Lecture on GR (contd.)

0:00 If there's electromagnetic forces and meson forces, other kinds of big scale forces, they're all in there. Here are some of the pure electromagnetic fields, for example. You have to, for example, let's say, the only important word in that system is gravitation, you know, mathematical gravitation, and you have to incorporate it into the left side, in one way. But, to be that, uh, isn't your hypothesis that the right side can be a unified field theory as well as the left side? Well, that's a good question, because it has to do with the interpretation I've been giving to Einstein's equations in the first place. The way it's been written is looked at as given the right side, then you determine the left side.

2:30 But I think we should interpret it as an identity set of identities. Given the right side, you can determine the left side, but also given the left side, you can determine the right side. Because these variables on the right side are a way of talking about the variables on the left, and vice versa. I mean, that was the philosophy of Einstein's theory. The mathematical forms of the system correspond to a certain geomagical field. It's not that it gives rise to it. It's not that the sun warps the space that's around it. That's what everybody says it's like. It doesn't. It's not that matter is there and then the space is a rubber sheet that goes like this. That's not the situation. The situation is that the warp space corresponds to the nature of the matter and the language of the space and time that it describes. The matter, of course, belongs to a certain geometrical field. That's going from left to right. In other words, if you don't know this, but you know this, then you should be able to determine that. So again, that implies that the solutions of r-mean-literal-zero are not meaningful. If there's zero on the right, which is really zero, that means that there is no matter field. And that, therefore, there's no geology to talk about. You know, ideals in this world just have a vacuum everywhere. That's not reality. You can't talk about, like in the Newtonian theory, you can talk about the matter in the star, and then there's a factor outside the star, right, then you have a boundary between them, and you match the solutions across the boundary, but there's no boundary here, there's no inside and outside, so if you have matter that corresponds to geometry, then you know the matter in terms of its field, the momentum field, given the terminus and principle of how you would have a solution. Or, you know, here instead of the other, you find out what is the matter to his rise to that here. Each one's a way to talk about the other, because this is a set of identities, it's not ifs, thens, it's ifs and only ifs, that's how I see it. So, ifs and only ifs. I say that if there's these matters, like say here, then there's, I don't know if you should use the term, there's a pattern everywhere.

5:00 The matter, he don't associate it with a pen. It's like a pitfall with the electric field. The pitfall disappears at the edge. But the field doesn't disappear. It's an infinity. It's one of our squared fields, the electric field. That's the idea. The electric field, with the influence of that pitfall and other charges, doesn't really go to zero anywhere except at infinity. There wasn't a charge in the pitfall. There was no charge in the pitfall. No, I'm just talking about a charged pitfall. But matter generally is a field associated with it. Not just electric or whatever, but if there's no field in the field here, if there's no field, then there's nothing. There's nothing to talk about. Because those are the variables that underlie the matter. If you talk about matter, what you mean is a certain set of basic fields. The field of the solution to the law of nature, which are field equations, is phenomenological. It's like just things or planets and stuff. But that's a phenomenological degree based on an underlying fundamental. So the pen is there as far as the phenomenological description of it, but the field associated with it, if you want to talk about how that pen couples to the earth and to your fingers and so on, then that field is exactly where the pen is, just like the electric field is peaked where the pen is, just like the electric field is peaked where the pen is, just like the electric field is peaked where the pen is. That's what's weird about the field theory. It doesn't match your perception of it, but it's separate. There's different places that they cut off. I mean, you're there, and on the edge of your body, there's no more you. That's a thing description, but that's only because your brain has certain instruments that see things that way.

