-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
Expand file tree
/
Copy pathleftovers.html
More file actions
1725 lines (1691 loc) · 101 KB
/
leftovers.html
File metadata and controls
1725 lines (1691 loc) · 101 KB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<title>Einstein's Cat</title>
</head>
<body><br>
<h3><a name="Bibliography">Bibliography, continued<br>
</a></h3>
<ul>
</ul>
<h3>Papers</h3>
<p>(can these be sortable by author and date?)</p>
<ul>
<li>Bohm <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20110819234038/http://leopard.physics.ucdavis.edu/rts/p298/pilotwavetheory.pdf"
target="_blank">pilotwavetheory.pdf</a></li>
</ul>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<p></p>
<hr>
<h3>Checklist(s)/Plan</h3>
<h4>plan</h4>
<ul>
<li>check in spell-checked code to GitHub</li>
<li>More on developing intuition for SR. You age slower by traveling
"other dimensions"</li>
<li>finish Murray's advice: image sizes, alt tags</li>
<li>Promotion: FB, LinkedIn, Ko-fi</li>
<li>deBroglie : covariant and contravariant wavelengths (also below)</li>
<li> https://www.wired.com/2016/02/scientists-spot-the-gravity-waves-that-flex-the-universe/</li>
<li><em>The Road to Reality</em>, chapter two (Lambert's formula, p. 43.
Imaginary radius, 43-44). </li>
<li>Come back to Chapter 18 (Arrow II) in "In Defense..." . Real
Time's arrow is<em> outward</em>, with the flow of energy (radiation
arrow of time, FETH 171), and with entropy. Mass slows (and reverses?)
this flow. Gravity makes for a non-entropic distribution of gas in a
volume : in free fall, tidal forces push toward center and up/down. This
is gravity's defining characteristic, what distinguishes it from
acceleration. It runs the film backward from an even distribution to a
biased one. It also slows imaginary time (Interstellar). </li>
<li>https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-more-physicists-are-starting-to-think-space-and-time-are-illusions
"“GR=QM,” Leonard Susskind claimed boldly in an open letter to
researchers in quantum information science: general relativity is
nothing but quantum mechanics—a hundred-year-old theory that has been
applied extremely successfully to all sorts of things but never really
entirely understood. As Sean Carroll has pointed out, “Maybe it was a
mistake to quantize gravity, and space-time was lurking in quantum
mechanics all along.” For the future, “rather than quantizing gravity,
maybe we should try to gravitize quantum mechanics. Or, more accurately
but less evocatively, ‘find gravity inside quantum mechanics,’” "</li>
<li>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy "What are called
Maxwell's equations today, are in fact a simplified version of the
original equations reformulated by Heaviside, FitzGerald, Lodge and
Hertz. The original equations used Hamilton's more expressive quaternion
notation,[164] a kind of Clifford algebra, which fully subsumes the
standard Maxwell vectorial equations largely used today.[165] In the
late 1880s there was a debate over the relative merits of vector
analysis and quaternions. According to Heaviside the electromagnetic
potential field was purely metaphysical, an arbitrary mathematical
fiction, that needed to be "murdered".[166] It was concluded that there
was no need for the greater physical insights provided by the
quaternions <strong>if the theory was purely local</strong> in nature.
Local vector analysis has become the dominant way of using Maxwell's
equations ever since. However, this strictly vectorial approach has led
to a restrictive topological understanding in some areas of
electromagnetism, for example, a full understanding of the energy
transfer dynamics in Tesla's oscillator-shuttle-circuit can only be
achieved in quaternionic algebra or higher SU(2) symmetries.[167] It has
often been argued that <strong>quaternions </strong>are not <strong>compatible
with special relativity</strong>,[168] but<strong> multiple papers
have shown ways of incorporating relativity</strong>.[169][170][171][172]"</li>
<li>https://www.math.mcgill.ca/barr/lambek/pdffiles/Quater2013.pdf</li>
<li><a href="https://fondationlouisdebroglie.org/LDB-oeuvres/De_Broglie_Kracklauer.pdf"
target="_blank">https://fondationlouisdebroglie.org/LDB-oeuvres/De_Broglie_Kracklauer.pdf</a>
</li>
<ul>
<li>p. 16-17 Transforming f and transforming E do not commute?</li>
<li>summary and conclusions touch on many things I have recently
considered</li>
<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIqKG5TiSYs" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIqKG5TiSYs</a>
understanding group velocity. See Griffiths 47. Also this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uii9clp_DSg (math)</li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave#Phase_velocity%20"
target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave#Phase_velocity
</a>"the phase velocity of matter waves always exceeds c"</li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie#Conjecture_of_an_internal_clock_of_the_electron"
target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie#Conjecture_of_an_internal_clock_of_the_electron</a>
"In his 1924 thesis, de Broglie conjectured that the electron has an
internal clock that constitutes part of the mechanism by which a pilot
wave guides a particle" <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20110819234038/http://leopard.physics.ucdavis.edu/rts/p298/pilotwavetheory.pdf"
target="_blank">pilotwavetheory.pdf</a></li>
<li>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation ;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_matrices</li>
<li><font face="Palatino, Times" size="4"><i>Non-linear Wave Mechanics:
A Causal Interpretation (ordered)<br>
</i></font></li>
<li><font face="Palatino, Times" size="4"><i>http://www.davis-inc.com/physics/
"</i></font><font face="Palatino, Times" size="4"><i><font face="Helvetica"><font
size="2">Given de Broglie's assumptions, quantum mechanics,
which is to say the study of the behavior and interpretation
of the phase wave, is the study of an inherently relativistic
phenomenon. In this sense, if it were not for
relativistic effects, quantum (wave) mechanics would not
exist! </font></font>"<br>
</i></font></li>
</ul>
<li>Get feedback via email? or kofi! Send corrections/ updates by mail
list? supporters!</li>
<li>send links to everyone I thanked; eigenchris and 3b1b; </li>
<li>Get photo from Rob or Tara?</li>
<li><br>
</li>
</ul>
<p>peer review (Physics forums? StackExchange?), proofing, general reader
comments</p>
<p>website checklist:</p>
<ul>
<li>Redo and migrate SUP to monstro.us; merge material as appropriate. </li>
<li>Index the best videos in a list on my site and refer to the list in
the book </li>
<li>Put the finished draft in GitHub</li>
</ul>
<p>cleanup checklist: </p>
<ul>
<li>check all the links: external, chapters, places</li>
<li>spell check</li>
<li>use hypertext</li>
<li>use sidebars/boxes</li>
<li>Consistent Chapter references, figure and equation references</li>
<li>consistent use of parentheses or brackets</li>
<li>uniform quotation marks, “ — ” </li>
<li>More author credits for wiki material</li>
