Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American


How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

Peter Jackson: on 7/7/14 at 17:42pm UTC, wrote Update Summary Version; B Identifying that Bell validated this model all...

Peter Jackson: on 6/30/14 at 18:50pm UTC, wrote (As also mostly posted on the Quantum blog); New Physics! And strong...

Peter Jackson: on 6/17/14 at 11:29am UTC, wrote Luca, Brilliant! Dr Soguine's maths perfectly describes my 3D state...

Luca Valeri: on 6/17/14 at 7:36am UTC, wrote Hi Peter, I just saw this two papers from Soiguine. On a first fast read...

Ryoji Furui: on 6/13/14 at 16:07pm UTC, wrote Dear Peter, Yes, it is just a simulation as you pointed out. But i guess...

Peter Jackson: on 6/13/14 at 9:15am UTC, wrote Ryoji, Many thanks. Being a finalist is one thing, penetrating the judges...

Ryoji Furui: on 6/13/14 at 4:12am UTC, wrote Dear Peter, Congratulations! Being finalist might be still usual for you...

Peter Jackson: on 6/11/14 at 15:35pm UTC, wrote Tom, I do suggest Rick no longer has a cafe. It was replaced long ago, as...


Georgina Woodward: "Joe, I can not comment infinitely as I am a finite being with finite..." in Quantum Dream Time

Joe Fisher: "Dear Georgina, Which came first, reality, or humanly contrived abstract..." in Quantum Dream Time

BASILEIOS GRISPOS: "What a nice topic this is. I am expecting to read some nice essays from all..." in What Is...

alice paul: "All data here is unfamiliar to me. I think Really weird. I think you have..." in Hyung Choi and the nature...

alice paul: "your link text" in Hyung Choi and the nature...

alice paul: "All data here is unfamiliar to me. I think Really weird. I think you have..." in Are We Merging With Our...

shery williams: "Kaspersky technical errors that are harming your device and its..." in Are We Merging With Our...

Lena Smith: "Though every Canon printer is manufactured with utmost proficiency, but it..." in Conjuring a Neutron Star...

click titles to read articles

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

November 23, 2017

CATEGORY: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? Essay Contest (2014) [back]
TOPIC: Do Bob and Alice have a future? by Peter Jackson [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 14:38 GMT
Essay Abstract

We have many effects on our planet but little idea how delicate or robust Earth really is or what might tip the balance of sustainability. The only sure way to find out and avoid disaster may be to make a quantum leap in our understanding of nature. But great leaps need great courage and inspiration. We must leave what feels like solid ground to find the “new ways to think” many great physicists have extolled. Different ways of thinking are employed as the real relationship of Alice and Bob (A,B) is exposed, the characters at the heart and head of theoretical analysis. The pair are separated when advances in space travel take them light years apart to finally test the completeness of QM and Relativity, still incompatible after 200 years. The trip unravels their entanglement and sheds light on their true identity and nature. Their discoveries suggest a long delayed marriage may finally happen, converging quantum and classical theory to secure a coherent future physics. As Earth's population has doubled since 2020 it may be just in time..

Author Bio

Environmental science and renewable energy consultant, Chartered Architect and Astronomer (RAS fellow). Student mentor at two UK universities. Born 1951. Have studied and researched physics and cosmology since childhood. Wide qualifications up to PhD level but not a professional academic.

Download Essay PDF File

Michael Allan wrote on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 04:02 GMT
Hello Peter, May I offer a short, but sincere critique of your essay? I would ask you to return the favour. Here's my policy on that. - Mike

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 09:55 GMT
Nice policy Mike. I try to read most- and certainly of all those who read mine. Peter. ..p.s. If anyone would like the mathematical version of the geometry do just ask.

Michael Allan replied on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 09:06 GMT
Thanks Peter. It's a strange experience for someone who knows no quantum mechanics to read your text. But also strangely interesting. And although it doesn't appear to be completely on topic (your hypothesis not being about steering the future) nevertheless I did read it closely. I even flatter myself that I understood a little of the monopole illusion; it being like two blind men at either end of a dipole elephant. More worryingly, at one point I had the vague impression that Alice and Bob were about to use that apparatus of theirs to engage in superluminal communication, which would bode ill for my own thesis. They couldn't do that, could they? - Mike

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 09:15 GMT

Not superluminally, no. All effects can be reproduced classically down to a genuine quantum scale.

I'm really glad you understood it. The elephant is about right, as this one may be too big to be recongnised at all! Your two blind men analogy is spot on, except in physics it seems there may be rather more than two, and all round it! We'll see how many there are among the judges this year!

Judy Nabb wrote on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 07:48 GMT
WOW! That didn't disappoint! The best and most important essay so far by a few light years.

You'll know from Joy's Classical Sphere's blog that I repeated your 'classroom experiment' in a reduced way and it worked brilliantly. You've also brought in some new aspects I hadn't noticed before which disproves the only suggestions of argument I've heard.

Exceptional logic. Well done, and within a great story to boot. Alice clearly then isn't now younger than her twin, but it seems she and Bob should now have a great future, if the brains on those back on Earth have evolved!

I hope you'll read my own essay on that matter. Not a patch on yours, and I just didn't have time to pull it all together well enough in the end.

Congratulations. I'm sure you'll score even better than I see you did last year, and hope the judges also recognise it's value this time.


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 17:12 GMT
Thanks Judy,

I've now also explained the 'non-linear surface velocity distribution' of angular momentum transfer (electrons meeting) to Richard Gill in the April 18th simulation string in the 'Classical Spheres' blog. Also the link with 'relative angles' (forming the cones in the Bloch sphere are 'four-vectors' but I know few really understand such terms, including me!)

I ran out of time too. An important back up to my hypothesis is Renningers Proof that 'state collapse is nonsense beyond an 'accounting system' as the effects can be derived without observation! Short video here; Weak- Negative Result Experiment .

I really wanted to plot both Alice's results and the A,B relative angle results on the same graph. I have a hand plot so I may still do it. I too hope my derivation is now new and good enough for recognition by the judges this year. But departures from doctrine, however coherent, are never a safe bet.

Brave girl doing eugenics! But has importance and spot on topic. I know nothing about that so look forward to reading it. P.

Judy Nabb replied on May. 13, 2014 @ 07:07 GMT

Thanks for your comments on my essay. Some people seem to be putting up a good argument for dealing with intellectual shortcomings by having a cull, including by their actions! (I'm sure you know to whom I refer). Rather like quantum theory; the most effective solution is the least acceptable and vice versa.

I've been somewhat shocked by the state of intellectual application and ethics but some shine out like beacons, including yourself. Congratulations at your 3rd position. Perhaps more understand that you feared. A ray of light through the murk to help steer the way?


report post as inappropriate

Raymond Law wrote on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 11:27 GMT
Hello Peter,

Your essay is really worth the waiting and making the old saying true that the main attraction always comes in last !

The contents, style and format of your ' story ' has really enabled an untrained amateur like yours truly hooked on reading all the way to the end.

Jolly good job, Peter --- now we can call you ' the Great ' !

Raymond Law

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 17:18 GMT

I'm really pleased you followed it. I don't think even the most important findings need be written in indecipherable 'technocode'. Thank you. P

Stuart Marongwe wrote on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 14:19 GMT
Hello Peter

I find your arguments on quantum entanglement interesting from a physicist point of view and herein lies my question. If I was a policy maker and a non-physicist how would you answer me these questions:

1) How does a better understanding of Quantum entanglement steer humanity towards a better future so that the public funds on fundamental research are well spent. In other words what is the ROI?

