This post is a continuation of previous posts about the birth of the Event Enhanced Quantum Theory - EEQT
Heide Narnhofer to the Rescue
Our Event Enhanced Quantum Theory of 1993 was, however, essentially incomplete. It was describing an “statistically averaged” history, and it was not yet able to provide a mechanism that is responsible for our particular and unique history, answering the question "How Nature does what She does?". Finding such a mechanism, finding the unique algorithm that, when repeated, would reproduce our “average behavior” was not easy. I finally found it by a "directed chance", and then I was able to prove its uniqueness owing to the enlightening comments of a renowned Austrian physicist, Heide Narnhofer, when I was giving a talk on the early version of EEQT at the Schrödinger’s Institute (ESI) in Vienna in 1994.
The rest followed rather easily. Not without obstacles, but already downhill.
Our formalism allowed us to derive, instead of just to postulate, Max Born’s probabilistic interpretation of the wave function.
We were now able to simulate, on a classical computer, real world quantum processes, including tracks left by elementary particles in particle detectors, and even Schrödinger’s cats.
"Everyone who claims that there is a Schrödinger cat paradox would first have to justify the assumption that a superposition of any two quantum states is always meaningful. As far as I know, this is just an arbitrary assumption. If it leads to a paradox, there is only one logical conclusion: the assumption must be wrong."
Quantum Paradoxes and Fritz Zwicky
Thus, with EEQT, we succeeded in removing “quantum paradoxes”. Since then we have published about 20 papers describing our theory as applied to both simple and complicated cases, but no one paid any attention. Everybody was busy with their own pet theories driven by what had been made fashionable to the Authoritarian followers - which is not a surprise in Science. Let me give just one example from the history of “Dark Matter”:
The first suspicion of dark matter came in the 1930s, when Fritz Zwicky suggested that clusters of galaxies contained dark matter. He used the average motion of the galaxies in the cluster to measure the total mass, and found out that it was much more than the number of galaxies.
Zwicky turned out to be correct, but no one believed him since he had a reputation of being eccentric and sometimes over-interpreting results. He found that galaxies in the cluster represented less than 10% of the total cluster mass.
Zwicky had a reputation of being eccentric and so no one believed him – can you imagine? Is Science about believing? I don’t think so. It should not be a question of believing, but the question of simply checking whether Zwicky was correct or not. But no one cared. Why? Because Zwicky’s observations were against the accepted dogma. Scientists indeed tend to be authoritarians.
We're sailing on a strange boat. Heading for a strange shore.
P.S.1 My wife likes this song. So this is for her>
Lyrics: "Strange Boat"
We're sailing on a strange boat
Heading for a strange shore
We're sailing on a strange boat
Heading for a strange shore
Carrying the strangest cargo
That was ever hauled aboard
We're sailing on a strange sea
Blown by a strange wind
We're sailing on a strange sea
Blown by a strange wind
Carrying the strangest crew
That ever sinned
We're riding in a strange car
We're followin' a strange star
We're climbing on the strangest ladder
That was ever there to climb
We're living in a strange time
Working for a strange goal
We're living in a strange time
Working for a strange goal
We're turning flesh and body
Into soul
"P.S.5. 16:49 Unfortunately the method of finding the SO(4,2) matrix implementing translations, as described in my notes, is not working. Don't know why? Can't find an error. I am stuck. We have a problem.".
ReplyDeleteWhat if you tried to make such a matrix?:
L(a) =
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & a_x & a_x \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & -a \cdot x - \frac{a^2}{2} & -a \cdot x - \frac{a^2}{2} \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & -a \cdot x - \frac{a^2}{2} & -a \cdot x - \frac{a^2}{2} \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & -a \cdot x + \frac{a^2}{2} & -a \cdot x + \frac{a^2}{2} \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}.
Maybe write what you would improve in it or why it is too general and what details it does not take into account and I will then think of another one.
"the point is, however, that the matrix L(a) must depend only on a, and not on x."
ReplyDeleteBut why it must depend only on a?
I will ask a perhaps naive question. Why O(4,2)? Yes, I know. You can answer that it's because it's a de Sitter model, that it's symmetries, that it's a Lie algebra with a non-zero class, i.e. she's neither simple nor semi-simple, yes - that's abstract and nice. Really nice.
ReplyDeleteBut what paradoxes would this group help us solve? What is so special about it? I really want to know, because I don't feel that the justification for choosing this group is deep enough.
I also remember that both myself and John G cited arguments about the relevance of conformal groups. Yes - they are relevant. I like the scale transformation, although it seems to me that the size of the object is some very sneaky illusion.
ReplyDeleteWhat about supersymmetry? But I'm not referring to those boson and fermion groups. I also don't quite understand the philosophical basis for introducing exactly such degrees of freedom.
I admit that for me these entities are beautiful, but I don't see their role in resolving paradoxes.
"P.S.10. Added special conformal transformations. Though unfinished."
ReplyDeleteK(a) = C L(a) C =
\begin{pmatrix}
I_4 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
L_{11}(a) & L_{12}(a) & L_{13}(a) & L_{14}(a) & L_{15}(a) & L_{16}(a) \\
L_{21}(a) & L_{22}(a) & L_{23}(a) & L_{24}(a) & L_{25}(a) & L_{26}(a) \\
L_{31}(a) & L_{32}(a) & L_{33}(a) & L_{34}(a) & L_{35}(a) & L_{36}(a) \\
L_{41}(a) & L_{42}(a) & L_{43}(a) & L_{44}(a) & L_{45}(a) & L_{46}(a) \\
L_{51}(a) & L_{52}(a) & L_{53}(a) & L_{54}(a) & L_{55}(a) & L_{56}(a) \\
L_{61}(a) & L_{62}(a) & L_{63}(a) & L_{64}(a) & L_{65}(a) & L_{66}(a)
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
I_4 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix},
where L_{ij}(a) are the elements of the matrix L(a) given explicitly in formula (37).