Interesting. Any experiments you can cite? Or thought-experiments currently entertained in scientific papers or books by physicists? — 180 Proof

I'm not sure how far along research is at this point, but the organic mind itself in my estimation is probably superpositions of entanglement systems within entanglement systems or "coherence fields" (see recent science pertaining to photosynthetic reaction centers for a verified instance of the essential idea) involving specially adapted classes of molecule, integrated by the brain's electrical field. For the sensitivity of quantum processes to energy fields, see magnetoreception (wikipedia). This article by Johnjoe McFadden gives the basic idea of standing waves in the brain and what their integrating role might be: https://aeon.co/essays/does-consciousness-come-from-the-brains-electromagnetic-field. If you haven't read it already, I discussed this topic in depth with posters at this site in some of my threads:

Qualia and Quantum Mechanics
Qualia and Quantum Mechanics, The Sequel
Qualia and Quantum Mechanics, the Reality Possibly
The Double-slit Experiment and Quantum Consciousness

That's a good start.

How does "panpsychism" not beg the question it's designed to answer, namely, the what in the first place – fundamentally – gives rise to "psyche" (i.e. consciousness, sentience, experience, awareness, etc)?

And is this speculation about nature even testable in any corroborable way? — 180 Proof

I don't personally subscribe to panpsychism, though it makes a nice controversial conversation prompt. I'm more of a panprotopsychist: the elements which compose consciousness are present at a very fundamental level, though not nearly exhaustive of matter's total nature.

It would be corroborable by experimenting with entanglement and superposition, correlating psychology to quantum biochemistry in the brain and body that interface it with all kinds of organ systems and environmental phenomena, and the like.

If everything is mind, what's the mechanism by which it manifests illusions to fool its individual selves that, say, there is more-than-mind (e.g. mass, light, spacetime)? — 180 Proof

The panpsychist concept can be explained as variables of nonlocal causality that synchronize wavicles instantaneously over relatively large distances as they move, a quantum wind. I think electric charge is a key coordinating component, but more factors undoubtedly exist. This might theoretically account for synchronicity in consciousness if scientifically observable somehow.

The holographic aspect is a manifestation of this nonlocal causality in three dimensional sense-perception, and it more generally has a fractallike geometry from being built out of basic units of entangled superposition (wavicle blending) which can take effect as consciousness on multiple scales, from the organic brain to the entire biosphere and perhaps beyond.

My intuition is that almost all matter has a modicum of consciousness, but the kind of awareness differs depending on the organization of basic units. The properties from which minds are constructed might be pervasive as size and shape, even if these constituents at a foundational level have no full-fledged motives. The sensing of objects as nonmental arises from qualities such as shape and size which are just as real as consciousness but not directly involved in the substance of being aware, though this boundary might be flexible and perhaps indistinct.

I use the word "soul" in a context that only mathematicians can understand. It means not only superficial comprehension but deeper context, what lies beneath even the proof of the theory, a feeling of the actual substance of the concept. I would not be surprised if future development of quantum theory might arise from going to the soul of the math that seems to predict so well. If so, philosophers may be chipping away at pretty hard marble. — jgill

I incline to think you can only get so far with outlining real mechanisms by merely processing the math because the quantitative model in large measure subsumes only what it anticipates, and current quantum physics is quite limited. Its like a hotwheels corvette, you can do cool stuff with it like build lasers or superconductors as well as perform some relatively simple entanglement and retroactive causality experiments, but I want a blueprint for the equivalent of a real corvette that enables telepathically driven technology, teleportation, reverse engineered biochemical pathways and the like. That's going to require a fundamental reconceptualization of reality's structure, not merely calculation. Its similar to the soul idea you proposed, but directed primarily towards matter rather than math, though the math has an indispensable scaffolding function. I think my fine structure constant thread exemplifies this to a modest degree: Fine Structure Constant, The Sequel

I don't see why the presence of 2 types of stuff underpinning reality is such a problem. Where is the conceptual difficulty in imagining two types of material underpinning the universe, and them interacting with each other? Why does that have to become two aspects of the same stuff? — Gary Enfield

Well the question then is how did these two types of stuff get differentiated if they interact? To explain that you have to presume the two types of stuff are different, divergent forms of the same stuff. Two fundamentally and eternally unfiliated stuffs that cocausate is preposterous.

instead of imagining that particles miraculaously turn into waves, and then back again to form a dot on a detector, why not accept the simpler option of a hidden pool of stuff that is causing the wave which the particles ride? — Gary Enfield

Pilot wave theory does match that interpretation of the double-slit experiment and also manages to account for the mathematical parameters of nonlocal causation in general. How we can observe this hidden pool of stuff is the conundrum, and it is uncertain whether thus far undetectable waves even exist beyond the model.

