that disapproval of my style.
one thing i am pretty sure of is that what i am saying here has great value and insight something that is very much missed in all the QM theories out there.
I am debating if I should keep telling this story or keep it to myself untill I can write a big article.
I am pretty sure that I can have a very nice QM story if I keep going like this because I can already see the lights on the other ends.
And I don't think i am good in writing a big boring article.

I have outlined some good argument/story telling in short notes above already;
like the logical physical consequnce of Nature doing counting.
like the rise of certain notion of time and need to quntize time in order to regulate the act of counting.
I have another very big idea on the duality swith, which can shed some light on the notion of what we call motion.
and I am tempted to tell a story about spin - still debating on this if its good idea to reveal my idea in this forum, this is a too good idea to be revealed here.

Originally Posted by trilosohpical

my social media style of communication seems piss off some people here.

No true.
It's not just your "style of communication" it's the lack of actual content as well.

one thing i am pretty sure of is that what i am saying here has great value and insight something that is very much missed in all the QM theories out there.

You're wrong about that too.

I am debating if I should keep telling this story or keep it to myself untill I can write a big article.

Keep it to yourself. For as long as possible.

Originally Posted by trilosohpical

I have outlined some good argument/story telling in short notes above already

You haven't made any arguments, good or otherwise.
All you've done is make unsupported statements which have apparently been pulled out your arse.

like the logical physical consequnce of Nature doing counting.

Oh yeah, your "logic" is faulty as well.

still debating on this if its good idea to reveal my idea in this forum, this is a too good idea to be revealed here.

Don't tell us.
PLEASE don't tell us.

Originally Posted by trilosohpical

I have outlined some good argument/story telling in short notes above already;
like the logical physical consequnce of Nature doing counting.
like the rise of certain notion of time and need to quntize time in order to regulate the act of counting.
I have another very big idea on the duality swith, which can shed some light on the notion of what we call motion.
and I am tempted to tell a story about spin - still debating on this if its good idea to reveal my idea in this forum, this is a too good idea to be revealed here.

I asked you to stop the blogging. You didn't do it. I'm giving you three days off.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by trilosohpical

I have outlined some good argument/story telling in short notes above already;
like the logical physical consequnce of Nature doing counting.
like the rise of certain notion of time and need to quntize time in order to regulate the act of counting.
I have another very big idea on the duality swith, which can shed some light on the notion of what we call motion.
and I am tempted to tell a story about spin - still debating on this if its good idea to reveal my idea in this forum, this is a too good idea to be revealed here.

I asked you to stop the blogging. You didn't do it. I'm giving you three days off.

I think this may be another medical case. But let's see what happens after the ban elapses.

When you return, trilosohpical, you might wish to consider these points.

Originally Posted by trilosohpical

my social media style of communication seems piss off some people here.
I am not sure why.

Let me explain. Social media communication is a lighthearted, vacuous, insignificant, content free substitute for primate grooming rituals. As such it can be of value in building and cementing the social bonds within groups. It is wholly out of place in the serious, information dense, complex discussion, investigation and exposition of scientific hypotheses. Consequently when we see such a frivolous medium used to explore such an important topic regular members experience a variety of reactions including frustration, anger, dismay, disgust and the like.

Originally Posted by trilosohpical

I am sure they are nice pepole but I don't think they need to be that disapproval of my style.

They very much do need to disapprove of your style, since it is the antithesis of what a serious scientific discussion merits.

Originally Posted by trilosohpical

one thing i am pretty sure of is that what i am saying here has great value and insight something that is very much missed in all the QM theories out there.
I am debating if I should keep telling this story or keep it to myself until I can write a big article.

You may well be right. In that case it is all the more important that you express yourself clearly.

Originally Posted by trilosohpical

And I don't think i am good in writing a big boring article.

You have shown yourself to be skillful at writing small boring articles, so it shouldn't be a challenge.

The article does not need to be big. It needs to clear, concise and comprehensive. So far you have failed on all three counts. There is no reason that you need to fail in future.

trilosohpical, let me reiterate what I said earlier, use a word processor, or even just notepad. Put all your ideas down there first. Collect them all together. Let them sit a day and then reread them and try and make what you're saying a bit clearer. Run the spell checker if your word processor has one. Once you've done that, post it here and we can discuss.

But given that you don't seem inclined to take advice (or even to read it), I'm not really hopefully there will be much discussion even then.