<li>TL;DR: Preview and summarize OFTEN. Offer alternate paths. Emphasize
the highlights.</li>
<li> In the text, remind the reader to check the notes for additional
resources</li>
<li>[Index the most helpful videos on various channels etc and include
them in the notes for the relevant chapters.] </li>
<li>update the version number on index page</li>
</ul>
<p>source checklist:</p>
<ul>
<li>Journals (resume at V:72)</li>
<li>One more pass through all the books on the shelf and in the
bibliography to see what I missed: Ball, Penrose, Smolin TWP/3RQG, Cole,
Kaku, Hawking, Mermin. Schutz?</li>
</ul>
<p> <strong>Python references </strong></p>
<ul>
<li> And now for something completely different</li>
<li> Holy hand grenade ("Three Shalt Thou Count")</li>
<li> Philosophers song</li>
<li>Hero "bravely turned and ran away"<br>
</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>HHGG references</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Infinite Improbability Equation</li>
<li>Non Sequitur=Milliways</li>
<li>R and G as Vroomfondel and Majikthise</li>
<li>the Guide and Vogons, Fit the First</li>
</ul>
<p>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p>
<ul>
</ul>
<p><br>
</p>
<hr>
<h3><a name="Notes"> Notes</a></h3>
<br>
<p>Chapter 25 </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<h4>warping spacetime<br>
</h4>
<p>guild steersman idea vs Einstein's. Guild folds space only. We actually
warp space<em>time</em>. We become higher-energy.<br>
</p>
<p> measurement problem associated with relativistic energy. You pull
everything in, warp spacetime around you</p>
<p></p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<h4> </h4>
<h4> </h4>
<h4><strong> Gravitational waves</strong></h4>
<p>What would be the effect of massive gravitational waves in our familiar
world? See Sean carroll. Also Hartle p. 337 (illustrated). Wheeler
187.</p>
<p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jVYe_g6y2E 7:00</p>
<h4> Gravitomagnetism</h4>
<p> Schutz:</p>
<p>Hartle 296: g-mag=frame dragging?</p>
<p>Wheeler 232 g-mag (frame dragging) and Mach's principle<br>
</p>
<p>Gravity is like magnetism in some ways but opposite in others. When we
see relative motion between a charge and current, the magnetic force is
because of how the charge density has changes from the moving point of
view. When we release something from rest at some height, it drops not
because it is already moving, but because there are other frames of
reference in which it is? Or is it that we only <em>imagine</em> that it
was at rest, when it was in fact moving back and forth across tiny
distances? Is that how gravitomagnetism is activated (below)? How would
that be any different from supposing that it really <em>has</em> no
precise location and that when it has to keep choosing one at random, the
odds are biased in favor of the curvature of space?</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<h4> so, why do things fall down??</h4>
<p> IV-52. Curved space alone seems insufficient to explain why the
apple falls. It's usually the "curvature of time" which is given credit
for this. "It seems unlikely that a more beautiful and simple model than
the 4D one will be possible, my objections notwithstanding." Do I still
see it that way? I don't think so. Just add my Big Hypothesis to curvature
of space and you get curvature of time and the apple falling. See
Schutz p. 240. He<strong> breaks down gravity into four sources, some of
which may overlap: one is curvature of time, another curvature of space
</strong><strong><strong>(which I may be able to show includes the first)</strong>,
another gravitomagnetism (which I may be able to show also includes the
first), and feedback/nonlinearity.</strong> It's the last part that
makes the calculations so bedeviling. </p>
<p>Here's the secret: the mirrors are made of light too (?). Any time they
go up and down, they go a little more down and a little less up. That I
guess I can understand. But every time they go back and forth, they go
down a little. This I can't quite figure. The geodesic and least action
principles, which tell us the greatest proper time between events A and B,
seem unsatisfactory because they treat B as the foregone conclusion and
the path to get there as the question. Maybe they ought to look at all the
shortest paths to all the events and then ask which of them is congruent
to our velocity through A? Yes. See IV-131. </p>
<p> is electron spin that "inward" radiation/oscillation I have been
looking for? Don't necessarily specify a mechanism, but somehow mass is
energy turned into a light clock. Maybe the mirrors are the inside of its
Schwarzschild radius. E=mc2 -> v=c. the <em>it</em> component of the
4-vector is in one or more dimensions of space, as a light mirror or
circle. III-15 Orzel: The kibble is moving through time rather than
space. "you move through spacetime at exactly the speed of light no matter
what your speed through space or time is" (more). [So what I am doing is
showing that "rest mass" really isn't "at rest" at all.]</p>
<p>But an Orzel-like "Speed through time" is too ambiguous. Do we mean the
speed of our clock (how much we aged), or how late it got (how much
everyone else did)? Not just ambiguous, but wrong. Our speed through time
is <em>literally </em>an aspect of speed through space, and the more we
speed through space, the more we will find that everyone else has aged
relative to us (a speed through time).</p>
<p>reprise (Big Hypothesis): I don't have to show that everything <em>is</em>
light. All I need to do is <em>describe </em>a system in which this is
true, and show its complete consistency with relativity. Then I can show <em>why
</em>time relates to space in the way it does: Why it seems
independent/orthogonal on a small/slow scale, but is actually
double-counted, and this must be accounted for on relativistic scales.
("How is all mass like a light clock?")</p>
<h4> left overs</h4>
<p>Go over/introduce the earth-moon two-way broadcasting example but do it
without the gravitational difference. Planet1 and Planet2 are 10 light
seconds distant; clocks would seem to be in sync if we go halfway between
the send time and echo back time. But if planet1 clock is brought to
planet2 for comparison, it will be ten seconds behind; and vice versa. The
sync IS NOT MEANINGFUL. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Fleisch SGVT p. 184: Sort of like Conway I and II but in reverse? False
equivalence . . . Is this what Ohanian refers to as (189,90 /
III-28): "dead wrong"? </p>
<p></p>
<h4> Aborted idea</h4>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/light-clock-on-train-experiment.787961/</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Zeno sits on the side of the railroad tracks while Alice passes by on the
Semiluminal Express, a train that travels at 60 percent of the speed of
light, with a Lorentz factor of 1.25. Alice's train car has a light clock
built into it; a mirror stands at each end, facing inward. Alice can time
light pulses as they are reflected back and forth by the mirrors at the
speed of light. The train car, and thus the clock, is roughly 40 feet
long, and each round trip across the clock takes roughly 80 nanoseconds.
