THE Unfounded Assumption
This article from Deepak Chopra, Why Does Consciousness Leave So Many False Clues?, was in my feed today; I’m sympathetic, of course.
Since more than 99% of scientists agree that the brain creates consciousness, the answers to the mystery of consciousness seem closer than ever.
This is precisely what William Tiller addresses: the assumption that “no human qualities of consciousness, intention, emotion, mind or spirit can significantly influence a well-designed target experiment in physical reality” is largely a manifestation of scientific materialism, which leads to the 99% agreement above. I honestly believe that this is why theoretical physics is in the sad state that it is in today.
From Tiller’s slightly more technical book written for the lay public, Some Science Adventures with Real Magic, page 122:
Walter Harrison, in his textbook on quantum mechanics states that everything is at the same time a particle and a wave and that simply figuring out how this seemingly self-contradictory statement can be true leads one to all of quantum theory. In the ensuing 300 plus pages of his book, he goes on to quantitatively show how this is true for most of the major phenomena embraced by today’s material science and engineering.
This, of course, is reminiscent of the “Pair Postulate” Philip Goyal, Kevin Knuth, and John Skilling use in their paper Origin of Complex Quantum Amplitudes and Feynman’s Rules. It is also reminiscent of David Hestenes’ Zitter Interpretation of quantum theory, as demonstrated in his papers Quantum Mechanics From Self-Interaction and The Zitterbewegung Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It’s the particle/pilot wave duality introduced by de Broglie and the orthodox physics community seems alergic to it: why?
Do you know the true history of Quantum Theory? The real history I mean, showing Einstein’s true contributions? If you are not familiar, then I would highly recommend the book by physicist A. Douglas Stone, Einstein and the Quantum: The Quest of the Valiant Swabian. Uncharacteristically, when it came to the quantum, Einstein seemed incapable of going where his intuition led him. He just couldn’t accept what needed to be done to reconcile the quantum with his relativity. He was led to “ghost fields.” Yeah, try finding information about THOSE online (see here and here)!
Planck chose the simplest model of a set of electrically charged oscillators with energy 𝑈 (one for each frequency) filling a cavity with reflecting walls. As summarized in Appendix 5.A, this led him to guess an interpolation expression, 𝛼𝑈 + 𝛽𝑈^2 , which exactly echoes the first identification of wave-particle duality later found by Einstein in 1909. Einstein had applied his previously derived formula for the fluctuation in energy to Planck’s law and found:
Δ𝐸^2 = ℎ𝜈 <E> + 𝑐^3/(8𝜋𝜈^2) <E>^2 . (5.7)
This is given per unit volume and frequency range and <E> = U is the average oscillator energy. The partition into the linear and quadratic terms in Equation (5.7) just matches that for Planck’s fortunate guess for his interpolation and explains why Planck’s resulting radiation law Equation (5.3) exactly matches that later found from quantum mechanics.
Einstein immediately recognized the linear term in Equation (5.7), corresponding to the Wien limit, as having a particle origin corresponding to the fluctuations of a gas of independent particles. The quadratic term, corresponding to Rayleigh-Jeans, could be identified with fluctuations of the superposition of random standing waves in a small cavity. What had emerged was apparently a type of “wave-particle” duality but it was perplexing to Einstein in how to think of this in terms of his previous 1905 proposal of light-quanta, now called photons, as independent localized particles.
Note the date, 1909. This is what motivated his ghost fields. Here’s Tiller again, page 114, his section titled, What QMs Founding Fathers Should Have Done:
It is our contention that the founding fathers of quantum mechanics (QM) should have realized that there was another important classical mechanics (CM) step to take before their leap into the quantum world. Adoption of the 8-dimensional duplex space at the center of Figure 3.2a as a basis for physical reality would have done a whole variety of useful things for them:
(1) It would have produced a particle and a wave simultaneity viewpoint with the RF for the particles being direct space (D-space or spacetime). The RF for the waves, via this duplex space, is labeled reciprocal space (or R-space). The prevailing mathematics, required by the reciprocal nature of these two subspaces, would have revealed to the founding fathers that a particular quality associated with the type of substance (electric, say) in one subspace had an equilibrium conjugate quality manifesting by the type of substance (magnetic, say) in the other subspace with a quantitative connection between them that are called the “Fourier transform pair relationships.”
[…]
(2) It would have shown that every point in one subspace is connected energetically to every other point in that subspace via the interaction with the totality of the other subspace.
[…]
(3) It would have shown that, in nature, it is possible to observe both local forces from the D-space aspects and non-local forces from the R-space aspects.
[…]
(4) They would have realized that, because most of the material qualities of interest had amplitudes that were vectors, information entanglement would have existed between non-local spaces and objects.