2)How can the ordinary citizen (remember these are voters and tax payers) participate in your project so that he/she feels that she played a part in shaping the future of humanity? In other words , where is the citizen science?

These questions are important in the sense that of late there is a serious decline in funding to fundamental research by governments because scientist fail to include answers to these important questions in their research proposals.

Kind regards


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 17:48 GMT

Great questions.

1) The work goes well beyond just resolving quantum weirdness. (see prev Discrete Field Model essays etc. and; A Cyclic model of Galaxy Evolution, with Bars. HJ 2014.)

There's a great 'logjam' in science due to lack of reform in thinking and theory. Physics is riddled with rot, anomalies and paradoxes. I've identified the log that will release the whole lot, unifying all physics and allowing untold advancement to causal understanding in all areas. The adjustments to present theory are quite small, but to massive effect, including rendering certain QG theories consistent with the paradigm, removing paradoxes from SR, pre-Big Blast conditions, etc etc.

2) QM is rendered logically understandable by all. (see Rays post above) and each citizen can participate in the 'classroom experiment' to prove it (some already have!). Every school in the country can have the spectral disc and A4 kit (see end notes) and classically reproduce the so called 'quantum correlations' themselves. It'd be a real science revolution!

If any of that sounds as if it may be the slightest bit overhyped I'll explain further. I've understated it on purpose!

I greatly look forward to reading your essay too. P.

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 10:14 GMT

Apparently the Academia preprint link above isn't accepted in this system, not the 'Linked in' topic link. Just paste into Google; Academia A Cyclic model of Galaxy Evolution, with Bars

Please also give me your views on the Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity which I thought was a sound basis and not pursued for the wrong reason, it's reliance on multiple higher orders, which now clearly seems the right answer.

F. J. Tipler. Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model.

The links here seem to be failing, but just paste this into google search;


John S Minkowski replied on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 21:46 GMT
The link above to 'A Cyclic Model of Galaxy Evolution, with Bars' may not work. Try instead:

To download the .PDF, one needs to signin to


report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 15:38 GMT
Dear Peter,

I enjoyed your insightful and eye-opening essay.

I follow you also on APS-Linkedin and observed that not only your knowledge but also your wisdom has grown a lot since our first encounter here on FQXi on 2011 wher you were the first to post on my thread by then.

I thank you also for the encouraging words after having read my contribution this year.

best regards


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 13:25 GMT

Thank you. Perhaps it's increased wisdom that's revealed the scale of the task to help physics escape it's divisive ruts. I innocently believed that a logically coherent description of nature removing paradox and anomalies would do the job. The true problem is now clearer, and less easy to solve.

Perhaps extending Architects foundation year re-learning how to think as a compulsory school subject may be a start do you think?

Best wishes


Leo Vuyk replied on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 14:40 GMT
Hi Peter,

you wrote:

Perhaps extending Architects foundation year re-learning how to think as a compulsory school subject may be a start do you think?"

Do you mean the physics education should be extended with architect knowledge, or the other way around?

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 09:07 GMT

Certainly the former, but more as a precursor to all science education, as I'm sure anyone whose experienced it would agree. Perhaps all education per-se should include it. Schools don't teach kids how to best use the powerful quantum computers they're born with. Most never learn at all.

Stephen Tuck wrote on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 21:58 GMT
Dear Peter,

I appreciate your awesome review of my paper. I applaud your belief in Classical Mechanics being consistent with Quantum Mechanics, which is also my view. I enjoyed your paper because it shows a possible rotational analogy that could allow for consistent Classical Mechanics that I had not contemplated. My own analogy was that interference between 2 Fermion systems (with Spin-1/2) would result in 1-full 360-degree rotation only yielding a 180-degree turn, thus requiring a 720-degree rotation between them to return an electron to its initial orientation. It would be interesting to further examine both these theories. However, I certainly believe that your paper presents a brilliant theory. In either scenario, a hidden variable affecting rotation causes the observed difference. There are some differences of opinion I see in terms of Special Relativity, but I see that we both agree in the fact that Classical Mechanics must be coherent with Relativity. Thank you for your commentary since it is certainly nice to hear such rare uplifting praise!


Stephen Tuck

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 13:34 GMT

Thanks for the praise. The 720^o rotation certainly has no shortage of classical candidates and I agree has more important implications than most realise. Allowing escape from the 'singlet state' assumption would lead to a consistent description of relativity and QM. Yet so few seem able to rationalise logically.

It seems I've also now been hit by the trolls with a series of 1 scores, probably without even reading the essay (certainly without comment). Is that typical of the level honesty in science? If so then we need that new direction even more than I thought! Your own scoring will be valued, thank you.

We must stay in touch, on the spin derivation and on critical consequences.

Best wishes


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 01:01 GMT
Dear Uncle Peter Jackson

An interesting integration, I also love "Nature is logical" like you.

10 points for the passion and enthusiasm of Uncle.


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 13:38 GMT
Dear HCH,

Most kind. Thank you. But I fear logic remains unfashionable.

I'll certainly read your own contribution. P

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 20:41 GMT
Wow Peter you have really focussed here and your early speculations on helical screws now take off logically and beautifully in a world of angular momentum. Bloch be praised! I really must reread your essay because I have always held that Bell was bunkum and the whole thing explainable by classical causality, as I mentioned in my 2005 Beautiful Universe theory. In BU information, light and matter itself 'move' by local transmissions of rotational kinetic energy in a universal network of spherical gear- like nodes. I like your cycloid- like explanation of the 720 degree quantum spin that occur in matter or in light- matter interactions. In 'pure' radiation, the 'spherical gears' mesh directly, as in my BU illustration of e/m transmission and there is no need for the nested rotations. Have a look at Kenneth Snelson's wonderful work with magnetic tops to explain electron spin that had inspired some of my ideas.

I shall certainly return to your inspiring essay later, if I and the rest of humanity survive the very near future :)

With best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 08:41 GMT
Dear Peter,

Very deep and original essays and original ideas! You're absolutely right: «The only sure way to find out and avoid disaster may be to make a quantum leap in our understanding of nature. But great leaps need great courage and inspiration. »

Overcoming the «crisis of representation and interpretation", "crisis understanding" in basic science requires new original ideas. You are there and it's gorgeous. Humanity needs a new picture of the Universe, a new understanding of the Nature for more reliable governance Future.

Thank FQXi that brings together people for "brainstorming" on very important topics of modern Humanity!

I wish you good luck!

All the Best,


report post as inappropriate

Christian Corda wrote on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 20:13 GMT
Hi Peter,

I have just read your nice Essay. Here are my comments and questions:

1) Why do you think our leap in our understanding of nature must be "quantum"? Cannot it be "classical"?

2) It is my personal opinion that Bell's theorem is not definitive (In fact, from 1) and 2) points you should understand that I am an endorser of Einstein's determinisms).

3) 'spin' within spin looks intriguing. Any idea in order to test the effect?

4) With your beautiful sentence "Yin taught him that knowledge was only half the battle, and Yang that only consistent application with no anomalies or apparent paradox completed the job" you connect Chinese Philosophy and Galilean Philosophy.

5) How do you conciliate your statement that "Local Reality DID exist down to a much smaller limit of resolution" with Uncertainty Principle?