7:30 It doesn't mean that's the fundamental physics. Yeah, the world is really subtle. I think it's arrogant, I've said this before, I think it's arrogant for human beings to think that the way their instruments that they have in their brain tell them about the world is the way the world is fundamentally. Why should that be? They're only limited instruments, they're only limited things. Why should that tell you all the truth about the universe? Right? Why should that be? I've told them this, I don't know why. Yeah, if you say, in fact, I just felt something in that book that you gave me. Here, I wrote it down. A man by the name of Joe was a master at Balliol College at the Oxford University and he said, I guess in the last century, he said, I am the master at Balliol College. What I know not is not knowledge. A lot of people think that. They don't know that it's, yeah. Just a few more examples of these, two more examples of an energy momentum tensor. Because of my own interest in applying general relativity and particle domain. The field equation here, as we've discussed before, is the Klein-Gordon equation. It's a constant that runs here in the curved space. That is a constant wavelength. That's the Lagrangian that, through the Lagrangian equation, is the Klein-Gordon equation. Yes, the Klein-Gordon equation. That comes from this Lagrangian. And now I can apply this to, again, there's no dependence here on derivative coupling, so the entire term that gives right to T is this term.

10:00 So with that, with that Lagrangian, you find that T, if I rewrite this, gives I DL, I, and that's the same as the first term, and the minus on that has I squared, so you take the derivative with respect to G, so this is what G is. So when we finally are through, you can check this also, the expression I have for t is that this is mu i alpha zeta i into 2 i squared, so that's the right side, the left side is r, and then it's going to have u r, here's a good Ph.D. thesis, it's the finance assumption, but it's great. So the entire ion is a finite field, which we know already empirically is very important in the description of nuclear . If you want to know what is the nature of the metric tensor in the domain of a nuclear force, then you've talked about the solution to that equation. The sphere is on the other vector here, which is actually growing to the right.

12:30 Part of the physics, excuse me, back to that, why would you, why would you, why would you generalize, why would you generalize, why would you generalize, why would you generalize, why would you generalize, why would you generalize, why would you generalize, why would you generalize, why would you generalize, why would you generalize, why would you generalize, why would you generalize, I would use a different approach. Remember we wrote down what we were going to use in Dirac Field. We had to generalize it on the curve of space, which is what we did later. But wouldn't the, um, but, couldn't we use the field in Dirac Field? Couldn't we, if we solved one with Dirac Field, wouldn't we have also solved the one with this field? Yeah, we found that you could factorize it. Well, I suppose you could say phenomenologically that the source is the pylons. That's the phenomenological basis. Apparently that works when I talk about nuclear forces. Right, maybe an underlying idea. Let me just start with that. We know empirically, for example, this pie is scalar, in fact it's pseudo-scalar. Pseudo-scalar, that was observed in experiments. They discovered the pie on a pseudo-scalar. I was a graduate student. One night, I was at Harvard. I came in, another graduate student. There's a lot of physics in here, where this F, just as an electromagnetic theory, F alpha beta stands for 8 beta alpha minus 3 alpha beta, and we saw before that that's the same.

15:00 And the atomic connections are going to drop out at the very first. So that's the same as the field. The field, though, is a variation without potential. A certain mass, this is the mass here, a vector, is in quantum form of that. This F stands for this. If this goes to zero, if this capital goes to zero, you come really back to the equivalent of the Maxwell field. So the idea here is that the mass of the photons, if you go to the quantum industry, is really the bottom of the spectrum of particles. The bottom of the spectrum is mass zero, and we have higher mass spectrums. This one I deal with, the proposed, I have the earliest paper on this. I remember the paper was Schrodinger on this, but if you want to look it up, there's a paper, a paper I have here on this. Most of this, you don't read French, most of this paper is in equations. We'll just write down the solution from this. Is this related to the problem of the lecture? Yeah, that's right. That's the problem of the lecture, I would say. The main one to follow that up. It actually shouldn't be done physically, right? That's not considered to be... I mean, I see it a lot in books, but it seems like I read somewhere that it's not really considered to be physical.

