Is it pointless attempting to conceive the notion of higher dimensions?

[Meltingpot]

Um... what do you put in them?

If you have a space with a countable infinity of dimensions, is the number of integral-coordinate points in the space countable?

Yes it is, the proof's quite clever too though I can't recall it at the moment (I did three years' pure maths at uni, ended up with a 3rd).

Correction; I was thinking of something else. My guess is (assuming it made sense to posit a space with an infinite number of dimensions), that the points would map onto the real line and so (*if Cantor's diagonalisation proof holds water) then no, it would be uncountable.

* I qualify that statement because at university I had a tutor who was one of the very few non-Cantorists around and, not being able to reproduce his argument accurately, I'm agnostic in the issue.

 

[gurrier]

I've only read page one and this one (cake has appeared). But, I reckon the problem is a confusion of the different ideas of "conceive" and "visualise". People can conceive of multi-dimensional spaces - any old data structure in their head does the job and some people can manipulate them adeptly in n-dimensions. Visualising assumes a mapping to 4 dimensional space - meaning that you're always going to have to make the extra dimensions express themselves as combinations of the existing 4 dimensions. That's a hard mental model to hold.

The key to working in >4 dimensions is not trying to visualise. Abstract data structures are the way to go.

 

[merlin wood]

I've only read page one and this one (cake has appeared). But, I reckon the problem is a confusion of the different ideas of "conceive" and "visualise". People can conceive of multi-dimensional spaces - any old data structure in their head does the job and some people can manipulate them adeptly in n-dimensions. Visualising assumes a mapping to 4 dimensional space - meaning that you're always going to have to make the extra dimensions express themselves as combinations of the existing 4 dimensions. That's a hard mental model to hold.

The key to working in >4 dimensions is not trying to visualise. Abstract data structures are the way to go.

Abstract data structures may be the way to go for string theorists. But then this lot have yet to provide any experimental evidence whatsoever that their tiny curled up or compacted extra dimensions exist at all other than in their mathematics. While their arguments for superstring theory are dependent on a particular interpretation of quantum mechanics that you can give reasons to disagree with.

So is there really a problem with space and time at the ultra-minute and so utterly unobservable Planck level as the Uncertainty Principle (HUP) implies? Or is this principle just an unavoidable and systematic limitation in measuring the behaviour of quantum objects?

And so you can produce a detailed and mathematically worked out interpretation like Bohmian mechanics where HUP is just this measurement limitation, while the quantum ojects themselves do their own thing by producing their own non-classical behaviour as particles in motion and before they can be detected and measured.

Hence the quantum theory of the standard model, which is not based on Bohmian mechanics but on what is basically a mathematical device for calculating the directly measurable results of further quantum experiments from previous directly measurable results, may be great for cooking up further mathematical 'theories' of superstrings and membranes but you can ask need the calculations describe anything in the real world at all? And calculations, what's more, that lead to mathematical equations with literally myriads of different solutions depending on how the extra-dimensions are curled up?

Whereas Bohms less complex calculations, which are consistent with a large range of experimental results, actually imply just an invisible non-local cause, with no membranes or strings attached , acting in addition to the forces and from additional large scale dimensions of space. And, what's more, you don't need to develop a complex theory of quantum gravity like string theory, to reasonably think that such a large scale extra-dimensional cause could exist. While I've found that such a cause can be quite simply represented in three dimensional diagrams.

 

[dirtyfruit]

do some ket

1. x (
2. y
3. z
.
.
BIG LINE OF K
.
.
4. t
5. k

 

[Mation]

Music is the result of vibrations "bouncing around" in the special geometry of the hidden spacial dimensions.

Ah that explains it then.

<makes circling motion with index finger pointing towards temple>

I have nothing sensible to add to this thread but would like to share that it was fun trying to have this conversation with EE a year or two ago after I'd had a great big line of k.