From Zeno's frame of reference, the clock is 32 feet long. But between an
event at which a single light pulse leaves one mirror and the event at
which it returns after being reflected back, Zeno measures roughly 100
nanoseconds over a distance of 100 feet (80 feet in one direction and 20
in the other, due to the motion of the train). Alice's clock must be
running slow, he says, to get a shorter elapsed time; and her yardstick
must be short to measure the clock being longer. </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>But Alice's yardstick <em>is her clock</em>. It runs slower because it
is shorter. ? Twin Paradox. Yardstick resumes its shape, and clock its
rate, but both have been places and they are both behind in time.</p>
<h4>Chapter Twenty-Six: Achilles and the Tortoise (II)</h4>
<p>Every part of the wave is a point source adding ahead and cancelling
behind? plane as well as circular </p>
<p> k is a covector (eigenchris)? consider waves relativistically
(Steane) </p>
<p>Wiki:"Frequency domain" : "for mathematical systems governed by linear
differential equations . . . converting . .. from the time domain to
a frequency domain converts the differential equations to algebraic
equations, which are easier to solve." I need to understand differential
equations, particularly wave equations. </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<h4>(resonance)</h4>
<p>Resonance: here is a pipe, can you play upon it? </p>
<p>Resonance: The sound of music. "The hills [pipes] are alive" Also my
borrowed songs.</p>
<p>V:39-40 It's resonance that creates tone from noise . . .</p>
<h4>Chapter Twenty-Seven: Quantum Quandaries</h4>
<p>IV:179-180. V:18. Ball and Orzel comments on development of science</p>
<p> <strong>Heisenberg</strong></p>
<p>One of the strange things about matrices, though, is that their order of
multiplication matters. The operation associated with position is not the
same as the one associated with momentum, and the answer you get from the
multiplication depends on which property you measure first. </p>
<p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg%27s_entryway_to_matrix_mechanics#The_breakthrough_equation</p>
<p>https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0404009.pdf;
http://www.psiquadrat.de/downloads/heisenberg1925.pdf</p>
<p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_mechanics#Heisenberg's_reasoning</p>
<p><strong> </strong>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Introduction <br>
"In quantum mechanics, the two key points are that the position of the
particle takes the form of a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave"
title="Matter wave">matter wave</a>, and momentum is its Fourier
conjugate, assured by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave"
title="Matter wave">de Broglie relation</a> <span class="texhtml"><i>p</i>
= <i>ħk</i></span>, where <span class="texhtml mvar" style="font-style:italic;">k</span>
is the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavenumber" title="Wavenumber">wavenumber</a>."</p>
<h4> Zero-point energy</h4>
<p>Schutz 395</p>
<p><em>Breakfast with Einstein</em>. </p>
<p></p>
<blockquote>
<h4>Position and momentum</h4>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>Carroll <em>Big Ideas</em> on Hamilton. "elevated" momentum to its own
thing. Weird noncommutativity or something</p>
<p>would like to"pay off" commutation comment/Lie bracket reference earlier:
Alice and Zeno's Lie bracket at the equator results from order of
measurement being significant. Heisenberg's uncertainty shows similar
non-commutation of position and momentum operators. </p>
<p></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>other</strong><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>what happens to the group velocity and distributions under a rotation
(when the light clock is set in motion)? Barton said something about phase
not being preserved under Galilean transformation. Clocks go out of sync?</p>
<p>mass is a superposition of waves. calculated on a circle of infinite
radius. Hamilton's quaternions?]</p>
<p>Gribbin 205: surprising endorsement of many-worlds theory. cf Carroll,
SDH</p>
<blockquote>
<h4>Math</h4>
</blockquote>
<p>V:11 "why would anyone perform such abominable witchcraft?"</p>
<p><strong>https://www.3blue1brown.com/lessons/abstract-vector-spaces</strong>
parallel to Fleisch, SGSE. Linear operator=transformation. f -> g. 7:00
describe d/dx with matrix (though infinite-dimensional?, Yes, this must be
what Heisenberg did... which observable paired with this linear operator?
see 14:24 here: https://www.3blue1brown.com/lessons/matrix-exponents).