It might be possible that pilot wave theory and my morphing wavicle/electric charge theory are two ways of describing the same phenomenon, not perhaps mutually exclusive merely as models. If we consider realism of the situation, the pilot wave could be a figurative representation of the way known substances and their effects such as electric charge manifest, or electric charge effects could be a fallacious hypothesis about what is actually caused by pilot waves.

I find an absolute wave/corpuscle duality problematic on philosophical grounds because it seems to me that reality must consist in different forms of a single substance. In essence, apparent dualism always resolves into a multifaceted monism within the most accurate explanations since initial conditions of all causal events are shared, even if this causality proves to arise from an eternal substrate. This doesn't necessarily preclude some realist model along these lines.

If electric charge effects can be ruled out as a factor, then alternate hidden variables such as pilot waves can be considered I suppose, but electric charge and like forces might be an essential mechanism of nonlocality, necessitating no dramatically different form of matter to explain what is going on. Considering how closely linked electromagnetic activity is to biology and consciousness as we presently comprehend them, the discovery that at least some important nonlocal effects are contributed to by known particles and their electromotive sorts of forces as per my account could be illuminating. If my lightning bolt model is accurate in some way, the double-slit experiment might support this.

The reason why I don't think that an electromagnetic field generated by the equipment would explain the effect is because the original experiment conducted by Thomas Young in the early 1800s used candles, not lasers. — Gary Enfield

I address this in the OP, might as well quote it for clarification purposes.

It is easy to imagine a stream of wavicles interfering as they diffract through the slits to produce an array of light and dark bands on the florescent screen corresponding to in phase and out of phase waves. This would resemble the classic experiment performed in the 19th century (nonelectronic context), where a beam of light was diffracted by a single aperture to then pass through double slits as a spreading field which apparently interfered with itself and produced a similar result.

Interference patterns from one at a time particle emission (the modern electronic emitter context) are a thornier outcome to account for. The typical explanation is that the wavicle passes through both slits to interfere with itself, spreading out in the double-slit chamber and then spontaneously collapsing in some way upon contact with the absorber surface to give a particulate signature. This “wave function collapse” mechanism is quite the brain teaser: does the wavicle spread out invisibly in the chamber as it diffracts and then somewhat mystically end up at a very localized endpoint? Why would many localized end points with no likeness to waves at all look like in phase and out of phase waves as they accumulate on the absorber screen? What exactly is going on? — Enrique

A single wavicle experiment has never been performed nonelectronically.

deleted

I think the analogy to consciousness is a good one. I think people are blinded because consciousness is so personal. It must be special. But it's not. — T Clark

Exactly why I said, "I also consider solving the hard problem to be relatively typical as scientific progress, not anything constrained to the purview of philosophy as especially arcane or abstract". So we agree.

I must admit, it don't get the whole "hard problem of consciousness" thing. For me, consciousness appears to be an emergent phenomena that arises through the interaction of physical and biological processes in the same way that life arises from chemistry. What's the big deal? — T Clark

I think consciousness is considered a difficult problem in philosophy because for hundreds of years it has proven impossible to explain how chemistry which is essentially nonexperiential produces the experience of "what it is like" to be someone. The experiential elements philosophy of mind terms qualia aren't simply in the objects of perception themselves, they're in the brain or somewhere else, and are not merely neurons but much more complex. Something further exists, but what it is has long been a mystery.

I think I've figured out what the solution is going to look like, but the research is still to be performed that will identify exactly what molecules, anatomical systems and nonlocal phenomena are involved. I also consider solving the hard problem to be relatively typical as scientific progress, not anything constrained to the purview of philosophy as especially arcane or abstract, though Dennett, Nagel and more have made great thought experiments outlining some of the issues involved. The trick is seeing through the mind/body duality illusions which have been perpetuated.

I think the mechanisms for consciousness presented in this post are highly unlikely. To tell the truth, I don't understand what the descriptions mean. I doubt that quantum mechanics has anything special to do with consciousness beyond it's influence on all small scale phenomena. If you are going to provide novel theories of mental phenomena, you should provide references that support your beliefs. — T Clark

I can give you a reference that a poster at this forum pointed me towards, written by a very well-respected science author, Johnjoe McFadden: https://aeon.co/essays/does-consciousness-come-from-the-brains-electromagnetic-field . It proffers similar concepts related to the role of emfs.

One would be that by staying at the visible spectrum, we are putting aside non-visual qualia, such as sound and taste. It's quite hard, if not impossible, to try and figure out how what we hear resembles anything in nature. With sight, the issue seems to be easier (but maybe it is not): the color red resembles that apple I see. So what mechanism would have to be invoked that solves the problem of non-visual qualia? — Manuel

The idea is that all qualia are various kinds of superposition amongst large collections of waves or wavicles, and the range of possibilities is vast. So sound, touch, taste, smell, sight, feel are all at base different types of quantum resonance composed of diverse matter.

we have no way of testing this — Manuel

Not yet, though researchers will find ingenious ways to accomplish it.