6) In a certain sense, your conclusion is that Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation and Einstein's local reality are "entangled".

I had a lot of fun in reading your Essay. Thus, I am going to give you an high score.

I wish you good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 09:48 GMT

I'm very glad you enjoyed it. I hope the touch of humour doesn't detract or distract from the serious findings. To answer your questions.

1) It is indeed classical physics which takes the 'quantum leap' forward, but quantum physics moves too.

2) Bell is indeed circumvented. His tautology remains intact, but does not reflect how nature works nature. However QM...

view entire post

Colin Walker wrote on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 05:27 GMT
Dear Peter,

On reading your essay when it came out, I was struck by your Fig(1) showing the wheel-within-a-wheel as it turned 720 degrees before coming to the initial configuration. Whatever spin is, it has that half-frequency characteristic. I should have mentioned in my last year's essay on quaternion spectra the significance of the zeroes being at f=0.25 as indicating something that takes two periods.

Your diagrams are nice and I hope they are a help in delving into your Ref(17). I have been conceptualizing the multidimensional spectra of my old essay as having independent time dimensions already. It is nice to see that Chen has developed this idea.

Thanks for an interesting and entertaining essay.

Alice and Bob are busy people, but they always attend the Quantum Randi Challenge.

Best Regards,


report post as inappropriate

Gene H Barbee wrote on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 17:22 GMT
Hi Peter,

If I recall you had this problem solved earlier but your use of characters separated and then re-united with a little drama at the end was clever writing. I think you meant to leave us hanging about earth’s response to a potential crisis. I was hoping that your travelers would come back in time to save us, re-unite and we would live happily ever after.

Regarding unification of QM and GR….I think early writers and thinkers were a little too dramatic about the differences. I recently published a paper in Vol 5 No3 of the Prespacetime Journal entitled “On the Source of the Gravitational Constant at the Low Energy Scale” that proposed a way of treating gravity almost the same way other forces are treated. An earlier version was viXra:1307.0085.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 17:44 GMT

Thanks. Yes the cliffhanger was for various reasons, ostensibly the length limit, but all can then use imagination to create their own ending - the raison d'aitre of the essay subject.

I tend to agree on GR. The model supports a wide range including the Feynman-Weinburg derivation which left open recursive gauges.FW QG Peper.

But this is strictly about Special Relativity which is where the great divide with QM lies. Even Time itself being completely different in character. The two converge nicely. The free fermions and protons can also then do a pretty good job of emulating dark matter.

I know that wouldn't have been you who just trolled mine with an ultra low score without the courtesy of a post! They should be traced and barred! I hope you now keep rising. I'll try to take a look at your paper when I recover from reading essays!

Very best wishes


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 20:00 GMT
Hi Peter,

I am curious to see what you have cooked up this year, but I have not read your paper yet. From past experience, I find it's essential to give your work my undivided attention for the duration, and uninterrupted time is hard to come by. Still, in deference to your subject; I wonder why nobody thinks of asking Ted or Carol what Bob and Alice are up to, considering their past history...

I'm assuming you don't go into that level of lurid detail, but that I'll be expected to check my baggage pre-flight. I'll be looking forward to reading and commenting, once I get the chance to give it a go. It is always an interesting excursion, to read your essays, but I am very different. I have tried to prove one facet of my program each time out, while you have tried to explain your central thesis each time, drawing on different facets of your explanation each go around.

Perhaps it is time for you to write a book.

All the Best,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 20:47 GMT

You're right. It's half written. I keep getting distracted. The problem seems to be that once the logjam breached the flow of joined up physics is overwhelming. Nature is a bit like charades; I'll be dead long before I get through one facet at a time so I have to do the 'whole thing'. It's all coherently connected anyway, not much like "physics" at all. So there's the problem.

Ted and Carol do get walk on roles, along with Yin and Yang. But it's a bit like 'Friends', the full cast is 6.

Thank you for spending the time.


Georgina Woodward wrote on May. 1, 2014 @ 01:23 GMT
Hi Peter,

I tried to read your essay last night but, as usual, I struggled with it. Its good that you listed the findings, that helps. Alice and Bob annoy me because they always seem to be doing confusing things and here they are again. I think this is the essay you would have written whatever the essay question because it is what you are currently working on and it excites you.I can understand why. You've had some marvelous reviews so presumably other people found it easier to follow and relevant to the contest. Hope you get many more. Good luck, Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on May. 1, 2014 @ 10:33 GMT

Unfortunately unravelling entangled nonsense to find the clarity first needs the nonsense to be understood. That's very difficult for anyone rational!

I think our poor understanding of nature is the greatest bar to an idyllic future, and filling the chasm between the two 'great pillars' of physics the greatest quantum leap we can make, affecting all areas of science from cosmology to sub atomic particles. That's why I'm tackling it in the first place. I see most other approaches shallower, so more like treating symptoms than fundamental cause.

I'm sorry you struggled. I have the likes of Tom on one side insisting on non-intuitive technical 'geek' descriptions, and the needs of average readers on the other, struggling with the ontology. Too far one way completely looses connection with the other. I tried to strike a good balance. I'm sorry if you struggled but do understand. Like the Eiffel tower, there are a number of different 'components' without which the hypothesis couldn't be constructed. It's difficult to build, but too important not to try.

Thanks for trying.


Joe Fisher wrote on May. 1, 2014 @ 14:36 GMT
Dear Dr. Jackson,

Your abstractions filled essay is superbly written and I do hope that it does well in the competition. Please forgive me. Reality is unique, once.


Based on my observation, I have concluded that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 18, 2014 @ 19:02 GMT

Thanks for your description. I'll try to read all descriptions. I must confess I really can't rationalise much of yours, though certainly agree the speed of light interacting with any surface is modulated to the speed of light wrt that surface. There's no reason it should do so earlier and no evidence that it does.

I'm not a Dr by the way. While educated for well over 10 years in a range of disciplines including to and beyond PhD level in Architecture, the UCAS system was resisted by the RIBA until the year after I completed the course. The concern was the pressure to adopt a doctrinal teaching basis. The RIBA stood their ground, which was massively important.

It seems perhaps only Architecture now re-teaches student how to think holistically and challenge everything properly as well as rigorous complex analysis etc. I was horrified how little of that there was in science teaching compared to maths and ramming the so called 'facts' in. My children have just gone through the process. I still am.

Best of luck in the contest.


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on May. 1, 2014 @ 18:10 GMT

A truly masterful essay. A few small problems but you got the major points correct, especially your key points on page 8. As far as I can tell you've worked this out from geometry. I've worked out the same results from the physics of Stern-Gerlach and Gordon Watson has recently worked out the same result from Bell's formulation. We have thus converged to the same point from three...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 1, 2014 @ 19:59 GMT

Thanks. Spot on as usual. I noted the 720^o spin diagram as 'one of' the ways 'she drew' as I had to find some intuitive visual proof it was possible that people would remember. I agree it only 'represents' the result. I'm really glad if you've a fully derived answer as that's a bit technical for me! Is it in writing yet?

You're right, I escaped indoctrination and went to...

view entire post

attachments: 3_Filters.jpg, Recursive_OAM.jpg

Eckard Blumschein wrote on May. 2, 2014 @ 06:09 GMT
Peter Jackson,

Maybe you steered your own future well as a possible winner of the contest when you prolonged the classical spheres thread. I understood the word humanity differently.

