In his papers I have read explanations of some experiments such as, double slit experiment and so on, in his new interpretation.
Could you ask him to bring explanations down to the laymans comprehension scale.
Secondly, I couldnt find any discussions regarding Elitzur-Vaidman bombs. How is the phenomena explained in this new lense? In particular if the bomb is dud, no light is detected on the screen as the phase difference of two incoming photons(if a single photon is fired then what?) cancel each other out. This experiment captures quirkiness of quantum mechanics more vividly, and entails wave like structure to the particles propagation in space to the point where I often end up concluding that, particles are waves unless interacted with.
Thirdly, what does this interpretation entail about the laws of physics being deterministic or indeterministic? If it is in thens
My background is in physics, mathematics and philosophy and am more than halfway through your interview with Curt.
Like Curt, I am impressed with your research findings and see similarities, in motivation and perhaps conceptually, to the initial research findings of DB Larson in the 1960's and further developments by others through the 1980's to the present, in what is called the Reciprocal System of Physics -- the reciprocal relationship of space/time and time/space ratios equivalent to different forms of motions.
Ontologically, it's a universe of motion including outward and inward moving 3-dimensional space and 3-dimensional time (gravity, EM, nuclear forces) with both discrete and continuous structure, by which all phenomena are motions. Also where there is quantized reciprocal space/time and time/space equating to combinations of motions equivalent to discrete particles or particle motions.
For example unit birotations as photons (birotating space-time units moving through both 3D space and 3D time) and rotating "units of space" as positrons (rotating space units moving through volumetric 3D time) and rotating "units of time" as electrons (rotating time units moving through volumetric 3D space)
Such motions -- discrete particles -- have field and wave properties when in "space regions" and "time regions" within Planck scales.
That's a very quick synopsis. If you or your students are interested you can review concepts and free pdf downloads of books and the research papers are at
You like very much the letter Γ Γurt! In you previous post Γ was a deductive system with countable and uncountable interpretation. Jacob Barandes said Ψ is such a 'function with a function' like the Löwenheim-Skolem's Γ trying to describe a reality that wouldn't let itself described. Yet Löwenheim-Skolem gives hope isn't it?
I've tried to understand Barandes before and as a non-physicist I was completely lost. This writing has given me the best understanding so far. That being said I still have one question. Are you saying that Barandes system inherently has memory that is somehow encoded outside of the present state in some physical way? Or are you saying that to get this indivisible system to work within a divisible mathematical system you have to add memory? Either way the implications are fascinating.
Here are three questions for Jacob Barandes about the central issue of measurement, phrased in terms of a thought problem about well-verified physics:
52:00 JB _“Maybe one day someone will come along and say, this is what a measurement is, and this is not what a measurement is, but at this point, we don’t have that statement.”_
From the dark side of the Moon, radiate a single photon of green light outwards from a point source. For reasons unclear, this particular photon reflects from a NASA solar sail farther out from the Sun and adds a tiny but experimentally measurable bit of momentum to the solar sail. As derived primarily from Maxwell’s light pressure theory, the momentum added is twice that of the photon that traveled directly from the source to the sail.
Jacob Barandes, do you agree that this thought experiment agrees with known experimental results?
If so, three questions:
1. For hemispherical photon emission, a distance _r_ to the sail, and a light sail area _A,_ can one calculate the probability of the photon reflecting?
2. Is the resulting solar sail acceleration a relativistically invariant event if the photon reflects?
3. If so, does the transfer of twice the photon’s momentum to the sail count as detecting the photon’s location at the time of reflection?
What do we really gain conceptually from replacing a wave function (and it's attending woo-woo with collapse, etc.) with a memory*ful* (as opposed to memoryless) description of the system? Where is this "memory" stored? How does it have causal impact on the system, if not *through* intermediate states? Have we just exchanged obnoxious non-locality in space for even more obnoxious non-locality in time, or worse, now have both? Are there any experimental predictions this formulation makes which diverge from traditional QM?
Hilbert spaces have impossible dynamics because they become infinitely dark as dimensionality increases. Most uses of them cheat in subtle ways.
