Difference between revisions of "Deriving PMR Physics (Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity)"
(Created initial page based upon part of handout 4.)
Revision as of 18:21, 20 January 2012
(Delivering a little TOE: deriving quantum mechanics and relativity from one overarching set of fundamental principles based upon just two assumptions)
How does MBT Explain Physics?
MrGeeky: So my question is this: Why does something [the probabilistic nature of PMR] which is supposed to reduce computational effort end up generating a system which is so difficult to compute?
Tom: Simply because to make the system work (be a profitable VR trainer for consciousness) it is required – and that requirement is not all that difficult for the system to meet. That we in PMR find a probabilistic description of potential states of a complex system to be immensely challenging says much about our limitations but nothing at all about the capability of the larger consciousness system to handle the problem with ease.
MrGeeky: Without having worked out the rule set for PMR, it's just not going to be possible to answer a question about details of physics. Working out the rule set for PMR is the same as saying that MBT explains physics. But you don't have the rule set so none of you have explained physics. My only issue with this is that Tom has said several times that MBT explains physics...
Tom: One does not need to know everything to know anything. Working out the complete PMR rule-set (physics) is not required to discover something fundamental about that rule-set. If it was, physics as a science would be logically impossible. IF I said that “MBT explains physics” one must not take that statement out of context. The context was limited to deriving, from fundamental principles, the logic that requires particles to exist as probability distributions before being measured or experienced into the PMR reality frame (i.e., Collapsing the wave function within PMR).
MrGeeky: Sorry to take the wind out of your balloon but it's not all that impressive at all. When physicists say that they can't explain the wave-function collapse, they actually mean that they have many potential explanations and haven't yet figured out which one is correct. What you and Tom have done is to create another interpretation of quantum mechanics, like the ones Tom showed in the London lecture (Part 3 at 5:13).
Tom: To maintain the fun spirit of the mixed metaphor, let me put some air back in your sail or wind in your balloon :-). The many potential explanations you refer to are all about the mechanics of collapsing the wave function – how and why the wave function comes to collapse to the value that it does and what that means to PMR. None purport to say anything at all about why there should be a probability wave function in the first place, which is the question that MBT answers.
MrGeeky: Here, Tom goes further than saying the MBT explains physics. It tells you why quantum mechanics has to be the way it is.
Tom: I don’t know why you think that quote of mine “goes further than saying the MBT explains physics” – whatever that means -- but you are right, I do indeed say that MBT “tells you why quantum mechanics has to be the way it is.” And I do so with very few fundamental assumptions, as Occam’s razor requires. Given two fundamental assumptions (consciousness and evolution), logic, and reasoned argument leads to the conclusion that PMR is a virtual reality generated by a digital information system. That conclusion alone is sufficient to derive both quantum mechanics (why particles at the fundamental level must be probability distributions) AND relativity (why the speed of light must remain invariant (constant) even though the source of the light is in relative motion with the inertial frame where the measurement of the speed of light is being taken – this single fact is the source of relativity theory). MBT delivers one elegant overarching concept that derives both quantum mechanics and relativity from first principles. It also derives the core of metaphysics (from ancient times to modern times) and provides a solid theoretical basis for modern mysteries of science like “backward causality” (see forum discussion), the placebo effect, synchronicity, precognitive dreams, etc., that are derived from those same first principles. While Schrödinger and Einstein simply assumed, respectively, that particles were probability distributions and that the speed of light was invariant because those assumptions produce right answers, MBT derives from first principles why both of their assumptions must be so.
Lest you think my “first principles” are unsupported, It would appear that Edward Fredkin and the digital physics movement agree with me about PMR being a computed reality and that Brian Whitworth in his latest paper (accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal) agrees with me about logical conclusions of such a reality (advanced copy: http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT2.pdf ). Surely you agree with me that it is obvious to the most casual observer that what makes a theory valuable has nothing to do whatsoever with how well it supports current scientific beliefs. Indeed, given that current scientific beliefs have failed for the last 70 years to succeed in producing a little TOE (deriving quantum mechanics and relativity from a single overarching understanding), one might reason that thinking outside of that particular belief box (modern physics) might be a requirement to access the solution. Unfortunately, it is a fact that a theory's value is almost exclusively judged by how well it supports current scientific beliefs – a fact that hasn’t changed since the time of Copernicus – nor is it likely to change anytime soon. One more thing, I highly recommend using Wikipedia as an open public source of simple graphics to illustrate broad concepts to those with little background in those concepts – it excels at reducing information to a graphical level that is easily understood.
