Quantum Physics as Classical Continuum Physics

The fundamental theories of modern physics appearing as revolutions of classical physics at the turn to the 20th century are: 

• Quantum Mechanics QM of atoms and molecules based on Schrödinger's equation. 
• Einstein's General Theory of Relativity GR theory of space, time and gravitation. 

QM offered a fundamentally a new view on the microscopical world of atoms and molecules and GR a likewise fundamentally new view on the cosmology of largest scales, while the macroscopical world of human perception of classical continuum physics such as solid/fluid mechanics and electromagnetics, was left untouched. 

Modern physics offered theories fundamentally different from the well understood and experienced theories of classical continuum physics, which was certainly grand but came with difficulties of understanding from human experience. 

QM described an atom or molecule with $N$ electrons in terms of a Schrödinger wave function $\Psi$ depending on $3N$ spatial variables with electron living in distinct 3d worlds, in a model which did not make sense from classical continuum physics point of view and thus required a new form of physical meaning as the essence of modernity.

But this showed to be very difficult and no consensus on physical meaning has formed despite very serious efforts over 100 years. The message is instead that there is no observation which is not in perfect agreement with computations using QM and so QM is a machine that works perfectly even if it is not understood why. In other words: Shut up and calculate.    

But is it necessarily so that the microscopical world of atoms and molecules must be fundamentally different from the macroscopical world of continuum physics, which we as human beings can experience and understand? Maybe this world is like ours, just a bit smaller?

Let us consider a key example: QM describes the ground state of the Hydrogen atom with one electron as the state minimising the total energy as the sum of "gradient energy" and potential energy.

• $\frac{1}{2}\int\vert\nabla\Psi (x)\vert^2dx-\int\frac{\Psi (x)^2}{\vert x\vert}dx$ 

under the side condition $\int\Psi (x)^2dx =1$, where $\Psi (x)$ is a function depending a 3d spatial variable $x$ with $\Psi (x)^2$ representing electron charge density and $\frac{1}{\vert x\vert}$ is the Coulomb potential of the kernel at $x=0$. The ground state comes out as a multiple of $\exp (-\vert x\vert)$ as an electron charge density decaying away from the kernel with total charge of 1, which seeks to be as close as possible to the kernel at a "gradient cost". 

We can give this problem a different interpretation in classical continuum physics as the basic mode of vibration of an elastic body subject to a potential force with the "gradient cost" expressing an "elastic compression cost".  We can thus, if we want, view the electron of Hydrogen atom as a form of "elastic medium" subject to attraction from the kernel. 

This is not the view of an electron as particle, which is not true physics, but instead as an extended object in 3d space with a certain "elasticity", which appears as true physics.  It is the "gradient energy" which gives the electron extension in space. 

We can thus fully understand the Hydrogen atom as a form of classical continuum physics, with spectrum in spectacular perfect agreement with observation. 

RealQM offers a generalisation into a model of atoms and molecules as classical continuum physics in the form of non-overlapping "elastic" charge densities interacting by Coulomb potentials, which is understandable in the same sense as the Hydrogen atom, and agrees with observations, and is computable in the same efficient way as classical continuum physics. 

RealQM is fundamentally different from the accepted multi-dimensional QM for which physics is missing. 

Note that the novelty of the Schrödinger equation for the Hydrogen atom presented by Schrödinger in 1926, was the appearance of the "gradient energy" of an electron  not present with a particle view as in Bohr's failed atom model. This was a revolution!

Note that the "uncertainty principle" is simply a reflection of the presence of the "gradient energy" forcing an electron density to be distributed over space and so like anything with spatial extension being a bit uncertain as concerns precis point location. Nothing new and strange. 

Note that the fact that a ground state is not radiating, which Bohr tried to explain, is that in the vibrating mode of the ground state the electron density is constant over time. On the other hand excited states give rise to charge densities changing over time and thus radiate.

The paradigm of modern physics is that the microscopical world is fundamentally different from the macroscopical world, and so cannot be understood from human experience.  

RealQM offers a microscopical world of fundamentally the same form as the macroscopical world, just smaller. 

When seeking some response to RealQM from physicists and chemists, I meet attitudes of skepticism, which is natural, of flat neglect, which is understandable, but very little understanding as if classical continuum physics is no longer part of physics and chemistry education. 

It would be sufficient with one physicist/chemist expressing understanding of the basic principles of RealQM and either refuting as unreasonable or accepting them as reasonable. 

Real Quantum Mechanics vs Standard Quantum Mechanics

Listening to the talks a recent meeting on Density Functional Theory DFT based on the linear multi-dimenisonal Schrödinger equation as the pillar of modern physics in the form Standard Quantum Mechanics StdQM, has given me incentive to ask the speakers of the meeting to take a look at Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM, which offers a different approach to the physics of atoms and molecules.

The reactions I have received so far express scepticism combined with astonishment, which I take as a sign that RealQM offers something new. Here you find presentations of RealQM:

• RealQM (book 2017)
• Structural Mechanics of the Atom: RealQM (talk 2017)
• RealQM Chemistry (recent blog posts) 
• RealQM (recent and old blog posts)

Comparing StdQM and RealQM, we have 

• StdQM: Statistical without direct physical meaning. 
• RealQM: Deterministic with direct physical meaning.
• StdQM: Multi-dimensional without direct physical meaning. 
• RealQM: Three-dimensional with direct physical meaning.
• StdQM: Difficult to compute because of many dimensions.
• RealQM: Easy to compute because of three dimensions.
• StdQM: Mysteries: collapse of wave function, measurements, electrons as particles, correlation, exchange, exclusion principle, uncertainty principle,...
• RealQM: No mysteries. 

RealQM connects to DFT in the sense that electron charge density is a central concept, but there is a key difference:

• DFT is based on a collective electron density without electron individuality.
• RealQM is based non-overlapping one-electron densities with individuality.
• DFT requires additional non-obvious modeling to deliver results.
• RealQM is a parameter-free model ready to deliver results by pressing a computational button. 

RealQM connects to QATIM based on non-overlapping regions of kernel attraction, while RealQM works with non-overlapping regions of electron charge densities. 

RealQM connects to Atomic/Molecular Orbital theory MO based on s, p, d and f orbitals as global eigenfunctions for the Hydrogen atom, while RealQM is based on local charge densities. 

Real QM supports a shell configuration of electrons with outermost shell containing valence electrons participating in chemical reaction and so connects to VSEPR.

In short, RealQM connects to all the reduced variants of StdQM open to computation, but RealQM has a distinctive form of its own as a parameter-free model open to efficient computation without need of any additional modeling and in agreement with observation. 

RealQM has the form of classical continuum mechanics of solids/fluids which does not serve a prominent role in the education of a modern physicist and so may represent terra incognito. In particular, the presence of the Laplacian differential operator is in StdQM viewed to connect to "kinetic energy" suggesting motion, while in RealQM it connects to a form of "compression energy" without motion. 

Jan Eliasson om Ordet med O

Vår svenske topp-FN-diplomat Jan Eliasson talade i Vinter i P1 Sveriges Radio den 25 dec om Ordet med stort O, som han lärde sig att behärska till fulländning under sin skolgång vid Hvitfeldtska Latinläroverket i Göteborg (några år före mig) och som tjänat honom så väl under lång framgångsrik diplomatgärning. Dessa ord utsände Jan i radion: 

Om Israel och palestinska folket:

• I Gaza idag räcker det inte med rätt ord. 
• Både Israel och Hamas, har enligt flera FN-organ, brutit mot folkrätt och humanitär rätt. 
• Detta gäller också i högsta grad, och under en lång tid, den brutala regimen i Syrien som nu äntligen fallit och flytt.