Does your model follow certain aspects of Penrose's and Hammeroff's theory? — Manuel

The Orch-Or theory of Penrose and Hameroff as I grasp it seems to propose the qualitative as a cycle of coherence states occurring in microtubules, comprised of superpositions punctuated by wave function collapse. I agree that qualitative perception probably involves cyclical processes, feedback loops and such, but from what I read the microtubule mechanism has been discredited.

My theory claims that emfs blended with the superpositioned entanglements of molecular complexes are responsible for qualitative perception. What better explanation for qualia than the same wave synthesis mechanism that produces a visible spectrum? Solves the biochemistry to qualia translation problem rather simply: most matter has qualialike features at a very basic level.

The challenge will be to find these molecules that participate in highly organized additive (superpositioned) wavelength and which are also sensitive to emfs. I imagine the mechanism will be a synchrony of the electromagnetic fields generated by neuron synapsing with more conventional biochemistry in glial cells or the soma.

There's also a huge leap between experience, such as the type of experience we attribute to say birds and self-consciousness, where we can reflect on this experience. — Manuel

I'm guessing that a bird's brain generates qualitativity in much the same way as our rather closely related human brains - emf/superposition hybridizing within a coordination of lobes - though the specifics of biochemistry are of course somewhat different.

What would be the instrument that does that, if it is not psyche? — Wayfarer

The psyche will be proven to arise from physical principles, though this physical science of the future may be a collaborative synthesis with psychology and spirituality that we in the present day can barely fathom. I hope so!

Maybe whatever binds the component functions into the subjective unity of experience is not electro-magnetic but psychic in nature. But then, science is not likely to discover that, because there’s no physical analogy for it, whereas electromagnetic fields are at least plausibly analogous to such a field, should there be one. — Wayfarer

Since standing electromagnetic wave signatures as measured by EEG are so closely tied to states of awareness, and these states correlated with biochemistry, it seems to me that the primary agent binding cellular anatomy into an integrated stream of consciousness within the brain is probably electromagnetic force exerted upon microscopic quantum nonlocalities such as superpositioned entanglements.

But as far as coherence fields more generally, they doubtless have psychic properties which extend beyond the brain itself and interact with it via nonlocal causation. So electromagnetic fields may be one of a wide variety of coherence fields types. I think science will be able to eventually discover all kinds of coherence fields that have not to this point been classified for various reasons, and this will greatly enrich our technology and comprehension of psychology.

EMF refers to an electromotive force; are you denoting the emergence of one, or merely abbreviating an Electromagnetic Field? — Aryamoy Mitra

I mean electromagnetic field.

Rigorously, Quantum Nonlocality is a formalization of the measurement statistics associated with a QM system (constituents of which, for instance, may preclude the explanatory utility of local hidden variables). When you're invoking the phrase 'nonlocality of the natural world', are you being metaphorical - or literal? — Aryamoy Mitra

To my knowledge, nonlocality has been scientifically modeled to a minimal extent. What comes to my mind is causal connections that transcend Newtonian locality in objects and forces, as if reality has a wormholelike foundation so saturated with nonlocal processes that it is more akin to what I call a coherence field, a supraspacetime substrate of wavelike currents that synchronize matter, move across large distances almost instantaneously, and can transmit through matter as if it is stationary by comparison. Body and mind can feel and perceive this nonlocality just like eyes see color and ears hear sound, and like the senses as conventionally construed, some of this awareness is conscious, some semiconscious, and some unconscious.

My theory is that it is trillions of pockets of quantum biochemistry within the body which enable an organism to experience this nonlocality, in mechanisms resembling magnetoreception. Chemical reactions that involve tunneling, superposition, entanglement and coherence are like microscopic nonlocal machinery functioning to link with the nonlocal causality permeating nature behind the scenes of our five senses.

That's my intuition, the truth has yet to be modeled by science.

are you suggesting that one elicit the Electromagnetic Fields generated by one's neuronal impulses - manipulate them, and discern whether they act as determinants to one's state of mind? — Aryamoy Mitra

I'm suggesting that the electromagnetic field of the brain and body is the binding agent of consciousness. We perceive and feel sensations with our quantum and thermodynamic biochemistry, and the organic emf makes this chemistry seem like a unified medium, an experiential field that biochemical processes occur within. Perception is the additiveness of quantum biochemistry within an emf substrate, amounting to extremely complex superpositions of entanglement systems within entanglement systems which take effect in both bottom up and top down ways. This quantum/electromagnetic hybridization is especially prevalent in the nervous system, and responsible for brain waves as registered by an EEG.