I would rather appreciate "new ways to think" instead of being reminded of endless futile quarrel about "the real relationship of Alice and Bob (A,B) the characters at the heart and head of theoretical analysis".

Currently essays are on top which claim serving the world. I wonder if you don't agree with them and will vote accordingly ;). I was not heard when I objected that common sense tends to use the expression "save the world" with an ironic undertone. The question is: save from what?

Is mankind and its basis the Earth really endangered by economic bubbles and social inequality?

Or should we follow Shirazi and fight against political ponerology?

Or will loving-kindness save us from all evil?

Or should we accept our fate?

I think the name FQXi reminds us to strive for revealing more foundational questions. What might be wrong in our ideals of humanity and responsibility?

Some essays are dealing with growth of population as "alarming". Kadin's good essay didn't get much support because it collides with old doctrines. I agree with him: The logical contradiction between continuing forever growth and limited basics suggest a taboo question: how many people does humanity need?

My essay tries to reveal a related necessity: We all must outlaw nationalism and aggressive religions in order to save global peace.



report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 14:28 GMT

"save from what" Our own ignorance. We all have different views of our greatest problems. I agree yours have value, as do most. However I feel we need to identify what we can actually ACHIEVE! Fundamental to all the ides you listed is our understanding of how nature works. We'll then know how WE work. We'll also then know WHAT might put the planet at risk. Until then we can only guess.

You dismiss the unification of physics as if it's an irrelevance. I suggest it'd be the greatest leap forward in understanding in mankind's history. I'm getting old so need to get on with it. With age can come inflexibility, intolerance, intransigence and narrower vision. That seems to be how nature works. Human nature.

I know I won't change your mind, you've shown that. As your post arrived so did an exceptionally low score. Was that you? Is that your view of how freedom of beliefs and non aggression should be implemented? It isn't mine. I believe and have found that peace and honesty will emerge from better understanding.

I've not scored any below 5. Objectively all I've read deserve more so it'd be dishonest to do so. I shall consider yours the same. That's the peace and goodwill that comes from the understanding which my essay is my best effort to share. Nationalism and fervour are awful symptoms. I suggest if all our efforts continue to address only symptoms then no disease can be cured.

I wish you luck in the contest.

Best wishes


James Lee Hoover wrote on May. 2, 2014 @ 16:38 GMT

The quantum and the macro world join metaphorically through Bob and Alice. That part is easier to follow for a non-scientist like me. I think of "quantum made flesh," reminiscent of the Bible and the "word made flesh" reference.

Complex ideas are given a corporal reach in your essay with an "Alice in Wonderland" quality, fetching attention while depicting paradoxical quantum relationships.

I'm impressed.


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 3, 2014 @ 15:03 GMT

Many thanks. I took on a big task trying to both make QM comprehensible AND show how it's nonsensical interpretations can be removed to allow unification; the biggest scientific leap mankind can make. It also has d to be fun to read! It can be depressing when some see no value, don't understand it or think it's off topic.

That all means your comprehension and comments are very highly valued, Thank you.

Best wishes


Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on May. 2, 2014 @ 23:06 GMT

This is an interesting and well-written attempt to explain a complex topic in the form of a story.

The winning essay will be about how self-driving electric cars and the internet will reduce greenhouse gasses and save the planet. I did not write about greenhouse gasses or the internet and I have no chance at winning. I do feel your essay is off the topic, but it is an interesting and a better read than some "electric car" essay that will win.

I wish you and your essay all the best,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 3, 2014 @ 15:19 GMT

I'm sure you're probably right.

I new mine may be seen as off topic but I disagree, it's just far less superficial and gives more fundamental advancement that electric cars etc. I see very many essays here as addressing symptoms or just airy fairy pie in the sky 'theories' an bout what we might do, but nothing real or implementable.

I'm an implementer, and I also skipper sailing yachts at representative level, normally helm and often tactician. We're used to winning. But if I ask the navigator or tactician a question I want a specific answer or directions where to steer, not some waffle and concepts, I'm better at those myself! What I show is a real way to unify science, in the short term. Academia then almost certainly won't give it a second look I predict. Is the old adage right?; (If you can't 'do' then teach). It's possible to do both as I've done it!

Best wishes


Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on May. 29, 2014 @ 18:56 GMT

I have decided to rate these essays as as written works and not how well they match the theme. The person who wrote the topic is the person to decide if the goal was reached. I do think they are looking for Al Gore with some Physics about IR absorption of CO2 (God help us all).

All the best,


report post as inappropriate

Aaron M. Feeney wrote on May. 3, 2014 @ 01:17 GMT
Hi Peter,

Thanks for your kind words. I'm glad you like the ideas I've been developing for the last few years--as far as I know, you are the first person who I did not know before writing about this topic to "get" what I've been creating.

Your essay was one of the main ones that caught my eye earlier this week, but I haven't had an opportunity to get more than the gist of it yet. I will make reading it one of my priorities this weekend, as well as posting a substantive comment and rating it.

As for rating my essay with the high score you suggested, I thank you and I say go for it. We'll see what happens; in any case, the result is bound to be interesting.

(Too bad there's no foreknowledge machine handy.)


report post as inappropriate

Kimmo Rouvari wrote on May. 3, 2014 @ 17:13 GMT
Classical way is the way to go. I have my own twists with it, but more on it later on. I might write a paper in near future and submit it to So, big hand from me! We are on the right track definitely :-)

After my antimatter experiments, the word classical will be on everybody's lips. Good for us!

report post as inappropriate

Robin Hanson wrote on May. 3, 2014 @ 22:13 GMT
I'm sure it would be good to advance the state of theoretical physics, but a proposal for doing so just doesn't seem to me very responsive to the question of how to steer humanity.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 4, 2014 @ 21:31 GMT

I'm an enabler. I 'implement' near impossible projects, in energy, defence etc. See my post on Sabine's essay. I've learned that most of what mankind does, if not just theorising, is to treat symptoms. Unintended and reverse outcomes are common because we don't think deep enough or think through implications.

Many of the essays here either consider symptoms, or don't...

view entire post

Aaron M. Feeney wrote on May. 5, 2014 @ 00:01 GMT
Hi Peter,

I enjoyed your essay, and its innovations. Conceiving of EPR experiments in space, where no direction is "up," does add a whole new spin to the issue (pun intended). I agree with you, also, that a successful marriage of relativity and QM is indeed one of the master keys to humanity's future. While I do not comprehend all of the details, I sense that you have made a valuable contribution toward that important goal. I wish you all the best!


report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman wrote on May. 6, 2014 @ 23:43 GMT

To respond to some of your comments on my thread, if you don't mind, I thought I'd post the following as how my point about time fits into a broader physical description of the human condition, if not the more elemental physical issues. The nature of FQXI tends toward conceptual physics and this can be a narrow subject in its own right, so I do tend to seem obsessed with the point...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on May. 8, 2014 @ 15:26 GMT

You commented on my essay: "Your most important and valid point I think (in the science part) is that the; "Cosine transformation of measured data yields the same essential result as does the seemingly more general complex Fourier transformation." Which is precisely what I invoke to remove the 'weirdness' from QM. That import has not yet been assimilated into present paradigms. I've steered my yacht across the Baltic at night in a storm doing intuitive complex Fourier transforms in my head to anticipate the larger waves from the darkness. I find superposed cosine iPAD's more intuitive and predictable."

May I ask you for guiding me? Where do you most understandably explain how cosine transformation instead of complex Fourier transformation is what you "invoke to remove the weirdness from QM"?