Schrödinger waves in 3D are much more interesting because they define experimentally real, if somewhat fuzzy, objects such as orbitals. Their combinatorics don’t explode to form unworkable, dynamically frozen Hilbert spaces because we have “observation” all wrong.
Simple acceleration — altering an inertial frame state — is identical to “observation” and always comes in convenient Newtonian action-reaction “mutual observation” pairs that break and set scales between previously information-isolated systems. The sum of enormous numbers of these rescaling operations across bound-matter system hierarchies gives us the “on shell” — that is, conservation-preserving — classical physics of local (per inertial frame) space and time.
The lovely irony of Schrödinger quantum waves is that they emerge only within the context of condensed matter systems and thus are mostly classical phenomena. The idea of quantum fields — photons, for example — existing as excitations in the empty spaces between stars is fiction. Photons follow scaling laws that ensure such interpretations work if someone instead fills that space with wave-defining matter and fields.
The wavefunction (actually they are always just spinors †) are still in Jacob's PSQM (ISP-QM). The idea is we need unitarity, but can always convert the Γ(t) matrix elements Θ(t) to unitary U(t). (Jacob shows how in his paper.) The spinors ψ are then columns of the unitary U(t). So the "wavefunction" is still fundamental in Barandes' theory.
The issue is "What is each ψ?" You cannot have a clear idea without understanding the spacetime geometry that underpins the ISP non-Markov stochastic processes. The answer is that the ψ are always instructions to rotate and dilate (in Dirac theory the rotation includes boosts). That is, they have a Spacetime rotor part (bivector generators for SU(2) and SU(3) in "isospace") and a scale factor, the probability density. Same in the QFT Lagrangian, the spinors are instructions acting on the spacetime observables. In the Clifford algebra formulation of QM the observables are just spacetime multivectors, the ψ acts on them like a rotor, double-sided (the Dirac Bra-ket). It is because they are rotors that they are in the spin-1/2 representation for the symmetry group. This is classical physics of Lie algebra, it is not "quantum". The "quantum" is all in the fact this is all local topology, which is highly non-classical (GR proper intrinsically has no particles, only gravity waves or an unexplained stress-energy tensor of unknown origins).
The topology is non-trivial (otherwise there'd be no Standard Model particle spectrum). The topology implies wormhole substructure if we stick to 4D spacetime and do not indulge in fanciful gauge fibre bundle lunacy (a pure abstraction, I would say). The rest of the "quantum" is in entanglement, from ER-bridge topology, which perfectly explains why the spacetime cobordism is Indivisible. But... hey... this is just now into the field of my wild speculation. So, take it or leave it. (Fibre bundles cannot explain entanglement, just sayin'.)
The nice thing about this understanding is that now you know what the wavefunction was all along, but now both in orthodox QM and in Barandes' PSQM. The ψ is a transformation instruction. Since elementary particles are real stuff with charge and mass etc., the spinors are clearly not the fermions, they are only mathematical representations of what we have to do to model the particles in the context of the QM/QFT measurements. This tells you also what the QM/QFT model is: it is a (stochastic) model of measurement processes. Just like in GR when you need to get rid of the coordinates to reveal the real physics, same in QM, you need to transform a laboratory frame to the intrinsic co-moving frame of the elementary particle. This is what the formalism of QM is doing for you.
It is still true that the wavefunction is not real. It does not represent physical stuff, but rather represents transformations of the laboratory frame onto the proper frame of the real stuff.
†((The Schrödinger ψ is a spinor, but has only one complex component because the magnetic field is turned off, so the spin degree of freedom is not needed, the Pauli equation is really the only valid NRQM since you cannot truly turn off all magnetic fields.))
”Also, they don’t monitor your shady internet usage you disgusting pig.” 🤣🤣🤣
Hey Curt,
In his papers I have read explanations of some experiments such as, double slit experiment and so on, in his new interpretation.
Could you ask him to bring explanations down to the laymans comprehension scale.