One can interpret this proposition, but how might one commence an endeavor to verify it? Qualia are neither empirically amenable, nor traceable by scientific edifices (with a few exceptions, perhaps, in neuropsychological constructs). — Aryamoy Mitra

Exactly, by neuropsychological constructs, but subjects must report their personal experiences in a detail that has not yet been approached, and entirely new classes of molecule will probably need to be discovered before we solidly grasp quantum features of qualia and qualitative perception.


I'll stop to see what you guys think of that, and then maybe we can get into more specifics where you're interested or willing.

I started a new thread for the philosophy of mind topic we began to address titled "A Model of Consciousness" in case , or anyone else wants to discuss.

I think a basic problem with your idea is that the first experiments were conducted with light, and therefore an electric field wouldn't apply. I can't help believing that whatever mechanism applies - it would apply to both mediums equally. — Gary Enfield

How are you so sure that an electromagnetic field generated in the double-slit chamber by the electronic emission device wouldn't affect electromagnetic radiation in addition to particles with their electric charges?

Particles can be long-lasting as excitations due to their unit strength/charge as energy quanta…and from there we know the rest of the story. — PoeticUniverse

Big crunch or big freeze...oh well, it was a world while it lasted.

'Particles', as temporary excitations of the permanent underlying quantum fields, go through both slits because, well, as hinted, they are field quanta at heart. — PoeticUniverse

Your mission if you choose to accept it: explain skipping a stone to me as temporary excitations of the permanent underlying quantum fields.

It should be mentioned though, the need to define models which for example 'explain light as a particle or a wave because it can't be both' has led to awfully misguided debates — ernest meyer

I would say that light isn't either a particle or a wave, but a wavicle which adopts the form of a true wave when traveling through many mediums and is more locally a tangle of distinct energy packets. So wave/particle duality depends on the context and is not the essence. But I think we can get close to the essence with theory in this case.

I did find the post quite difficult to follow in terms of emphasis. — Gary Enfield

A medley of multiple posts I had already made at this site, so not organized in a seamless linear argument, and much of the material is very spatial, requiring the reader to spend some effort envisioning the image I have in mind, so I'm not that surprised. To really get it I think the reader has to pause at points and give the thought experimentation some deep contemplating. I've also been known to make minor errors on occasion, hopefully that's not what threw you.

The idea is that electric charge permeates the entire double-slit chamber when all slits are open, but only for fractions of a second, due to activation of the emission apparatus. The shape of charge distribution depends on the position of the slits, which mediate the interaction between the like-charged emitter and absorber surface that have oppositely charged space between them.

The hypothesis is that if the slits are symmetrical, charge-activated absorber sites will be likewise symmetrical and establish a symmetrical statistical distribution looking as if it is an interference pattern, even though each individual emission event is somewhat haphazard, like a lightning bolt. So in the one at a time wavicle experiment, each individual trial seems random and particularized, but hundreds of trials produce an emergent pattern on the absorber screen from the slightly greater chance of a wavicle ending up within a certain range of locations as a result of electromagnetic attraction.

If one of the double slits is closed, the charge distribution and nature of the lightning bolt current must be drastically affected such that a florescent band appears behind the open slit rather than a partial interference fringe. Why exactly I'm not sure, but it could be investigated by experiment if my hypothesis of electric charge influence proves accurate.

The quantum eraser experiment seems to me an examination of measurement effects and proof of entanglement, but doesn't have significance for why the double-slit chamber produces what looks like an interference fringe in the first place, so doesn't apply to the problem we are discussing.

In this model, wave/particle duality is replaced by wavicle-charge-current interactiveness.

For instance, isn't this quintessential of the Quantum Mind, which is partly pseudoscientific? — Aryamoy Mitra

Since I've studied quantum biology way more than relativity theory and this is for me an adjunct to the quantum subject matter, I don't mind diverting the thread in this direction. I've already posted about it a lot at this forum, but since you know your stuff it could be fruitful to get into it again. This is a short summary of the basic model:


In exactly what way consciousness emerged via evolution is a mystery, but we can be fairly certain about what had to obtain in order for it to be possible. Initially, electrical properties in aggregates of tissue such as the brain needed to be robust enough that a stable supervenience of electromagnetic field (EMF) was created by systematic electrical fluxing.

Quantum effects in molecules of the body are sensitive to trace EMF energy sources (similar to magnetoreception), creating a structural complex of relatively thermodynamic mass containing pockets of relatively quantum biochemistry integrated by sustained radiation.

EMF/quantum hybridization is likely responsible for our synthetic experience of qualia, how we perceive unfathomably minute and diverse fluctuating in environments as a perpetualized substrate, perturbed by its surroundings but never vanishing while we are awake and lucid, the essence of perceptual “stream of consciousness”.

Nonlocal phenomena are ever underlying the macroscopic substance of qualitative consciousness, its EMF properties as well as bulked matter in which nonlocality is partially dampened, and quantum processes in cells interface perception instantiated in bodies with nonlocality of the natural world which is still enigmatic to scientific knowledge.

