..Einstein considered himself a Spinozan. Baruch Spinoza was one of the most well read determinist philosophers. Einstein believed the Uncertainty Principle and the collapse of the wave function were only coincidence and some of the recent "low energy quantum experiments" seem in truth the support his conclusion. He believed the Uncertainty Principle was not just common rather it is uncommon sense. I believed in Einstein's idea in years before because it seemed random to assume the illuminating ray has to have a near energy to the measured particle influencing it to the degree that it was agreed by others than Einstein that "to measure was to observe". My belief was that it's just coincidence the forces in subatomic physics are not of great distinction is energy and mass. While the fine structure constant (the ratio of the strong force to electricity) is just 1/137, there's no real reason it might be much larger or smaller because all the fields seem unified by the conservation laws less to more, so the given low energy field of gravity can have any degree of resilience or resonance and thus the forces derived by it that all obey energy conservation, ect, are derived from it but I believed the actual value of the resonances of the higher forces could be of any relative strength. Thus like a cushion and a ray of red yellow and blue like my mom's shelf was scorched by, the ray of illumination could be of any value whatsoever it seems.The light ray is hugely smaller than the cushion and it doesn't have to be the same. Einstein asked, "Do you really think the moon isn't up there when you look up to see it?"
Einstein's idea was we might find a low energy particle to "go around"the Uncertainty Principle, then I thought, the Uncertainty Principle wouldn't seem to violate doubt. More than doubt is out..
Einstein believed if the low energy particles were found the universe would be deterministic, a clockwork cosmos of the celestial musicians restored to sound bytes, physics not magic would once more win. As I say I agreed with Einstein before.
I've changed my mind more recently based on the experiments; We can say a particulate cosmos is more predictable than a wave cosmos. If you have the particles of a gas you can time reverse them in a simple way, the movie looks the same in forward as reversed, in truth any movie you can do this with would by definition seem deterministic, this is an important test for cause and effect being well in union. It may seem the lack of Spinozan determinism would have more complexity than we can control. This may seem to be a limit on building a time machine (Einstein actually considered time travel and he thought we couldn't go beyond when the time machine was built into the past, my own conclusion was that we could perhaps find a good record to copy (as in embedded in the history of entanglement encoded in the heavy quanta of the world) but the machine would have to be giant to visit say 1982, because the past doesn't exist now, so we would have to "Rebuild it" atom by atom, and this would be woe to waits in the RN's room. Actually complexity if finite wouldn't be a limit, just more now than we may eventually reach via machines, no doubt Einstein's time machine won't be built real soon in 1995!).
Entropy has branches which have weighted values, each with it's own worth, rather like the branches of the math from ancient to modern times. Even so while this might speed up the randomness so determinism couldn't reach by unpredictability, there is no guarantee from the foundation of physics determinism would win by this observation. We imagine if there was a good enough resolution of our sensors to find all the particles there at any given time, "in the past" as Einstein considered (if Einstein's low energy particles actually existed) and we could actually find some way to actually even have a place to put the ancient world we might create somehow (without lots of people in the present losing a lot of money and stuff and without disagreeing if they would have no ancient place to go to the old world!) and so on, When we reset the machine to another time, what would happen? We imagine that even if we had a perfect copy of the machine and all the chemical stuff was exactly the same as it was, all the world, it would still be not deterministic. If we let the world run forward from there history indeed wouldn't repeat itself, and history as taught in schools was bunk or will be. No two histories of the world would repeat. To see why this is so, consider a horse race. By Einstein's determinist method we imagine all the particles of the horse, the air around the horse, the dirt, all the rest or more. In his wondrous way Einstein may have the world where each moment of time even of the waves that the mass is made of are themselves seen by the low energy sensor Einstein considered. At each instant of time each small wheel has one event and say five possible ways the wave may collapse. If we wonder how to know what the collapse would be, there's no guarantee Einstein was correct. The old problem has remained in subatomic physics, which is more fundamental waves or or