17:30 Well, anything that people are doing right now is not physical. They're finding data that's physical. Anyway, we get that in the genius room. Okay, so that's the equation, or these terms are actually the solutions of the Troca equation, which the Troca equation is just e to the e to the square of zero, so you see this is a vector equation, this is a downversion operator, and if there's no mass and you just have a downversion of a to zero, that's of course a constant variation problem. If the solution gives you a set of mass values that are associated with that solution, the minimum energy would be with capital zero as the photon. So that was the idea for it, to see if you generate a spectrum of photons. The one you know about is just the bottom of the spectrum. It's a deep field of life. Sigmund Kaplan is capital to heaven. Maybe I shouldn't have called him Kaplan. No, it shouldn't be Sigmund Kaplan. He didn't do it.

20:00 He didn't do it. So it's going to be better and better. Yeah. Later it was Schrodinger. The thing I read said that it wouldn't be illicit because both of them had rats. What you said, actually, that's not... No, not when you apply it in the quantum dynamics and the gauge, the generalization of the gauge here is so long and so long that there are other particles in the mass. That's how the quantum dynamics is really a matter of generalizing the gauge so that the electromagnetic tensor, the vector, A, becomes associated with things like mass and things like that. But generally, then, these are some examples. If you know that physics phenomenologically, then you say, I have two equations phenomenologically that fits the data empirically. What's the Lagrangian that corresponds with that phenomenology? Write down the Lagrangian. From that Lagrangian, you get 15u, and from 15u, you get the source term of Einstein's equations. I like to use a metric tensor. You always have a situation where the metric field equations require the knowledge of the matter field, and the matter field equations require the knowledge of the metric tensor, so you have a self-resistance of the equations. So we looked here at the Maxwell field, the scalar mezzanine, the vector mezzanine field, but generally you have a mixture all together and all mixed up together. It's a team meeting on the right. You should see, well, it's very hard for you to do this if you use a computing machine. If you can't, if there are nonlinear equations, what do you know about it? Maybe you'll answer it. What is a semester that we have to turn to? What is the benefit of a semester like that? Your analysis of the principles of relativity, they were not taught principles.

22:30 And there was something still missing from my study, and I could never quite figure out that was missing. I mean, in words, I could... Well, I mean, the philosophy of relativity is that it can apply to a closed system, so you can't separate it here from the third, or there's no line, there's no point for a closed system. So actually what you do in principle, you can say in principles, you can actually do this in the 29th century. Well, the principle is you have to solve this solution, you have to get the solution of the whole system, and then you have to identify the part of the whole system you want to associate with an observer, and then you have to take the asymptotic limit as it becomes more and more disconnected from the rest of the system, but it never really disconnects, but it becomes very weakly connected, and then you say, oh, this is the part of the couple of equations I associate with an observer, and this is the part I associate with an observer. But the Einstein theory at the outset is for a holistic approach, for a qualitative approach, measure and measure. That's the difference in principle with the quantum theory. The quantum theory in principle is separated. The observer and the observer is separated. The observer is describing one kind of physics called classical physics. The observer is describing another kind of physics called microphysics. So you see, you don't have a... There is a consistent way of determining the exact solution of the coupling of the measure to the measure. If you did, you could predict the certainty of the outcome of the measurement. So in quantum mechanics, you can't predict the certainty. So then you say there's a variable that you can predict, but it's not true in the actual way. But in this theory of principle, everything is closed to begin with, it's a closed system.

25:00 The subject of the term that you apply for practical purposes, you are, I don't want to call this the observer, but you can change what you call the observer, changing the whole system. The thing that's missing on this whole description that I emphasize in my writing is the inertial part. That has to do with the reaction. There are forces to talk about, and the forces are determined by matter on matter. But at this stage, you don't talk about how the matter reacts to the force determined. That's in the inertia. Inertia has to be in terms of another kind of field. You don't complete the theory until you include the field theory of inertia. And that's really built into Mach. I mean, Mach's idea. He didn't believe in the field theory at all. His idea of inertia was a treated measure of probability within a system, within a closed system. Has anyone ever carried that out in a careful way? Well, I tried to. I wrote two books. Where I tried to include inertia in what I was saying about quantum mechanics. This question was posed to me by one of my teachers at one time. He said that quantum mechanics is not this probabilistic theory of measure that you see. In some approximation for a field theory, then he asked me, what is it a field theory of? What is it referred to? And it doesn't refer to a measure. So I didn't know yet, when they asked me that question, but you know, as time went on, I realized that what it refers to is a theory of inertia. It's a field theory of inertia in general relativity. And that field theory is the thing that hasn't got a limit if you approach it at that pace. Those equations approach exactly the structure of quantum mechanics. The quantum mechanics is a linear approximation for a nonlinear field period of inertia, and that's what I'm writing on. And then also Einstein said that that's what this thing is all about, that we have to include inertia in the full force. And that wasn't at all done, and then it was interesting how he got interested in Mach's idea, but then he dropped the idea. He kept referring to Mach's idea in terms of, the way Mach talked about it, in terms of point masses.