Om USA/Natos proxykrig mot Ryssland i Ukraina:

• Inte heller i Ukraina räcker det med ord.
• Men en förhandling som belönar rysk aggression strider mot folkrätten. 
• Ska Donald Trump stoppa eller minska stödet till Ukraina? 
• Om Ukraina förlorar amerikanskt militärt stöd åligger det EU och de europeiska staterna att göra allt för att stärka Ukrainas möjligheter att fortsätta sin kamp för frihet och demokrati. 
•  – en uppgift som ytterst handlar om vår egen och vår gemensamma säkerhet.

Om USA/Natos krig mot Libyen och Irak för att sprida demokrati med bombplan:

• Jag har själv sett nog av rädsla i mitt yrkesliv: i Saddam Husseins Irak, i Kadaffis Libyen.

Om sociala medier utanför stormedias (som Sveriges Radios) kontroll av ordet: 

• Att vi inte längre kan lita på orden och bilderna är också någonting som sociala medier bidragit till. 
• När människor börjar betvivla politiken och demokratins kraft måste vi ännu starkare koppla våra stora ord till konkret handling.

Om klimathysteri och krigsrädsla:

• En andra samlande uppgift för Europa vore att ta ledartröjan i det globala miljöarbetet. EU har redan gjort en hel del men nu gäller det att stå upp för Parisavtalet om klimatet, för en fossilfri framtid och för den biologiska mångfalden.
• Rädsla är en förtärande känsla – för oss som individer och för samhället. Tyvärr tror jag att den har vuxit i vår värld under senare tid. Kanske på objektiva grunder men också på grund av manipulation och ofta i politiska syften.
• Men rädsla som utnyttjas för att demonisera människor eller för att splittra våra samhällen, väcker hos mig obehag och oro. Vi ser mycket av detta i den politiska debatten här hemma och ute och inte minst i sociala medier. 
• När de nordiska länderna nu valt samma säkerhetspolitiska grundlösning – Natomedlemskapet – läggs ännu en dimension till vår närhet och vårt samarbete.

Vad säga om detta? 

Jan säger att Sverige/EU skall fortsätta skicka vapen (men inga soldater) till USA/Natos proxykrig mot Ryssland i Ukraina och vägra varje förhandling även om USA ger upp, eftersom sådan skulle belöna Ryssland, trots att kriget är förlorat för länge sedan och bara fortsatt massiv förödelse och död kan följa, allt för att stärka vår egen säkerhet. Jan uttrycker här Sveriges officiella hållning, men vore det inte på sin plats med lite egen tanke och egna ord? Nog skulle väl Latinläroverkets goda språkutbildning kunna räcka längre än så? Borde inte en framstående FN-diplomat ha en mer nyanserad syn på världen?

Ingenting om folkmord av palestinier enligt Internationella Brottmålsdomstolen ICC, ingenting om Natos utvidgning till Ukraina med regimskifte i Ryssland som mål, ingenting om USAs krig mot Irak, Afghanistan, Libyen, Syrien med Iran som nästa, och vår egen försvarsminister Pål Jonssons nära koppling till USA inklusive 17 baser på svensk mark. Varför hittade Jan inga ord för allt detta? 

Ingenting om nödvändigheten av diplomati och förhandling med Ryssland (eller Iran, Kina..), bara mer vapen till Ukraina. Ingenting om USAs veton i FNs säkerhetsråd.

Och sociala medier (som denna blogg) väcker obehag och oro hos Jan. Tänk om Jan kunde svara och här förklara vad han egentligen vill säga till svenska folket. Jag har bett Jan om en kommentar...

Jan has evidently not listened to the words directed in particular to Swedish diplomats from Richard Wolff and Jeffrey Sachs. Wake up Jan! This is what your old school expects from you!’

PS Jag har haft en mail korrespondens med Jan om Jans uttalanden i P1 men Jan vill inte göra den publik på min blogg. Inget sakligt nytt tillfördes. 

Physics of the Covalent Bond Still Debated!

The article The Basics of the Covalent Bond in Terms of Energy and Dynamics by Nordholm and Bacskay from 2020 opens with the following surprising revelation as Abstract:

• We address the paradoxical fact that the concept of a covalent bond, a cornerstone of chemistry which is well resolved computationally by the methods of quantum chemistry, is still the subject of debate, disagreement, and ignorance with respect to its physical origin. 
• Our aim here is to unify two seemingly different explanations: one in terms of energy, the other dynamics. 
• We summarize the mechanistic bonding models and the debate over the last 100 years, with specific applications to the simplest molecules: H2+ and H2.
• In particular, we focus on the bonding analysis of Hellmann (1933) that was brought into modern form by Ruedenberg (from 1962 on). 
• We and many others have helped verify the validity of the Hellmann–Ruedenberg proposal that a decrease in kinetic energy associated with interatomic delocalization of electron motion is the key to covalent bonding but contrary views, confusion or lack of understanding still abound. 
• In order to resolve this impasse we show that quantum mechanics affords us a complementary dynamical perspective on the bonding mechanism, which agrees with that of Hellmann and Ruedenberg, while providing a direct and unifying view of atomic reactivity, molecule formation and the basic role of the kinetic energy, as well as the important but secondary role of electrostatics, in covalent bonding.

We learn that that the most basic of all of chemistry, the covalent bond of the H2 molecule, is still under debate, disagreement and ignorance within the accepted form of quantum mechanics. What to say about that?

We compare with RealQM as a new form of quantum mechanics, which captures the physics of the covalent bond in a very clear and easily understandable parameter-free mathematical form as described in this blog post and this computer code with more chemistry in these posts. What to say about that?

Hint: The key to the direct success without any manipulation of RealQM for H2 (connecting to the decrease of kinetic energy above), is that the two electron densities are localised to two half-spaces and meet at a plane perpendicular to the axis midway between the two proton kernels with continuity and zero normal derivative, and so do not have to decay to zero requiring kinetic energy. The electron density for H2 thus is roughly the double of that for H2+ with one electron, with corresponding roughly double binding energy in agreement with observation. RealQM thus has a clear direct physical meaning, which is not the case using standard methods for computing binding energies.  See output from RealQM code:

 

Important Historical Point 1926: Schrödinger Tragedy

This is a comment to the previous post concerning the basic new problem confronting physicists in 1926 of generalising Schrödinger's equation for the Hydrogen atom with one electron, to atoms with $N>1$ electrons. Let us recall the account of this moment in the book The Stability of Matter in Quantum Mechanics by Lieb and Seiringer (2010): 

• An important historical point is to be noted here. 
• It might have been thought that the correct generalization for $N$ particles is to use 
• $N$ functions of one variable         (1) 
• instead of 
• one function of $N$ variables         (2). 
• Such a "wrong turn" did not happen historically, which is, after all, remarkable.