[…]
It seems obvious, does it not? Especially in light of the superluminal phase velocities associated with these waves; this is what really demands the duplex-space reference frame with the coupling field. But this leads straightaway to PsychoEnergetics — energetics involving mind, emotion, and spirit. Scientific materialists can not tolerate this. Instead, what do we have? We have folks insisting that statistical amplitudes are real entities in nature that describe “particles” which explore a finite but extremely large N number of paths simultaneously — and this can be harnessed for computational purposes. This, of course, implies a complete disavowal of the original de Broglie concept, indeed, the original wave/particle duality concept. This led to, from Oliver Consa’s Helical Solenoid paper:
Despite his initial objections, Pauli formalized the theory of spin in 1927 using the modern theory of QM as set out by Schrödinger and Heisenberg. Pauli proposed that spin, angular moment, and magnetic moment are intrinsic properties of the electron and that these properties are not related to any actual spinning motion. The Pauli Exclusion Principle states that two electrons in an atom or a molecule cannot have the same four quantum numbers. Pauli’s ideas brought about a radical change in QM. The Bohr-Sommerfeld Model’s explicit electron orbitals were abandoned and with them any physical model of the electron or the atom.
Who needs physical models when you have physical mathematics? And quantum computation?
We identified a total of 1892 quantum computing patents granted from 2001 and 2021. Our results indicate that 1224 of these patents have been granted since 2018. Thus, 64.7 per cent of the patent protection for quantum computing inventions has occurred in the last 3 years.
Compare that to so-called “cold fusion”, which Tiller mentions in his book, page 130, and which I write about in my article, Something is Wrong in the State of Quantum Electro-Dynamics; Something is Wrong in the State of Quantum Chromo-Dynamics. From that article:
The open-access journal article published in 2021 in the Journal of ElectroAnalytic Chemistry, Preliminary survey on cold fusion: It’s not pathological science and may require revision of nuclear theory, provides a comprehensive survey (it’s a open-access pdf):
For the total articles found, this work listed a total of 5249 publications, including conference articles, conference presentations, journal articles, and patents. Amongst those, 2202 are experimental works reporting results of experiments, being 1921 successful and 281 unsuccessful. In total, there are 375 distinct research groups involving 3460 researchers. There is, indeed, cooperation between research groups, but they are rather rare, most work is done by isolated groups.
As Mr. Beaudette reports, many of the early unsuccessful replication attempts were either outright frauds or produced by physicists with little to no experience in Electro-Chemistry. It was also later found that success with the deuterium/palladium cell absolutely required a saturation ratio, deuterium to palladium, of .9; many of the early experiments were working in the .6 to .8 range, guarantying failure. But clearly, the 2021 survey shows that “cold fusion” has been established as a fact of nature. In spite of this, we have, from the University of California, Berkeley, Cold Fusion: A Case Study for Understanding Science. Mr. Beaudette also reports on the status of cold fusion at the USPTO, his report being consistent with the current Wikipedia page on the subject:
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) now rejects patents claiming cold fusion.[93] Esther Kepplinger, the deputy commissioner of patents in 2004, said that this was done using the same argument as with perpetual motion machines: that they do not work.[93] Patent applications are required to show that the invention is “useful”, and this utility is dependent on the invention’s ability to function.[183] In general USPTO rejections on the sole grounds of the invention’s being “inoperative” are rare, since such rejections need to demonstrate “proof of total incapacity”,[183] and cases where those rejections are upheld in a Federal Court are even rarer: nevertheless, in 2000, a rejection of a cold fusion patent was appealed in a Federal Court and it was upheld, in part on the grounds that the inventor was unable to establish the utility of the invention.[183][notes 8]
A U.S. patent might still be granted when given a different name to disassociate it from cold fusion,[184] though this strategy has had little success in the US: the same claims that need to be patented can identify it with cold fusion, and most of these patents cannot avoid mentioning Fleischmann and Pons’ research due to legal constraints, thus alerting the patent reviewer that it is a cold-fusion-related patent.[184] David Voss said in 1999 that some patents that closely resemble cold fusion processes, and that use materials used in cold fusion, have been granted by the USPTO.[185] The inventor of three such patents had his applications initially rejected when they were reviewed by experts in nuclear science; but then he rewrote the patents to focus more on the electrochemical parts so they would be reviewed instead by experts in electrochemistry, who approved them.
How do you reconcile that with the 2021 preliminary survey linked to above? Theoretical physicists claim there is no data, but there’s data everywhere, they just refuse to accept it, the orthodox religious community I mean. When they say data they mean data from high-energy collider experiments, data that will support their scientific materialist dogma.
Tiller’s coupling field, the deltron moiety, displays the key characteristic of consciousness, which is the meaningful manipulation of information; Einstein’s ghost fields are the information it manipulates.
Alain Aspect, John Clauser, Anton Zeilinger and Bohr’s Correspondence Principle: A Myth Dispelled;
The Phase of the Schroedinger Wave Function and Spin: An Improper Transformation;
Read this and tell me in the comments if you will invest in my Quantum Computation SPAC.