Is Quantum Mechanics Fundamental to the PMR VR?
Neil (MrGeeky): I don't see any reason for PMR to require quantum mechanics in order to be a profitable VR trainer.
Tom: QM is a result, a logical consequence of a virtual reality consciousness trainer, not a fundamental enabler. Such a trainer requires the ability to assess probable consequences. In the MBT model of reality, the mechanics by which that happens – a probable future database progressing to actualized and unactualized history databases by the application of free will intent operating in the present moment – defines the process that leads to PMR time and causality. QM simply expresses how the VR works; it is not in any way responsible for making it work that way.
Neil (MrGeeky): It looks like book 1 chapter 31 covers relativity, book 2 chapter 31 covers how to derive PMR physics and book 2 chapter 37 covers quantum mechanics. Is that where this is covered?
Tom: MBT (the books) were written to share the significance that MBT (the theory) has to the everyday existence of the players engaged in this consciousness evolution VR trainer. You will be disappointed in MBT if you are looking for a dissertation on relativity and QM. You will find the fundamental concepts that lead to a derivation of both QM and relativity in MBT, but they will not be spelled out as such with a drum roll to attract attention. I dealt a little more explicitly with these issues in the just completed Toronto workshop (since some physicists were in attendance) and occasionally they come up for discussion in the forum. MBT is focused more as “news you can use” than “science breakthrough” because this reaches, and is more pertinent and valuable to more people. The Toronto workshop will be available on DVD in a few months. The next edition of the books will have a few paragraphs added to make the logical necessity of “c” (the speed of light) being invariant clearer – just as there are a few paragraphs scattered about now pointing to the logical necessity of particles as probability distributions. There is no one or two places where all the “science information” is discussed. For example, it is not until half way through Book 3 that the core concept of the future probable reality data base is examined.
The above accurately state the facts, however, to help you understand more fully why it is as it is, there is a bit of history that needs to be explained. Because my focus was on sharing the results of my research on the nature of the larger reality, I did not fully realize that I could logically derive QM and relativity theory from the same logical model that described consciousness until after the books were published. It was all there in MBT, just as obvious and clear as it could be (c was stated to be a constant in book 1 and existence was stated to be constructed as probability distributions before being brought into PMR experience by free will intent expressed in the present moment in books 2 and 3). However, not until Ted wrote his treatise on the VRRE did it occur to me that I had actually already derived QM. A year later, It came to me that the one fact that launched relativity was c being constant -- a fact that I had already derived years earlier from the nature of virtual reality – Bingo! the same logical model that derived consciousness, QM, and the nature of reality also clearly derived relativity as well. All along, I was well aware that an accurate description of the larger reality would necessarily lead to a more fundamental understanding of PMR but I failed to notice that the logical consequences of my model fully derived QM and relativity and laid them at my feet without me even noticing until Ted inadvertently gave me a nudge (I use the word “derived” as described in my last post). In the second printing, I added a short paragraph pointing out the QM derivation and in the next printing (sometime in the future) I will add another paragraph that describes (in a little more detail than is already there) why c must be invariant within my VR model.
Neil: It's not how well it supports current scientific beliefs but rather how well it supports current scientific results. The easiest path to that is to base your work on current scientific belief. To do otherwise requires a huge amount of work. More than one person can do, in my opinion.
Tom: You are absolutely right on all four counts. Some comments:
- 1) It is often very difficult for scientists to differentiate scientific results from scientific beliefs. Beliefs, whether religious or scientific, appear to be beyond question.
- 2) A big TOE must not only support objective scientific results but also explain subjective experience, point and purpose, meaning and significance, from a bigger perspective that resonates true with individual experience and the gathered wisdom from the lessons of life.
- 3) Indeed it is the easy and only safe career path to rummage about in the corners of the status quo of scientific belief – anything else is a career killer within academia. But also note that breakthrough belongs to the young who have not yet been captured by the status quo and those on the fringe (e.g., Schrodinger, who proposed probability waves, was a graduate student and Einstein wasn’t much older). The center provides little other than infrastructure and resistance (thus stability) to the process of breakthrough.
- 4) No doubt, to change cultural/scientific beliefs is very difficult and takes a very long time. Darwin published his theory in 1850 and 150 years later it is still a very controversial idea. True believers are a tough group to change no matter what the particular beliefs are that they cling to.