All the experience from the amazingly successful continuum mechanics of matter and electromagnetics in 3 space dimension (3-d) of classical physics, would point to the option (1) as $N$ one-electron (complex-valued) functions $\psi_1(x)$, $\psi_2(x)$,...$\psi_N(x)$ depending on a common 3-d variable $x$. This is the Ansatz of Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM as the "wrong turn", which was explored only recently. RealQM is a non-linear system in 3-d which is parameter-free in the same sense as Schrödinger's  equation for the Hydrogen atom. Computational cost scales polynomially with $N$.  

.

But all this experience was thrown overboard in 1926 when physics history instead took a leap into the completely unknown territory of option (2), as one N-electron (complex-valued) function $\psi (x_1, x_2,...,x_N)$ depending on $N$ 3d spatial coordinates $x_1$, $x_2$,...,$x_N$, altogether $3N$ spatial variables, to form the Schrödinger equation of Quantum Mechanics here referred to as Standard QM or StdQM,  as a linear equation in 3N-d. Computational cost scales exponentially with $N$.

The natural option (1) of deterministic continuum physics as ontology as real physics, was thus discarded in favour of option (2) as a new form of physics as epistemology without physical meaning.

Remarkable, or maybe not at all remarkable because (2) was very easy as a purely formal mathematical generalisation, which could be done with a stroke of the pen. As easy as formally generalising from one spatial dimension to many dimensions in a Calculus course. To realise (1) was less obvious and so the ease of a formal mathematical generalisation as StdQM took over the whole scene into our days.

Today RealQM offers an alternative to StdQM. RealQM is a computable model as real physics, while StdQM is an uncomputable model without real physical meaning. 

Over the years reduced versions StdQM have been attempted with wave functions restricted to be sums of  products of one-electron charge densities $\psi_i(x_i)$ with global support as Hartree-Fock models.

Density Functional Theory DFT is a further reduction into a single charge density $\psi (x)$ representing the collective charge density of all electrons. Hartree-Fock and DFT have delivered results for atoms, but less so for dynamics of molecules. 

RealQM takes the form of a free boundary problem for a system of one-electron wave functions with non-overlapping supports, each satisfying a homogeneous Neumann condition on the boundary of its support, and meeting on a free boundary with continuity of charge density. RealQM can be used for complex molecules in dynamics of molecules as chemistry. Ready to give RealQM a try?

Here is what ChatGPT has to say when asked about the idea underlying RealQM.

Tragedy of Schrödinger and His Equation

ChatGPT informs (see also previous post) us that the common view of modern physicists is that the physics of quantum mechanics is weird, which can be seen as the desperation underlying the crisis of fundamental physics commonly recognised. See also previous post.

Let us seek the origin of the idea that the accepted form of fundamental physics, referred below to as Standard Quantum Mechanics stdQM, is weird and as such may not qualify as rational science. 

StdQM was born in early 1926 when Erwin Schrödinger during a happy vacation in the Alps with his girlfriend formulated a mathematical model of the Hydrogen atom consisting of a positive kernel surrounded by negative charge distribution $\psi (x)$ expressing balance between two forms of energy:

• $E_C = -\int\frac{\psi^2(x)}{\vert x\vert}dx$                  Coulomb potential energy 
• $E_K =\frac{1}{2}\int \vert\nabla\psi (x)\vert^2dx$   charge distribution energy ("kinetic energy")

where $x$ is a Euclidean space coordinate with the kernel positioned at $x=0$. Schrödinger also formulated a version of the model depending on a time coordinate, named the Schrödinger equation forming the basis quantum mechanics. The ground state of the Hydrogen atom corresponds to a minimum of the total energy $E_C+E_K$, with the charge distribution as close as possible to the kernel at a gradient cost. This model has the form of classical continuum mechanics as a model of an elastic body in a potential well, very well understood.

Schrödinger's model exactly captured the spectrum of the Hydrogen atom and so was an amazing success only comparable to Newton's law of gravitation, which propelled Schrödinger to fame. 

Schrödinger then faced the challenge to generalise to atoms with more than one electron, starting with Helium with two electrons. A formal generalisation presented itself in terms of a wave function $\psi (x,y)$ depending on two Euclidean space coordinates $x$ and $y$ thus on altogether 6 spatial dimensions, which was first rejected by Schrödinger, because such a function can only describe something beyond real physical space in 3 dimensions. In any case, the easy catch of a formal generalisation was irresistible and so the Schrödinger equation for an atom with $N>1$ electrons of stdQM was formulated as a linear equation for a wave function depending on $3N$ spatial dimensions. 

Combined with a statistical interpretation of the multi-d wave function supplied by Born, this model serves as the foundation of stdQM according to the Copenhagen Interpretation.  

But Schrödinger was not happy with his equation in this form as he recalled in  in Chapter 1 of Thee Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Dublin Seminars 1949-1955):

• Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements of quantum mechanics held today, I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody.
• The view I am opposing is so widely accepted, without ever being questioned, that I would have some difficulties in making you believe that I really, really consider it inadequate and wish to abandon it.

In short, Schrödinger could not survive within stdQM and so gradually drifted away into other forms of physics. From inside to outside. A tragedy. Einstein shared the same fate when questioning quantum mechanics as statistics. There are critics still alive such as Penrose but discussion can only take place outside physics departments. Physics is settled, in crisis.

Suppose we do not fall for the temptation of an easy catch in terms of a wave function for the Helium atom $\psi (x,y)$ depending on two 3-d spatial variables $x$ and $y$, and instead seek a wave function as a sum of two one-electron wave functions

• $\psi_1(x) + \psi_2(x)$ 

depending on a common 3-d variable $x$, with $\psi_1(x)$ representing the charge density of one of the electrons of Helium and $\psi_2(x)$ the other, assuming the densities do not overlap. This is a very natural Ansatz, and it would be very interesting to know if Schrödinger ever tried this. 

In any case, if you do try then you come with a different form of Schrödinger equations described as RealQM.  I am sure Schrödinger would have been very happy with this model, since it has a direct deterministic physical interpretation in terms of classical continuum mechanics and gives very good agreement with observations. 

It is possible that with RealQM instead of stdQM much of the crisis of fundamental physics from being weird, will disappear. Ready to try?

If a physical theory still after 100 years of conception, appears as being very strange and incomprehensible, then something must be wrong... 

ChatGPT: The World Itself Is Weird

After a long conversation with ChatGPT o1 about quantum mechanics, ChatGPT comes to the following conclusion by collecting the collected wisdom of all the great physicists of the 20th century:

• The reason quantum mechanics is weird is that the world itself is weird—but only from the perspective of our classical minds. At the quantum level, the universe simply operates by different rules, ones that are no less valid than those of classical physics. This weirdness is a feature of the universe’s richness and complexity, and it pushes us to continually rethink our understanding of reality. Instead of resisting the weird, we should celebrate it as part of the incredible mystery of existence!

The conclusion that quantum mechanics is weird comes from the fact that the basic mathematical model of Quantum Mechanics QM in the form of the standard linear Schrödinger equation in multidimensional configuration space stdQM, does not describe any form of possible/thinkable physical reality. 

In other words, the stdQM Model of the World is Weird. Does it follow that the World Itself is Weird? 

Only educated physicists like Feynman would be pretentious or brave enough to say: Yes! 

An ordinary intellect/mind would say without hesitation that it is not sure that the World Itself is Weird just because a Model of the World is Weird. That there is a difference between a Model of the World and the World Itself. Ok?