27:30 But in field there is not quantum math. There is a trouble when you have quantum math. So they're all fields and they're all mapping on one space. It works out when you have all the math ideas that inertia means. But in my own work also I've generalized from inertia to all other so-called intrinsic properties. Inertia and everything else, charge... Electrical, electrical, normal, everything is really a measure of couplings, there are no intrinsic couplings, therefore there are no atoms, and that part of the mathematical theory is not a matter of couplings. So that's what the closed theory, the closed system implies. One of the things I didn't mention in quantum theory, one of the things you mentioned here, is that synapses equate to genomes, the geometrical part, and the genomes, as a matter of fact. This right-hand side, you know, you say fundamentally this side is really based on quantum notions. This seems to be based on continual notions. In other words, there are certain uncertainty relations and all kinds of things that make this completely on the right side. But the left side has a complete description, so there's an inconsistency here. This is really fundamentally due to... I think people finally came to the correct conclusion. The rules of quantum theory are true, in which case this is only an approximation for a quantum system. The rules of general relativity are true, in which case the quantum description is only an approximation for a continuum deterministic system, one or the other. You can't have both. You can't have every K to U.

30:00 So, most physicists they believe is that the left side of this equation is really a story over by quantum. But in order to prove that, you have to show that Einstein's equations is the quantize. Like the solid graviton, the graviton is the quantum of the Einstein field. Nobody ever really quantized the Einstein field. And the main reason they've had trouble in doing that is mainly because it's not linear. Linear superposition is fundamental to the term gravitas, which is what it is. They know that they really haven't been shown yet that general relativity is quantized yet, but they believe that eventually it will be. But in some of my writing, I try to prove that it's impossible. Either the quantitative right or the general relativity right, you can't quantize general relativity. Because of its structure, because of its mathematical structure and because of its meaning, the philosophical meaning. Spears is a really totally different type of one. So, for example, the book I mentioned earlier, the book by Hawking, the popular book in contrast to the Greek history of time, where he starts at the beginning of the book with a statement which is wrong and then he goes on, and the statement is, we can quantize general theory unless he literally replies and writes the whole book. But he can't! And he's wrong. It's not that he can't quantize general theory. So the other alternative, which I have my own research program for almost my whole life, is to go the other way and see if quantum mechanics is some kind of linear approximation for a general hypothesis, where determinism comes back, and the fields come back, and there's no intrinsic uncertainty, it's an all-thousand, just mysticism. It's all fixed up in the field theory.

32:30 This is supposed to be based on a description of matter in the most fundamental way it was If you have non-indeterministic, you can't define precisely the variables based on points and all that is imposed on this, this is really, this relates, we looked at it, to an operator, it's really an operator operating on some, and that gives you something that is, you find it with all the points, like the left side. So that's what Rosenfeld said you have to do that with. If that's true, fundamentally, why should this be in terms of fundamental uncertainty and all those features that you have to have? I'll say it. In Widener, for example, one person was writing on the left side, maybe, in terms of operations. But the non-linearity really screwed up the whole thing. The way you do that problem of quantum mechanics is if you write down the theory of interacting with the charge bodies, then you take the interaction term, which is non-linear, you take it out, and then you solve the pre-field problem, no interaction, and then you bring back the interaction to interpret the pre-field solution, and you press the new solution in an infinite series. It diverges, it always diverges. But anyway, if you bring back the nonlinear term, you hope to get a conversion theory. But in general relativity, if you take away the nonlinear part, there's nothing left.