11:22 map of terms</p>
<p>V: 18- ___ notes on Fleisch. </p>
<p>V:66-71 8.04 notes</p>
<p>V:45,63,66 Square of the mean vs mean of the square. See also MIT 8.04. </p>
<p> Veritasium how imaginary numbers were invented :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUzklzVXJwo Schrodinger did
not like the complexity. 20:12 e^ix as spiral. 21:20 "i" makes TDSE a wave
equation instead of a diffusion equation. GREAT quotation. </p>
<p>https://www.3blue1brown.com/lessons/matrix-exponents touches on qm see
21:00?</p>
Dirac
https://archive.org/details/principlesquantummechanics1stdirac1930/page/120/mode/2up<strong></strong>
<p></p>
<p> </p>
<p></p>
<h4>Fit the Sixth: <em>The Walrus and the Carpenter</em></h4>
<p>[recitation by Tweedledee and T to Alice, lol).] </p>
<p>[(if not for all the sand) ] </p>
<p>Gardner TTLG Ch 1 note 9: Carroll excluded bishops as well.</p>
<p>Choler=anger (play on color and madness)</p>
<p>[is Hamlet the jester to R? his lack of respect needs to be made more
clear.</p>
<p>hamlet characters and scenes, alice's chess and cards (pawn, bishop,
king, queen, jester) crooked knights both R and Claudius.</p>
<p>the above poem foreshadows the one supposedly made spontaneously for the
restroom]</p>
<p>[He is the walrus. he will eat them all. I am he as . . . lol]</p>
<p>[Carroll omits mention of bishops as well]</p>
<p>[he thinks he can be king if he ingratiates himself with Gertrude and
surreptitiously exposes Claudius? jester heard that Hamlet saw something
on the tower. This only connects with the rook idea via chess. A rook is a
scandinavian raven. Raven flew the tower, alerting the jester?]</p>
<h4>Fit the Seventh: <em>Return to the Non Sequitur</em></h4>
<p>[Notes: Scene 1 is a satire of the gravediggers scene (Act V, Scene 1); a
poke at Kaku, Tyson, and the Copenhagen interpretation of QM; and an echo
of the players being met on the road by R and G and invited to Elsinore. ]
</p>
<p>[There's a king and Queen in each of Alice's adventures, and this is no
exception]</p>
<p>[By naming Guidenstern the King's knight, he implies himself as the
Queen's. One meaning might be that he sees himself only twice-removed from
the throne, needing only to dispose of the king and prince.]</p>
<p>[Hamlet is the cat in the box. Which path did the electron take? if I can
tie that paradox to the other in this chapter, that will be a major
victory] Gribbin 175: "Our world is a hybrid combination of the two
possible worlds corresponding to the two routes for the particle, and each
world interferes with the other."<strong></strong> </p>
<p>[Notes: Scene 2 is parody of another scene (Act II, Scene 2). The comedic
non sequitur was integral to the original. Some of the dialogue still fits
my story but with a new meaning. Touches directly on the Einstein's Cat
question. New dialogue foreshadows QM as a theory of information, and
takes a jab at the absurdists and quantum-woo hucksters]</p>
<p>[Limerick is my adaptation of an original by A. H. Reginald Buller,
published in a 1923 issue of <em>Punch</em>. See
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/a-young-lady-named-bright-etc/):
This is also a bawdy allusion to Hamlet's mother, who in her "haste"
"wandered" in a "relative way" in allowing herself to be wooed by her
deceased husband's brother "the previous knight", setting the "time" "out
of joint" in similarity to how reverse time travel would cause a paradox.
(Ophelia is becoming "past" to Hamlet, foreshadowing Alice's Hall of
Mirrors dream. she isn't picking up because of Hamlet's recent erratic
behavior and her father's admonition to avoid him. )] </p>
<p>[Notes: Logical non-sequitur: A "Paradox" is not always a paradox. "<em>rigidly
defined areas of doubt and uncertainty</em>" in homage to Douglas Adams.
Coin toss is reference to beginning of Stoppard play. This chapter
does contain a paradox of sorts: the perspectives offered by the three
scenes cannot be made to come to agreement on time order (non sequitur).
Further, whether scene 3 precedes or follows scenes 1 and 2 determines
whether version 1 or 2 of scene 2 makes sense, and they are mutually
exclusive in that sense; scene one paradoxically suggests that both and
neither version has taken place] </p>
<p>[In<em> R and G are dead</em>, name of one may or may not be name of
other. Common thespian tradition to swap them?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosencrantz_and_Guildenstern. ]</p>
<p>If you think you see something suggestive in the second verse of Alice's
lyrics, it's not just you; she intended it that way.</p>
<p><em>"Would you rather believe that all the world is a chessboard, with
every piece having its moves prescribed? Shall you, as the king's
knight, hold up your assigned square as a measure of what is true?"<br>
<br>
</em></p>
<ul>
<li>prescribed: constrained and/or chosen</li>
<li>square: the l-shaped pattern like a carpenter's square, or the
position on the board (a frame of reference): a limited perspective of
one position and one directly influenced by its proximity to the throne</li>
</ul>
<h4>Chapter Thirty: Mapping The Earth (III)</h4>
<h4> Locally Flat</h4>
<p>IV:132-33</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<h4> Curvature of time</h4>
See Schutz p. 240. He<strong> breaks down gravity into four sources, some of
which may overlap: one is curvature of time, another curvature of space </strong><strong><strong>(which
I may be able to show includes the first)</strong>, another
gravitomagnetism (which is not what I thought it was), and
feedback/nonlinearity.</strong> It's the last part that makes the
calculations so bedeviling. Compare Schutz on gravitomagnetism to
Wheeler 232-33
<p>Why Things Fall Down, episode 27. A random distribution of uncertain
electrons will be biased in direction of curved space; revolving (certain)
electrons will spend more time near this direction. The nucleus will
follow, and the cycle repeats.</p>
<p>Schutz (230-)232 Newtonian gravity rewritten as curved (space-)time which
behaves same as flat Newtonian space. Curvature for the time coordinate
only. (See also III-58 on Cortan) This is said to account for the
gravitational redshift, the time rate of the clocks, and the fall of the
apple. And that would be great, and I wouldn't be tempted to overthink all
this, if it weren't for the fact that the curvature of space accounts for
two out of those 3 (until Big H is added). Before the gravitational
redshift and the slowing clocks, there was just the falling apple. And
that is the piece I (woudl have been) missing. I never worried about
explaining electrostatic attraction; I just wanted to show how magnetism
was just a side-effect of it. It seemed a struggle to do the same with
Newtonian gravity and GR; they wanted to line up, but only <em>partially</em>.
</p>
<p>p. 235 observation shows that deflection is actually twice the value
given for curved time alone. space must be curved too (compare Ohanian).</p>
<p>Gravity is like magnetism in some ways but opposite in others. When we
see relative motion between a charge and current, the magnetic force is
because of how the charge density has changes from the moving point of
view. When we release something from rest at some height, it drops not
because it is already moving, but because there are other frames of
reference in which it is? Or is it that we only <em>imagine</em> that it
was at rest, when it was in fact moving back and forth across tiny
distances? Is that how gravitomagnetism is activated (below)? How would
that be any different from supposing that it really <em>has</em> no
precise location and that when it has to keep choosing one at random, the
odds are biased in favor of the curvature of space?</p>
<p></p>
<h4> what it looks like</h4>
<p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBof5Y-hZng&list=PLsrAHlj6-7MO8nCrttRKkHqob6UPyyaKB</p>
<p>https://www.youtube.com/@relavis</p>
<p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-xODPI1OFg 1:30 photon sphere</p>
<p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Wpx-S-3J3A 6:33 radial distance and
circumference</p>
<p>" A new way to visualize General Relativity"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrwgIjBUYVc</p>
<br>
<h4> Gravitomagnetism</h4>
<p>skip this?</p>
<p>As comfortable as it has been for me to explain relativistic gravity in
terms of curved three-dimensional space, I have reservations about how far
that model can carry us. Einstein's theory predicts something with no
precedent in Newtonian physics which is called "gravitomagnetism," the
Lense-Thirring effect, or "frame-dragging." The idea is that a large,
spinning mass is able to induce rotation in nearby objects. </p>
<p>----------------------------------------------- <br>
</p>
<p><br>
"We all move at the Speed of Light"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au0QJYISe4c&t=330</p>
<p><strong> The math:</strong> Christoffel symbols? (" a
connection"); components of the Einstein tensor?</p>
<p>See O'Shea p 85-86, match to Wheeler 88,129,141,160. Each orientation of
plane is a different curvature. A tensor rather than the scalar for Gauss'
curvature of a 2d surface.</p>
<p>what it looks like</p>
<p> </p>
<h4></h4>
<h4>Chapter Thirty-One: In Defense of a Three-Dimensional Spacetime</h4>
<p>"I think that would mean picking a fight that won't go well for me"
see III-67 on how invested the physics world is in multiple dimensions.