An ordinary intellect/mind would probably also say that the World Itself cannot be Weird, because if is, then it would not exist. Really weird things can exist only as Fantasy not in reality. Something which is both wave and particle at the same time cannot really exist. Something which is both square and circular at the same time cannot exist. 

Ok, so the World Itself cannot really be Weird. What then to do with a Model of the World which is Weird? Can a Weird Model work? Yes, it is possible if the weirdness somehow is cancelled out. 

And Yes, it is possible to get something reasonable out of the standard Schrödinger equation stdQM, if only what is weird is cancelled out and this is what Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM does. 

RealQM is not weird since it has the form of a classical continuum mechanical model in 3d space, which is conceptually well understood. 

The nice thing with ChatGPT is that it makes it possible (for me) to have a conversation with an AI physicist in a situation where all my attempts to have a conversation with a real physicist have turned out in a weird way. Try ChatGPT yourself. It is educating and fun!

ChatGPT as AI does not suffer from the same protective prestige as a real physicist, because it has not been so programmed I guess.

Trauma of Modern Physics: The Wave Function

The root of the present crisis of modern physics can be traced back to Schrödinger's equation for a system of $N$ electrons formulated nearly 100 years ago in terms of a wave function 

• $\Psi (x,t)$ with $x=(x_1,x_2,...x_N)$ 

as a complex number depending on $N$ three dimensional (3d) coordinates $x_i$ for $i=1,..,N$ plus a time coordinate $t$, in total $3N$ spatial coordinates plus time. The Schrödinger equation specifies how $\Psi (x,t)$ changes over time starting from some given initial configuration $\Psi (x,0)$. 

This may look harmless from purely notational point of view, but the wave function is a monster from both conceptual and computational point of view, since it depends on so many spatial coordinates.  

The conceptual difficulty is to give the wave function a physical (ontic) meaning in 3d physical space, and there is no resolution in sight. Physicists have simply given up resorting to "Shut up and calculate".

The computational difficulty is that even a coarse discretisation of each coordinate into say 10 different positions makes $\Psi$ to depend on $10^{3N}$ numbers, which already for $N=10$ is beyond the capacity of any thinkable computer. In particular, the specification of the initial configuration $\Psi (x,0)$ is a daunting task. 

Since modern physics is based on Schrödinger's equation (+ relativity theory), the above difficulties have remained as the deep trauma behind the present crisis, witnessed in many books including:

• The Wave Function (eds Ney and Albert).
• Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Mechanics (Tim Maudlin)  

To get perspective on the nature of $\Psi (x,t)$ let us compare with the Monadology of Leibniz with the world seen as a collection of monads or simple substances each one with its own mind capable of forming its own (blurred) conception of the world in interaction with all other monads. 

The simple particles without mind of early atomism are here given minds capable of perception and so connect to the wave-function. The trouble with such a many-mind theory is that there is no common 3d space as basis for some ontology, only a collection of separate individual views impossible for an external observer to make sense of. 

To make progress, the standard Schrödinger equation with its hopeless wave-function must be replaced by another atomistic model which has an ontic meaning and is computable. Real Quantum Mechanics offers such a model. It may be the model Schrödinger was searching for when realising that his equation did not make sense and so in despair giving up and leaving quantum mechanics to Bohr and Heisenberg.  

Invisible Foot Prints of Giant Creatures

                                 The Mountain laboured and produced a rat. 

In the Theories of Everything podcast Humans Create the Quantum World? Julian Barbour recalls that quantum mechanics as one of the two pillars of modern physics, is a non-classical mechanics theory for which the experimental evidence has classical mechanics form such as tracks in a cloud chamber or dots on a photographic plate, since this is what we can experience. 

It is possible sometimes to understand classical mechanics, since our experience has such form, but we cannot understand quantum mechanics in the same way since it has a fundamentally different form. More precisely, as expressed by Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman: Nobody understands quantum mechanics. 

Barbour then turns to Eddington's 1919 photo of solar eclipse observation with a little dot being shifted, which has come to serve as main confirmation of Einstein's general theory relativity as the other pillar, despite Eddington's own critical view: 

• We have found a strange foot print on the shores of the unknown. 
• We have devised profound theories one after another to account for the origins. 
• At last we have succeed in reconstructing the creature that made the footprint. 
• And Loh, it is our own. 

Eddington would probably say the same thing about CMBR as footprint of Big Bang, and LIGO as footprint of gravitational wave from merger of black holes. In both cases the footprint is extremely weak, while the creature is extremely big, which does makes little sense, see this post.

Even more mysterious, the giant creatures of dark matter and dark energy coming with giant effects appear to leave no foot prints at all.  

The lack of progress to resolve any of these mysteries since long, is expressed as a stagnation of fundamental physics.   

The stagnation of quantum mechanics is well expressed by theoretical philosopher Tim Maudlin in a recent long interview about the difference between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics:

• The Copenhagen Interpretation with its collapse of the wave function, is not a theory, only a set of slogans going in all sorts of directions. Physicists do not understand it. They just nod their heads to criticism.
• Shut up and calculate is not any kind of theory.
• Many Worlds Interpretation says nothing about physics. 
• Bohmian Mechanics is the Schrödinger equation without collapse of the wave function augmented by particles guided by a pilot wave equation (as a hidden variable theory not generally accepted).  

In short: the fundamentals of quantum mechanics are as mysterious in 2024 as in 1924-26 when Schrödinger developed his equation. Schrödinger left quantum mechanics in the 1930s because he could not accept the Copenhagen Interpretation.  

The root of all the trouble is the form of the standard Schrödinger equation as a linear equation in multi-dimensional configuration space without connection to real physical space. To make progress, this equation has to be abandoned for a new type of equation in real physical space, and this is what Real Quantum Mechanics offers. Why not take a look? It makes sense. It is not a rat.

Sabine: Stagnation in Physics 1924-2024

Sabine Hossenfelder has taken up the mission to expose the so called crisis in physics, or rather in her words the stagnation of fundamental physics presented in this long interview starting out

• We haven't really made any progress on the big open questions since they occurred a century ago.
• We still do not understand how Quantum Mechanics QM works.
• QM has a problem of inconsistency.

Here Sabine gives reason for the stagnation of fundamental physics ultimately based on QM as atom physics: 

• If we do not understand QM, how can we understand anything based on QM?
• QM is not understandable, because it does not make sense as a theory of physics. 
• A physical theory which does not make sense as real physics cannot be understood in a real sense. 

In this situation, there are two possibilities: 

1. QM is anyway accepted even if does not make sense. This is the current agreement by the physics community. 
2. QM is discarded (since it does not make sense).  

I have followed 2 by developing a different form of atom physics named Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM, which is fundamentally different from the accepted QM which I refer to as Standard QM or StdQM initiated by Schrödinger in 1924.

RealQM is understandable as a physical deterministic continuum mechanics model in 3 space dimensions. The reason StdQM is not understandable, is that it is a statistical model in many-dimensional configurations space without physical meaning. Compare with John Clauser.

Sabine has emerged as a very successful presenter of science, after giving up a career as fundamental physicist, since quantum gravity did not make sense, with particular mission to expose the stagnation in fundamental physics. This is admirable. What is less admirable (from my point of view) is that Sabine does not show any interest in finding some path to progress away from stagnation, such as RealQM.

Maybe this post can open to some communication.  