Secondly, I couldnt find any discussions regarding Elitzur-Vaidman bombs. How is the phenomena explained in this new lense? In particular if the bomb is dud, no light is detected on the screen as the phase difference of two incoming photons(if a single photon is fired then what?) cancel each other out. This experiment captures quirkiness of quantum mechanics more vividly, and entails wave like structure to the particles propagation in space to the point where I often end up concluding that, particles are waves unless interacted with.
Thirdly, what does this interpretation entail about the laws of physics being deterministic or indeterministic? If it is in thens
👑🔥🔥🔥🪞🔥🔥🔥🗡️
My email to Dr Barandes on Nov17.
Hello Professor
My background is in physics, mathematics and philosophy and am more than halfway through your interview with Curt.
Like Curt, I am impressed with your research findings and see similarities, in motivation and perhaps conceptually, to the initial research findings of DB Larson in the 1960's and further developments by others through the 1980's to the present, in what is called the Reciprocal System of Physics -- the reciprocal relationship of space/time and time/space ratios equivalent to different forms of motions.
Ontologically, it's a universe of motion including outward and inward moving 3-dimensional space and 3-dimensional time (gravity, EM, nuclear forces) with both discrete and continuous structure, by which all phenomena are motions. Also where there is quantized reciprocal space/time and time/space equating to combinations of motions equivalent to discrete particles or particle motions.
For example unit birotations as photons (birotating space-time units moving through both 3D space and 3D time) and rotating "units of space" as positrons (rotating space units moving through volumetric 3D time) and rotating "units of time" as electrons (rotating time units moving through volumetric 3D space)
Such motions -- discrete particles -- have field and wave properties when in "space regions" and "time regions" within Planck scales.
That's a very quick synopsis. If you or your students are interested you can review concepts and free pdf downloads of books and the research papers are at
https://reciprocalsystem.org/welcome
More re-evaluation and critique is needed and I would welcome yours and others input.
Thanks for your time and I am open to further discourse.
You like very much the letter Γ Γurt! In you previous post Γ was a deductive system with countable and uncountable interpretation. Jacob Barandes said Ψ is such a 'function with a function' like the Löwenheim-Skolem's Γ trying to describe a reality that wouldn't let itself described. Yet Löwenheim-Skolem gives hope isn't it?
I've tried to understand Barandes before and as a non-physicist I was completely lost. This writing has given me the best understanding so far. That being said I still have one question. Are you saying that Barandes system inherently has memory that is somehow encoded outside of the present state in some physical way? Or are you saying that to get this indivisible system to work within a divisible mathematical system you have to add memory? Either way the implications are fascinating.
Does this mean the Big Bang continues to have a *direct* causal effect on everything?
A "Big Banging"? And this causal effect has a randomness about it?
Could the end of the universe *also* have a direct causal effect on everything that happens?
Could this account for the apparent randomness?
I don't know if that makes any sense or not.
But surely the randomness can't *really* be random?
Otherwise how could we make sense of anything?
Probably I'm completely misunderstanding.
Here are three questions for Jacob Barandes about the central issue of measurement, phrased in terms of a thought problem about well-verified physics:
52:00 JB _“Maybe one day someone will come along and say, this is what a measurement is, and this is not what a measurement is, but at this point, we don’t have that statement.”_
From the dark side of the Moon, radiate a single photon of green light outwards from a point source. For reasons unclear, this particular photon reflects from a NASA solar sail farther out from the Sun and adds a tiny but experimentally measurable bit of momentum to the solar sail. As derived primarily from Maxwell’s light pressure theory, the momentum added is twice that of the photon that traveled directly from the source to the sail.
Jacob Barandes, do you agree that this thought experiment agrees with known experimental results?
If so, three questions:
1. For hemispherical photon emission, a distance _r_ to the sail, and a light sail area _A,_ can one calculate the probability of the photon reflecting?
2. Is the resulting solar sail acceleration a relativistically invariant event if the photon reflects?
3. If so, does the transfer of twice the photon’s momentum to the sail count as detecting the photon’s location at the time of reflection?