 

[kyser_soze]

and other arts is itself a product of pure consciousness which is itself extra-dimensional

Uh-huh - would this be the same dimension as Dwyer's (and Plato's) logos perchance? He spent about 200 posts trying to argue that consciousness isn't just the work of chemicals in the brain and body, but that it exists 'somewhere else', that it has 'form'...latterly neuroscience is showing us that not only is consciousness a physical effect, it may simlpy be nothing more than a piece of evolutionary window dressing that has enabled homo sapiens as a species to survive, and that most human behaviour is not he result of conscious deliberation, but autonomic sub- or unconscious reactions.

 

[laptop]

Abstract data structures may be the way to go for string theorists.

That's your hobby-horse. My experience of practical use of many-dimensional structures started with splitting up bundles of magazines to minimise postage

... blah...

Whereas Bohms less complex calculations, which are consistent with a large range of experimental results, actually imply just an invisible non-local cause, with no membranes or strings attached , acting in addition to the forces and from additional large scale dimensions of space. And, what's more, you don't need to develop a complex theory of quantum gravity like string theory, to reasonably think that such a large scale extra-dimensional cause could exist. While I've found that such a cause can be quite simply represented in three dimensional diagrams.

I've found two people who claim to have made Bohmian mechanics say anything at all about gravity. One works in a department of the history and philosophy of science and looks like, er, an "enthusiast". One is currently listed as an "independent researcher".

Merlin Woods' problem remains that he's started from a conviction that there's a universal causal thingy, then looked for anything at all that sort of alliterates with it and claimed it as "evidence"...





...and then gone on to abusing anyone who points this out.

 

[merlin wood]

That's your hobby-horse. My experience of practical use of many-dimensional structures started with splitting up bundles of magazines to minimise postage



I've found two people who claim to have made Bohmian mechanics say anything at all about gravity. One works in a department of the history and philosophy of science and looks like, er, an "enthusiast". One is currently listed as an "independent researcher".

Merlin Woods' problem remains that he's started from a conviction that there's a universal causal thingy, then looked for anything at all that sort of alliterates with it and claimed it as "evidence"...





...and then gone on to abusing anyone who points this out.

This and your previous meassages on this thread only prove that you have either not fully read and understood the paper at http://fornnewageofreason.blogspirit.com, laptop, or you're exploiting the fact that others have not fully read and understood it to undermine my argument or, I think I can safely say, both of these are true.

Hence the abuse, I'm afraid.

While, in fact, my blog argument is a reasonable one and, although I have had a long standing argument with self confessed professor of physics on another science forum concerning my hypothesis, he has yet to provide any sufficiently detailed scientific argument against it, which he and any of dozens of physicists I have given this link to could easily have done by clicking on the blog's comments tab.

I think physicists won't make any comments either because they can't be bothered to read the 12,000 word paper through carefully or they don't dare to comment on it since they don't want to draw attention to it just because it is a valid scientific argument that could threaten their livelihood.

But never mind, my intention is to self-publsh, if necessary, a work on paper that will be a more extended argument and which the scientific establishment will find rather more difficult to ignore.

 

[laptop]

This and your previous meassages on this thread only prove that you have either not fully read and understood the paper at http://fornnewageofreason.blogspirit.com, laptop, or you're exploiting the fact that others have not fully read and understood it to undermine my argument or, I'd say most likely, both of these are true.

Hence the abuse, I'm afraid.

URL doesn't exist.

Your problem is that it is as a result of reading your outpourings that I know that you have started from a conviction that there's a universal causal thingy, then looked for anything at all that sort of alliterates with it and claimed it as "evidence".

I get paid to analyse people's "theories" and see which merit further consideration. Yours, I did for free.

It is the mark of the fruitloop, in my professional experience, to conclude, when someone has read their outpourings and rejected them, they must have "not understood" - and then to become abusive.

Fruitloops have revealed truth. Non-fruitloops participate in a community of discourse.

 

[Crispy]

working link if you want it:
http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com/

 

[merlin wood]

working link if you want it:
http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com/

Well. top hole crispy, awefully decent of you, old thing! Flippin' punctuation at the end of URL's can be a bit of a nuisance, dontcha know?

