Is your observation that the world may include phenomena that are non-local in nature imply that it does not matter what interpretations are appropriate for quantum mechanics as long as they all give the same results? Then QM could be viewed as just a procedure for projecting that non-local onto a world that is sensed locally.

The study of instrument making only seems important when it leads to the improvement of the instrument and its results, or if it provides opportunities to gain information about phenomena in nature not previously explored. Of course it is always interesting to know how an instrument works in order to develop ideas about its limitations and how it may be improved.

Again, thank you for your stimulating work. ]]>

Have a nice St. Patrick’s Day! ]]>

Of course, the interesting thing about mirrors (reflective surfaces) is that they have a very low amplitude to generate confirmations. The underlying reason is that the mirror’s internal structure cannot absorb the photon’s energy in a way that would satisfy energy conservation. Instead, the transaction is between the emitter and some final absorber, with the mirror as an intermediary. In the conventional approach to QM, the notion of ‘absorption’ is ambiguous, and that is reflected in the language about a photon being ‘absorbed and re-emitted at the mirror’. But it’s an elastic process, and in the TI account, there is no confirmation, so there is no real ‘absorption’, just scattering. Another way to say it: there is only unitary evolution at the mirror and thus no transaction between the emitter and the mirror; the mirror is not an absorber. One needs non-unitarity corresponding to CW generation to yield real absorption in TI. ]]>

In any case, I have another question about path integrals. I’ve sometimes seen a QED explanation of mirrors attributed to Feynman in which it is said that, as a consequence of taking all paths, a single photon is absorbed and reemitted by ALL the electrons in a mirror (as if the photon remains in superposition throughout its contact with the mirror). It’s then said that filing away part of the mirror (messing with destructive interference) proves that this is what’s going on. But I was thinking that this explanation can’t be right–not in your interpretation or in any interpretation with collapse. Maybe it’s meant that a photon is potentially absorbed by every electron (as in the case of OW components), but only actually absorbed by one? It seems to me that superposition couldn’t continue through the process of striking the mirror–not in your interpretation and not in Copenhagen, either.. Am I missing something? ]]>

Given:

(a) properTime = (nonstdMonad, properTime) where

nonstdMonad = (nonstdFuture, stdPresent, nonstdPast)

(b) particle = (physicalExtension, particle)

Now zipper (a) and (b) together so as to produce:

(c) properTime =

(

(nonstdFuture,

(stdPresent, physicalExtension),

nonstdPast),

properTime)

or–

where:

(nonstdFuture, (stdPresent, physicalExtension), nonstdPast) = (nF, (sP, pE), nP)

then

(d)

properTime =

((nF, (sP, pE), nP), ((nF, (sP, pE), nP), (((nF, (sP, pE), nP)…

…properTime)…)

Notice how ‘physicalExtension,’ ‘pE’ got injected into properTime.

In the zippering process, ‘physicalExtension’ became paired, in the language,

to the stream of properTime,

specifically at the deepest level inside properTime,

right at the nucleus of properTime,

thence paired– ‘(sP, pE)’ —

and married to its very own standardPresent

deep inside the shelter of properTime.

Thus properTime is prior

to the stream of physicalExtensions

that streams from the existence of a particle.

If one says that the Standard Models are all involved with physicalExtension,

then all of them seem to have missed, left unaccounted,

this architecture of information into which

particle = (physicalExtension, particle) may be injected,

this architecture that is seen above in equation (d),

surrounding the nucleus of existence in each element of the stream,

modeled above as (sP, pE)

the pairs of processes being emitted as pairs

…each of those pairs…

would stream in a stream, like this–

[physicalExtension, standardNow], [physicalExtension, standardNow], [physicalExtension, standardNow]…

Not some of that other stuff about this in the top half of the previous note.

Out of kindness I will leave the identities of the equations un-known.

But they know who they are.

Sorry I was insane

particle = (physicalExtension, particle).

I would need to be quite solid to get to–

monad = (nonstdMonad, standardNow)

{from ‘standardNow’ as in previous post]

As well as to the stream of such pairs.

Barwise fell under the spell of Robinson’s nonstandard analysis when they were colleagues together at Yale, both of them through logic and language. For me it goes all the way back to Euler. C. Tuckey in ‘Nonstandard methods in the calculus of variations’ shows how Euler came up the Euler-Lagrange equations by doing his mathematical experiments microscopically rather than macroscopically– thus he managed to avoid all that mind-bending stuff about finding the extremum for an integral. But Euler didn’t have Robinson’s nonstandard analysis. So he did his experiments by instead, using words like ‘infinitely close.’ Of course, in standard analysis there is no such technical term as ‘infinitely close.’ It’s a term from a different language. Robinson found that language, then wrote about Leibniz in his introduction to his book on Nonstandard Analysis; Liebniz who had first coined the term ‘monad’, and from whom Robinson was now re-habilitating the term in a new, formally rigourous, model-theoretic number language. Barwise knew that stuff backwards and forwards, and became inspired to generalize it to every mathematical language, every computer language, every diagram, every human language, every animal language, and every language of a every story in literature– spoken as well as written. With all this in front of him, Barwise after decades finally found the key Identity (think ‘equation’) in logical language about what’s between languages, and he called it ‘the infomorphism.’ Robinson had created an infomorphism from the language of standard analysis to the language of nonstandard analysis. The key to calculus is that only at the last syntactical step do you have to translate back into standard analysis from nonstandard analysis. Think of integrating something. Before, you have terms like ‘dx’ in the logical language. After integrating, you drop that language and find yourself back speaking to people in the language of real numbers, and ‘standard analysis.’ It was this magical transition that captivated Barwise. Just as the nonstandard numbers support the meaning of terms like ‘dx’; so do the nonstandardFutures in the stream support the meaning of terms like ‘possibility.’ The Born infomorphism, which is additional information theoretic structure added to the Born Rule, supports logical language translated into ‘information from the nonStandardFuture is repeatedly transmitted into the nonStandardPast;’ as much as every choice among possibilities in a game is transmitted via an information channel onto the scoreboard. The Born infomorphism involves an information channel from the nonStandardFuture into the nonStandardPast. I tried to write as best I could about this in those papers I posted on FQXI. Clear as mud probably…

]]>