Bob Doyle and Einstein: The Conservation of Unity through Noncommutative Phase Entanglement

So Bob Doyle has an "information philosopher" website and now is posting youtube lectures from his new "studio." He designed MacPublisher apparently and has done electrical engineering work but he was a Ph.D. in astrophysics at Harvard.

So I appreciate his straight talking approach to what he admits, as Richard Feynman pointed out, is the great mystery of quantum physics - the double slit experiment. How does a particle "know" to change its statistical probability path, as wave interference, even though it goes through the same slit, only a new double slit has been created?

And so I've been watching his lectures and I post comments but he doesn't reply in the comments. Instead he makes new lectures that seem to be replies to my comments. And so his latest lecture is by far his most interesting. He has been building the case that Einstein has been misinterpreted all along about quantum physics - but rather Einstein predicted what is now being accepting in quantum physics.

There is not some inherent "unknowable" foundation of reality that "does not exist" until it is measured, but rather when a particle interacts with its environment and becomes entangled with another particle, there is at that moment a conservation of its entangled information as spin. So this conservation is noncommutative, meaning that it is instantaneous - at any distance - as the noncommutative phase of the two particles.

As Einstein noted, QM tells us nothing about individual cats. Quantum mechanics is incomplete in this respect. He is correct, although Bohr and Heisenberg insisted QM is complete, because we cannot know more before we measure, and reality is created (they say) when we do measure. Despite accepting that a particular value of an “observable” can only be known by a measurement (knowledge is an epistemological problem, Einstein asked whether the particle actually (really, ontologically) has a path and position before we measure it? His answer was yes. Einstein believed strongly in conservation principles – conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum, and spin. Once a particle is on a path, with a spin, what could possibly change its spin mid-flight to its detection?....

 As Einstein knew very well, there are frames of reference moving with respect to the laboratory frame of the two observers in which the time order of the events can be reversed. In some moving frames Alice measures first, but in others Bob measures first.

 So this is the inherent noncommutative phase of spin as the entanglement origin of reality. It is a combination of both relativity and quantum physics.

voidisyinyang voidisyinyang 14 minutes ago

So this is exactly what Einstein argued, according to your claims, but is just now being rehashed as a "conservation" principle - but Stern-Gerlach showed that spin is logically inferred. So as Basil J. Hiley points out - when time is zero, there already is nonlocality as a proto-consciousness - but due to relativity there is no infinite singularity. This was discovered by de Broglie's Law of Phase Harmony, simply by realizing that for relativity as something goes towards the speed of light by increasing in frequency, then time slows down, or gets bigger. De Broglie realized, logically this goes against time being inverse to frequency as per the principle of Pythagoras and since quantum energy is based on frequency, therefore for relativity to be correct there HAS to be a guiding wave from the future, at time zero, as a nonlocal and noncommutative phase - the phase wave or pilot wave. Basil J. Hiley calls this noncommutative phase space. So it is not the same as Hilbert Space - it is before any eigenstates - it is rather the 5th dimension, as Paul S. Wesson also figured out - in his final year of research, 2015. Wesson wrote several papers on de Broglie's Law of Phase Harmony in relation to the universe as a 5D black hole.

 However, we also know that quantum statistics can violate Bell’s inequalities, which means that variables serving as common causes that could make the correlation disappear cannot exist. A quantum causal model should redefine the connection between causal statements and statistical observations by accounting for this phenomenon (see Fig. 1). It should also tell us how to derive conditional independence relations, which in turn allow us to perform Bayesian updating of probabilities. Finding a model that meets both of these requirements has been challenging.

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v10/86 Viewpoint: Causality in the Quantum World Jacques Pienaar, International Institute of Physics, Lagoa Nova, Natal - RN, 59078-970, Brazil July 31, 2017• Physics 10, 86

While it is debatable whether quantum systems are compatible with this type of determinism, they are compatible with another type of determinism called unitary evolution. A process is called unitary if it conserves quantum information. Compatibility with unitarity is a central tenet of quantum mechanics. Allen et al. realized that by replacing “deterministic” with “unitary” in Reichenbach’s principle they could obtain a new version of quantum causal models. In particular, their quantum version of the Reichenbach principle allowed them to relate conditional independence to quantum causal relationships like those described in Costa and Shrapnel’s model. What’s more, these conditional independence relations could then be used to perform Bayesian inference.

 So you have Einstein's explanation and then you say QM is not complete. But you did not mention that de Broglie was using an Einsteinian approach to QM and de Broglie was the one, in 1923, who predicted the double slit experiment producing diffraction patterns! De Broglie explains the mystery in his Law of Phase Harmony based on the pilot wave - that uses Einstein's relativity combined with quantum physics.

 Jacques Pienaar is a postdoctoral researcher at the International Institute of Physics in Natal, Brazil. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Queensland, Australia, for the thesis "Causality violation and non-linear quantum mechanics."

https://www.livescience.com/56076-entangled-particles-remain-spooky.html

If the state of a particle depends on being measured or observed, then who or what is the observer when, for instance, subatomic particles in a distant supernova interact? What is the measurement? Who is "inside" the entangled system and who is on the outside observing it? Depending on how the system is defined, for instance, to include more and more objects and things, the "state" of any given particle may then be different, Ringbauer said. "...the influence starts earlier, with the correlation in states somehow going from the point at which the photons became entangled (or at some point earlier in the experiment) to the measured photons at the end of the experiment, Oreshkov added. That, however, wasn't tested in the current research, he said. " Most physicists who were holding out for a nonlocal interpretation, meaning one not constrained by the speed of light, believe this latter scenario is more likely, said Jacques Pienaar, a physicist who was recently at the University of Vienna in Austria.

 And so this is the mystery of noncommutative proto-consciousness of the Universe as nonlocality - it is eternal motion that is phase synchronized, faster than the speed of light based on the conservation of Unity!

People argue that particles decohere at measurement and lose their entanglement - but that assumes that humans or human produce machines have to create the entanglement in the first place and measure it, etc. The double slit experiment shows that just one particle somehow entangles with itself - or with some mysterious nonlocal phase. This is an interaction of relativity with quantum physics.

And we have that rare moment of actual physicists raising questions of science - that are the SAME QUESTIONS as ancient philosophers (or nonwestern philosophers). The ancients knew how to answer this question - with macroquantum noncommutative phase resonance. haha.