New Paper from Quantum Gravity Research.

  • My friend and LENR supporter Klee Irwin has published a new paper. A difficult read in parts for those not conversant with 'deep philosophy' it nevertheless takes a fresh look at some competing theories about the essential nature of the Ubnverse as we perceive it.


    https://www.academia.edu/32078…ntology_Expanded_Version_


    The Code Theoretic Axiom
    The Third Ontology
    Klee Irwin

    Quantum Gravity Research, Los Angeles, CA 90290, USA.
    October 24, 2017
    Abstract
    A logical physical ontology is code theory, wherein reality is neither deterministic nor random. In light of Conway and Kochen’s free willtheorem [1] and strong free will theorem [2], we discuss the plausibility of a third axiomatic option - geometric language; the
    code theoreticaxiom
    . We suggest freewill choices at the syntactically free steps of a geometric language of spacetime form the code theoretic substrateupon which particle and gravitational physics emerge.
    1Introduction
    Broadly speaking, there are three axioms for a physical ontologyone can assume. One is the idea that the universe is a deterministiccausal chain or algorithm playing itself out. An example of this isthe model of the Newtonian clockwork universe [3], which postu-lates that, if one knew the starting conditions, a powerful computercould predict every event [4]. A second option is the axiom of pure randomness, where a particle can appear anywhere in spaceand time according to probabilities dictated by quantum mechan-ics [5]. The third possibility is what we will henceforth refer toas code theory, where, for example, the Planck scale fabric of re-ality operates according to a geometric language with syntacticalfreedom creating order and preventing the existence of particles atcertain spatiotemporal coordinates. Today, deterministic modelsare widely believed to be false [6], while the axiom of randomnessis generally presumed to be true. This virtual consensus is due totwo ideas. The first is the vastly popular Copenhagen interpreta-tion of quantum mechanics [7], which stipulates that the universeis fundamentally random. The second is the widely accepted opin-ion that consciousness and freewill are real.The code theoretic axiom is a logical alternative to the two olderideas of determinism and pure randomness. Reality would be non-deterministic, not because it is random, but because it is a code –a finite set of irreducible symbols and syntactical rules. Herein,we adopt the popular and reasoned view that freewill is real. Ac-cordingly, we will not focus on deterministic models but insteadconsider the code theoretic and randomness axioms.It is interesting to note that, although there is some degree of consensus that nature is random, there is also a general opinionamong physicists that they have freewill, which is neither deter-ministic nor random. The two views are at odds with one another,although it is possible to invent creative solutions [8]. A small mi-nority contend that freewill is not real and that even consciousnessdoes not exist. We will not explore that view......

  • In dense aether model the universe is just random Boltzmann gas of space-time events, the interior of black holes comes on mind here (but without ad-hoced boundary or surface). The trick is the true randomness doesn't exist, as we can always sample an events, which follow certail at least minute causality and for observer (so called Boltzmann brain) which follows the same causality such a system will not be completely empty. After then we can ask, which geometry such a system would have?


    The good model of random system is the supercritical gas: before it condenses, it exhibits a foamy network of density fluctuations. Therefore it shouldn't surprise us, that the vacuum would have similar structure. Note that even complete randomness exhibits some rules, for example large fluctuations must be less probable in it, than these small ones - or something gets wrong with its randomness (the probability of four sixes in dice throws is lower than the probability of two or three ones). This is quite a lot of principles for to deduce something predictable from it.


    WvawFyr.jpg


    Mainstream physics considers vacuum empty and it denies the possible existence of Boltzmann brains for the seeming impossibility to keep them sufficiently stable. But once we consider vacuum a dense dynamic environment of another events, then we suddenly get lotta time or material for spontaneous formation of sufficiently complex fluctuations, which could observe the rest.

  • Regarding the author Klee Irwin, the online sources aren't very positive about his authority and even moral credit... His style of writing is also not very clear and it's full of unreferenced deductions.


    for example, when a physically realistic quantum gravity code theoretic framework is discovered, it will . ...lead to the principle of efficient language (PEL), which will demand that the universe operate as a relationship between E8, H4 and H3.

    This is indeed easy to say (in essence, every author of inconvenint theory BELIEVES, that his theory describes reality well) - but the evidence usually is far not so clear.

    How the "relationships between E8, H4 and H3" follows from the philosophical essay above linked?

  • Hi Rigel. There are a prodigious amount if 'New Ontological Theories' submitted for publication. A friend in the (print) Journal business tells me they see around one a week. I am not really qualified to comment on the content or the quality of this one since philosophy tends to bring me out in spots, so make no claims for this, but I have always found Klee to be a thoroughly decent (and generous) chap and a serious student and researcher into LENR. Perhaps in a truly 'Calofornia' way he has a deep interest in things that are too mystical for an engineer like me. Some at least of the business troubles that have gained him a rather raffish reputation are due to his being the owner of a business that he no longer has any day-today management of, but has been for some years a passenger in the hands of 'management at the wheel.' There is probably a lesson for us all there.

  • Today, deterministic modelsare widely believed to be false [6], while the axiom of randomnessis generally presumed to be true. This virtual consensus is due totwo ideas. The first is the vastly popular Copenhagen interpreta-tion of quantum mechanics [7], which stipulates that the universeis fundamentally random.


    That may, for all I know, be true amongst philosophers. But it is not amongst physicists.