35:00 There's no quick field. It doesn't exist. There's nothing left to quantize. I think that's at the basis of Einstein's unhappiness with quantum work. I mean, he said it a few places and just didn't believe it, didn't even talk about it. There's one, somebody from Princeton told me once that he was president and had a group of faculty who went to see Einstein. He said, you know, we want to tell them about what they're doing, quantum field theory. Of course they asked him about his work, just to tell us what he was doing. And then he said, all right, tell me what you're doing. So we started telling him, and he said, wait a minute, he said, you mean every time you get a new kind of piece of data, you have to introduce a new field? I'm moving them for each piece of data. And they say, yeah, what's wrong with that? Turned to the window and just stared out the window until they all left the room. Couldn't talk to them. They didn't think I was busy. It's frustration. He was Einstein. The people gave him a certain amount of respect. Well, you know what, I'll let you know next time. I made up some topics and dates. I think very confused expression of what I may be some rather deep ideas, some connections

37:30 I'm going to clear up warm and cute, you know, your discuss a few yet, but we'll talk about that.

40:00 Yeah, I'd like to talk to you about some of the categories of the brainwaves. We were going to meet now, weren't we? We can meet now, too. Yeah, for as long as we have. Are those yours, Bill? And, uh, please, my next chair.

42:30 I'm sorry, I forgot. Did you have any questions? Not at this point, no, no, no. It's very nice to meet you. I've been interested in your work for a long time. Oh, I didn't know that. I'm from London, England. No, no, no, no, I'm not in the academic field at all. I'm just trying to keep up with some of the leading ideas and, well, the ideas that intrigue me most when you're out for the physical. More on the foundations of math side, unfortunately. Well, I hate having to start on the math side. I wish I had more understanding. You've come to the right man. Yeah, right. That's how you sit down. Which Bill gave in talks. Well, more on foundations of philosophy at Laird, I guess.

45:00 Why don't we all sit down? Why don't you sit down, though? Why don't you and Professor Sachs sit down? Oh, you don't have to go here. Randall is, he's in Cambridge, right? Yes, he's Professor of the Philosophy of Science at Cambridge. So I'm interested in, if you look at my stuff, do you have anything... I read again sometimes I'm quick to say anything except that the guiding underlying connection with the field strength in this, isn't that in order to recover several of these lists that you're going to need some kind of contextual factorizability? Well, asymptotically. Yeah. I mean, sometimes you don't have an exact... There were an article a number of years ago in the French magazine called Mathematica, it wasn't written, they don't see it, it's there, and so therefore the behavior of this little piece over here is given to the entire system, including the twins, and we had a picture of one of them, although it seems that there would be an objective ground for making it. Objective in the sense of, you know, arbitrary. But mostly subject, though, because you set up the system, you set it up.

47:30 You are part of the universe, you are part of the universe, you are part of the universe, you are part of the universe, you are part of the universe, you are part of the universe, you are part of the universe, you are part of the universe, you are part of the universe, you are part of the universe, you are part of the universe, you are part of the universe, you are part of the universe. I certainly agree with that. I think there are very bad philosophical uses and misuses made about this theorem, and that's one of them. Well, I think the idea that if the system really were ultimately incomposable in this way, you would have further observed distinction. I mean, if the girdle, some people have certainly wanted to use girdles. It's hard to argue that there's some ultimate distinction between the observer and the observed system in treating the formal system, an observed system, and the mind of the mathematical, the mind of the mathematician who's trying to prove consistency. Well, it is by far-fetched, but I think people have used this, some philosophers have used this argument, and it's a bad argument.