I guess, there is no necessity for me to try and understand what you meant with your yacht etc.


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 9, 2014 @ 12:23 GMT

The sea's surface has many 'superposed' wavelengths. They vary from mm to km scales but to the helmsman sailing a 13m yacht to windward the important ones are between ~1m and 10m. They're formed by changing winds, depth, tidal flow etc and propagate at different speeds. Commonly there are 2 - 5 prominent wavelengths combining to form the actual wave pattern met. These change...

view entire post

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 12, 2014 @ 14:12 GMT

Please find at my discussion thread what I can say about the cosine transformation. In your essay, I didn't find the word cosine in combination with cosine transformation.

It is not my style to be excited about vaguely alluded or claimed things that could possibly fit to my own premature ideas. That's why in particular the too many details in your Figs. 2 and 3 are difficult to read for me.

I wonder why you didn't at all mention what I consider crucial to Einstein's relativity: his synchronization. Weren't my Figs. 1 and 2 easily readable?


report post as inappropriate

Ross Cevenst wrote on May. 9, 2014 @ 10:14 GMT
Hi Peter,

What a great paper! I'm not sure if I can cast more light on it than others already have, but I think everyone here can appreciate the significance of bringing classical and QM together. Of course some of the detailed scrutiny that your fellow experts in the field might provide is well beyond me, but I'll be looking out hopefully to see your exciting ideas in some prominent places soon!

Thanks for your great comments in my own essay and good luck with your fine paper!


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 10, 2014 @ 14:28 GMT

Thank you. It seems not 'everyone' here sees the significance, and it seems 'exciting ideas' and 'prominent places' are a bit of a contradiction of terms, but I do hope so too, Thanks.


Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi wrote on May. 9, 2014 @ 20:23 GMT
I found your essay highly philosophical. Your story of Do Bob and Alice is intuitively logical. Relating the story with the subject on ground with your diagrams is quite unique. I normally appreciate every original article and this is one! It held my interest throughout. The only observation is on the table which you put at the end-note. I wish to relate those figures with your main article but found it a little tasking. May be you can make it a little clearer. Although this does not interfere in any way with your essay since is not a main focus!

I will also like you to read my article STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND ECOSYSTEM. For easy access considering the enormous entries it is here

After reading I will expect your comments and rating as well.

Wishing you the very best in this competition and future endeavors.



report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 10, 2014 @ 14:43 GMT
Thank you kindly Gbenga, I'll certainly read and rate yours.

The end note table showed actual results of a subjective 'classroom experiment' where students simply gave opinions on whether the random colour shown was 'closer' to red or green. It showed the highly non linear quantum correspondence, closely modelling the energy distribution change as a line moves across a circle, or rotational speed with increasing latitude on a sphere surface.

It was impossible to work into the narrative, but the real classical particle interaction result is anyway far more important and a more perfect cosine curve.

But it seems the quantum description of singlet states has now acquired the 'real' quality of embedded doctrine, and that physics is largely about beliefs and status not the scientific method. See the torturous discussions on the 'Classical spheres' blog if you're in any doubts. The likes of Richard Gill seem willing to ignore all logic and evidence and argue that black is white to maintain their beliefs and block advancement.

I wonder if it may not be for the best until we're a better intellectually evolved species.

Very best wishes


Douglas Alexander Singleton wrote on May. 9, 2014 @ 21:39 GMT
Hi Peter,

Nice essay both stylistically and the topic although Bell's theorem type discussions can be a bit tricky.

First you seem to want to have some "classical" picture of spin. This swims against Pauli's dictum that to consider spin as "an essentially quantum mechanical property,... a classically non-describable two-valuedness". In fact Pauli may have oversold this point of view...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 10, 2014 @ 18:40 GMT

Thank you. You didn't comment on the central point, the classical derivation of QM's predictions circumventing Bell's (tautological) theorem. My suggestion was that all will avoid even addressing this, because, despite your good words, current physics is based more more in belief that the SM so they remain only words. Is that not a fair assessment? Just the predicted solution to...

view entire post

Chidi Idika wrote on May. 10, 2014 @ 13:15 GMT
Dear Peter,

Revolutionary ideas will tend to be at first obscure.

But here is the perhaps non-technical form in which I have encountered your argument as the essential assumption required for quantum gravity:

Classical dynamics will reproduce QM and vice versa strictly by the extent we assume that the term “observer” (reference frame) means pure and simply “phase space” (the fundamental), this is such that its “observables” are by definition its phase modulations (the harmonics).

This means that any observer cannot be OWN observable, just because a phase space cannot be a modulation TO ITSELF. Put in other words, every given observer is its own “quantum” of observables.

Do you see this as a correct generalization of your argument in this essay?



report post as inappropriate

Chidi Idika replied on May. 10, 2014 @ 16:42 GMT
Lest I be misconstrued,

I don't mean that I have encountered your argument any where else. I mean to say, my statement is the form in which I myself have come to realize your technically more specific argument is a valid one.

Now, really, I don't think quantum gravity can ever happen until we come to this specific assumption. Therefore, I (little I) thinks your essay does indeed push the boundaries of physics.

Thanks, Peter, for daring.


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 10, 2014 @ 18:58 GMT

I'm surprised you're not familiar with my hypothesis. I'd expect advanced alien cultures to be well ahead! It seems slightly similar to Joy Christians, but not inflicted with his complex pararellelised 7-spheres, whatever they are, and exploding coloured balls. Where I have simple gauged OAM giving helical dipole charge paths Joy has rather impenetrable mathematics and 'torsion as a quality of space', but they may well prove very similar.

I actually do agree your description looks like a valid generalized viewpoint. I think there may be a more understandable way of expressing it, but yes, all 'detections' are interactions, all physics is 'detections', and all detection interactions modulate what is 'found'. I've never quite fully understood the physical meaning of 'phase space'. I'm a great believer that we should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. I do it often and find it works (the usual one has an advantage of having no PhD).

If you think mankind is really ready for pushed boundaries could you let the guy in charge of physics know for me, thanks. Do you think HE dares? I'm not sure who that is at it looks to me as if nobodies been in charge for a while.

I popped over and delivered your new shoes earlier. Many thanks for the kind comments and support. We mustn't loose touch.

Best wishes


John S Minkowski wrote on May. 11, 2014 @ 02:00 GMT
Hi Peter,

Congratulations on yet another new way of looking at things. Particularly impressive is that you did not need a super expensive detector and associated recording devices to do the experiment! And so no need for superstring along theory! Maybe that is why those in charge of physics don't want to pay any attention. No pay - no play!


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 12, 2014 @ 10:15 GMT

Thank you kindly. Your own insights into quantum optics and the real coherent meaning of Minkowski Space-Time are invaluable sections of the foundations of the simple model of 'scattering at c' underlying the discrete field dynamics leading to this discovery.

Perhaps even one day the Johns Hopkins University Minkowski memorial lecture in honour of your forebear might even be on the subject of this 'discrete field' model (DFM) of 'joined-up-physics'.

Now if only somebody was 'in charge of' physics it might have some direction. But then it seems that's as likely to be the wrong direction. The current patched up and disjointed 'camel' of a racehorse design which present theory represents surely can't be clung onto by it's riders for much further! It seems weighed down by too many Arabic symbols. Is it a sandstorm or blinkers that stops them seeing the thoroughbred stallion waiting patiently? Was 2020 optimistic?