Quantum features of biochemistry have likely been refined evolutionarily so that mechanisms by which relative nonlocality affects organisms, mechanisms of EMF/matter interfacing, mechanisms targeting particular environmental stimuli via functionally tailored pigments along with further classes of molecules and cellular tissues, and mechanisms for translation of stimulus into representational memory all became increasingly coordinated until an arrangement involving what we call ‘intentionality’ emerged, a mind with executive functions of deliberative interpretation and strategizing, beyond mere reflex-centric memory conjoined to stimulus/response.

Qualitative consciousness precedes the degree of unification we experience as humanlike awareness, for qualia can exist and perform a functional role in consort with quantum effects and additional gradations of nonlocal reality while an organism is almost entirely lacking the centralized control we would classify as intention.


Every facet of this consciousness theory is observable via research: quantum biochemistry in a thermodynamically physiological substrate that also includes more traditionally neuronal mechanisms, integrated by EMFs. All we require is to find the anatomical systems and classes of molecules involved, then correlate with subjectivity and the dynamics of nonlocality in general. Some of this will be psychology, some traditional chemistry, some quantum, and some will exceed what has thus far been discovered of nonlocal processes in nature by physical science.

Also key to the model is the assertion, yet to be verified, that many forms of quantum process such as entanglement and superposition produce qualia at a fundamental level. Essentially, it is intrinsic of matter to perceive and feel, or at least contain fragments of perception and feeling, and these quantum resonance properties will be as objective as shape and size.

Thanks for the information. — Zophie

You're welcome. Its amazing how little traction I can get with these ideas considering its a #$!&ing scientific revolution. Sometimes it seems that I'm more likely to end up in traction thinking about this stuff.

So it's like some supremely spicy quantum consciousness thesis. — Zophie

You're getting the idea!

Look at these threads for much more about the consciousness angle:

Qualia and Quantum Mechanics
Qualia and Quantum Mechanics, The Sequel
Qualia and Quantum Mechanics, the Reality Possibly

If I can give you an example of increasing energy -- a chemical reaction -- or a system in energetic equilibrium -- such as a body at rest -- what would that mean for your proof?

What is 'occupied space'? Matter? If energy and matter were equivalent states of information, what would that mean for your proof? And what exactly is time as opposed to spacetime, anyway?

You're talking about physics, but whose physics do you mean? The spookiness only happens to someone looking for the primacy of objects (in this case particles) in an object-oriented ontology. — Zophie

Earthbound matter is a steady state energetic system: energy goes in and comes out, but the total quantity remains fairly constant.

Most of the chemical bonding energy of atoms is contained in relatively small concentration within electron orbitals, and this density of energy combined with the equation wt=d/f implies that since 'd' is extremely small while the 'f' value comprises most of matter's energy, 't' probably becomes minuscule also, and energetic matter apparently links up in a system of pervasive synchronicity at the nanoscale. To put it simply, much of atomic motion is coordinated almost instantaneously.

The brain is an extremely concentrated ball of high energy electricity, so it participates in the same dynamic as atoms but on the macroscopic scale. Consciousness thus transcends principles belonging to the four dimensional substrate of motion called spacetime. Spacetime-based concepts model certain macroscopic phenomena such as light and extremely large mass, but consciousness and quantum entanglement might surpass the parameters of these models according to 19th and early 20th century science.

Maybe someone else can explain the difference between time and spacetime in a succinct way.

That the rational representation of the speed of light expressed by whatever formulae can be disproved or proved is a feat of deduction. Why, though? — Zophie

I guess what was proved, and this is based on books about physics I've been reading, is that frequency (energy) is inversely proportional to time, and when distance or occupied space shrinks much faster than energy, this also causes time contraction. I was curious about the implications for theories of what matter does, so was hoping to get some insight from posters at this site, and I have!

If time contracts enough due to relatively large energy concentration within very confined space, such as in an atom, or extremely large total concentration, such as a big ball of electricity like the brain, this might account for entanglement effects that seem to happen faster than the speed of light, in essence synchronicity, and spooky action at a distance isn't so spooky after all, but in fact a mundane consequence of 19th and early 20th century formulas.

Exactly, actually. — Zophie

Is this an attempt to diss me or something? If so, enjoy yourself thoroughly!

Pardon? — Zophie

Say what?

Here we have evidence for the existence of the force. — Gary Enfield

May the force be with you lol

...what does the phrase 'proportion of behavior' imply, precisely? How are you contextualizing it in a reference frame? I ask, since wave-functions aren't interchangeable with waves - one can't move across them, as one might with the latter (unless one apprehends their probability amplitudes as the QM analogs to normative crests and troughs).

...quantum states are (predominantly) transient, and are not characterized by definitive energy thresholds. Their observed energy thresholds, however, are by definition predicated on the frequencies of their states - which, in turn, are the inverse of how long they sustain itself for.