- 5) Yes, More than one person can do this. However, every year there are more scientists realizing that an assumption of virtual reality explains scientific results better than an assumption of objective reality. Brian Whitworth’s two papers demonstrating this fact (the link to the latest referenced above) is just the most recent (look at the length of his bibliography). There are many people pulling on this oar and the numbers are steadily growing because facts are more convincing than dogma – especially to the young.
Neil: I think the best approach is to publish in a reputable scientific journal. That way, you can raise the interest of the scientific community and get more people to help you. I also think you'll be more successful at reaching the populace. Once MBT becomes established science it'll be all over the news.
Tom: I am not an academic physicist – I am an applied physicist generating what is called “physics models” of complex systems in order to assess potential risk to NASA missions and to the lives of astronauts [presently]. I am perfectly happy letting Fredkin, Whitworth, and many others bang their heads against that particular wall. They are making progress from inside the physics and applied math academic establishment – much more effectively than I could do as an outsider. My Big TOE theory is much more general and describes a much bigger picture than they can describe within the confines of their academic culture. My Big TOE is immediately useful to thousands of people – life changing in very positive ways to many. It is my goal to be useful to others – I have no interest in proving anything – I prefer to let the facts of experience speak for themselves.
Are We Living in the Matrix?
Vzam: Andrew Thomas in replies to questions on his site ("Are We Living in the Matrix") http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_big_brother.asp says that in a simulated universe, the speed of light does not need to be constant because the computer can cause the brain and local clocks to slow down to allow rendering. The experiencer wouldn't realise that the slow down has occurred. Does this make sense, Tom?
Tom: There is clock time in the computer room (metaphorically) where the computer resides that hosts the VR; and there is VR time within the VR -- the VR advancing one time step every time the data is refreshed with another iteration of the time loop. To the characters in the VR, it makes no difference how much computer room clock time (CRCt) goes by for each Increment of VR time (VRt). One can have a million VRt time increments go by in one second of CRCt, or one can have a million CRCt seconds go by just to calculate one increment of VRt in the simulation. The characters in the VR wouldn't notice any difference -- they simply advance one time step each cycle and have no sense of the passage of CRCt. Each cycle through the time loop would seem to be identical to every other. For the VR inhabitants, time does not exist between VRt increments.
Thus, though VRt increments (cycles) may be non uniform in duration from the perspective of CRCt, they appear as constant time increments in units of “number of cycles” from the perspective of VRt. Each pass through the time loop, or data refresh time, defines one unit of VRt called a quantum of VRt, which, from the perspective of the VR, is a constant increment of time. To make it simpler, let's say this VR is a two dimensional world on a monitor screen (like most computer games). In this VR, the fastest that a one pixel dot can move across the screen with continuous (no hopping about is allowed) motion is 1 pixel every VRt increment. That is true no matter how much or how little CRCt goes by between each VRt increment. Thus in VR land, the maximum speed that information can travel is 1 pixel per VRt increment and that is always a constant in VR land however erratic the VRt increments seem to be from the perspective of CRCt. (This is perfectly analogous to how the speed of light must move at one quanta of PMR volume per PMR DELTA-t in a uniform, isotropic space-time so that we have an apparently continuous, functionally consistent space to have our PMR experience in.)
Now, imagine that the people in the computer room have certain tasks to perform to get the VR ready to implement each increment of VRt. They would need to have shorter time increments creating the passage of their CRCt (a smaller quantum of computer room time) than the VRt increment (VR quantum of time) so that they would have available CRCt cycles to get things done to get ready for the next VRt increment. Do you now see why the speed of light, from a perspective within PMR, must be a constant? It matters not how time varies in CRCt or how the size of consecutive VRt increments may vary from the perspective of CRCt . Also the quanta of volume in the VR must be a constant or space would be inconsistent -- i.e., non - homogeneous and non-isotropic -- a violation of our rule set. Then c = the speed of light = the cubed root of the constant PMR VR volume quantum divided by the PMR VR constant time quantum (each time the data gets refreshed (recalculated) counts as exactly one unit or quanta of VR time. C is a constant from the perspective of PMR because it is computed by dividing two quantities that are also constants from the perspective of PMR. C is a constant equal to the max information transfer rate of one volume quanta per calculation cycle. Is this clear now?
