Why hydrodynamics of a single particle? That's the puzzle! Or is it just buried in the noncommutative mathematics which is what I believe it is.
the linear operator is merely a representation of a much deeper structure, namely the [noncommutative] algebraic structure.
Professor Basil J. Hiley on the philosophy of his noncommutative nonlocal quantum potential physics
This is one of three videos that feature Professor Basil J. Hiley - yet only released recently on youtube.
"everything goes at two-point functions, we [commutative geometry science] have been trying to do everything at a point."
"if X1 can be the past then X2 can be the future"
"we don't have time plus 3 dimensions. We have two dimensions. Time plus another dimension. Increasing the number of dimensions as we go up the tower of Clifford algebras."
time is not measured by a clock... there time time-energy uncertainty...time is [not] just a parameter....if we try to keep the time controlled we destroy the process... if we've got ambiguity, what does determinism mean? ...There is a basic ambiguity....it's ambiguous within a short-scale, within h-bar squared. It's "almost commutative."
quantum mechanics is not random...there is a [noncommutative nonlocal] process going on....Any noncommutative algebra has elements that commute with each other in a different setup. When you're working with this subalgebra and this subalgebra that you left out, you've got no control whatsoever except through the total algebra...If everything was commutative then everything is well-defined. As soon as you have noncommutativity of any kind you split your algebra into different representations which can be diagonalized simultaneously...
if you diagonalize them in one representation, you can not do it in the other representation....So while you're working one representation, "X is here and now it's move to there..." what's happened to the other representation? Take no notice of it but the overall algebra is telling you what's happening to it. It's moving in a very complicated way. It's not like classical geometry, that's the problem.
We still don't have our heads around the fact that we have to deal with a noncommutative geometry....sometimes a little bit of a vector gets turns into a triangle, sometimes a triangle gets turned into a vector. Gibbs saw that and said, "we won't have anything to do with Clifford" - ....then there was Paul Dirac....the conservation of energy...he didn't want negative energy anywhere in the building. He linearized the quadratic form and the linearization gave the actual structure - the structure is still there but what we do with the structure...a vector going into a triangle...that's what the [noncommutative] algebra does for you.
Hiley says read Clifford's book!
Clifford is all about process...I obtained the Clifford algebra by two-point processes....
Oersted's faith in the unity of the forces of nature links his philosophic views
with the Romantic "philosophy of nature" which was so prominent in German
thought at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Although Oersted did not
accept blindly the more extreme views of Friedrich W. J. Schelling, the leading
exponent of this Naturphilosophie, he certainly responded to the aesthetic ap-
peal of Schelling's writings, and it is reported that Oersted, a few years before
his death, ascribed his discovery of electromagnetism to the stimulus received
from Schelling.9
For this reason a brief glance at some of Schelling's views on nature will not
be an irrelevant digression, particularly since Schelling's speculations on the
unity of nature specifically stressed electricity and magnetism. In connection
with the problem of understanding Oersted, our interest in Schelling and in
Naturphilosophie in general lies in the acknowledged influence on Oersted's
philosophical thought and in the specific emphasis placed upon the sciences of
electricity and of magnetism because of the supposed metaphysical significance
of the forces there made manifest. We can therefore ignore the complex prob-
lems of the derivation and development of Schelling's thought and the succes-
sive changes in this point of view and his intellectual interests.
Schelling's Romantic style of expression makes it easy for us to agree with
Mme. de Stael, who concluded her discussion about him and about German
Romantic philosophy in general with the remark that "systems which aspire
to the explanation of the universe cannot be analysed at all clearly by any
discourse: words are not appropriate to ideas of this kind and the result is that,
in order to make them serve, one spreads over all things the darkness which
preceded Creation but not the light which followed." Schelling's mode of
thought in statements such as "Nature is only the visible organism of our
understanding"" would seem alien and almost meaningless to most scientists
today. Nor would the following possibly distorted echo of Kant sound much
better:
The assertion is, that all phenomena are correlated in one absolute and neces-
sary law, from which they can all be deduced;in short,that in natural science all
that we know,we know absolutely a priori. Now, that experiment never leads to
such a knowing,is plainly manifest, from the fact that it can never get beyond
the forces of Nature, of which itself makes use as means. . . . By this deductionStauffer, R. C. (1957). Speculation and Experiment in the Background of Oersted’s Discovery of Electromagnetism. Isis, 48(1), 33–50.
of all natural phenomena from an absolute hypothesis,our knowing is changed
into a construction of Nature itself, that is, into a science of Nature a priori.