...contemplate reading with regards to the Dirac Equation - as the exercise may underpin your ideas in the framework, that formalizes them. — Aryamoy Mitra

I'm not going to even try deciphering Dirac or this Gislen fellow, I've read that even professional physicists find the synthesis of matrix mechanics with Schrodinger's wave function daunting. Would certainly need some coursework or a very good teacher for that.

What's going on structurally inside an atom is really what I'm interested in at the moment, and that's a tough nut to crack, though I'm getting clues from various sources. At this point, I'm thinking of orbital arrangment as having something remotely analogous to wavelength, its topological shape, and frequency, its fluctuating energy density, and of course these energetic forms flow in a periodic way that I don't grasp, though I gather that this flow has close kinship with spinors paired in an opposite motion of some kind as per the Pauli exclusion principle, while probably involving superposed states within electron shells.

I'm curious if what we theorize as electrons might actually be a complex perturbation in the electromagnetic field caused by nuclei, similar to magnetic field lines induced by the action at a distance of a magnet. Ionization into wave packets - balls or rings of matter that flow - when energy is appropriately inputted might give the illusion of a particularity or shape that isn't actually much like the inside of an atom.

I also want to know what the difference is between fermions and bosons. Are they coalescences of basic Planck energy quanta in differing formations, or fundamentally discrepant forms of matter? What I've read so far on the subject seems to be derived from statistical mechanics, the behavior of large quantities, rather than the structure of supposed individual wavicles, if those even exist. Not sure I would comprehend much of the terminology, but maybe you guys know of some uncommonly good introductory resources.

I envision the Schrodinger wave function as defining energy change and transfer at a particular location in matter while claiming nothing about the structure of that matter itself, though simple instances can be rudimentarily graphed on a coordinate system (x, y, z orbitals are what I'm thinking of). Researchers insert probabilities according to parameters established by experiment and get accurate probabilities out depending on what they are looking for without any direct image of what is going on. Who knows what palpably happens at the subatomic level?

However, the Schrodinger equation might be able to model energy's inverse correlation with time. Any demarcated section of the wave function is like a representation of matter's energy at a certain location, and contours within that wave correspond to relative energy discrepancies. While a portion of the wave function (frame of reference) is in a particular state, and the more concentrated its energy is in specific spots, which I presume would show up as larger wave peaks, the less energy that subsists in between. The lower the energy or frequency in between, the longer this interstitial matter's wavelengths and perhaps the faster that causal effects are transmitted between peaks during any succession of states. Exactly what the causality of time contraction consists of in terms of structure I'm not sure, but the wave function can perhaps model or predict it indirectly if applied to experimental results. Is the wave function utilized to model entanglement and synchronicity?

Are radiation events that typically happen on Earth capable of producing extremely long wavelengths, perhaps at very low intensities, and do these waves travel significantly faster than for instance the visible spectrum? If so, what implications would this have for cosmology?

Pure speculation on my end, but you guys seem to have a decent fund of knowledge, so maybe you can further the analysis of these ideas or tie some loose ends together.

Go for it; a Nobel Prize awaits! — tim wood

More like a Nobel goosing, sheesh.

This is terribly unprincipled. — Aryamoy Mitra

If this is how you initiate, I've got to wonder what your ulterior motives are. Way more dissing than is warranted by the circumstances. I'm only beginning to get into the mathematical core of cutting edge physics, so my ideas of proportion and correlation are primarily qualitative, but they are drawn from books by respected physicists who I presume didn't make an error that flagrantly misguides readers. Theories associated with the speed of light are at the fringe of my knowledge, and this post is as speculative as I've attempted at this site, so consider it an effort to learn more than a proposal of something I believe is definitive. As for the theory of relativity, I'll think about it and do some reading.

Are you referring, in part, to the probabilistic nature of Schrodinger's Wavefunction? If so, can you elucidate the nature of the time contraction you're interpreting? For instance, are the notions of 'energy' you've readily apprehended, conceptually attached to the Hamiltonian Operators and Time-Evolution of a model particle? What formalism are you construing them in, from a mathematical perspective? — Aryamoy Mitra

The probability wave concept I'm employing is just that the predicted proportion of behavior within a reference frame at the quantum scale, whether construed in terms of position, momentum or whatever, models the average amount of energy within that reference frame relative to the rest of the wave function. Maybe time contraction because matter of lower frequency (energy) moves or spreads faster in some way? Not my expertise, but if someone wants to critique that definition, go for it!