Best wishes


Janko Kokosar wrote on May. 11, 2014 @ 10:51 GMT
Dear Peter

You have a bold idea to explain Bell experiment differenty. But, I did not understand everything. I suggest that you try with a simpler explanations, maybe also with animation. How it is related with hidden varibles?

Otherwise, it seems to me, that your explanation is not simpler and better than the orthodox explanation. I like the orthodox idea that something does not exist if there is not an observer. But, I claim that orthodox explanation of quantum mechanics is not complete. (One argument is that consciousness should also be explained by QM.) Unorthodox theories are useful also as a better visualiziation of an ortodox explanation.

One example, what I think as a better visualisiation, is my explanation of special theory of relativity:

Better visualization of special theory of relativity, PDF, viXra page.

Better visualization of special theory of relativity, viXra page.

But the basic intention of this contest is that we read and comment essays of each other. We do this job for our essays.

Best regards

JK FQXi pdf file

JK FQXi web site

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 12, 2014 @ 11:29 GMT

Animation would be brilliant. I haven't yet found anyone with the skills who doesn't want a heap of money. The explanation is not just simpler and better but it's the ONLY classical option (including Joy Christians mathematical model which he admits isn't a 'theory').

Consider this 'in a nutshell' explanation; Surface 'orbital velocity' of a sphere (say Earth) varies with latitude by the cosine of the angle from the equatorial plane. 'Measurement' is transfer of that orbital angular momentum on meeting another body, and 'direction' depends on which hemisphere (the axis can be rotated by rotating the magnetic field to present either north or south hemisphere).

Now applying that simple and self apparent dynamic geometry reproduces ALL the so called spooky quantum correlations, circumventing Bell's theorem. Of course there is more but that is the core. Is that simpler?

I think the terms; 'non-/ orthodox' are often a misnomer. Theories may be better termed more or less consistent (or inconsistent - as current) or 'old' or 'doctrinal' and 'hypothesised'. Because most physicist will automatically reject all with the label 'unorthodox'.

Your SR link sounds on the right track, with 'time dilation', simply Doppler shift, but I'll get logged out if I read it now! It may have to be after reading essays. I started from a more coherent SR, so if you have more time do see my prev essays starting from;
te_Field_Model._ 2011_FQXi_Competition finalist

I suspect there's much in common. The postulates survive in the DFM, showing most have been looking in the wrong place. Light changes speed to the local c on arrival in the detector system domain, not before.

Best of luck in the competition.

Very best wishes.


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 12, 2014 @ 11:32 GMT
Damn! it got me anyway. Why does the 'logged in' note at the foot of the page tell mistruths?! - perhaps as it's based on 'orthodox' assumptions?


James A Putnam wrote on May. 11, 2014 @ 12:49 GMT
Hi Peter,

I just rated your essay. It is entertaining and relevant to the future. Fix physics and one changes the future of humanity. You approach physics very differently than do I. What is not different is that I agree that physics needs fixing. As usual, you showed up well prepared to argue your case. The '1's appear to be in large supply this year. You are weathering that storm very ably. Perhaps it feels something like your yachting story? Congratulations on getting your viewpoint heard. Your hard work and perseverance are admired and respected. If you are correct, I wish you quick success.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 12, 2014 @ 12:03 GMT

Thanks. 'Heard' is one thing. 'Remembered', 'applied' or 'assimilated' are in quite another category. In fact after posting in the arXiv web archive it seems somebody has 'had a word' and now they behave the same as journal editors and academia; put up the shutters.

It's clear something is VERY seriously wrong in the state of physics if a more coherent falsifiable hypothesis than a present ruling paradigms is entirely excluded and subjugated without study just because it's slightly at variance.

Doug Singleton is certainly correct, but his words seem no more than that, just words as when tested he appears to step straight back into line and look away (see above and his blog).

But you know my strategy and time-scale. 2020 may not be entirely realistic but it's a target at least. I always was an optimist! Shame about the billions wasted in the interim when it could be better employed for advancement, and the esteem of science ever slipping, but I'm not sure what else I can do alone.

I'm very grateful for your support, and that of everybody able to rationalise the logic.

I didn't get a response from Margaret. I'm resistant to scoring those who don't bother to engage or show respect of those who comment by answering or reading other essays. Particularly for those scoring well it gives the impression of arrogance, which is a big part of the problem. I'll check again.

Best of luck in the coming stormy run for home!


giorgio gaviraghi wrote on May. 12, 2014 @ 14:51 GMT

I appreciate your essay , very philodophical but also with a specific techological demonstartion.

Only question what type of humans would Bob and Alice be in their future timeline.



report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 13, 2014 @ 10:10 GMT

Thank you. They would be more rounded I suspect, but entangled on multiple levels. Perhaps the important question is; Could they help steer mankind when the very concept seems like herding cats.


Stefan Weckbach wrote on May. 12, 2014 @ 19:51 GMT
Dear Peter,

i read your essay and the previous comments.

There you make a strong claim against Bell's theorem (Bell-type theorems).

You claim your model reproduces all quantum correlations:

"Now applying that simple and self apparent dynamic geometry reproduces ALL the so called spooky quantum correlations, circumventing Bell's theorem."

I have a question:

How can your model reproduce these experiments with double-apertures:

Looking forward to read from you.

Stefan Weckbach

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 13, 2014 @ 11:09 GMT

I show circumvention rather than disproof. The difference is that his logic stands as a sound tautology for the scenario he set out. He recognised a number of ways around it (5?), including the 'so what' option which I invoke. To do so I use a different (hidden) starting assumption; that rather than QAM being "reducible" to a singlet state it retains BOTH states but we can only 'measure' one at a time.

For this to work requires a few more effects, principally

a) Propagation on spin axis (implicit as a 'particle' may also be an analogy of gauged wavefront helical fluctuations) so each 'half' is led by a different 'pole'. (I don't get too technical about wave interferance in the essay).

b) Electron spin flip. Taken direct from the QO shelf to fit a big gap in QM - i.e. the detector field/electron spin flips with magnetic field direction.

c) Measurement as exchange of OAM. Again 'off the shelf' with Malus' Law.

d) Non mirror symmetry of spin, ditto. (opposite and not 'monople' rotation).

Simply; Angular momentum as orbital speed at different latitudes then precisely reproduces the cosine curves (Inequality violations), including each with multiple spheres and with all degrees of freedom of axial rotation (cos^2). (Nearby harmonic resonance at

report post as inappropriate

Andrej Rehak wrote on May. 13, 2014 @ 12:01 GMT
Dear Peter

I enjoyed reading your A&B adventure. As you might know, your clear and visual description is not very likely to be considered by a system feeding on a conjecture without, not only visual, mathematical or logical, but without any interpretation :) The fearless truth wants to be asked anything, because the fearless truth wants to draw everything. On the other hand, the Standard model is all about how to avoid being questioned. Einstein's definition of insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again and expecting different results... Although invented by thinkers, nowadays Standard model turned into repetition of a repetition, falling into a loop of being purpose of itself struggling for its own existence... Anyone who can visualise does not except explanations which cannot be visualized. Anyone who is sane, and who has the slightest idea about fractals, concludes that the Big Show of searching for the smallest division in nature is flourishing of non-alive technology but degeneration of living thought. It is the expensive game of big toys for little boys, sending as a very special message...