"Swedish Brigade" in Ukraine Fights North Korea

                         A soldier tells that tank was hit but it was as if nothing had happened.

Swedish MSM Svenska Dagbladet today happily reports to the Swedish people that:

• Since 2 months the "Swedish Brigade" equipped with Swedish Combat Vehicle 90 and Battle Tank 122 are getting ready near the border in the Kursk/Russia region to fight North Korean Special Forces on the battle field. 
• In another mission a Battle Tank 122 was hit without causing any damage. 
• Denmark together with Sweden buys an additional 205 Combat Vehicles 90 for 10 Billion Euro. 
• Combat Vehicle 90 is produced by Hägglunds in Örnsköldsvik, the main Swedish weapons factory owned by BAE Systems London.    

PS1 The Swedish Embassy was one of the first embassies in North Korea, opening in 1975 and until 2001, Sweden was the only Western country with uninterrupted diplomatic representation in the city. The Swedish embassy serves as the protecting power for the United States and as consular representation for Australia, Canada, Italy, Latvia, Iceland and Finland. What will now happen with the Swedish Embassy in Pyongyan?

PS2 Note that the cost of one Combat Vehicle 90 is about 5 million Euro. The total cost of 10 Billion Euro to be compared with a total state budget of about 100 Billion Euro.   

Mystery of Time Resolved?

After millennia of inquiry by most able scientists the concept of time still harbours mystery, which is the theme of these recent podcasts: 

• David Albert: A Masterclass on Time's Arrow
• What is Time? Stephen Wolfram's New Groundbreaking Theory

We all experience that time moves forward from a past over a now to a future, named as the Arrow of Time or 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Why does our life always move forward to a new day, never rewind to yesterday? Why are our lives irreversible? 

In terms of physics the question can be formulated as follows:

• Why can a macroscopical system based on reversible microscopical physical laws, be irreversible? 

Ludwig Boltzmann took on the challenge in the late 19th century opening the door to modern physics and after much struggle came up with an explanation in terms of statistics as a form of statistical mechanics based on Newtonian mechanics augmented with the throw of a dice. Forward motion of time is here favoured by being more probable than backward motion thus showing an Arrow of Time, as discussed by David Albert.

Stephen Wolfram presents another explanation in terms of computational irreducibility.

My own explanation exposed in detail on this blog, connects to Wolfram's in the sense that physics as computation is given preference, rather than the conventional view based on exact laws of physics. The basic idea is:

1. A physical system changes from one state to a next state through a computational process, which has finite precision and so involves some destruction of information (chopping of decimals).
2. If the complexity of the system increases under repetition of the process, the loss of information will be so big that reversal of is impossible.
3. A prime example is the development of turbulence in laminar fluid flow, which is irreversible. The laminar state cannot be recovered from the turbulent.  

For a popular exposition of this idea see The Clock and the Arrow.

When Will Trump Call Putin? Or Putin Call Trump's Card?

In his presidential campaign Trump promised the American people and the World that he would end the war in Ukraine by directly calling Putin coming to a peace agreement, since he loves peace and is such a good old friend with Putin. 

But after winning the election Trump has not yet called Putin, nor has Putin called Trump, which is a bit strange since they are so good friends always working together to save the world from troubles like nuclear Armageddon. In the mean time before taking office Trump has been silent allowing Biden to continue escalation with the objective of making peace talks impossible. 

Instead of revealing his plans for peace talks with Putin, Trump has leaked through his new appointees an idea to (eventually) call Putin and then tell him that if does not agree to the plan, Ukraine will be flooded with so much more new fresh weapons that Putin simply will have to accept, which aligns very well with Biden's escalation. The idea is that showing strength is the best route to success, even from a weak position.  

But what will happen if it is instead Putin who is the strong man? What will a strong man like Trump do if that is the case? Will he back down and accept Putin's condition for peace: Neutral Ukraine outside NATO? What will Trump do when his trump card is called?

Waiting for Trump's call to Putin, Sweden is happily expressing unfailing continued support to flooding Ukraine with Swedish weapons to allow Trump to approach Putin from a power position. 

Let us hope for a miracle with Trump calling off the escalation before taking office and calling Putin to speak peace as good old friends. Please be reasonable mr Trump and fulfil your promise to the World!

Listen to Alex Krainer:

• A false flag attack takes the people with surprise creating emotion. The media already has the script (recall 9/11 where BBC reported a collapsing 7th World Trade Center 20 min before it happened). 
• Then you start to create mass formation psychosis, where you turn the population from being very very unwilling to engage in a war with Russia, to say: All Right, they struck us, now we will fight them and kill them (now the sentiment in Sweden).
• Trump ran on a promise of peace with Russia but all his new appointees only talk about war. 
• I expect there is extensive coordination between Trump's team and the counterpart on the Russian side...
• Maybe Trump cannot yet talk about being best friends with Putin...maybe there is some hope... 

 

Can Sweden Return to the 1658 Peace in Roskilde?

Sweden has fought many wars with Russia with the last victory in 1658 at the peak of the Swedish Empire followed by defeats in the wars 1700-21, 1741-43, 1788-90 and 1808-09 (Finland lost), whereafter Sweden retreated to a long (and fruitful) period of no-war and neutrality. However, this ended in March 2024 when Sweden joined NATO in an effort to return to 1658 by supplying Ukraine with so much weapons made in Sweden that Putin/Russia would be defeated and the Swedish Empire could be re-established. 

This was made very clear in the press conference of the Nordic-Baltic-Poland Summit today, hosted by Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson setting the Agenda: 

• More weapons and ammunition to Ukraine soldiers to do the fighting for Sweden.
• More sanctions against Russia to weaken Russian economy already weak..

Kristersson forcefully followed up with:

• We are at a pivotal moment. 
• Freedom is never for free.
• We will enhance our military support including production in Ukraine of weapons of Swedish Design. Swedish Steel is strong.
• We support Ukraine in its path to NATO.
• Everybody desires peace in Ukraine, except Russia.
• Together we will act to constrain, contest and counter Russia's aggression in the Baltic Sea, in Ukraine and beyond. 
• Russian soldiers fight for money.
• Western sanctions work despite Russian propaganda.
• Russian economy is sinking deeper into an unsustainable imbalance between an escalating war expenditure and starvation of the rest of the economy.

Recall the war in Ukraine is the result of the plan of NATO to expand to Ukraine, viewed by Russia as an existential threat (and also by NATO), but evidently still the plan. 

What Kristersson has not yet understood is that the new Russian missile Oreshnik changes the game completely. What will he say when this game changer has sunk in? Maybe after all, it is better to seek peace with Russia? At least for the Swedish people if not for (the very strong) Swedish Weapons Industry.

Sweden Prepares Citizens for WW3 with Tips How to Survive

Sweden as new member of NATO is now preparing its citizens for a nuclear WW3 as the only remaining possibility to guarantee expansion of NATO to Ukraine (when now Russia with the new missile Oreshnik (more) has shown vast superiority of non-nuclear force), through a little brochure War Is Coming including general advice for survival like: 

• The elevated global threat level increases the risk that nuclear weapons may be used. 
• During attacks in which nuclear, chemical or biological weapons are used, take cover as you would during an air raid. 
• Civil defence shelters provide the best protection. 
• Radiation levels will lower drastically after a couple of days.