50:00 Well, nor do I, nor do I. I agree. Obviously, it's such a bad argument, but I expressly, it's such a terribly bad argument, but people like Lucas Preston, the Oxford philosopher, who did attempt to use the argument in this way to try and prove that there must be a dualistic ontology of minds. You know, that's just such a bad philosophy. Imagine all possible formulas, and I'm sure you'll understand why. Why could I imagine them? For all we know, the only ones that anybody's ever been talking to have had a chance to do that. I've been at Cambridge for a few years, and he's been very, very, very clear that he's going to be very responsible about it. In his book, he says that he's cautiously optimistic that we've reached the end of the talking period, and we've found out that we've been notified that we haven't been. So that's just an exercise. I remember having this argument with him about, well, he did a lot of work on singularities, and I was arguing that in Einstein's view there aren't any singularities, but there's a reason for it, you know, there's a technical reason why the field theory he taught should be totally non-singular.

52:30 Hawking continued to refer to Einstein's theory to back up what he was saying. I said, well, that's not Einstein's theory. Why don't you call it Hawking's theory? That wouldn't be unhappy. I said, well, that's not Einstein's theory. I argued with you about that, and I always find you to say, okay, you're right, you say, this is not how it seems to be. You're not saying it's wrong. Well, I don't know if it's wrong or right, I'm just saying, don't follow what you're saying. They do that to you, all these things mean a lot. It just seems to take a year to do that. And Gödel, absolutely, yes. Oh, yes, the idea that Gödel, it has not just, it's not just a philosophical abuse of Gödel's theorem, but it would have had Gödel's informatics used in this. Now, the reason I was so diffident in answering your question is that, I mean, what little I've read about this, I mean it completes. It means it's non-sequential. Yeah, the use of the girdle is completely non-sequential as far as you go. Do you think mathematics is funny?

55:00 I think so. I mean, like with Pythagorean, I think that's a fairly good rule. So I think they're not, they're not in principle real, but they're approximations, which are always used in the figures. But quantum mechanics, empirically, is very good. That's an example of an intuitive approximation for some non-linear theories of what is a non-linear theory and what is a theory of thought. Well, I mean, we talked to the most physicists today, but they're very angry with me. They look at that as the truth, and that's that. I remember where I got an inertia, and I tried to show that. The formal expression, for instance, when you drive up a mountain pass limit, and you clear it, which really doesn't have any of the features that a mountain pass must have. But in the limit, it does have an inertia, and so on. But in general terms, it can't. It doesn't have any of the features. But that's what they held missing, though, by the idea of inertia. There are all these weird things in there. I'm not claiming that economics is as good as mathematics, but people, you know, you write M, you see, there's, there's, where does the nurse, there, M, you write down letter M. That's a, you say, where's the compound? That's what he puts it, and I don't know if it's an intrinsic property of something, that's the definition of what he's going to be writing. There's no more of a need to explain. But I think in the field, you have to do it.

57:30 Yeah, exactly. Mere ones. Particles. Many ones. Yeah, mere ones. Only mere ones. Particles. You could have these purely intrinsic masses for no reason. I think that also is not the same thing as linearity, but it's like it in the sense that that's a first or a hero's approximation to something that can be seen as not being completely incorrect, but as a hero's step towards something that's a more clear account of the collision of all the parts of differential calculus, at least also even for variational purposes. In non-scientific context about first approximation, second approximation, well, the first approximation means the linear approximation. Right, right. But it's recognized between only the first and the second. If you write a zero order term plus a field term, the thing is that that combination of two terms is not coherent. It doesn't really fit the rules of the whole theory. It would be an infinite series. So then you have got a problem with any ultimately fundamentally non-linear theory of that kind, which occurs in a more vague form with philosophical monisms in general, that where is the cut-off in your context of explanation of anything. An explanation just goes expansionist in that there's no unit short of the whole.