Why is it, that there seems to exist an unrelenting fixation on integrating QM with metaphysical ideas? — Aryamoy Mitra

In my case, because its not metaphysics, its the foundations of psychology in matter! I have a much firmer grasp of quantum biology than any concepts akin to quantum relativity. I'd love to get your's or anyone's critique of my attempt to integrate results from biology experiments in which quantum effects have been observed with a theory of qualitative experience (as elaborated in those three threads you probably bashed without reading lol) I'm much more competent to discuss details in that arena than anything tied to the equations of relativity.

These are the links again for those interested:

Qualia and Quantum Mechanics
Qualia and Quantum Mechanics, The Sequel
Qualia and Quantum Mechanics, the Reality Possibly

Maybe you guys can read these discussions and teach me something about quantum effects in nature.

I appreciate that you guys bothered to resurrect this neglected thread so we can all learn some stuff, new ideas on my radar!

I'm not sure how the technical definition of a fractal applies here. Explain what you mean, please. — jgill

My technical rigor is surely not spot on, but what I mean is if you draw or construct a precise circle out of actual materials, the circumference's surface contains imperfections, no matter how slight (depending on the technique: pencil, machinery or whatever), and these average out to a fractal-like structure of negligible nesting proportions. This differs from a quintessential fractal in that the compositional detail is less homogeneous and prominent, but is still structures nestled within structures, so basically analogous.

Current physics instructs us that any geometrical object instantiated in the real world will be quantized at the most basic level and is thus fundamentally angular, so an area of pi for example is probably impossible in matter, as the Hilbert program intuited at a relatively early stage of scientific math (I'm getting that information secondhand, you're welcome to correct me).

Motion of course takes effect at a very essentialized level, and this is the source of both the existence and perception of continuity. Whether motion is more like pixels synchronized on a computer monitor or the wild gyrations of a seismograph seems uncertain, but I intuitively lean towards the chaos theory seismograph picture. I think quanta are extremely disequilibrated due to the complexity of their emergent relations while in motion.

But this also challenges the naturalist dichotomy of mathematics being 'in the mind' and the world being 'out there', which is how we are inclined to instinctively construe it. — Wayfarer

In a different thread, Metaphysician Undercover made a great point that an ideal object doesn't actually exist regardless of how well it approximates a real object. Reality is quantized, with a heterogeneously fractal geometry no matter the negligibility of this geometry to a perceptual frame of reference. Even a circle has microscopically fractal texture, so that the fact of a unit circle's area being pi, an infinite decimal, is only actually present in our thoughts. It seems impossible for an infinite geometrical quantity to exist on humanity's observational scale, at least from the vantage point of current science. This indicates a deep distinction between mathematical concept and mathematical object, mind and matter. An ideal shape is like a unicorn, a completely imaginary entity, but this discrepancy averages out to negligibility in many circumstances, allowing us to make the philosophically naive yet practical analogies of relativity so crucial to the logic of mathematical modeling. Math is a language describing fundamentally fictional entities.

It seems to me that pessimism and optimism are like the psychology optical illusion picture, which show a vase or two face profiles. — Jack Cummins

Optimism and pessimism seem complementary to me. Part of optimism is recognizing problems and facing them without shrinking away from the occasionally depressing truths, the only starting point from which the world can sometimes be made better. And part of pessimism is acknowledging that we might as well keep optimistically trying because giving up is the ultimate void of futility. Its sad some individuals have a combination of brain chemistry and conditioning that makes it so hard to remain stable as modern education leads everyone to inhabit this knowledge of good and evil perspective.

Why is the fine structure constant a combo of those three quantities you might inquire? Electric charge, as I postulated in my thread The Double-slit Experiment and Quantum Consciousness, is the signature of nonlocal entanglement within the atomic and subgravitational scale, electromagnetism's synchronicity quantity as demonstrated by a simple magnet and elsewhere. Planck's constant is the smallest known amount by which electromagnetic matter can be quantized, consisting in the lower limit of its locality. And light bosons saturate this atomic realm, binding its elements within electromagnetic fields, similar to how gluons weld together the nucleus, so that the speed of light is the core causal velocity of change amongst atoms, with apparent instantaneity taking effect more substantially at the gravitational scale and subatomic scale that ensconce it (and which relatedly involve larger energy differentials as described in my thread Do Physics Equations Disprove the Speed of Light as a Constant?)

Electric charge is the nonlocal pole of the electromagnetic scale's causal spectrum, Planck's constant the opposite local pole, and light speed the core mediating factor in its fluctuations. Each atomic orbital's behavior is simultaneously parameterized by these three flux constraints, the maximally nonlocal, maximally local, and radiative. An orbital, as the core unit of chemical divisibility amongst atoms, shows up in various calculations as the fundamental entity within which nonlocality, radiativity and locality in electromagnetism synthetically take effect. The fine structure constant is like multiplying by 1 orbital, the base unit, and 1 orbital is approximately 1/137th of an atom.

An amended version of the OP's proof using the correct Planck's constant units. This also yields wt=d/f.