particles? Einstein himself also came up with the original idea of waves and particle equivalence, one of his brilliant ideas, how so, if truth and false can't both be true, by this you can see why the wave particle duality has not been proven true just measured to exist in the near realm of the physics he realized. I believe waves are indeed more fundamental because it seems impossible for a truly fundamental particle to emit and absorb waves. If the wheel has five possible ways to roll why can't we know what they are? I think there are two reasons. First because waves are lower energy, matter waves, this makes the connection a loose connection. Second these waves are the low energy quanta I imagine the basic field including the mass is made of. Going from higher energy like light to the lower power field I believe there may be a phase change where the quanta are more like a saucer instead of a deep wall, and this may allow a sudden increase in speed, if faster than light. Here's my Physics Synopsis for you. Feynman himself believed the matter waves may move faster than light e.g. to cause the speed of light escape velocity of massive black holes, and Van Flandern and I also agree for reason of causality. The lower resistance would allow the field to act like a superfluid in a phase change so the problems of relativity like infinite mass wouldn't be common. Like two antenna of different size, the electric field like via Einstein's speed of light and the lower power matter field wouldn't have direct influence like the higher energy fields, this would be how superfluidity and the statistics of bosons themselves would arise. The main cause of the indeterminism would be not so much the loose connection, rather the faster than light speed of the waves, and there's no guarantee the particles can catch the waves because the waves are more fundamental. I consider the cosmos to be a set of concentric spheres of fields at least the longer range fields of gravity and electromagnetism, the outer sphere would be gravity because it has lower energy so longer wavelength, with electromagnetism at much nearer radius (even though more than 20 billion light years). Thus electromagnetism is ultimately out of reach of the gravitational field and also out of the influence of the inner matter waves inside the quanta of QED, electromagnetism and the other fields than gravity are based on Einstein's Emc2 and this is particulate, because Emc2 is fundamentally bound to quanta, change the radius and the mass and energy always adapt to fit this (derived from relativity because the more speed or energy there is the more mass there is). Quanta are particles by definition. If waves are more fundamental and gravity is perhaps mostly wavelike because it's more fundamental and has attraction (particles being more discontinuous would only account for the higher energy physics) we might believe there has to be a realm like the outer sphere and higher speed where particles may not have influence. Einstein's low energy particle might have the optimal energy to measure the waves, but there's no guarantee of this. The low energy experiments that prove Einstein more recently are not so numerous as the many examples of Schrodinger's. I believe while Einstein was actually not completely wrong no doubt.. even so waves may be more important. The lower energy fields may seem to have a "life of their own". More recent improvements of Feynmann's famous method of finding all the possible options that would cancel out by real laborious slide rule and other ancient business machines, where we can't know them beforehand may seem to have been improved by the use of "twistors" where the calculation is simplified out to a more certain reality like Einstein might have liked, by finding symmetries. In my belief the particles don't know how they will collapse before they do, so the twistor method will always be general, and like the idea of number or complexity in math may never be made exact, in truth the wave foundation would be why. When the particles collapse they themselves wouldn't know beforehand because the particles can't keep up with the waves, only by following the lead of the waves which would be at FTL would they labor through the calculation. I actually imagine this may be related to how gravity waves may attract by quantum entanglement. Recent experiments show that entanglement is common, particles are found to stay entwined in many complex ways long after they blend well. This would be how attraction works. As I puzzled over the problem of entanglement I realized it seems to need both a FTL signal and a unique entanglement for each particle in order for the other particle to see if the other particle has been changed as in quantum codes. When two particles are entwined they would have real internal structure, even an electron may be complex and the reason no structure has yet been found would be because of the low energy of the waves and the super high speed. To the electromagnetic field the matter wave would just be a blur, and look continuous, even so the waves may have extremely complex lower energy resonation for each heavy quantum