 

[kyser_soze]

I think physicists won't make any comments either because they can't be bothered to read the 12,000 word paper through carefully or they don't dare to comment on it since they don't want to draw attention to it just because it is a valid scientific argument that could threaten their livelihood.

ALL the physicists in the WORLD can't be bothered to read 1 12,000 word hypothesis? That's a pretty bald claim...perhaps many have read it and discarded it? Or perhaps it's because it's so badly written, e.g.:

Although there is just one type of hidden variables approach to the quantum findings where a wide range of experimental results are accounted for in a determinate causal interpretation, and which includes a detailed description of quantum objects in motion that are both waves and particles with defined trajectories. [/qutoe]

That's bad English - where the 2nd article in this? It starts of with 'Altho there is only this...' - in good written English I would expect a 'but' or 'also' or 'atho this is the case, this is also the case'.

It get's worse from there - lots of the language is needlessly verbose, it lacks clarity and definition...get someone to edit it would be my advice.

 

[Crispy]

It's seriously painful reading, that's for sure.

 

[merlin wood]

But it's not really the style anyway, it's the content.

So this physics professor geezer I had the long argument with actually said nothing about the style at all.

He just kept insisting in various ways that my blog hypothesis was wrong without giving adequate reasons why, but rather just picking on parts on the argument and never the whole, like so many other forum posters i've encountered on the internet.

I've never had the luxury of having anyone to edit my work. But I'm pretty good at self editing anyway when I've left what I've written for long enough, and read a bit more about existing quantum theory, astronomy and cosmology especially.

And I've recently started on a quite new way of introducing the argument, which i think looks quite promising, so there.

 

[Crispy]

But listen - I may be sceptical of your theory. But tbh it's hard to understand exactly what your theory is because of the convoluted language. It leads the reader in many directions at once, and when you finally reach the end of a sentence, it's hard to remember how it started!

More clarity = more understanding = more accurate response.

 

[gurrier]

Abstract data structures may be the way to go for string theorists. But then this lot have yet to provide any experimental evidence whatsoever that their tiny curled up or compacted extra dimensions exist at all other than in their mathematics. While their arguments for superstring theory are dependent on a particular interpretation of quantum mechanics that you can give reasons to disagree with.

So is there really a problem with space and time at the ultra-minute and so utterly unobservable Planck level as the Uncertainty Principle (HUP) implies? Or is this principle just an unavoidable and systematic limitation in measuring the behaviour of quantum objects?

And so you can produce a detailed and mathematically worked out interpretation like Bohmian mechanics where HUP is just this measurement limitation, while the quantum ojects themselves do their own thing by producing their own non-classical behaviour as particles in motion and before they can be detected and measured.

Hence the quantum theory of the standard model, which is not based on Bohmian mechanics but on what is basically a mathematical device for calculating the directly measurable results of further quantum experiments from previous directly measurable results, may be great for cooking up further mathematical 'theories' of superstrings and membranes but you can ask need the calculations describe anything in the real world at all? And calculations, what's more, that lead to mathematical equations with literally myriads of different solutions depending on how the extra-dimensions are curled up?

Whereas Bohms less complex calculations, which are consistent with a large range of experimental results, actually imply just an invisible non-local cause, with no membranes or strings attached , acting in addition to the forces and from additional large scale dimensions of space. And, what's more, you don't need to develop a complex theory of quantum gravity like string theory, to reasonably think that such a large scale extra-dimensional cause could exist. While I've found that such a cause can be quite simply represented in three dimensional diagrams.

It strikes me as interesting that your post has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the post that you were replying to (by me). I was refering to the general problem of working in >4 dimensions.

It doesn't inspire me with confidence in your ability to eliminate quantum uncertainty with a drawing.

 

[gurrier]

Hence the quantum theory of the standard model, which is not based on Bohmian mechanics but on what is basically a mathematical device for calculating the directly measurable results of further quantum experiments from previous directly measurable results, may be great for cooking up further mathematical 'theories' of superstrings and membranes but you can ask need the calculations describe anything in the real world at all? And calculations, what's more, that lead to mathematical equations with literally myriads of different solutions depending on how the extra-dimensions are curled up?

Aren't you eliding the standard quantum model and string theory here? I've wrestled with lots of quantum equations and have never encountered any extra physical dimensions, curled up or not.

 

[merlin wood]

It strikes me as interesting that your post has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the post that you were replying to (by me). I was refering to the general problem of working in >4 dimensions.

It doesn't inspire me with confidence in your ability to eliminate quantum uncertainty with a drawing.

But I'm talking about what could, as a matter of natural fact, be in extra spatial dimensions to the 4 of spacetime in the universe experienced and not of some mathematical construct of the notion of such dimensions.

And the really big trouble with with string theory is that it just is such a construct of mathematical arguments that happen to fit it with some of the experimental evidence. Or can be made to do so, given that this (alledged) theory produces mathematical equations that have literally myriads of solutions.

And, what's more, in my blog argument I have definitely not eliminated quantum uncertainty merely with a drawing. But on the contrary, I have argued against the Copenhagen type interpretation of the uncertainty principle by pointing out that there is already an alternative and systematically argued nonlocal "hidden variables" interpretation.

While this essentially causal account of quantum behaviour (called variously Bohmian mechanics(BM) or the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation) fundamentally contradicts the Copenhagen or any other indeterminate account of what occurs beyond the results of experiments.

So, in particular, according to BM there are no mysterious "superposition of states" or "collapse of the wave function". Quantum objects are continuously both waves and particles when in motion and the uncertainty of measurement arises as a result of this unobservable behaviour as these objects respond to the experimental set up.

Hence it's not that quantum objects themselves that are in some indeterminate state of being neither wave nor particle or possessing no definite position or momentum when unmeasured but that there is an inherent and universal uncertainty just in any measurement process itself.

And BM has been developed so that it is consistent with a wide range of experimental results

While from The Bohmian account you can argue for a distinct but invisible cause that would act in addition to the forces. And since this cause acts nonlocally, its effects would not vary at any distance as the cause acts upon object in producing the quantum wave and between objects in producing quantum entanglement. And thus such a cause could not be descibed as surrounding objects in 3D space or 4D spacetime.

Then diagrammatically represent how this nonlocally acting cause could act from 4th etc spatial dimensions in three dimensional diagrams. And I argue you then really do have a working quantum hypothesis that can be supported by considering a wide range of large scale and observable natural phenomena where such a cause could also be thought to act.

 

[kyser_soze]

Or can be made to do so, given that this (alledged) theory produces mathematical equations that have literally myriads of solutions.

I've always thought that was a bonus with ST - different initial conditions create different universes...possibly much like the initial BB...

 

[merlin wood]

I've always thought that was a bonus with ST - different initial conditions create different universes...possibly much like the initial BB...

String theorists and their suppporters strive hard to make out that it's a bonus.

But then you can expect of any genuine scientific theory that it should explain in enough detail how observable things are the way that they are.

Whereas any kind of notion that the observable world is the way that it is because there are any number of other unobservable universes where things would be different - isn't a scientific explanation, it's just a metaphysical cop out.

And just as much as - given all our present scientific knowledge - the proposal that the Biblical or any other religious Creation story is true is a metaphysical cop out.

Whereas I suggest there is a reasonable scientific argument for insisting that - as long as it just recognises the action of the known forces as the only causes that can be assumed to act universally - the present Standard Model of quantum and particle theory has no adequate scientific explanation of how matter in any form can exist or persist at all.

Or how matter can be in all its various and particular forms as the elements and compounds of matter and species of living organisms.

And I also suggest that the only possibility of finding a scientific explanation for the existence, persistence and natural organisation of matter is, first of all, to admit that, in particular, quantum waves and entanglement could have a distinct and universally acting cause that is quite unlike any of the known forces.

Then construct a well reasoned and working hypothesis that describes or represents enough details of this further cause from its quantum effects. And so that the large scale observable natural evidence of where such a cause can also be thought to act clearly supports the initial quantum hypothesis.

And then, I say, you have an account that could be called a scientific theory of everything and where there is just no need to postulate any invisible worlds.

And, what's more, I predict that if you develop this theory far enough - and just by using strictly scientific methods - then there will be no need to believe in any ancient Creation myth. Because you wind up with a Cosmos that really does have enough significance from a human point of view.

 

[kyser_soze]

Now you see, those last 5 paragraphs actually made grammatical sense - if you can re-write the rest of that website into relatively plain English like that you might find it easier to get people listening.

Altho your proposal that there is a 'universally acting cause that is quite unlike any of the known forces' is still metaphysics - while string theorists invoke multiple dimensions, you're invoking an as-yet undiscovered universal cause (which a bright theist would turn round and say 'Well, that'd be God wouldn't it?') which unifies everything.

So your explanation is no better or worse than any other - it still revolves around something that is an undiscovered or unprovable motivating agent.

FWIW I think ST is the closest we've come to a GUT within our current boundaries of knowledge, but there's still a looong way to go.

 

[merlin wood]

Altho your proposal that there is a 'universally acting cause that is quite unlike any of the known forces' is still metaphysics - while string theorists invoke multiple dimensions, you're invoking an as-yet undiscovered universal cause (which a bright theist would turn round and say 'Well, that'd be God wouldn't it?') which unifies everything.

So your explanation is no better or worse than any other - it still revolves around something that is an undiscovered or unprovable motivating agent.

Look, this just is not so is it?

So I'm proposing that, only by examining together enough ordinary, available and consistantly confirmed natural evidence of where it acts, details can be sufficiently justified and described of a natural cause from its effects. And so that only by these it can be definitely shown both that and how this cause acts in the world.

So that, especially, this would be like the 17th century discovery of gravity: where only by examining together enough observable and available natural evidence of where it acts and also by devising the appropriate means to represent its action, could it be definitely shown both that and how an invisible cause acts that was called gravity. Something only thus being shown to be universally be and act in the world where before it could be thought that there was nothing at all.

But because this further invisible cause acts in a quite different way to any of the forces so you need quite different methods of describing and representing its action.

Also just as, prior to Newton's discovery of gravity (and like many other discoveries in the natural sciences) no-one could tell before a detailed enough account was given of this cause that its discovery could possibly be made and clearly described at all.

FWIW I think ST is the closest we've come to a GUT within our current boundaries of knowledge, but there's still a looong way to go.

But then of string theory, for one thing, it can be asked what other scientific theory has been developed in so much detail and over so many years before its validity has be clearly tested by any experiment or direct observation?

 

[Crispy]

Thing is, your theory has no predicitive power - that's what makes it not a scientific theory. Your universal cause may as well be God pushing the atoms around with his many fingers, because it would make no difference to the observed facts.

 

[merlin wood]

Thing is, your theory has no predicitive power - that's what makes it not a scientific theory. Your universal cause may as well be God pushing the atoms around with his many fingers, because it would make no difference to the observed facts.

But then that's just another problem with string theory: that it makes no unique and clearly testable predictions. And, what's more this is after 30 years of its development by the literally thousands of theoretical physicists.

And so, anyway, how do you know that a theory of universal and npnlocally acting cause could not make definite predictions if developed further? And remember, I'm only calling my account a hypothesis.

But I do give quite clear, specific and detailed indications of how this account could be supported by both observable astronomical evidence and the most widely accepted Big Bang cosmological theory(although without [faster than light] cosmic inflation).

 

[Crispy]

Exactly why I don't have much time for string theory either.

 

[kyser_soze]

So that, especially, this would be like the 17th century discovery of gravity: where only by examining together enough observable and available natural evidence of where it acts and also by devising the appropriate means to represent its action, could it be definitely shown both that and how an invisible cause acts that was called gravity. Something only thus being shown to be universally be and act in the world where before it could be thought that there was nothing at all.

This is waffle. The line after it makes complete sense, but this is filler, and poorly written too:

'shown to be universally be '

that's nonsense

The difference between your unknown universal force and gravity is in observation - I can see that gravity has a clearm, observable effect on everything on this planet; I can make no such observation of this force, since I can't see how it affects things. So we're back to it being God or a teey quantum string vibrating.

But then of string theory, for one thing, it can be asked what other scientific theory has been developed in so much detail and over so many years before its validity has be clearly tested by any experiment or direct observation?

Large chunks of atomic physics to start with. The Bose-Einstein Condensate for example, theorised about in the 20s, not actually experimentally verified (despite lots of attempts) until 1995 - about 70 years.

Another example - plate tectonics. First suggested as a theory in the C19th, not experimentally verified until about 15/20 years ago.

 

[merlin wood]

This is waffle. The line after it makes complete sense, but this is filler, and poorly written too:

'shown to be universally be '

that's nonsense.

Look, arseoles to you, kyser_soze. If you can't make sense of it then I say its you that doesn't make sense, as well as laptop, and who, it can be both assumed and reasonably argued, have both been educated in quantum physics in a way that is most fundamentally flawed or, at least, crucially limited.

The difference between your unknown universal force and gravity is in observation - I can see that gravity has a clear, observable effect on everything on this planet; I can make no such observation of this force, since I can't see how it affects things. So we're back to it being God or a teey quantum string vibrating.

And obviously you not making sense of what I'm saying and quite probablyoubecause you don't to, and also you haven't bothered to read my blog with enough care, at least..

But then I keep saying here that the action of of this further cause would not be like that of any the of the forces and to the extent that it is just not accurate to call ths cause a force at all.

So if you consider quantum entanglement, in particular, you can conclude that if this effect has any cause at all then it would not act with any measurable strength. And this is because the entanglement effect is just a measured correlation between particular forms of behaviour of quantum objects such as the spin of electrons or the polarization of photons and this bejhaviour is such that it just cannot be described of any larger scale objects and where their motion can be directly observed.

But even so, it can be insisted that that there needs to be some cause that acts so as to maintain these correlations of spin up to spin down or whatever of entangled quantum objects or otherwise this behaviour just couldn't be made sense of at all.

And then from the consideration of just this form-of-quantum-behaviour maintaining property of a cause of quantum entanglement it can be reasonably asked: Well for any atom or molecule to exist at all isn't it reasonable to think that it is the wave property of the electron that maintains the overall form any atom or molecule and so can be regardrd as a real and distinct cause that needs to act universally in addition to the forces to explain how matter exists and persists as atoms and molecules?

And so that, given just the grossly powerful action of the em, charge or electrostatic force - particularly as it attracts between electrons and nuclei and repels between electrons just as it has been measured and described as it surrounds the atomic nucleus - the existence and persistence of the smallest parts of any element or compound as atoms and molecules simply can't make sense?

Thus one can reason that there really has to be a cause that acts in addition to all the forces to make enough sense of the existence and persistence and subatomic organisation of matter. This being so however the orbital of the electron is described and even though the action and effects of this further cause would need be unlike those of any of the forces as it universally produces quantum waves and entanglement .

And so isn't it just plain daft to suppose that the world that includes atoms, molecules and all life on earth could exist while all this matter consists just of its smallest parts and the forces that surround such subatomic components of matter?

Therefore I most avowedly insist that quantum wave, spin and entanglement has been awaiting a well reasoned and sufficiently justified cause and effect explanation for far too long.

And also that the means that I have outlined here and proposed in more detail in my blog is the only way of clearly settling the issue of the existence and persistence of matter in general as atoms, molecules and living organisms. And just as, only by examining together enough evidence of its different kinds of effect, Newton's discovery was the only way of settling the issue concerning the orbital mation of celestial bodies.

Hence the discoveries of Planck's quanta, Einstein's photoelectric effect, Rutherford's atom, Heisenberg's, Schrodinger's, Dirac's and David Bohm's quantum mechanics, as well as Pauli's exclusion principle really could be rearded as being, in their time, the most significant discoveries of all time in physics

But it's just that the interpretation of all these discoveries, plus the confinement of their significance to matter and radiant energy on the scale of atoms, molecules, their subatomic components and photons, which has prevented the true and truly universal significance of the quantum revolution from being clearly revealed.

 

[laptop]

Because you wind up with a Cosmos that really does have enough significance from a human point of view.

You see, the problem with expressing your "theory" in plain English - or plain mathematics if you could rise to that - is that it exposes it for what it is.

Wishful thinking.

"Enough significance" by what standard, then?

 

[merlin wood]

You see, the problem with expressing your "theory" in plain English - or plain mathematics if you could rise to that - is that it exposes it for what it is.

Wishful thinking.

So what are string theorists if not a very large load of wishful thinkers who avowedly wish that, one day, their theoretical scheme will come up trumps with an experimentally testable theory of everything?

And in this direction where has all their tortuous mathematics got any of the thousands of theoretical physicists who've been working on any of the fourteen different types of quantum gravity theory - including string theory - that are listed in Wikipedia?

Then if you consider the present state of string theory, in particular, after its 30 odd years of development you could well ask where could all their mathematics get them?

Nor, of course, has there never been a successful scientific theory that has just been expressed mathematically. So even string theory has involved reasoning from the available evidence.

But its just that you can ask is this really valid reasoning?

So for example, you can ask, in particular, does the Uncertainty Principle really have the implications for spacetime on the Planck Scale that string and other quantum gravity theorists claim it has? And no experiment can ever be performed to test whether this is really so on such a minute scale.

For it can be asked why shouldn't the Unertainty Principle just be a universal limitation in measurement from any experimental arrangement that can be related to Planck's constant just because you dealing with the measurement of quantum behaviour? And thus the Principle just need not apply on the Planck scale at all.

And then also, and most fundamentally, you can ask, is the quantum theory of the standard model really an adequate account of the evidence found of matter and radiant energy on the smallest scale if nobody understands quantum mechanics? And this is the reason that a theory of quantum gravity can't be developeD?

And so it can be thought a crucial and initial problem in developing any theory that is concerned with explaining both the small scale and large scale behaviour of matter and enegy is that no physicist has ever sufficiently explained how quantum wave, spin and entanglment occurs. That is, not like, say, the effects of gravity have been explained, which is by suffiently justifying and describing details of a cause from its effects upon objects in motion.

Although there is just one kind of systematically and mathematically argued interpretation of quantum physics that shows, to some considerable - although you could still say pretty limited - degree, how such a nonlocal causal theory of quantum objects in motion could make sense.

And I suggest that the majority of physicists disparage this Bohmian account in part because of the worry that it could pose a real threat to standard model theorists, although most of all, of course, just because of the huge and 55 year old collective pressure of the standard model majority not to think about a non-local causal quantum theory seriously and even if it does make more scientific sense than superpositions of states or multiple worlds.

"Enough significance" by what standard, then?

By human standards, of course.

 

[kyser_soze]

Look, arseoles to you, kyser_soze. If you can't make sense of it then I say its you that doesn't make sense,

My issues are with your appalling grammar, not necessarily your theory, which TBH is no more or less convincing to me as a layman than anything else at the far end of things - DM and DE for example, altho I'm slowly warming to then as ideas, still strike me as a return to the aether of yore; much of the interpretive, more metapysical work about 'what is reality' does too. However, that doesn't alter the fact that:

1. You need someone to edit your stuff - seriously, get someone with technical knowledge of what you're talking about and get it edited.

2. Have you designed any experiments to test any of this stuff? Since you make such a deal out of string theory having no experimental basis, what about this?

3. This line:

Therefore I most avowedly insist that quantum wave, spin and entanglement has been awaiting a well reasoned and sufficiently justified cause and effect explanation for far too long.

That sounds a little like 'God does not play dice' to me - you've already decided that there must be an explanation, and that it must be a single, universal causal explanation. AFAIR that's NOT how science works.