Spooky action at a distance

Blog 20151028 Spooky action at a distance

Regressive physicists of the quantum mechanics stripe think they have discovered what even Einstein thought impossible. The New York Times is right on top of it, spreading the propaganda with this article:

Markoff, John, 2015, Sorry, Einstein. Quantum Study Suggests ‘Spooky Action’ Is Real, New York Times: New York, p. A13 [ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/science/quantum-theory-experiment-said-to-prove-spooky-interactions.html?emc=edit_th_20151022&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=51980164&_r=0 ].

According to Markoff: “In a landmark study, scientists at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands reported that they had conducted an experiment that they say proved one of the most fundamental claims of quantum theory — that objects separated by great distance can instantaneously affect each other’s behavior.

The finding is another blow to one of the bedrock principles of standard physics known as “locality,” which states that an object is directly influenced only by its immediate surroundings.” It “is the strongest evidence yet to support the most fundamental claims of the theory of quantum mechanics about the existence of an odd world formed by a fabric of subatomic particles, where matter does not take form until it is observed and time runs backward as well as forward.”

[GB: Since this has been in the news for some time, I need to comment. Again the main problem with quantum mechanics (QM) involves its rejection of many of the Ten Assumptions of Science.

1.     The primary transgression is their rejection of the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) and their resulting aether denial. According to neomechanics, quantum particles are bathed in aether, producing phenomena in which the resulting waves are often mistaken for the particles themselves.

2.     The supposition that “matter does not take form until it is observed” is taken right out of the immaterialist’s handbook. Bishop Berkeley, Deepak Chopra, and their religious progeny would be proud of this rejection of the First Assumption of Science, materialism (The external world exists after the observer does not).

3.     The silly idea that “time runs backward as well as forward” fits this solipsistic pattern. It is a clear rejection of the Seventh Assumption of Science, irreversibility (All processes are irreversible). Time is motion. Whenever a microcosm moves, no matter how small, it moves with respect to the rest of the universe. The microcosm never can return to its previous relationship to the rest of the universe—both the microcosm and the rest of the universe have changed in the meantime. One might consider this nit-picky, but it is not in the face of such outrageous claims.]

4.     Markoff writes: “The tests take place in a mind-bending and peculiar world. According to quantum mechanics, particles do not take on formal properties until they are measured or observed in some way. Until then, they can exist simultaneously in two or more places. Once measured, however, they snap into a more classical reality, existing in only one place.” [GB: Mind-bending all right, but nonetheless right in tune with operationalism, which is the version of myopic indeterminism that assumes that “unless, I can feel, see, taste, or measure something, it does not exist.” This is no different from Chopra’s claim that unless he can see the moon, it too does not exist. The fact is that all our measurements in science change the object of investigation in some way. Nonetheless, we assume that all microcosms have properties before we are able to measure them. In QM, of course, the act of measuring can produce profound changes that may produce “formal properties” having little to do with nature. Despite the usual hubris, many scientists are not at all sure that the rubble produced in our accelerators actually tells us much about undamaged particles. It is especially amazing to me that normally skeptical operationalists can be so illogically sure that QM particles “can exist simultaneously in two or more places.”

The next step in QM work will be headlined by Dr. Guth (of increasingly inflationary universe fame) that will “attempt an experiment that will have a better chance of ensuring the complete independence of the measurement detectors by gathering light from distant objects.” I cannot imagine how this could possibly work, just as I cannot imagine the “complete independence” of detectors. Most detectors operate at the behest of electro-magnetic (EM) radiation. They are about as “independent” as your cell phone, which is dependent on the universal aether to receive and emit EM radiation for its operation.