Also Smolin TWP 263-64. </p>
<p>Did you tie it all back to the main theme of Chapter 7? And to the
chapter on Thermodynamics?<br>
<span style="color: #0f210b;"></span>https://bigthink.com/thinking/a-brief-history-of-linear-time/
</p>
<p>https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/does-time-exist-182965/</p>
<p>Smolin has his answer? "in the Copenhagen version of quantum mechanics,
there is a quantum world and there is a classical world, and a boundary
between them: when things become definite. When things that are indefinite
in the quantum world become definite. And what they’re trying to say is
that is the fundamental thing that happens in nature, when things that are
indefinite become definite. And that’s what “now” is. The moment now, the
present moment, that all these people say is missing from science and
missing from physics, that is the transition from indefinite to definite."</p>
<p>"all these people." lol</p>
<p>https://bigthink.com/thinking/a-brief-history-of-linear-time/ </p>
<p>https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/does-time-exist-182965/</p>
<h4>Section Four</h4>
<br>
<h4> Things that don't commute; multiplying sums with
differences</h4>
<p>IV:190-94,196</p>
<h4> Black Holes</h4>
<p>SR: black hole in back, white hole in front? III-134 Wikipedia:
White Hole </p>
<p> When does the Schwarzschild radius extend outside a moving sphere? At
what relative velocity might any old sphere start to look like a "black
disk"? What would be the properties of such an object? If spinning at
relative rest, what would become of its angular velocity and momentum? Is
one side black, the other white (Doppler)?</p>
<p>Rocket doesn’t know or care: just keeps burning fuel and going faster.
But its clock slows and can only reach c at our infinity. It leaves our
universe. What universe does it enter? What happens in its frame? Like
crossing event horizon </p>
<p> </p>
<h4> Cosmological stuff</h4>
<p>Hubble's 1929 observation. Red shift III:82-83 Carroll 48 (III-91,93).</p>
<p>dark matter, energy (Smolin TWP 14-16)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>III-57 bottom of page, great quotation: "revolutions in physics are
accomplished not by deliberately trying to overthrow known physics but by
thinking deeply about the full implications of the laws of physics that we
think we know."</p>
<p>III-73, Smolin 321-322 Seers "are driven by nothing except a conviction,
gained early, that everyone else is missing something crucial. Their
approach is ... to read through the whole history of the question that
obsesses them. Their work is intensely focused, yet it takes them a long
time to get somewhere." No matter my objections or criticisms I must
maintain the grateful sense that Smolin sees me and has spoken to me. </p>
<h4>Chapter Thirty-Two: Mapping Spacetime</h4>
<p>TIQM IV:117
Cramer___https://web.archive.org/web/20041208214837/http://www.analogsf.com/0410/altview2.shtml
</p>
<p>TIQM https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1119/1.4966111</p>
<p>IV-112: "This thought is representative of a line of thinking that I have
had for a few years now, that the zero interval represents some kind of
locality. My intuition is to focus on the immediacy - not to say identity
- of the emission and absorption events, and to regard the Maxwell
equations and their relevance to what [may or may not happen] between the
two events as being necessary only in our reference frame..."</p>
<p>https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem/Inequality includes venn
diagram for light polarization? " </p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>If the twin particles are far enough apart that gravitational
gradients must be taken into account, then one cannot safely assume a
common clock. Clocks are affected by gravity. When Einstein first
pointed this out, it might have been characterized as "spooky
timekeeping at a distance." The derivation of Bell's Inequality is
fairly straightforward if one makes the simplifying assumption of a
static hidden variable. This is how it is often explained the first
time around. <strong>But if one then takes up the case of a
time-varying hidden variable</strong>, this issue of phase-locked
synchronicity becomes significant. The derivation of Bell's Inequality
still works if you assume a common clock. But if you admit there is no
such thing as a common clock for particles separated in space, then
the math of Bell's derivation runs into difficulties. Mathematically,
speaking, there arises a residual non-zero "beat frequency" that
doesn't vanish. Bell managed to get the presumptive hidden variable to
vanish because he (tacitly) assumed a common clock. Since Bell's
Inequality doesn't hold in our cosmos, one can interpret that as
evidence that there is such a thing as "spooky timekeeping at a
distance." And this phenomenon is well understood to be a feature of
gravitational gradients. The twin particles do not age in perfect
phase-locked synchrony, and this throws a monkey wrench into Bell's
derivation. Bell's Inequality would only hold for a cosmos where there
are no gravitational gradients. ~Barry Kort <a href="https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:470:1F07:BEE:0:0:0:A8"
title="Special:Contributions/2001:470:1F07:BEE:0:0:0:A8">2001:470:1F07:BEE:0:0:0:A8</a>
(<a href="https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:2001:470:1F07:BEE:0:0:0:A8"
title="User talk:2001:470:1F07:BEE:0:0:0:A8">discuss</a>) 00:44, 1
August 2017 (UTC)</li>
</ul>
<dl>
<dd>I believe you have raised a valid point. This is why Bell's theorem
experiments need to be performed. It is not unusual for a successful
theory to be later shown to be an approximation to a deeper and more
fundamental theory that is completely different from the original
theory. If quantum mechanics is wrong, the error likely involves
gravity. And if the "impossibility" of violating Bell's inequality is
not quite so impossible, gravity might explain the issue of causality.