If, therefore,such deduction itself is possible,a thing which can be proved only
by the fact, then also a doctrine of Nature is possible as a science of Nature; a
system of purely speculative physics is possible, which was the point to be
proved.12
On the other hand, Schelling's reaction against the thinkers revered by most
of the previous generation, that of the Age of Reason and of the great French
Encyclopedia, is clear enough: "Coming after the purblind mode of investi-
gating nature which became generally established beginning with the ruination
of philosophy at the hands of Bacon and of physics at the hands of Newton
and Boyle, a higher perception of nature begins with Naturphilosophie; it forms
a new organ of intuition for understanding nature." 13
Thus in general, Naturphiosophie placed the highest value upon intuition
as the pathway to the understanding of nature, and Schelling held that "the
concept of an empirical science is a mongrel notion. . . . That which is pure
empiricism is not science; and, conversely, that which is science is not em-
piricism."14
Schelling seemed fascinated by the underlying identity of apparent opposites.
Physical phenomena exhibiting polarity aroused his especial interest, and he
asserted, "The first principle of a philosophical system of science is to go in
search of polarity and dualism throughout all of nature." 15 The polar forces
of electricity and of magnetism were treated at length in half a dozen of his
works."' Schelling fully shared the contemporary enthusiastic interest in Gal-
vani's mysterious animal electricity, and he seemed entranced by the potential
significance of this new-found force of nature.'7 At one time he even asserted
that the processes of magnetism, electricity and galvanism "are thus as it were
the prime numbers of nature," and further that "galvanism governs all of
organic nature and is the true border-phenomenon of both [organic and in-
organic] natures." 18 Later he stated that galvanism was essentially identical
with "the chemical process."
this new structure that I've dug up is causing an obstruction. The old structure before I realized exactly what was going on building this tower of algebras, I would say we had a universal time. That is what is going in the holomovement. And then we explicate from that, different views which produces these different times. And we've got to be careful what we mean by time. We have to be more precise about the meaning of these extra parameters as we come in. We have to identify them. That's being a little bit difficult. But the great thing is that I've actually now identified a problem I had with Schwinger's work - the Green Function's approach to quantum mechanics. There he was introducing two times and it wasn't clear to me why he was doing it. Now I understand why he's doing it. So it seems to be part of the building of a hierarchy - that you have different times. And we have to understand what that means.
We're using the wrong mathematical structure. I'm sorry if I sound arrogant. But it's about time I actually put my foot down.
I wish I could find people who would actually work with me on this subject. I think they get put off by the bigwigs - sorry if I call them that, I might offend somebody. Who cares...They go to their supervisor and the supervisor says, "No you won't get your Ph.D. if you go down that road." That's the problem we're facing. And I don't know if we can do anything about it. When I came through I had the privilege of being with David Bohm and I had the privilege of being a kid of the 60s and we had freedom and we had freedom. Not to squander it away but to actually do serious investigations. Now we seem to make our youngsters to do through course after course after course, become experts - soon as you take them off the ideas that are told to them by the course - the Clifford algebra process - they are utterly bewildered, they are utterly bewildered and it's very sad. But there you are - this is a grumpy old man speaking by the way. I'm just a grumpy old man.
You start with a system of position and momentum that are well-defined, but you can not produce a system with an a priori given well-defined Q and P. In other words it's the way you set it up, introduces the probability aspects. The development....follows the set of algebraic rules...they were the way of getting over this difficulty of the collapse. When you look at the final probability, what you doing is, essentially, is you're doing with reducible representations for your time development. But when you face an experiment situation you must look at the irreducible representations. I only get one reality whereas Roger seems to get two...I don't understand why you [Roger] don't understand what I'm saying. No, I don't have a collapse! ...What I do know is that energy flows along those lines...what you find is ...it comes out of the Schroedinger equation - there is this extra energy which we call the quantum potential energy.
If you add this h-bar squared to the Schroedinger equation you get the quantum potential...There is no collapse....We're using an algorithm which is not reflecting what is actually taking place in reality. Reality is a very slippery customer. Gravity might not come and change flows - that's what I'm hoping would happen.
meaning his argon experiments with Robert Flack - I just emailed Robert Flack.
"if you work out the weak value of the kinetic energy you find the quantum potential." (2015)
The "inflation" of the Universe is thus explained as the disappearance of the kinetic energy that is then stored as quantum potential energy.
There are no hidden parameters in the Bohm there at all. ...You can not prepare a state in which a priori you can choose a given Q. That's an experimental feature.
In physics, Q typically represents position (or coordinate), while P represents momentum.
No comments:
Post a Comment