Together with more specific tips like: 

• If there’s no water – for example, as the result of a power cut – you will not be able to flush your toilet. Prepare to dispose of waste in other ways and maintain good hygiene.

Citizens are also reminded that 

• From the year you turn 16 until the end of the year you turn 70, you are part of Sweden’s total defence and required to serve in the event of war or the threat of war.

Sweden with its glorious history of wars, is thus ready for yet another adventure, with full support from all members of the Parliament except one (Elsa Widding without party affiliation), while the Swedish people is kept away from realities by only NATO certified information.  

For a peace-loving Swede it is sad to see that there is no peace-movement in Sweden at all. What message are we giving our children and grandchildren?

To get some hope, follow/join the program of the Schiller Institute.

Modern Physics: Biggest Possible from Smallest Possible.

Modern physics is in a state of confusion/crisis described by ChatGPT below. 

The crisis is manifested as a combination of megalomania of Biggest Possible such as Big Bang, and pettiness of Smallest Possible measurements of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation CMBR and gravitational waves by Laser Inferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory LIGO, while leaving out the World in between.  

CMBR claims to measure variations of radiation from a cosmos at 2.7 K which are $10^{13}$ times smaller than radiation from the Earth at 270 K, with the Milky Way blocking most of input from cosmos asking for heavy post processing as shown in the above image. 

LIGO claims to be able to detect changes in length over a distance of 4 kilometres of size $10^{-19}$ meters caused by the merger of two massive black holes.  

The claimed precision of these measurements is mind-boggling. Is it credible? No.

Big Bang is supposed to be confirmed by CMBR. Einstein's theory of gravitation is supposed to be confirmed by LIGO. Biggest Possible is thus confirmed by Smallest Possible. Is it credible? No.

Viewed the other way around, Biggest Possible is supposed to have Smallest Possible effects. Is it credible? No.

Compare with the famous mathematician Laplace master of the Infinitesimal Calculus by Napoleon promoted to be the Minister of the Interior in 1799, but removed from this post after six weeks, because he brought 

• the spirit of the infinitely small into the government thus showing an incapacity for administration. 

Is there any hope of reducing confusion by avoiding the extreme and staying rational? Maybe. Why not give Real Quantum Mechanics and Neo-Newtonian Cosmology a try.

Modern Physics and Confusion according to ChatGPT:

• Quantum Mechanics: Foundational issues such as the measurement problem, wavefunction reality, and nonlocality remain unresolved. Competing interpretations (Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, Bohmian mechanics, etc.) offer differing worldviews, none universally accepted.
• Quantum Gravity: Efforts to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity have yet to succeed, leading to multiple speculative theories like string theory and loop quantum gravity. These theories are elegant mathematically but lack experimental confirmation, adding to the sense of uncertainty.
• Cosmology: Dark matter, dark energy, and the nature of the Big Bang challenge our understanding of the universe. These phenomena point to gaps in current models.
• Particle Physics: After the discovery of the Higgs boson, the Standard Model remains incomplete (e.g., it doesn’t explain gravity, dark matter, or neutrino masses). The absence of new particle discoveries has led to concerns about theoretical stagnation.

NASASpaceNews vs Neo-Newtonian Cosmology

NASASpaceNews reports on Dr. Richard Lieu's groundbreaking theory that gravity could exist without mass which connects to posts on Neo-Newtonian Cosmology with a new view on the connection between mass density $\rho (x,t)$ and gravitational potential $\phi (x,t)$, which can take two different forms with $\Delta$ the Laplacian differential operator in 3d Euclidean x-coordinates and $t$ is time :

• Given $\rho(x,t)$, find $\phi (x,t)$ by integration: $\phi =\Delta^{-1}\rho$.  (1)
• Given $\phi (x,t)$, find $\rho (x,t)$ by differentiation: $\rho =\Delta\phi$.  (2)

Here (1) represents the standard view with mass creating gravitational potential, while (2) offers a new view with gravitational potential creating mass as the essence of Neo-Newtonian Cosmology. 

(1) requires a mechanism for instant action at distance (global integration), which has not been found.

(2) involves instant local action (local differentiation), which is thinkable.

(1) starts out with positive mass, while (2) starts out with a gravitational potential for which $\rho (x) =\Delta\phi (x)$ can have variable sign as the main idea of Lieu. Negative mass repels positive mass and so acts like dark energy, while dark matter appears as small $\Delta\phi >0$ in regions where $\phi (x)$ is smooth. 

In short, Neo-Newtonian Cosmology is in line with Lieu's theory by NASA presented as groundbreaking. But there is a basic difference, since Lieu adheres to (1) rather than (2). 

The idea of particles carrying mass is fundamental in (1), but no dark matter particles have been identified, nor any particles with negative mass. But with (2) the focus is instead on the nature of the gravitational potential $\phi$, which does not have to be particle-like and so opens to forms of $\Delta\phi$ without particles including dark matter and dark energy.  

CNP talk on 2nd Law

Outline of talk Nov 9 at 10 am EST at Chapell Natural Philosophy Society Saturday Session.

Questions: 

• Why are certain systems actually irreversible when basic physics is formally reversible?
• Why is there an Arrow of Time?
• Why is Entropy S never decreasing?
• What is Entropy?
• Boltzmann Statistics S = k log W with W number of microstates
• Statistics is not physics. Statistics is something done by Insurance Companies.
• Classical 2nd Law: TdS = Q > 0

Answers from Computational Thermodynamics:

• New 2nd Law: Q = Turbulent Dissipation = Loss > 0
• Turbulent Dissipation: Large scale kinetic energy K transformed to small scale K = Heat Energy E from increasing gradients created by reorganizing convection (instability).
• Irreversible because small scale K cannot be organized to large scale K because of finite precision.
• Competition: Increase Difference vs Decrease Difference.
• dE + W = Q with W = pdV work < 0 in compression 
• dK - W = - Q
• Classical: Q=TdS not needed. Q > 0 and dS > 0 same thing.
• Summary: Finite Precision Computation + Instability
• Applications: Joule experiment. Newtonian cosmology. Life: anabolism vs metabolism.
• Reality = formal laws of physics + finite precision computation = Computational Euler Equations.

Aether Come-Back

Modern physics was initiated in the late 19th century in a search for an immaterial medium as aether/vacuum carrying light as an electromagnetic wave phenomenon described by Maxwell's equations. But no such aether/vacuum could be identified, which opened for Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity simply denying any need of an aether.  

But the search of an aether has continued with today the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation CMB emerging as a possible candidate, but without conclusion.

Maxwell's equations are formulated in terms of electric and magnetic fields depending on a spatial coordinate in a Euclidean coordinate system effectively serving as an aether, and a time coordinate.

There are then as many aethers as Euclidean systems, each system being specified by origin and orientation, thus opening to a many-aether theory (suggested by Cunningham in  the 1910s) as a possibility when no unique aether can be identified.

This idea is investigated in Many-Many Relativity assuming coordinate systems to be fixed at receivers of light. 

This connects to the analysis of radiative transfer of heat from (warm) source to (cold) receiver as a resonance phenomenon with temperature dependent high-frequency cut-off. This is the essence of light communication between source and receiver as analysed in Computational Black Body Radiation. 