Vzam: Thank you for the full explanation, Tom. It's the perspective thing that confused me - as you show, from within PMR c seems constant. Andrew Thomas was talking from the CRCt perspective. He suggested "jumping around" rendering on the screen might be allowed, and I thought he meant that we wouldn't necessarily notice the jumping around (cheating on the normal rules?) if the jumping could be veiled from us -the clocks could perhaps all be moved on and we'd never know we lost an hour. Not sure what the point would be though, except to bypass something unwanted. (This also brings to mind UFO alien abduction stories where time is lost; or people claiming that somehow they avoided an inevitable accident and found themselves still alive on the other side of the road or further down the highway a few moments later.)
Tom: The perception of space and time (the generation of our shared multiplayer PMR reality) provided by our rule-set is of a continuous, homogeneous, uniform isotropic time and space. This is required to produce consistency of experience so that action, interaction, and feedback are all tightly coupled and make rational sense within an apparent objective causality. To optimize learning potential requires consistency. Consistency allows choices and their results to be causally connected. Exceptions (e.g., jumping around) are permitted but they are individual and purposeful (not random) as allowed by the psi uncertainty principle. Exceptions do not represent random system hiccups -- they are specific to one or a small group IUOCs -- and have little to no affect on the whole (on IUOCs in general or on the shared perception of a consistent causality based reality) as per the psi uncertainty principle.
Further Discussion of the Constancy of c, the Speed of Light
Claudio: It appears to be that TBC chose a certain value of c for our PMR VR. By having c in our PMR the speed of light value we know can the speed of the VR be changed by just lowering the PMR delta t (VRt)? If this is done, then is this a way to speed up evolution for PMR players? If VRt is not manipulated, are there more efficient PMRs that have a higher value of c, so that it can speed up the evolution of the players?
Tom: Yes, the value of c was specifically chosen by TBC. When setting up a virtual reality, the very first, most fundamental thing that needs to be decided is what is the resolution of the rendering going to be and how often must the data describing the VR be refreshed. The first determines the amount of data that is required to generate the VR (the memory requirement), the second, how often that data must be updated (the throughput or computer speed requirement). The resolution is determined by specifying the size of a PMR quantum of volume [a 3D version of defining the number of pixels per square inch on a display screen (2D), or the number of dots per inch on a printer (1D)]. The refresh rate is determined by specifying the size of a PMR quantum of time (like defining the number of seconds consumed per computational cycle -- one over the CPU operational frequency -- required to process a particular problem within a given amount of time). As stated above, the size of a quantum of PMR volume and a quantum of PMR time must both be constant in order to produce a consistent reality frame suitable for optimal consciousness evolution. As stated earlier in words, c= [(volume quantum)^1/3]/time quantum. Thus c, the speed of light in PMR, is a constant that is specified in order to constrain the demands placed upon the virtual reality rendering engine (VRRE) to something that is easily supportable by the available computational resources within the larger consciousness system. Changing the size of a VRt increment (a larger or smaller amount of CRCt) matters only to those in the computer room. The people in the VR measure time by the number of cycles that have passed -- each completed cycle is one unit of their time and every unit appears to be the exact same -- one cycle equal one unit, or one increment, of VRt -- define that unit as a second or a nano-nano second or whatever.
Time in the VR is produced by counting cycles. The length of those cycles as measured in the computer room has nothing to do with time in the VR. The amount of CRCt that passes during one increment of VRt is important only to those in the computer room (how much CRCt do they need to accomplish what is required of them between VR cycles).
The Speed of Evolution
Claudio: Let me see if I understood then. No matter what increments they use or constants they use it won't affect the speed of evolution of a VR (average entropy reduction)?
Tom: That's correct. The speed of evolution, from the perspective of the PMR IUOCs, is independent of what happens in the computer room. It is entirely dependent on the quality of their intent driven choices.
Claudio: Do the ones in the computer room have any technological trick to use to speed up the evolution besides being creative in the development of the rule-sets?
Tom: Yes, they interface with each IUOC that is ready to learn by:
- 1) generating a custom lesson plan,
- 2) providing experience in multiple reality frames that offers optimal learning opportunity (e.g., dreaming),
- 3) selectively demonstrating the larger reality in order to open eyes and minds (often something paranormal),
- 4) giving nudges through intuition, and
- 5) by administering tests that help them tweak lesson plans to keep them optimized.
Claudio: Also. Can I send my resume to work in that computer room? I have programming experience but I am willing to start by just sweeping the floors and taking the garbage out :) They already have your resume. You have been accepted and are presently enrolled in their training course. See answer two above. :-)
To return to the Link page for all of the MBT Model, click here.