1.
The units of Planck's constant are joule seconds or (meters^squared) * kilograms / seconds. This essentially amounts to distance squared multiplied by mass and divided by time, which I'll call
"(d^squared)m/t".

2.
Wavelength equals Planck's constant divided by mass and velocity, which can be written as
w=((d^squared)m/t)/mv.

If we cancel mass, then translate the remaining variables into meters and seconds for the sake of demonstration, we get w=((meters^squared)/second)/(meters/second). This translates into meters or distance (d).

3.
Force equals mass times acceleration, F=ma, and energy equals mass times the squared speed of light, E=m(c^squared).

If we solve for mass and then equate, F/a=E/(c^squared), and cross multiplying yields Ea=F(c^squared).

If we again translate distance and time quantities into meters per second, we get:
E*m/(s^squared)=F*(meters^squared)/(seconds^squared).

Cancel terms and energy equals force multiplied by distance, E=Fd, which can be translated into energy equals mass multiplied by acceleration and distance, or E=mad.

4.
Frequency equals energy divided by Planck's constant, f=E/P. P=(d^squared)*m/t, and E=mad, so f=mad/(d^squared)m/t.

If we cancel mass and distance, f=at/d remains, which can be translated into d=at/f. Substituting meters and seconds again, we get d=meters/(seconds^squared)*seconds/f, which translates into (meters/second)/f or d=d/ft: ft must equal 1, perhaps in conjunction with as of yet unspecified variables, which at any rate is an intermediate step in this context so that the complications can be disregarded.

5.
d=w and d=d/ft, yielding wt=d/f.


For those knowledgeable about physics, what is the significance of ft=1? It seems that as energy increases, time contraction occurs, and if the energy increase is nonlinear by whatever measure, time will contract nonlinearly, perhaps exponentially. Maybe a constant would be necessary to scale this properly. Distance and wavelength probably need to be defined with more precision, even though the equation in this crude form does capture the essence of correlations being considered.

Maybe w/t=df is a valid equation also, from a different perspective? Does w/d have to equal 1, and if so what are the implications?.

It would be good if kenosha kid or another real physicists would comment. — jgill

That's what I'm hoping for. Gotta get all my variables accurately correlated, this is a challenge. Its all derived from deep thinking about books by renowned physicists, so I'm not b.s.ing you.

To expand upon this for those whom it may concern:

According to this equation, wt=d/f, time is completely unlike a constant, but rather a conditional variable, inversely correlated with wavelength and frequency, and directly correlated with distance. This means that, all else being equal, increasing frequency (energy) causes time contraction, and decreasing distances faster than energy (per what units?) decreases will cause time contraction as well.

In electromagnetic radiation, wavelength and frequency are inversely correlated in a linear relationship, so the d/t or rate value stays effectively stable, leading to the famed constant speed of light across all of its wavelengths. But in an atom, frequency is more like energy concentration and wavelength a configuration of these energy concentrations, together varying in an extremely nonlinear way as obviously manifest by the heterogeneity of atomic structure. Distances are also nonlinear since a peak of the wave function or equivalently the core of a wavicle’s position is much smaller in diameter than the entire range encompassing its less probable and thus less concentrated locations.

Vast difference between quantum and classical phenomena can be explained by the deep disjunct between subatomic and macroatomic scales. The subatomic scale contains all the energy of the classical scale, but the relatively tiny diameter of its highest probability concentrations compared to the total probability wave means that a huge time contraction is in effect, making the relative motions of subatomic matter almost instantaneous. This can be contrasted with the greater continuity of macroatomic to macroscopically Earthlike scales that produces dynamics of classical physics.

A solar system has similarly large disjuncts between stars, planets and what surrounds them, causing a time contraction which makes their movements coordinated in an effectively instantaneous way.

What insights can we gain from the fact that increases in energy at constant distance will result in time contraction? If subatomic wavicle cores contain almost as much energy as the macroatomic structures they comprise, this means that time contraction is not simply a nanoscale phenomenon but permeates nature. Earthlike matter consists of dual timescales: a quantum layer in which the interactions of high energy wavicles are time contracted enough to happen almost instantaneously even on the macroscopic scale, while the classical layer is time dilated such that events unfold much more slowly by comparison.

Causation at the quantum scale happens almost instantaneously, and the elapsed time is faster the more high energy the matter is. Some of the highest energy matter on Earth is electricity, for it is made up of maximally compacted electrons. This high energy means that it conveys quantum entanglement effects more robustly than probably any alternate form of Earthbound matter.

The brain with its one hundred trillion synaptic connections is an extremely powerful electric field, and so radiates quantum causation like an electron differential or electrical potential sun, seemingly entangled with surrounding matter in an instantaneous way that defies the laws of classical physics. This can perhaps explain the mystical experiences such as synchronicity that many have, and the philosophical doctrine of “all is mind” which we see surfacing throughout history.