This <i><b>might</b></i> throw your proverbial monkey wrench into
Bell's derivation. --<a href="https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Guy_vandegrift"
title="User:Guy vandegrift">Guy vandegrift</a> (<a href="https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Guy_vandegrift"
title="User talk:Guy vandegrift">discuss</a> • <a href="https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Guy_vandegrift"
title="Special:Contributions/Guy vandegrift">contribs</a>) 01:41, 1
August 2017 (UTC)"</dd>
</dl>
</blockquote>
<p>http://scholarpedia.org/article/Bell%27s_theorem "<em>This conclusion is
very surprising, since non-locality is normally taken to be prohibited
by the theory of relativity</em>. " good info on Bell himself and
excellent dissection of the arguments being made. I think mine is that
there are "hidden variables" that are determined "non-locally" by
interactions between a point of entanglement on the one hand and events of
"measurement" on the other, none of which can be determined to have a
strict time order in all frames of reference. The key is in the words I
have highlighted here: "<em>It is a general principle of orthodox
formulations of quantum theory that measurements of physical quantities
do not simply reveal <strong>pre-</strong>existing or <strong>pre-</strong>determined
values, the way they do in classical theories. Instead, the particular
outcome of the measurement somehow "emerges" from the dynamical
interaction of the system being measured with the measuring device, so
that even someone who was omniscient about the states of the system and
device <strong>prior </strong>to the interaction couldn't have
predicted <strong>in advance </strong>which outcome would be realized.
</em>" It seems we are thinking about the problem in entirely the wrong
terms. This part is better: "<em>If such measurements are carried out <strong>simultaneously
</strong>on two spatially-separated particles (<strong>technically, if
the measurements are performed at space-like separation</strong>) then
locality requires that any disturbance triggered by the measurement on
one side cannot influence the result of the measurement on the other
side. But without any such interaction, the only way to ensure the
perfect anti-correlation between the results on the two sides is to have
each particle carry a <strong>pre-</strong>existing determinate value
(appropriately anti-correlated with the value carried by the other
particle) for spin along the <span class="MathJax_Preview"></span><span
class="MathJax" id="MathJax-Element-5-Frame" role="textbox" style=""><nobr><span
class="math" id="MathJax-Span-52" style="width: 0.503em; display: inline-block;"><span
style="display: inline-block; position: relative; width: 0.438em; height: 0px; font-size: 111%;"><span
style="position: absolute; clip: rect(1.935em, 1000em, 2.764em, -0.528em); top: -2.565em; left: 0em;"><span
class="mrow" id="MathJax-Span-53"><span class="mi" id="MathJax-Span-54"
style="font-family: MathJax_Math; font-style: italic;">z<span
style="display: inline-block; overflow: hidden; height: 1px; width: 0.003em;"></span></span></span><span
style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; height: 2.565em;"></span></span></span><span
style="border-left: 0em solid; display: inline-block; overflow: hidden; width: 0px; height: 0.642em; vertical-align: -0.082em;"></span></span></nobr></span>-axis.
Any element of locally-confined indeterminism would at least sometimes
spoil the predicted perfect anti-correlation between the outcomes.</em>
"<strong> I think the key issue is whether entanglement can be strictly
said to occur before measurement. The problem seems different for
slower-than-light particles, but is it really? As long as there is no
decoherence between A and B, no interaction between entanglement and
measurement, can I argue that the interval is zero and that
sequentiality is therefore in doubt? Now who is murdering the time? and
also locality.</strong><em><strong> </strong></em>Figure 1 is good.
http://scholarpedia.org/article/File:BellsTheoremSpacetimeDiagram1.jpg. <strong>Yes
I am wholeheartedly endorsing an idea that violates this idea of
locality</strong>. Is 2 in some restricted sense in the past light cone
of 1? "<em>But the third lesson is that perhaps abandoning fundamental
relativity should be on the table as a serious option</em>. " AYFKM?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It's amazing to me that nearly one hundred years after the Fifth Solvay
Conference, so much ink is spilt over entanglement. iPhone photos
18-Jan-2023 <em>Know This </em>p. 134 "independent of which is earlier
or later" </p>
<br>
<p> V:47. Damned if the TISE doesn't look like one of Maxwell's. <strong><span
style="color: #ed6c24;">Save all the innovations for section four</span></strong></p>
<p>V:54. If power doesn't flow IN the electrical circuit, then why would the
electrons go through the ""color boxes"? What if it's all about resonance:
which holes you cover on the flute. (I should set this up in the EM II
chapter) <strong><span style="color: #ed6c24;">Save all the innovations
for section four</span></strong></p>
<br>
<strong><span style="color: #ed6c24;"></span></strong>
<p>The Spacetime interval is a "Causal Structure" (Wikipedia, Smolin TR p.
58) and "in this regard it is fundamentally different from the space
metric of mapmaking" (III-89, Exploring Black Holes) </p>
<p> </p>
<br>
<p>Halpern 178: wormholes, topology and charge. Must include if only as a
curiosity. Compare Smolin TR p. 172-187 </p>
<p> <!--topology of spacetime via the interval. Black holes, which are
OFF THE MAP--></p>
<p>III-57 Something on topology, entanglement, and non-locality </p>
<p>(Topology) Bell experiment. IV-159 to 168 or more. Include my graph paper
chart of components of interval (1,1) reducing to (0,0). </p>
<p> </p>
IV:149-151 (ExB) . V:41
<p>iPhone photos 18-Jan-2023 <em>Know This</em></p>
<ul>
<li>p. 133 'tHooft: Planck scale cellular automata (cf Smolin)</li>
</ul>
<p>It is possible to fold space in some sense, and in fact that's to only
way that anything moves. Zeno was a genius</p>
<p>V:41,43. The Bohr-deBroglie electron loses no energy because it is not
accelerating around the nucleus; it is flowing in quantum leaps</p>
<p>Here and Now are ((twin)) illusions, as is the unity of the self. Or they
are vague and sloppy generalizations. Show me "here," <em>precisely</em>.
It recedes away from you like a mirage or Achilles' tortoise.</p>
<p>When we talk about two events that we measure to be simultaneous, we will
talk about the proper distance we measure between those same events, not
the proper length of an object spanning the distance between them. That's
because for spacelike intervals, there IS NO PATH from event A to event B.