Note that Maxwell's equations require specification of a Euclidean coordinate system and that the choice captures different physics. The basic idea is to connect coordinate systems to receivers. This is natural in particular when light sources are distant, like collecting the light from a distant star in a telescope.  

The essence is resonance between source and receiver carried by standing electromagnetic waves in a vacuum as a coordinate system fixed to the receiver (allowing moving source). In particular, this means that the speed of light is independent (same Maxwell equations) of motion of both source and receiver. 

In a system with many sources and receivers possibly moving, there will be no unique coordinate system and thus there will be a need to harmonise different descriptions, see Many-Minds Relativity.

Note that electric and magnetic fields which are immaterial do not ask to be carried by a (material) medium, nor does a gravitational potential as discussed in posts on Neo-Newtonian Cosmology.

The idea of many-aethers as many coordinate systems is compatible with experiments indicating non-existence of a unique aether, and thus resolves a conundrum of modern physics. 

Body and Soul Project vs Consciousness

Recent posts on the nature of consciousness lead back to the mathematics education reform project Body  and Soul complemented by Leibniz World of Mathematics based on unity of mathematics/soul and computation/body, which connects to trinities of 

• Circle enclosing Yin and Yan. 
• Sat enclosing Chit and Ananda in Hindu tradition. 
• Brahma enclosing Vishnu-Krishna/soul and Shiva/body.
• God enclosing Father-Son/soul and Holy Spirit/body.

More specifically, the book Being You: A New Science of Consciousness by Anil Seth gives a many-faceted survey of the science of consciousness with focus on the subjective experience of Being Me as phenomenology rather than functional/behavioural aspects, as the real problem of consciousness:

• What is subjective experience of e g "redness"?

The central message is:

• Consciousness has more to do with being alive than with being intelligent. 
• We are conscious selves precisely because we are beast machines. 
• The experiences of being you, or of being me, emerge from the way the brain predicts and controls the internal state of the body. 
• The essence of selfhood is neither a rational mind nor an immaterial soul. It is a deeply embodied biological process, a process that underpins the simple feeling of being alive that is the basis for all your experiences of self, indeed for any conscious experience at all. 
• Being you is literally about your body.

I believe this captures something essential. It seems to me that feeling of being alive ultimately arises from tactile sense/touch input from the body appearing as feelings of pain and pleasure allocated to bodily origins with finger tips and erogenous zones extra sensitive. This is also the experience of a person blind from birth showing that feelings of "redness" may be secondary as some form of derivative of touch feeling. All feelings would then ultimately be some form of transcriptions of the sense of touch on the exterior of the body defining the subject.  

A machine equipped with AI or AGI would then not be conscious because feelings of pain and pleasure from sensory inputs would be missing, and so would be a arobot and not a replica of a human being. The other way around, a human being without feelings would not be a true human being.

On the other hand, all living things capable of of feeling pain and pleasure would be expected to have some form of (primitive) consciousness. 

For a human being consciousness also includes higher order cognitive capacities of speaking and "thinking" as derivatives of feelings.  

The Body and Soul project can be seen as machine with AI/AGI, but directly connects to human consciousness by opening to "understanding the world".      

Self-Consciousness: Body Image from Feelings

                                                                  Self-awareness.

Israel Rosenfield presents in his book The Strange, Familiar and Forgotten a view of consciousness emerging from self-awareness as body image:

• My memory emerges from the relation between my body (more specifically my bodily sensations at any given moment) and my brain's "image" of my body (an un­ conscious activity in which the brain creates a constantly changing generalised idea of the body by relating the changes in bodily sensations from moment to moment). It is this relation that creates a sense of self.

John Searle captures this idea in his book The Mystery of Consciousness as follows:

• Our sense of self is sense of experiences affecting the body image, and all experiences involve this sense of self, and hence involve the body image. This is what he calls the "self-reference" of all consciousness. All of our conscious experiences are "self-referential" in the sense that they are related to the experience of the self which is the experience of the body image. The coherence of consciousness through time and space is again related to the experience of the body by way of the body image, and without memory there is no coherent consciousness.

This makes a lot of sense to me connecting to recent posts. No doubt the sensations in your own body has a special meaning to you. Your mind is thus connected to your body through sensory input to the brain and then projected back to their bodily origin as part of a body image, as feeling of pain in your thumb when hit by hammer, or the feeling of your feet meeting the ground, or the warm feeling in your breast when hugging a loved one. 

Feeling are supported by persistence of sensations over time carrying a memory giving meaning, like listening to music as a flow of new tones with memory of old.

This supports my intuitive feeling expressed in this post, that consciousness is closely connected to a body image carrying bodily sensations including feelings of pain and pleasure, something which is beyond the capacity of an AI robot. 

Maybe consciousness acts like a very compassionate agent/mind for an artist/body seeking to find new engagements, continuously updating an artist image including the mood swings of the artist.

Maybe this says something about the hard problem of consciousness to explain subjective experience, in the sense that each body carries a unique body image/subject rooted in bodily sensory feelings.  

 

Consciousness: Preparation to Action

This is a continuation of the post Picasso and his Model: Feelings.

Henri Bergson summarises his view on consciousness exposed in Matter and Memory as follows : 

• The idea that we have disengaged from the facts and confirmed by reasoning is that our body is an instrument of action, and of action only. 
• In no degree, in no sense, under no aspect, does it serve to prepare, far less to explain, a representation. 
• Consider external perception: there is only a difference of degree, not of kind, between the so-called perceptive faculties of the brain and the reflex functions of the spinal cord. 
• While the spinal cord trans­forms the excitations received into movements which are more or less necessarily executed, the brain puts them into relation with motor mechanisms which are more or less freely chosen; but that which the brain explains in our perception is action begun, pre­pared or suggested, it is not perception itself. 
• Consider memory. The body retains motor habits capable of acting the past over again; it can resume attitudes in which the past will insert itself; or, again, by the repetition of certain cerebral phenomena, which have pro­longed former perceptions, it can furnish to remembrance a point of attachment with the actual, a means of recovering its lost influ­ence upon present reality: but in no case can the brain store up recollections or images. 
• Thus, neither in perception, nor in memory, nor a fortiori in the higher attainments of mind, does the body contribute directly to representation. 
• By developing this hypoth­esis under its manifold aspects and thus pushing dualism to an extreme, we appeared to divide body and soul by an impassable abyss. In truth, we were indicating the only possible means of bringing them together.
• All the difficulties raised by this problem, either in ordinary dualism, or in materialism and idealism, come from considering, in the phenomena of perception and memory, the physical and the mental as duplicates of one another.

Bergson thus refutes one of the ideas expressed in the post of mental models of the physical world naturally connecting to mathematical models of the physical world.  

But the other idea in the post is in line with Bergson's view of the importance of feelings to guide actions as responses to the world supporting intuition and transforming intellectual deliberation into lived experience. 

Both aspects connect to AI viewed to offer mathematical models of the world while lacking feelings, which is not at all in line with Bergson's view on consciousness or Human Intelligence HI. 

Bergson points to limitations of mathematical models of his time as static and unable to capture the complexity of the world. Today mathematics + computer offers a very rich world of dynamic simulations expanding reality to virtual reality, while human consciousness remains the same.  

Notice that Bergson connects matter to memory instead of body to soul, thus emphasising memory. 

Bergson offers some hope that HI will continue to have a role. 