1:00:00 So, you have to take phenomenology and certainly you also have to see where the Mauter-Einstein concept has come from and that's the notion of one of the interesting, I'm sorry, I take my courage in my hands and open my mouth on such a subject in front of Bill Levin. But one of the very interesting aspects of, one of the very interesting ideas that has come out of Popov is the relativization of the notion and the fact that there's a richer structure of the generators of many, than simply the one, especially the more general, we'll just have the sub-optic one, and understanding those ideas about the compositionality of systems. Factorizability, in terms of the way that we go from local to global structure, although we all, because we have the slice, we always have some, we can always recover a notion within the QD, a relative rise. The problem with, yes, yes, yes, yes, the problem it seems to me with, is in giving expression to the way that you can control, you have mathematically tractable and exact ways of speaking, of using the.

1:02:30 The instruments of understanding, whilst trying to render more explicit this idea that the ultimate context, it turns out that the world is not linear at the bottom, is some kind of non-separable level of structure, because clearly we do need a separate, we do have to have at least a relativized measure of separability in order to be able to speak intelligently at all. So that's what I meant, yes, in principle, which is what I meant by saying, you know, how could we... How can one get to the first kind of contextual notion of factorizability? Well, if I give you an example of a paddle that stirs the paint on the rod,

1:05:00 you see that there is a question, can you climb up the rod? Or there is... I forget which eclipse, but... Now the expression for it is in practice, it's a diopter, yes, but it's a non-linear equation that comes out of a linear constitutive. Physicians have the idea that they can deal with... We can approach things in concept, whether we can solve them or not, but there is a, there is a, there is another thing we can solve, you know, we can approach things, we can have even theorems about, qualitative theorems about them, and they'll be functional now, yeah, more detailed, we don't have to have formulas, so what I'm, what I'm getting at is, I've never understood the quantum electric, there's some kind of document theory in the background, towards which, towards which these, The theory of life or not, irrespective, are they claiming that there is some theory, or is there a sense rather that the theory only comes into existence as a result of the theory of life?

1:07:30 Because the reason you have that theory, you have that divergent theory before it turns into a function that you don't really know. You have a divergent theory of terms, but typically, you know, that's what the theory is, in terms of timing and stuff. Is there a fundamental philosophical confusion, apart from the mathematics, or is there a fundamental... Well, I didn't think what I was saying was the answer to that. Isn't it that they're confusing the thing from our process of coming to know it? I mean, our process of coming to know it, which is... That's right, sure, that's right, exactly. I think we're seeing that now, but scientists, for that reason, really didn't, in some sort of, you know, just approximate the way they're doing it. That was all new to them. They all were first, but there isn't something like this. But the fact that the recipes that are out there, for one part of these things, people are very confident that there must be a theory. For a while there was this thing that was suddenly called axiomatic field theory. There was a kind of research that there would be a theory. There's not even a theory that shows there are quantum field theories. There's never been a proof. The quantum field theory is connected to quantum mechanics and non-mathematical quantum mechanics. So what is it? There's a set of computational rules for getting numbers, and some of those numbers are not that large numbers. They're pretty close. And you know, it's a rhapsody, so keep that in mind. And unfortunately, I don't know if it's a fluke for people to start taking seriously. The argument that can be used as a substitute for mathematics and calculus is clear from your point of view, and that kind of relationship is sort of an unavoidable limit to what the theory of the universe develops.

1:10:00 There's actually been a contest of a quantum for a long time, but what I would say is that, you know, it's the wrong conference. It's possible that... I wrote a paper a million years ago, where I showed that under some conditions, we could start with generality, even higher, to take the abstract limit and approach the quantum domain, but some conditions under this paradigm have always been valid, and other conditions have never been valid. I mean, I examined the experiments that were done there, of course, and I found that all the experiments that were done that showed that Bell and Farger violated fit into this theory also, that they shouldn't violate it. But there are other kinds of experiments which have never been done, which they wouldn't be violating, but because they count on totally different approach. I mean, Bell's work is all in the context of the quantum approach. Well, of course, Bell himself didn't bleed in orthodox quantum mechanics. He was by the, certainly towards the end of his life, he subscribed strongly to them. Nonlocal, invariable, sterile. He's very much subscribed to the quantum potential, which I know obviously is not your approach, which is at some extent going away from quantum mechanics as a purely algorithm.