Likewise there may be no "path" between timelike intervals; in some cases,
we just have to wait. It's the null intervals that the light flows
between.</p>
<p> </p>
III-87: Wolfram 8-9,275-76 topology
<p>"no local hidden variables" </p>
<h4> The topology of my brain</h4>
<p>IV-154 Information theory lies at the center of everything: relativity,
quantum theory, thermodynamics. c, h, sigma, s.</p>
<p>Poincare's sphere - Gravity as the reverse of radiation pressure - Heat
as temperature (vibration) as radiation as EM wave vibration as absorbed
by electrons in orbit (vibration). These all connect somehow</p>
<p>Carroll FETH 273 (III:102) Temperature of black holes</p>
<h4> The holographic universe</h4>
<blockquote>
<p>----------------------------------------- </p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>But is there more? a non-orthogonality or correlation,
covariance, linear dependence?</strong></p>
<p><strong>3b1b clued me in finally. </strong><em>redundant </em>is
the word I needed to connect here, and no, the 4th dimension is not
redundant in the sense of creating a span for all events (is it?).
It is something else (isn't it)?. Or does an event "live"
holographically in 3d space, in superposition with all others?</p>
<p><br>
https://www.3blue1brown.com/lessons/span BASIS, linear
combination 8:30 <strong>#redundant</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>----------------------------------------</strong></p>
<p>Multiply connected topology of spacetime interval. III-46</p>
<p>Smolin TWP 317-18</p>
<p>III-83 Maldacena conjecture; Carroll (FETH) 278-283(-314)</p>
<p>matrix inverse calculation is holographic</p>
<p>the fundamental interconnectedness of all things (Fit the First)</p>
<p>From a previous chapter: <br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>Zeno's millet paradox is resolved by the superposition principle
but also suggests Fourier synthesis. A thousand "nothings" (toneless
ticks of a Geiger counter) become a "something" (tone). But each of
those nothings contains an aspect of all the somethings. "It's
chickens and eggs all the way down" (journal, late December?).
Also like a <strong>hologram</strong>: each piece contains a fragment
of a window on the whole</em></p>
</blockquote>
<h4> The Universe as Quantum Information</h4>
<p>IV-108: Can we postulate that the universe may indeed be deterministic
but that the calculations necessary to predict the future would require a
computer no smaller than the universe itself (having no less information)
and would require the same amount of time to perform the calculations as
it takes for events to unfold in the real world? [Or require the energy
which makes time pass instantly] What would Douglas Adams say?</p>
<p>https://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/gravity_free_will-76494</p>
<p>III-17,18 Seife</p>
<p>Wheeler 220: black hole entropy, Bekenstein</p>
<p>Halpern 230-233: Bekenstein, entropy, Shannon, Hawking, It from bit,
cellular automata</p>
<p>III:62-63 Hawking, black hole radiation, tHooft/Susskind, holographic
principle. See also Carroll (FETH), 259-278(-314)</p>
<p>c is <em>literally </em>the clock speed of the computational system</p>
<p>https://www.3blue1brown.com/lessons<strong>/wordle</strong> information
theory, entropy. What about sudoku (and entanglement?)</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>iPhone photos 18-Jan-2023 <em>Know This</em></p>
<ul>
<li>p. 124-125 ER=EPR computational complexity</li>
<li>p. 126 Konrad Zuse 1969 <em>Calculating Space</em></li>
<li>p.228 "Everything is Computation"</li>
</ul>
<h4> Quantum gravity</h4>
<p>iPhone photos 18-Jan-2023 <em>Know This</em></p>
<ul>
<li>p.76 "100 years of failure"</li>
<li>77 QFT= QM+SR</li>
</ul>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>------------------</p>
<p> </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<h4> Measurement problems in SR,GR</h4>
<p>IV:164</p>
<p>4-velocity/momentum not well-defined for lightlike position vectors . ..
multitudes of solutions in terms of x and t</p>
<p>hmmm . .. probability squared and s squared </p>
<p><br>
A four-velocity vector never changes magnitude; a polarized filter never
decreases the energy of a photon. THIS IS SIGNIFICANT. <strong><span style="color: #ed6c24;">Save
all the innovations for section four</span></strong> </p>
<br>
<p>Carroll, SDH p. 242 Verschraenkung=entanglement=(enclosure)=(cat) </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
-------------------------------------------------------
<p></p>
<p>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcqZHYo7ONs bell's theroem</p>
<p>A Venn diagram probably words better than cube</p>
<p><a href="section_3.html#negativespace" title="section_3.html#negativespace"
target="_top">section_3.html#negativespace</a></p>
<p>IV-90: Ron Garret Tech Talk<br>
</p>
<br>
<p> <br>
Einstein just didn't f---ing get it. His own premise escaped him. He would
never have come up with the cat scenario.<br>
</p>
<br>
<h4> (QM Unorganized leftovers)</h4>
<p><br>
<em>Does the split complex number paradigm lead us to a meaningful
correspondence between SR and QM? Just uncertainty? </em>E, t, x, and p
are the poster children of uncertainty <strong><span style="color: #ed6c24;">Save
all the innovations for section four</span></strong> </p>
<p>Fleisch 65-66</p>
<p><strong>V:55-58,69 </strong>Hitachi experiment. Resonance.
Superposition. "It's chickens and eggs all the way down" (journal, late
December?). Also like a <strong>hologram</strong>: each piece
contains a fragment of a window on the whole <br>
<strong></strong></p>
<p><strong></strong> https://www.3blue1brown.com/lessons/fourier-transforms
"But what is the Fourier Transform? A visual introduction." ***** gorgeous<br>
</p>
<p>https://www.3blue1brown.com/lessons/uncertainty-principle <strong>"The
more general uncertainty principle, regarding Fourier transforms" </strong>not
sure whether lights blink in sync. Sound waves: duration vs frequency;
doppler radar: distance vs velocity ***** recommend 11:30 weights on
springs. I need to grasp this argument: uncertainty arises FROM SR?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Phys with Elliot https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8QZ-yxebFA "To
Understand the Fourier Transform, Start From Quantum Mechanics"</p>
desktop 2023-01-29 13_38_50-Phase Velocity versus Group Velocity_ Wave
Dispersion - YouTube — Mozilla Firefo.png
<p>griffiths 17-18 rope analogy </p>
<h4><br>
</h4>
<p>V:61-62 I am so close to ... something<strong><span style="color: #ed6c24;">Save
all the innovations for section four</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ed6c24;"></span></strong><br>
<strong></strong> </p>
<p>14:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzRCDLre1b4 <strong>"Some light
quantum mechanics (with minutephysics)" QM 12:44 harmonics as analog to
quantization. </strong>the constraints are the boundary conditions...