What do we really gain conceptually from replacing a wave function (and it's attending woo-woo with collapse, etc.) with a memory*ful* (as opposed to memoryless) description of the system? Where is this "memory" stored? How does it have causal impact on the system, if not *through* intermediate states? Have we just exchanged obnoxious non-locality in space for even more obnoxious non-locality in time, or worse, now have both? Are there any experimental predictions this formulation makes which diverge from traditional QM?
Hilbert spaces have impossible dynamics because they become infinitely dark as dimensionality increases. Most uses of them cheat in subtle ways.
Schrödinger waves in 3D are much more interesting because they define experimentally real, if somewhat fuzzy, objects such as orbitals. Their combinatorics don’t explode to form unworkable, dynamically frozen Hilbert spaces because we have “observation” all wrong.
Simple acceleration — altering an inertial frame state — is identical to “observation” and always comes in convenient Newtonian action-reaction “mutual observation” pairs that break and set scales between previously information-isolated systems. The sum of enormous numbers of these rescaling operations across bound-matter system hierarchies gives us the “on shell” — that is, conservation-preserving — classical physics of local (per inertial frame) space and time.
The lovely irony of Schrödinger quantum waves is that they emerge only within the context of condensed matter systems and thus are mostly classical phenomena. The idea of quantum fields — photons, for example — existing as excitations in the empty spaces between stars is fiction. Photons follow scaling laws that ensure such interpretations work if someone instead fills that space with wave-defining matter and fields.
The wavefunction (actually they are always just spinors †) are still in Jacob's PSQM (ISP-QM). The idea is we need unitarity, but can always convert the Γ(t) matrix elements Θ(t) to unitary U(t). (Jacob shows how in his paper.) The spinors ψ are then columns of the unitary U(t). So the "wavefunction" is still fundamental in Barandes' theory.
The issue is "What is each ψ?" You cannot have a clear idea without understanding the spacetime geometry that underpins the ISP non-Markov stochastic processes. The answer is that the ψ are always instructions to rotate and dilate (in Dirac theory the rotation includes boosts). That is, they have a Spacetime rotor part (bivector generators for SU(2) and SU(3) in "isospace") and a scale factor, the probability density. Same in the QFT Lagrangian, the spinors are instructions acting on the spacetime observables. In the Clifford algebra formulation of QM the observables are just spacetime multivectors, the ψ acts on them like a rotor, double-sided (the Dirac Bra-ket). It is because they are rotors that they are in the spin-1/2 representation for the symmetry group. This is classical physics of Lie algebra, it is not "quantum". The "quantum" is all in the fact this is all local topology, which is highly non-classical (GR proper intrinsically has no particles, only gravity waves or an unexplained stress-energy tensor of unknown origins).
The topology is non-trivial (otherwise there'd be no Standard Model particle spectrum). The topology implies wormhole substructure if we stick to 4D spacetime and do not indulge in fanciful gauge fibre bundle lunacy (a pure abstraction, I would say). The rest of the "quantum" is in entanglement, from ER-bridge topology, which perfectly explains why the spacetime cobordism is Indivisible. But... hey... this is just now into the field of my wild speculation. So, take it or leave it. (Fibre bundles cannot explain entanglement, just sayin'.)
The nice thing about this understanding is that now you know what the wavefunction was all along, but now both in orthodox QM and in Barandes' PSQM. The ψ is a transformation instruction. Since elementary particles are real stuff with charge and mass etc., the spinors are clearly not the fermions, they are only mathematical representations of what we have to do to model the particles in the context of the QM/QFT measurements. This tells you also what the QM/QFT model is: it is a (stochastic) model of measurement processes. Just like in GR when you need to get rid of the coordinates to reveal the real physics, same in QM, you need to transform a laboratory frame to the intrinsic co-moving frame of the elementary particle. This is what the formalism of QM is doing for you.
It is still true that the wavefunction is not real. It does not represent physical stuff, but rather represents transformations of the laboratory frame onto the proper frame of the real stuff.
†((The Schrödinger ψ is a spinor, but has only one complex component because the magnetic field is turned off, so the spin degree of freedom is not needed, the Pauli equation is really the only valid NRQM since you cannot truly turn off all magnetic fields.))