1:12:30 I never quite understood how there's all these paradoxes of measurement, say, when we do an experiment. How does that fit in in an exposed area of the field? The whole problem of measurement and... Sometimes a paradox will occur by virtue of a concept. If you assume that you can do all these things, then you can make exactly the same. There's no problem, sure, of course. But the matter is you need to discover a matter of ways. Think about that. No one always got part of it. Well, you have to explain. There's nothing to explain, though, when you assume the other things. There's just ways, different concepts. Well, we should keep going into it. There's all this stuff going on. Let's still assume. Well, let me say something. Let me just say,

1:15:00 You can ask whether you have the right output. You don't have to bring in the type of quantum mechanics. So do you have a co-assistant to do that? When I analyzed Bell's work, that's what I did. In the first place, there was a certain description of the whole thing to begin with. The clearest discussion I've found of Bell's philosophical consequences for Bell's work for really understanding the nature of physics is very general. A discussion that was certainly helpful to me was Don Howard's paper, do you know that one, on non-separability of states and non-separability of systems, and the Bell inequalities in Jim Cushing's little book. I think it came out in a journal, but it was published as a proceedings of a conference. It's something like conceptual consequences of Bell's theorem or conceptual ramifications of Bell's theorem of philosophy and physics. I'm sorry if I've got the title wrong. I don't know if I helped you.

1:17:30 It's there that he discusses this problem of... He also discusses Einstein's understanding of the... Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. But it's not a non-local theory in that sense. Oh, okay. So, God made it all up in the exact same school as Van Gogh. I don't think it's a nirvana that underlies the shadow. It's a blank, featureless, non-separable one. No, no, that's not at all what we want. That's why I think the philosophical conception of the impact of the non-linear ideas of how we represent. There are a variety of knowledge that doesn't require a statistical point model to know. You could set it up so that it describes it in terms of the general outcome and the necessary behavior of the conspiracy among the two parts of the system.

1:20:00 It turns out, of course, that you're right there.

1:22:30 And so to combine, it turns out that this is it. Your prediction, you say you actually did some work on deriving the Bellinger qualities, not many others, which actually predicted that they would be satisfied in certain... And, I mean, is it, are these kind of very difficult Gdankan experiments, or would they be? Or is it just that nobody's interested in funding them? There are some conditions where they'd be a certain amount. Listen to the product's space-like separation, compared with the time-lapse inequality, which is also the prediction of the probability.

1:25:00 But there was one experiment done with proton scattering, which corresponded to one of those cases, and it came out the way I said it should have, with Bell's inequality provided. But the other case was not by Witten, Connes, you know, experiment. Yeah. Yeah, and of course the trouble is the case where they're violated is what's predicted by standard quantum mechanics anyway, so that's very well. You say it's a much harder experiment to do. Yeah. The usual way to say it is that quantum mechanics are like conspiracy theories. That is my corresponding belief. They're all about some kind of, some context of the same model. And this is what we're going to be talking about. I'd very much like to see the work in which you showed how Bell's qualities might be satisfied by a proton-proton couple. Was it actually in the form of your proposal for the experiment? Yeah, I was talking about the photon-photon. Well, these were the early aspects of the experiment. The aspects found in the first photon... That was just photon. Yeah, it was just photon. I didn't like that experiment in its completion. The theory was remarkable. It didn't vary from theory, but really in the context of the non-morphic...

1:27:30 To be unambiguous, you really have to go through a non-morphic, a non-morphic quantum kind of loop. You can't mix up manifesting photogram theory and mathematical theory with quantum mechanics and non-mathematics, but with photon photogram theory there's no way to mix that up. I don't know, you're a student. I did it in Florence. I was interested. It's cool. I'll try to see you next week. Thank you very much. Pleasure. It's an honor. Thank you very much indeed. It's very interesting indeed.