Euclide vs Big Bang vs Standard Model

• ESA's Euclid mission is designed to explore the composition and evolution of the dark Universe. 
• The space telescope will create a great map of the large-scale structure of the Universe across space and time by observing billions of galaxies out to 10 billion light-years.
• Euclid will explore how the Universe has expanded and how structure has formed over cosmic history, revealing more about the role of gravity and the nature of dark energy and dark matter.

Big Bang is a cosmological theory stating that the Universe was created from a very hot very dense state of temperature $10^{32}$ Kelvin and size of a pinhead after $10^{-44}$ seconds, and then inflated/expanded into it's presently observable size of 10 billion light-years and average temperature of 3 K. Big Bang was invented by modern physicists in the 1960s searching for a mission after having completed the Standard Model of elementary particle physics, and is today accepted by almost all physicists. 

The previous post recalls that Leonard Susskind as leading theoretical physicists today, has come to the conclusion that the work on the Standard Model has to start over again, and so also the cosmological theory including Big Bang based on the Standard Model. OK?  

The main weakness of Big Bang is that no explanation is even attempted for the existence of a very dense very hot initial state: Creation of a 10 billion light-years Universe from a pinhead lacks physics. Of all Creation Myths in world history, Big Bang must be the most nonsensical.

So we have to start over again. I have been led to a model described in these posts as Neo-Newtonian Cosmology based on viewing gravitational potential $\phi (x,t)$ with $x$ a Euclidean coordinate and $t$ a time coordinate, as primordial role from which mass density $\rho (x,t)$ is "created" by the local action of the Laplacian differential operator $\Delta$:

• $\rho (x,t) = \Delta \phi (x,t)$ for all $x$,         (G1)

assumed to act without time delay for all $t$. Mass of variable sign is thus created locally for each $x$ by differentiation of a fluctuation as an instant local operation acting at each time instant $t$.  

The model is complemented by viewing electric potential $\psi (x,t)$ with $x$ a Euclidean coordinate and $t$ a time coordinate, as primordial from which charge density $\epsilon (x,t)$ is "created" by the local action of the Laplacian differential operator $\Delta$:

• $\epsilon (x,t) = \Delta\psi (x,t)$ for all $x$,         (G1)

assumed to act without time delay for all $t$. Charge of variable sign is thus created locally for each $x$ by differentiation of a fluctuation as an instant local operation acting at each time instant $t$.  

Let us collect basic elements of Neo-Newtonian Cosmology:

1. Mass/matter (ordinary and dark) and charge densities of variable sign are created by the Laplacian acting on fluctuations of zero gravitational and electric potentials. 
2. Attraction/repulsion of mass of same/different sign and charge of different/same sign creates microscale charges of different sign (Hydrogen atoms = proton + electron) and macroscale mass Universa of different sign moving away from each other (dark energy).
3. Kinetic energy in each Universe created by gravitational collapse. 
4. Start from 0 mass. Split into 0 = (+mass) + (-mass). Separate macroscale (+mass) from (-mass).
5. Start from 0 charge. Split 0 =(+charge)+(-charge). Combine microscale (+charge) with (-charge).

 

Testimony by Leading Physicist Leonard Susskind

Leading theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind sums up his experience at the end of his career as follows:

• I can tell you with absolute certainty that String Theory is not about the world we live in.
• We have to describe our world. That is our purpose.
• So we need to start over. We have a lot of work to do. I do not know of any young people doing that. 
• String Theory combines quantum mechanics and relativity in a very beautiful way. There is no other theory that reconciles quantum mechanics and relativity. 
• String Theory does not describe the real world. 
• Is there anything else? Not to my knowledge.Wolfram's hypergraph is a failure. I do not know who Eric Weinstein is. Penrose believes in all sorts of stuff that I do not believe in.
• So we need to start over again.
• To students: Think for yourself and do not listen to old people. What should you work on? I don't know and if I knew I would be working on it myself. Don't be afraid, follow your curiosity. 
• If you do not think that you can do that, you are probably in the wrong field.
• So we need to start over...

What can we get out of this? Well, yet another confession that modern theoretical physics is in deep crisis.

Anything new? Yes, Real Quantum Mechanics is in perfect harmony with Neo-Newtonian gravitation/cosmology. Don't be afraid to check out. Do not listen to old physicists. 

See also Sabine Hossenfelder: The Crisis in Physics is Real: Science is Failing.  

The Hard Problem of Consciousness: Feelings?

Continuation on recent posts on consciousness.

David Chalmers in The Character of Consciousness identifies Easy Problems of Consciousness EPC (see PS below) as those that seem directly susceptible to the standard methods of cognitive science, whereby a phenomenon is explained in terms of computational or neural mechanisms. The Hard Problems of Consciousness HPC are those that seem to resist those methods, more precisely:

• The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. When we think and perceive, there is a whir of information processing, but there is also a subjective aspect. As Nagel (1974) has put it, there is something it is like to be a conscious organism. 
• This subjective aspect is experience. When we see, for example, we experience visual sensations: the felt quality of redness, the experience of dark and light, the quality of depth in a visual field. Other experiences go along with perception in different modalities: the sound of a clarinet, the smell of mothballs. 
• Then there are bodily sensations from pains to orgasms; mental images that are conjured up internally; the felt quality of emotion; and the experience of a stream of conscious thought. What unites all of these states is that there is something it is like to be in them. All of them are states of experience.
• What makes the hard problem hard and almost unique is that it goes beyond problems about the performance of functions. To see this, note that even when we have explained the performance of all the cognitive and behavioral functions in the vicinity of experience—perceptual discrimination, categorization, internal access, verbal report—there may still remain a further unanswered question: Why is the performance of these functions accompanied by experience?

Chalmers evidently connects feelings to experience: An organism able to observe/experience things while completely lacking any form of feelings, would not be considered to be conscious, more like a robot. 

We may have the idea that a fish is not conscious and in particular has no feeling of pain and so can be killed without any remorse. On the other hand, a human being often overwhelmed by feelings, would be the prime example of a conscious being. 

What to say about this? Well, a simple idea is that we are equipped with feelings to help us survive in a variable environment. We feel pain when hit by an enemy arrow and so seek protection behind a shield and we feel love to reproduce, or more generally seek pleasure of both body and soul. The role of feelings is to make us focus on something important for survival, as not only a note from the bank that our account shows minus but as a hit in solar plexus.  

Of course any living organism could be expected to benefit from feelings and so from this perspective even a simple flatworm can feel pain and so be conscious in this sense.

It seems that HPC does not select human consciousness as special, which instead connects to the EPC of cognitive capacities. 

I have been led to an idea of consciousness as a brain representation/model of an exterior reality, which is constructed from sensory input/experience from the body, which ultimately is connected to sensations of pain or pleasure as lack of pain. The mind model then does not only have an exterior source, but also a bodily representation as (stomach) feeling.

Many books have been written on both EPC and HPC without any clear agreement. 

Again: Is self-consciousness an emergent cultural phenomenon? If you are fully occupied with survival of the group, do you have time/need for self-introspection?

PS The easy problems of consciousness, according to Chalmers, include those of explaining the following phenomena:

•  ability to discriminate, categorize, and react to environmental stimuli
•  integration of information by a cognitive system
•  reportability of mental states
•  ability of a system to access its own internal states
•  focus of attention
•  deliberate control of behavior
• difference between wakefulness and sleep