to find the other entangled quantum by resonance of the low energy particles. If Einstein's gravity waves are nonlinear per se an acceleration, I thought they may first change wavelength, then speed, then wavelength, and so in a loop, causing the acceleration of gravity by entanglement (this may be soon in our reach by the IP machines that may use a shock wave as by protons to generate a known gravity wave as expected). If gravity is out of reach of quanta, then I wondered if at the extremes of gravity if it actually may be the prime improbable mover, winding the cosmos to never run out of power by the entropy. Gravity doesn't violate energy conservation, there's acceleration nearby often and it doesn't violate energy conservation. Gravity would try to speed the quanta by acceleration but they have just so much they can hold of the field. Einstein proposed to see if electrons would gain mass with time in a field of gravity, old electrons are found to weigh the same as new ones however by the experiment and this makes sense if the earth isn't gaining huge mass of the electrons, as Einstein might have known... The electron seems like a cup and it holds just so much field. I believe there may be more of the field left over that flows past just as in a usual cup in the stream and like Einstein I believe this may reradiate in a low energy field that may be the cause of 10 recent otherwise mysterious observations in physics (like the Pioneer anomalies, universal acceleration and so on as I say HERE.). The earth doesn't speed up or slow with the acceleration of the gravity because the quantum wells hold just so much force and the rest would reradiate, unused. So gravity is a one way valve for force (I believe this itself may be explained by a particulate way to be the cause of the rest of gravity because there's no need to assume Einstein's low energy particles are completely gone at that realm with low energy quanta, somewhat discontinuous nonetheless to build up the higher energy particles out of the basic field, this has a cause here too. Particles would be the cause of the radiance of centrifugal force by their discontinuous radiance like particles of a gas, the equivalence principle shows gravity and inertia are much alike, thus gravity may have an important particulate component in it's mechanism. The flow of a particulate field at 32 ft per second would explain why no force is felt while you fall, by balance all around, but the force we feel at rest would be by way of the particles. Newton and Maxwell both tried to explain gravity by the way of particles, my more modern way to hope to explain the way gravity might work based on a foundation in later 20th century science I'll explain in another post. I'll try to explain how the leftover field might exert pressure on the way down but no force on the way up, so the Earth wouldn't be speeding up even though there's extra field because gravity is the cause of all change in the universe). The acceleration and resistance also may be the reason why particles spin never stops, no matter how friction is added they never run out of spin. The interior field being an acceleration and the acceleration being fundamental, spin and time being derived from the spin being an acceleration like a small clock is eternal. I believe the universal duration is infinite because for quanta held by gravity energy here is neither created or destroyed, like Lerner, I believe the Big bang is not the entire universe, my own cosmology is a hoped for improvement of perhaps others ideas (not sure where I got the idea so I can't claim priority, though I think I've improved it much by predictions, ect to what I've named COSMIC JET Jet Cosmology.) about a circulating field like the earth's electromagnetic field that would have continuous loops from the poles powered by the gravity forever while energy is conserved via local radiance and implosion. Gravity really would be perpetual motion here in it's own special power to wind up the cosmos even while at higher energy it would fit in other fields, the ghost in the machine of the particles, the particles the machine, gravity the oil, but more cosmic because it also would be oil that would power the machine. About entanglement, if the acceleration was continuous like gravity we might expect particles like protons or neutrons to oscillate and change indefinitely from emission to absorption, in truth in neutrino astronomy, they oscillate a bit then settle down in transit to a reliable measure of the events that made them with emission in the dense realm, say a gamma ray in a star, thus here the acceleration is limited, and in truth there must be both resilience and viscosity of all fields, even so beyond a certian point the latter may be the foundation, at the point where it overcomes all other radiant types of entropy, this would be the reversal of sign in GWD that may mark the opposition of gravity and relativity. Electromagnetism (like the speed of light) radiates to the many and gravity implodes to unity.
Why be good to evolution and move to the country? The answer may be of worth to you, Click Here.
For More click here..