the endpoints of the string. How does that fit with the spacetime
interval? With each frame, there must be an associated f and lambda or
something... how might that suggest q? <strong><span style="color: #ed6c24;">Save
all the innovations for section four</span></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ed6c24;"></span></strong>://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O85OWBJ2ayo
S eqn with H as a rotation matrix? 17:31 e^M does rotation strictly with
reals.Compare 20:07 </p>
<strong><span style="color: #ed6c24;"></span></strong>
<p> </p>
be sure to "pay off" all the quantum references earlier in the book<br>
<p> https://dkirkby.github.io/quantum-demo/</p>
<p>Repeated measurement is interrogation. Squeezing the universe to see if
it will crack and betray a sign. Flipping the coin over and over. What has
this to do with what is called the "quantum Zeno effect"? And was it
Einstein who defined insanity as repeating the same action while expecting
a different result?</p>
<p>"Macroscopically classical" is to QM what "locally flat" is to GR. See
SDH 125</p>
<p> <strong><span style="color: #ed6c24;"></span></strong> IV-157
Relationship between wave and particle behaviours of radiation </p>
<p>III-24 Hawking on QM perspective on curvature of time</p>
<p> V:67 Zeno's arrow: fixing it in time and space (position) gives
the arrow completely undefined momentum. </p>
<p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER_%3D_EPR</p>
<p>SDH 79 "Ignorance doesn't cause interference patterns"</p>
<p>IV-150. Radiation pressure in quantum terms</p>
<p>Smolin TR p. 78: great description of QM. "... mathematical language of
quantum mechanics represents each of the steps in the process of
preparation, transformation, and measurement."</p>
<p>Smolin TWP p. 8 QM has to be revised/expanded with regard to who observer
is</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Carroll FETH, 229-256[III:99-101] </p>
<p>Carroll SDH photos, 12/30/22</p>
<p> </p>
<p>probabilistic rather than deterministic; with the KEY feature of
interference (FETH 233)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Zeno's Paradox in Quantum
Theory:https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/7342282</p>
<p><br>
<br>
</p>
<h4> The information boundary</h4>
<p>[If Einstein hadn't told Ford anything, how would the "wave function" of
probabilities have evolved differently?]</p>
<p>[Smolin TWP 317/III-73 QM is, per Crane, "a record of information that
one subsystem of the universe can have about another by virtue of their
interaction."</p>
<p>"The collapse of the wavefunction" is information crossing the boundary
between two systems, e.g. from observed to observer. The information
boundary is key to both cat stories. In S, the box is the information
boundary ; that's the premise of the story, that you can't know or measure
the cat's state without opening the box. In my E's story, the box serves
no obvious function other than to keep the cat from wandering off. The
info boundary is the speed of available forms of communication or
transportation. In a more modern setting, it would be the speed of
light.(a third cat, p IV-158)</p>
<p>But what the S. equation may not account for is changes to the
information boundary, whether it be the opening of the box or the
expansion of a light sphere. </p>
<p>IV:152-154 "The collapse of the wavefunction" in Schrodinger's case is
the act of opening the box, which causes the size and shape of the
information boundary to evolve over time rather than be confined to the
same space. In my Einstein's, it's when the cat event's light cone
intersects with Ford's world line. He just has to wait for it. It evolves
smoothly with time, just as the S. wave equation does, and as its collapse
famously refuses to. IV:158 A third experiment</p>
<p>IV:178 the moving boundary -where a particle is measured FROM as well as
where it is measured AT</p>
<p>IV:112 Einstein objects to the so-called "collapse"</p>
<p>Gilder p. 127 (IV:113)</p>
<p>**The Heisenberg Cut**<br>
</p>
<p>IV:152 We see <em>physical </em>processes as being continuous and
time-reversible mathematically. If we want the same for <em>epistemic</em>/entropic
(informational/thermodynamic) processes, we may be mistaken, or at the
very least need new math.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>-----------------------------<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><i>Time Reborn</i> may be the most agitating book I have ever read
[III:85], because I felt several times that I truly could not tell whether
Smolin was setting the stage for an answer he is not yet sharing; whether
I misunderstood the problem as he stated it; or whether – like Lorentz and
Poincar<span style="color: #0f210b;">é</span> (<- ??? ______________)–
he had complete mastery of the problem, yet was just shy of seeing – as
Einstein did – the revolutionary solution. Though much of what he <i>does</i>
propose as a solution to the dilemma of time goes over my head, I do see
that he is inclined to consider “a preferred state of rest” and “a
preferred observer, whose clock measures [a] preferred time,” (p. 165-166)
and for this reason I have to conclude that one of us is missing an
important point. He has obviously given this matter a tremendous amount of
thought and can easily run theoretical and mathematical circles around me,
but his “parabolic” treatment of the relatively simple matter of <a href="http://bottleofbits.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/three-facts-we-teach-about-gravity-which-are-almost-true-part-one/">elliptical
non-escaping trajectories</a> gives me great pause. He correctly
sets up the problem of apparent difference between elliptical orbits and
parabolic trajectories of falling bodies and shows the relationship of
these two shapes as conic sections. But then, rather than showing how the
elliptical trajectory merely <i>approaches</i> a parabolic shape at lower
velocities (as it also approaches a straight-line drop), he leaves the
reader with the conclusion that it is actually “parabolas [that] trace the
paths of falling bodies on Earth,” (p. 21).</p>
<p>The references Smolin makes are tantalizingly suggestive of my ideas
above. <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">He mentions the study
of <a href="http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CellularAutomaton.html">cellular
automata</a>, a kind of study of cause and effect not unlike what I
described attempting to do in my computer simulation above. “With only a
little modification,” he writes, the study of cellular automata is “the
basis for quantum mechanics.” (<i>Time Reborn</i>, p. 43) </span>In the
end notes, he again comes close to – but does not touch – the relativistic
two-body problem: “Consider a system of stars moving under their mutual
gravitational influence. The interaction of two stars can be described
exactly; Newton solved that problem. But there is no exact solution to the
problem of describing the gravitational interaction of three stars.”</p>
<p>In the above discussion of my computer model, we saw that the initial
conditions in a finite “span” of spacetime are such that everywhere in it,