Again, phenomena that display “action at a distance” are “spooky” only to aether deniers. Without aether, we are stuck with “curved empty space,” “curved spacetime,” or the magical “attractive force” that still makes no sense even though it has been a solipsistic favorite for centuries. What seems to be “action at a distance” is most likely a local effect produced by variations in aether pressure, as we suggested as the neomechanical cause of gravitation.[1] I must admit that I have not examined the experimental details in the Delft paper. What with the above mentioned transgressions against science I am not sure that I want to. Papers like these get great press because they pander to the religious crowd. QM is the extreme end of the regression, with even Einstein being opposed. If you doubt the religious connection, check out this YouTube video that David de Hilster suffered through:  http://youtu.be/4C5pq7W5yRM

]

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, Stephen J., 2012, Neomechanical Gravitation Theory, in Volk, Greg, Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July: Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 9, p. 53-58 [http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6529.pdf].

Infinite Universal Hierarchy

Blog 20151021 Infinite Universal Hierarchy

Luis writes:

Given the infinite hierarchy nature of the universe, is it possible that the portion of the universe we can observe with our telescopes is itself inside a particle at a larger hierarchical scale? Might we, for example, be inside an organism or other object at this larger scale? (and likewise, might out bodies be composed of stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters etc if we "zoom in" sufficiently?)

[GB: Luis, I must admit that I was taken aback particularly by your two last questions—not that I have not heard of that whimsical idea before. Of course, in our book “Universal Cycle Theory,[1]” Steve and I used the work of Kashlinsky and others[2] to propose that the observable universe was a tiny portion of what we dubbed “the Local Mega-vortex.” Others have used that work to propose “multiverses,” “parallel universes,” or some kind of “great attractor.” According to Big Bang Theory, all galaxy clusters should be moving outward. However, Kashlinsky showed that galaxy clusters had a preferred direction of motion, which could indicate that they are in orbit around a massive object outside our observable universe. Our speculation, which is in tune with the hierarchical/vortex nature of the rest of universe, just carries the reasoning one hierarchical step beyond what we can observe directly (Figure 1).

Now to the fanciful part… I cannot imagine that there is any way of knowing whether your conjecture could be true. However, per relativism, all larger and smaller microcosms in the infinite universe must have some similar and some dissimilar characteristics. We see much repetition and quasi-duplication in each step of the hierarchy. Each type or class of microcosms demonstrates infinite variety, but not infinite number. For instance, we assume that no two snowflakes are identical and that their forms display infinite variety. Nonetheless, we do not assume that there can be an infinite number of snowflakes. If that were true, the universe would consist of nothing but snowflakes. We assume instead that there are an infinite number of classes. These develop precisely because of relativism. Each microcosm contains an infinite number of submicrocosms in motion and exists in a macrocosm that contains an infinite number of supermicrocosms in motion. The univironmental interactions between microcosm and macrocosm produce the infinite variety we see all about us. Each type of microcosm is continually in motion, evolving per univironmental determinism, constantly changing into something else, just like the snowflake that turns into water in the springtime and the gravel that turns into sand as it is pummeled in the raging water.

With relativism, we essentially are assuming that none of these microcosm classes would be repeated exactly as we go up and down the hierarchy. Whether they would be repeated similarly is unknown. My guess is that each step in the infinite hierarchy is so different from all the other steps that the univironment produces unique microcosms at each step.]

 

Figure 1. Cover of "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe," showing the observable universe rotating around the “Local Mega-Vortex (LMV).” We base this partly on observations that galaxy clusters are flowing in a preferred direction, as if they were affected by some sort of “Great Attractor.” This is one of the reasons that Big Bang theorists had to invent their oxymoronic “multiverses” or “parallel universes.”

For the latest on no-nonsense physics and cosmology, see:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 327 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

---

[1] Puetz, Stephen J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, 626 p. [ http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/ ].

[2] Kashlinsky, A., Atrio-Barandela, F., Kocevski, D., and Ebeling, H., 2008, A Measurement of Large-Scale Peculiar Velocities of Clusters of Galaxies: Results and Cosmological Implications: The Astrophysical Journal, v. 686, no. L49–L52.