    The current most popular interpretation of QM is some variety of many-worlds. In this case the universe is provably (to any observer) always apparently random, whilst being precisely mathematically deterministic. There are variants, and post-Copenhagen interpretations like Cramer's Transcational Interpretation. But this is not Copenhagen, which is not very popular nowadays, due to the difficulty in deciding when a wave function should collapse.


    I think somone motivating his work from perceived shortcomings of QM interpretation should address modern thinking in that area first, before jumping down a rabbit hole.

  • Mainstream physics considers vacuum empty


    On the contrary, according to QED and the Standard Model, the vacuum is not empty. Here is a nice read on some experimental evidence through the Casimir effect https://physics.aps.org/story/v2/st28


    More generally, there are many similarities between quantum field theories and aether theories. This was first pointed out by Dirac himself in his Letter to Nature of 1951, in which he concluded: "Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether". https://www.nature.com/nature/…8/n4282/abs/168906a0.html

  • Zephir_AWT wrote: Mainstream physics considers vacuum empty

    Although not considered mainstream , GUTCP espouses this view

    "Matter is composed of real, physical fundamental particles only. There are no virtual particles, no zero point energy and no vacuum energy. A void is simply that - a void. Conservation of mass and energy is never violated.

    [3]

    As there are no virtual particles, the weak Casimir force between two closely space plates is not caused by them. The Casimir force is a weak electromagnetic force that arises from the materials in the plates like van der Waal forces. "

    http://brilliantlightpower.wikia.com/wiki/GUTCP_Fact_Sheet

  • bocijn the only theory which may succeed is the one which brings back Euclidean space and absolute time.

    Are you suggesting that Casimir plates somehow pull each other?

    Any theory should manipulate real physical objects. Mills is one of the scientists proposing that however i believe he didn't go far enough with that.

    If you try to predict anything using false paradigms like virtual particles you guaranteed to fail.

    Mills is simply snobbed by scientific community since he doesn't have math of physics degree. I

  • As simplistic as it may seem, LENR is the consequence of the soliton to the strong CP problem as explained by Peccei–Quinn theory, simple as that may be.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_CP_problem


    As per Peccei–Quinn theory, spin projection via unbalanced magnetic field lines produce QCD instantons that change the theta parameter from near zero to pi.


    https://www.perimeterinstitute…ons-and-strong-cp-problem

  • Hi Rigel. There are a prodigious amount if 'New Ontological Theories' submitted for publication. A friend in the (print) Journal business tells me they see around one a week. I am not really qualified to comment on the content or the quality of this one since philosophy tends to bring me out in spots, so make no claims for this, but I have always found Klee to be a thoroughly decent (and generous) chap and a serious student and researcher into LENR. Perhaps in a truly 'Calofornia' way he has a deep interest in things that are too mystical for an engineer like me. Some at least of the business troubles that have gained him a rather raffish reputation are due to his being the owner of a business that he no longer has any day-today management of, but has been for some years a passenger in the hands of 'management at the wheel.' There is probably a lesson for us all there.


    Alan are you sure you are responding to me? Can you post the # so i can respond please? The original ref is cut off somehow.


    Also have a great time in Miami, and if you get the chance see the Keys, you will fall in love.


    I admire Russ Gries the experimenter but the other fellow mentioned not so much (as others have mentioned) . If you provide a post # per above, I will try to respond.


    Listen, take care and enjoy your trip. Expect traffic like downtown London after it collides into NYC in some horror show. Miami is big and traffic is big. Somehow they meet.

    Food is excellent. I would more wish you were going to ICCF-21 but that is Rigel. Just wait till I see Dewey!

  • IMO most of controversial opinions would disappear, if we would imagine how the world would look for us, if we would float like pieces of foam on the water surface and if we would interact/observe it with surface ripples ONLY (this is important!), i.e. in similar way, like we use to observe objects around us with transverse waves of vacuum. At the proximity/small scales our perspective would get blurred with Brownian noise (tiny density fluctuations of underwater), which would bring the quantum uncertainty for us. After all, the Casimir force is easy to demonstrate at the water surface.

  • Quarks that are in a strong magnetic field will generate instantons. These instantons are quasiparticles formed from magnetism that add mass to the quark. The mass added by magnetism can be great enough to change the flavor of the quark(s) thus disrupting the hadron that confine the quark(s). This is what happens in Holmlid's experiment where a proton or a neutron is converted to a kaon by magnetism via instanton generation. The up and/or down quark is changed to a strange quark through the addition of new mass carried by the magnetically induced instantons.



    Metallic hydrogen produced by Holmlid is a powerful generator of magnetism.




    Related to the above, I have uncovered a new dot in the LENR puzzle to connect, it is called the Nelson-Barr mechanism. I will try to understand it and will post on it when I figure it out some. If anyone already understand this mechanism, please post on it.



    To become familiar with the Quark jargon, here is a video that uses a lot of it.



    http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=16100033



    What the presenter is after is to show why the hadron is stable under the action of instantons, But he shows a condition of "danger" where quarks change their flavor. This danger condition is what LENR is all about. This video is where I first ran across the Nelson-Barr mechanism.

  • axil out of curiosity. What it the difference between quasi and virtual particles?

    This quasiparticle is a composite particle like waveform that behaves like a fundamental particle.


    By the way you are truly lazy. You can find the answer to your questions on google.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle


    The is not such thing as virtual particles. The various EMF background fields are unstable and this instability is call virtual particles.


    https://profmattstrassler.com/…-particles-what-are-they/


    Quote

    A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle.