Why does Quantum Mechanics calculate reality as if all the data representing it is local to shared reality, but nonlocal to the individual,
when the data describing visible reality (and meaning) is clearly local to us?
Or; how the terms of the General Theory of Relativity and Quantum mechanics put its knickers in a Twistor to avoid consciousness.
By Stefaan Vossen 08/11/2024
Ideally, the mathematics claiming to describe reality should reflect reality accurately.
The current structure of the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics however, calculates the data describing it as nonlocal relative to the observer, yet it is self-evident that this is not our only relationship with the data describing our relationship with reality.
The Dot Theory demonstrates that quantum mechanics works smoothly across the Standard Model, when we modify the terms describing the Spinor’s mathematical structure, and enable the calculation of the data describing reality as being local to us. At least, on condition that calculation is made to predict a trajectory approximating a previously made observation.
On occasions where, even if conditional, self-evident truths like this appear to contradict the terms of the mathematical description used to describe reality, a prompt re-examination of the mathematical terms is required.
This paper is a pure logic argument inviting physicist and mathematicians to reconsider the use of the current defining terms and geo-mathematical structure of the Spinor as used in Quantum Mechanics, on the basis that they self-evidently do not consistently reflect the conscious, in vivo, terms of the full spectrum of the relationship between the observer and the data describing observed reality.
In Quantum Mechanics, the set-definitional terms and functional structure of Spinor mathematics calculates the observational data consistently as if it were nonlocal. This, in line with the consideration that the data used to describe reality is nonlocal.
If we look at the relationship between observer and reality in vivo however, cursory analysis swiftly reveals at least some data to be local, as evidenced by the success of the derivative equations used in weather and financial data forecasting methods. Further evaluation demonstrates this predictive phenomenon to also be conditional and only available wherever historical data is available for more-accurate trajectory forecasting (prediction with real-world prior) on most-like events, providing data lakes of progressive-looking data*.
Our experience and observation of reality therefore is in its material part, quantum. This is self-evident from our success with classical, cosmological, weather and financial predictions, yet the mathematics used in Quantum Mechanics does not appear able to consistently treat all portions of the data spectrum representing reality into its equations. Where it treats data that is local to the observer as nonlocal relative to the observer overall, it catastrophically fails to compute it.
This from the position of the Dot theory, is because the mathematical terms only accurately compute those terms that are nonlocal. Resultingly, Quantum Mechanics, conceptually and in its current mathematical structure, fails to absorb the fact that to our subjective, conscious experience, the real world is data. A world where our observations and measurements are, in fact, to be computed as, relatively speaking, metadata.
And therein lies the asymmetrical superimposition to the issue with the Theory of General Relativity where the exact opposite terminological error could be adjusted from by reintroducing Einstein’s gravitational lensing constant but making it relative to enhancing E to fE or E¯>
.
It is the Dot Theory’s mathematical proposition that Quantum Mechanics becomes more efficient when the mathematics used reflect reality as data and the data describing our conscious experience of reality as metadata local to us. It does this by presenting a convincing argument between two self-evident yet mathematically uncomfortable observations, only the mathematics of which can be adjusted:
It is self-evident that the geometry and set definition of the Spinor as currently defined in Quantum Mechanics does not treat the data describing our conscious individual experience of reality as local metadata when it clearly should.
It is also self-evident that if the Spinor’s structure were to be modified to reflect the calculation of reality as if reality were nonlocal and the data describing observed reality were considered local, that the computation on progressive-looking data* would be quantum across the Standard Model.
Therefore, if Quantum Mechanics is showing itself as coherent across the Standard Model when the necessary set definitional terms and structure of the Spinor are changed to calculate the data describing reality as being local and reality as data (even if only when calculating progressive-looking data), then the mathematical terms of Spinors are, logically, to be changed to reflect this.
The currently held assumption in QM is that it calculates and should calculate the data describing reality as nonlocal. This, the Dot Theory positions, is in essence the error in the chosen mathematical expression of the function of E relative to the observer in the General Theory of Relativity.
For QM to be able to become continuous with the Standard Model, the GTR must reciprocally raise its equation and tensor relation by one function to E¯>=m⊙c3 (with⊙ = the total sum of observational biases/constants (gravitational constant or cumulative lensing/c).
If QM becomes continuous with the Standard Model by making those defining corrections, the defining corrections suggested must logically be reflected accordingly.
However, neither the terms of our physics nor its mathematics currently do this.
The psychological and cultural challenge inherent to the treatment of reality as being hyperdata (if reality were considered as data, the data describing reality would, relatively speaking to our current conscious relationship to reality and lived experience, be described as metadata) may conceptually be significant, but that does not make it incorrect.
The computation of reality being obviously quantum when considered nonlocal and when its data considered as local, is the only evidence required to at least intellectually force the review of and change to Spinor mathematics needed to make Quantum Mechanics work across the Standard Model and for our mathematical relationship to the function of E to be elevated in the GTR.
Making this change in the structure of Spinor mathematics in Quantum Mechanics for predictive purposes, is technically conditional on that the computational perspective taken on the data must be retrospectively prospective, i.e. it must have been shown to have been true under similar circumstances in the past.
This (that the data used to predict using QM is data describing something like it that has been true like it before, i.e. it cannot make “fantastical” predictions), as far as understood by the author, is the only condition imposed by the mathematical correction suggested to the current mathematics by the Dot theory and to the world of physics by this shift in mathematical perspective.
In normo-verbal terms: The Dot theory does not exclude the possibility that there are other realities to be considered but states that reality is quantum, if its observations are treated as nonlocal and its perspective is progressive.
*Progressive-looking data is data that is selected based on it having a specific relationship between the data itself and the computational perspective taken on the data. It consists of search-specified cluster-pattern recognition-based data that can be referenced with statistical confidence to improve trajectory accuracy to a specifically defined target when compared to previous attempts for similarly defined targets.
Reality is the matter you can perceive
Let it be
Not that you can do any different really
But if you try not to
it will be something less.