Travel faster than the speed of light

Blog 20151014 Travel faster than the speed of light

Luis writes:

- Is faster-than-c space travel possible? Can you envision some way of utilizing the aether to achieve velocities of > 300,000 km/s?

- Do you see humanity ever leaving the solar system, or are we "stranded" in orbit around Sol?

[GB: The fastest spaceship currently is the Voyager 1, which reaches velocities of about 17 km/s. It would take 70,000 years to reach the nearest star, Alpha Centauri. Even at c, that would take 4 years. Velocities of microcosms are dependent on accelerations. Thus, in perfectly empty space, any acceleration greater than zero would produce ever-increasing velocities. However, the amount of fuel necessary to reach c, even if nuclear, would be enormous, probably prohibitive for any useful payload. Then too, we know that space is not perfectly empty (aether particles, electrons, atoms, molecules, dust clouds, and potentially lethal meteorites), so the macrocosm always produces resistance to “ever-increasing velocities.” The resistance would produce a “terminal velocity” like the one we observe in Earth’s gravitational field (about 122 mph [54 m/s] for skydivers in free fall). I doubt if anyone knows what the terminal velocity would be for interstellar travel, but it would not have anything to do with the velocity of light. Light is wave motion in the aether medium in the same way that sound is wave motion in the atmospheric medium. Like the velocity of sound, there is no reason to believe that the velocity of light poses a barrier to velocities that do not use electromagnetism for propulsion.

Could aether be used to attain greater than c velocities? Aether propulsion occurs whenever gravitation is involved. That is, after all, what pushes us down the mountain when we ski. It also is what current spaceships do when they get the “slingshot effect” produced by the gravitational field of other planets. But, as we explained in our NGT paper, aether pressure increases with distance from baryonic matter. It is thus mostly a macrocosmic effect dependent on pressure differences, which would be minimal in interstellar space. One could speculate on the possibility of producing a sort of “aether vacuum” at the nose of a spaceship, thus pushing the spaceship forward. Aside from the great energy required, I cannot imagine what kind of propeller could do that very efficiently. I speculate that aether particles are so small (10^-48 cm) that most of them would penetrate any kind of baryonic matter that was used. The few that did not penetrate would be slowed down just as they are at the Earth’s surface, but I doubt that the decrease in aether particle velocity and resulting pressure reduction would be significant.

So I think we will be stuck with old Sol until it dies in 5 billion years. Travel to other planets? Maybe, but why leave? It’s pretty good right here.]

Planck's smallest unit of motion

Blog 20151007 Planck's smallest unit of motion

Bill Westmiller writes:

GB: "... aethereal collisions are the “smallest unit of motion.” ..."

BW: If there is an infinite reduction in aether-1, -2, ad infinitum, then there is no  "smallest unit" to move. I suppose you could have discrete "levels" of  motion at each nominal size of aether particles, but my point is that your  assertion of a smallest unit of mass or motion is NOT consistent with infinity.

[GB: You are right that, according to the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions), there really can be no “smallest unit of motion,” just as there can be no “smallest particle” or “finite particle.” Of course, Planck was only dealing with the smallest detectable motions, which we assume to be aether_-1 collisions with ordinary matter. The constituents of aether_-1 particles must be aether_-2 particles, which we probably will never be able to detect. We need to hypothesize this infinite regression because, in Infinite Universe Theory, matter always comes from other matter. Unlike the regressive physicists, we do not hypothesize that matter can be formed from “nothing” or from magical “quantum fluctuations” or “virtual particles.”

Planck and others assumed that these “smallest detectable units of motion” were produced by photons. But photons do not exist, just like “soundons” do not exist. Light, like sound, is wave motion in a medium consisting of particles undergoing random motions. Also, motion does not have mass. That is why Einstein’s imaginary photon had to be massless. I suggest that the collisions responsible for the photoelectric effect are aethereal collisions. An advantage of this view is that, by using Planck’s constant, one can calculate the properties of what we presume to be the aether particle (e.g., m = 10^-48 g, etc.).]