As written by the Nobel Prize winner, Leon Lederman, the age of reaching for the truth purely by thinking of the phenomenon, drawing geometry on sand, the time of Tales, Pythagoras or Archimedes is an issue of some distant and in scientific terms more primitive past... Nowadays, says Lederman the truth is revealed by machines... In other words, exclude the creative thinking and switch on the accelerator... and if you cannot afford it, tuff luck, you are too primitive to be a scientist :)



report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 13, 2014 @ 15:58 GMT

A very perceptive analysis. I couldn't draw my geometry on the sand anyway as there are now too many heads in it. I did ask them last year, while they were there, to see if they could find two identical grains, they couldn't. Now I fear they fear what they may see by looking elsewhere.

I still pin my hopes on an inlet by 2020 (as my 2011 essay). I feel we must retain some optimism. In the meantime I'll go sailing.

Thank you and best wishes


Akinbo Ojo wrote on May. 13, 2014 @ 19:26 GMT

Certainly one of the more serious entries this year. Even if the establishment wants to find fault, the ideas surely deserve a fair hearing with all the hard work that has gone into this. Its something to read again and again although my interest in this area is currently not high. I posted on the 'Ripping Einstein Apart' blog about what you wrote on the Michelson-Gale experiment. I think you should do a short and focused critique of that MGP experiment and post somewhere on the web for posterity. When I say focused and short, not with a view to sell your pet DFM, of which understandably you are the No.1 salesman! :)

All the best


report post as inappropriate

Stefan Weckbach wrote on May. 13, 2014 @ 20:14 GMT
Dear Peter,

thank you for your comments.

Another question:

Is the total angular momentum of your twin-particle-system conserved (means momentum conservation)?


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 13, 2014 @ 20:45 GMT

The total momentum is conserved but I'm not sure about the total 'angular' momentum as some may be converted and also there are too many gauges. We may need to know how far away infinity is. The model (as last years 'IQbit' proof) anyway says we can only ever 'approximate' anything (as Godel, Chaos, Fractals etc).

To visualise; take two spinning gyro's/spheres (donuts will do) and keep touching them against each other while turning each axis through both (360^o) 'degrees of rotational freedom'. Whatever the relative orientations the change in OAM transfer should be by the cosine^2 of the rotation angle, an extraordinary finding I suspect. Of course it's still only a model of a more complex resonance process.

Of course the photomultiplyers may also be sinks, and some of the energy is converted into sound ('click!').

Have you ever considered how to account for the energy of dark energy when it condenses fermion pairs through the Higgs process (not to mention the photoelectric effect/ photoionization, Unruh effect etc.) and then annihilates (over the Debye length). I'm not at all sure we could keep up!

Does any of that sound the slightest bit sensible? Or similar to doctrine? If we could make it look a bit more like doctrine do you think we might slip it in unnoticed for a health check while their guard's down?

Best wishes


Ajay Bhatla wrote on May. 14, 2014 @ 04:15 GMT

I finally have got around to reading your essay. I rsoon ealized that I do indeed need to brush up on my physics. Too may years spent explaining to the big world in what feels like, a totally different language.

Your "new ways to think" comment perked me up. But is your message simply that nothing can be done till humanity understands nature better? or till Bob and Alice do finally get 'entangled'.

But, maybe, all you are really saying is that humanity has the time before it must do something to get the future it desires: estimated 200 years from the 1850s i.e. 2050 or so. If so, I'm taking a long overdue vacation.

Thanks for the humor to lighten up the physics.

Looking forward to your comments on my comments and my essay here

- Ajay

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on May. 14, 2014 @ 09:46 GMT

Message 1) is that understanding must be improved to progress. Message 2) is that a new 'non Earth-centric' way to think is needed to achieve that progress, and it's possible now. I tried to show 2 in a more subliminal way, showing the hidden importance of there being "no UP in space" and the power of that next 'Copernican' step away from how we use our on-board quantum computers.

The demonstration of that is the entirely classical reproduction of 'QM correlations', circumventing Bell's theorem. It uses 'joined-up-physics' by applying various important elements (i.e. electron 'spin flip') to expose a coherent geometrical solution to the EPR paradox. No spookyness or FTL nonsense required.

It's a fundamental breakthrough because the same mechanism also applies to SR (light speed changes to local c on arrival and interaction not before!) which allows complete harmonious unification of SR and QM, in 'absolute' time, but with Doppler shiftable 'signals' once emitted (see my prev essays from '2020 Vision in 2011). For that reason it'll probably never be countenanced by any who can't think beyond current doctrine. Unfortunately that seems to be very few so far. I think you caught a first glimpse, far clearer than the established language? A 2nd read often seems necessary.

I'll read you essay asap.

Thanks for the comments.


Ajay Bhatla replied on May. 19, 2014 @ 17:09 GMT

You are right: "no UP in space".

As I think you know from my essay, the "next Copernican step" can be very effectively catalyzed by sharing the science.

Furthermore, rather than focus on finding a way to change "who can't think beyond current doctrine", my way is to get those that can to self-identify themselves.

Thanks for your comments here and on my essay.

-- Ajay

report post as inappropriate

Israel Perez wrote on May. 14, 2014 @ 14:39 GMT
Hi Peter

I just read your work, which I found very creative, imaginative and well organized. I had to read it twice to grasp the details. I was about to ask you the connection with the main topic of this contest because you slightly touch it in your essay, but I realized that Ajay had a similar doubt. So, just by reading your reply to him I understand better the philosophy behind your work.

There is a widespread belief, perhaps promoted by popular science books, that there is a conflict between SR and QM, in particular with the case of entanglement. In a recent article published by Susskind and Maldacena (arxiv: 1306.0533v2) they discuss that neither wormholes nor entanglement can be used to send signals faster than light, meaning that there is no violation of causality (no spooky action at a distance).

I have studied the case of entanglement, spin and other quantum mechanical phenomena. You may know that there are many versions of QM. At least I'm aware of 5 of them. Among this I found Bohmian mechanics the most consistent, although due to the additional pilot-equation is not well accepted by the physics community. You may wish to take a look at the advantages over conventional QM in wikipedia. Some authors have suggested that there is a 4 dimension to explain the 720 degrees rotation. In the four dimension this is seen as a regular rotation. Unfortunately, at this moment I don't remember the reference, but it is not difficult to find it in the web.

I see that you are getting good rating and I think your works deserves it. I wish you good luck in the contest!

Best Regards


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 15, 2014 @ 16:20 GMT

Thank you. Yes, at least 5 interpretations. The mechanism I describe 'depends' on none but starts from first principles. It agrees with that conclusion of Susskind and Maldacena, and largely with DeBroglie and Bohm but absolutely no current theoretical interpretation matches the mechanism without some degree of re- interpretation. The Copenhagen Interpretation (still leading with 50% of the vote at the last count) comes out fundamentally closest along with Bohmian mechanics.

The "detector modulation" proposed is what I recall you agreed with 2 essays ago. Electrons refract, as we well know. Detector field electrons then influence the 'observed' signal characteristics, which has 3 effects;

1. They re-emit at c in their spin centric frame so CHANGE relative light speed to c.

2. They refract individually (rotate optical axis) so 'curve' apparent light 'paths'.

3. They revere spin direction subject the their own (field) orientation.

Now if we consider those effects carefully we find we have entirely unified interpretations of SR (1.) GR (2.) and QM (3.) Each is derived in detail in my last 3 essays, the whole ontology in the 2011 essay, requesting testing and logical falsification of the hypothesis. None has yet come but it's still invited (some of course object or go silent on the basis that it's unfamiliar, though I do point out a coherent solution will be by definition).

I can't think of anything tangible that will allow man to steer his future to better effect tan to better understand nature, our planet and the universe. Thanks for your kind comments.


Michael Allan replied on May. 16, 2014 @ 12:20 GMT
Allow me, Peter - Other contenders are an understanding of man (the understander), of man's relation to nature, and of steering itself. - Mike

report post as inappropriate

Israel Perez replied on May. 17, 2014 @ 19:13 GMT
Hi Peter

Thanks for your reply. For a theoretical physicists this is the most difficult part: ...requesting testing and logical falsification of the hypothesis.

As for the purpose of your essay I understand that discovering the secrets of nature affects somehow the course of humanity, but in my opinion not merely steers humanity, because "steers" implies a plan or intention; this is why I define science just as the generation of knowledge and technology as the application of this knowledge for the convenience of humankind.

Good luck in the contest



report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on May. 15, 2014 @ 14:01 GMT

Given you had the chance to delete, correct, or at least better explain what you wrote on May 13 and 14 in reply to Ajay Bhatly and Stefan Weckbach.

Did you maintain utterances like these?

1 We may need to know how far away infinity is.

2 the energy of dark energy

3 the cosine^2 of the rotation angle, an extraordinary finding I suspect. Of course it's still only a model of a more complex resonance process.

4 the hidden importance of there being "no UP in space" and the power of that next 'Copernican' step away from how we use our on-board quantum computers.

5 a new 'non Earth-centric' way to think is needed to achieve that progress, and it's possible now.

6 It's a fundamental breakthrough. it'll probably never be countenanced by any who can't think beyond current doctrine. Unfortunately that seems to be very few so far.

7 'joined-up-physics'

You know, I am still trying to discover something that is convincing to me in your "scientific work". Nonetheless, I acknowledge that you made me aware of viXra.


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 15, 2014 @ 17:11 GMT

Thank you for persisting. I expand on my brief answers as follows;

1) The question was about conservation of OAM. My reply meant that we can't know precisely unless we can mathematically 'fix' infinity. i.e. so can't know.

2) Dark energy is a foundation of the standard model of cosmology and also the only possible source of the energy of condensed matter (fermion...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 15, 2014 @ 18:13 GMT

At least you got aware of the wrong negation in 7. Didn't you realize what I meant?

1) The good old meaning of infinite is the quality of being endless, the opposite of finite.

2) I criticize the formulation energy of energy.

3) 2cos^2(2pi)=1-cos(4pi). This is nothing extraordinary. Your vague guesses don't clarify.

4) Of course, there is no UP in space. We are living downunder if seen from Australia. Invoking Copernik is perhaps inappropriate. You seem to consider the brain a quantum computer without any evidence that supports such guess.

5) While I never had problems to imagine relative positions, directions, and velocities in 3D space it remains unclear to me what you mean by "new 'non Earth-centric' way to think." Is it meant in 4D?#

Sounds as if you meant with "it's possible now": you made something possible that was not possible so far.

6) I understand that you are convinced having solved all problems.

7) I just don't know such word. At first glance I tend to share some of your ideas. Nonetheless I would never trust in mere guesswork.

I would appreciate any tangible criticism of a serious essay, e.g. 2021. Don't you have anything to say concerning synchronization? Who is correct?


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 16, 2014 @ 11:54 GMT

1) Infinite is endless. Precisely my point and Godel's. We can't mathematically prove anything with finite precision when reality is infinite. Ergo; To prove anything absolutely we'd; "need to know how far infinity is!" which is impossible. The expression simply promotes a; "new way of looking at familiar things", (Wm Bragg).

2) Same thing as above; But 'Energy' also has a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Giacomo Alessiani wrote on May. 16, 2014 @ 00:06 GMT
Hi Peter , i found the essay interesting and an extension of previous research completing a scenario even more clear.

In fact , I do not think such a distraction, if the double cone in the sphere ( Figure 3) can easily correspond to the Minkowski space-time.

Then, space-time together with entangled photons, it looks like the Bloch Sphere is a very useful threedimensional object.

But, even proper revolving a straight rod, it is possible to obtain a Minkowski space-time, i mean the double cone.

The same rod, if properly bond and revolved in the middle, can give a double cone for the Minkowski space-time.

I want to believe the straight and the bond rod , can be some kind of inner element of reality, also connected to entanglement.

At last the entanglement is much more an emergent property of space - time itself?

If my research on the meaning of bit of information, somehow, is also inside this last job , is what gave me the chance to understand Your ideas.

My Best Wishes for the contest.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 16, 2014 @ 10:49 GMT

Many thanks for your appreciation. The twin cones in the sphere is a simplified representation of OAM magnitude transferred ('measured') on interaction, producing the cos^2 curve classically (se leading to unity of QM and SR).


The space-time curvature is more simply represented geometrically by a rotation of the axis of charge ('optical axis' or observed position) such as precession, and when the electron has any lateral vector component when interacting with the wavefront. You can create this energy distribution orientation rotation physically by pushing a ball across the surface of water. The water pressure and level increases at the front and reduces at the rear. The 'JM Rotation' of charge that results directly produces the 'kinetic reverse refraction' well known but not understood, as recently found by the VLBA from a moving plasma cloud. The effects precisely reproduce 'refraction', 'stellar aberration' and 'space time curvature'. See my 2012 essay here for the full derivation.


The physical cause of 'entanglement' is simply the maintained relationship between equatorial planes (orthogonal to axis of propagation) of the two 'halves' sent to A and B. No other relationship is required. The two 4-vectors in the Bloch sphere would more accurately be shown as single vectors in two spheres; A and B, but both relating to a common plane and thus have RELATIVE latitudes. It is then the detector electrons which rotate to give the varying energy levels transferred (and hemispherical 'directions'). It may be termed an 'emergent property of...etc.' but I describe a far more meaningful classical physical mechanism. Most aren't trained to think like that. See the excellent Khalil essay.

Best wishes


murat Asgatovich gaisin wrote on May. 16, 2014 @ 04:29 GMT
Dear Peter Jackson,

I fully support your idea - "The only sure way to find out and avoid disaster may be to make a quantum leap in our understanding of nature". Therefore highly appreciated your article.


Murat Asgatovich Gaisin

report post as inappropriate

Charles Gregory St Pierre wrote on May. 17, 2014 @ 07:07 GMT
Dear Peter,

Well, you certainly got the physics part!

The idea of electrons actually having two components is interesting. My own thought is we're looking at a non-oriented manifold. For instance, a vector orthogonal to the surface of an ideal Mobius strip, takes twice around the strip (720 )to return to the same direction. And because of the twist, it actually takes up space, ah,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 18, 2014 @ 19:18 GMT
Thanks Charles,

I think you've highlighted the problem with mainstream theory. Though clearly very inconsistent and incomplete it's embedded, so recognising more consistent alternatives which are 'different' (be definition) is impossible.

All are trying to get their heads and maths around reality in terms of twisted mobius strips and 7-spheres, but when shown that the simple relationship between orbital speeds at different latitudes on a sphere can reproduce everything needed to explain "QM predictions", it's so unbelievably simple that it's simply not believed so not even analysed!

I stress I'm not shocked or upset Charles. I estimated in 2010 that mankind was unlikely to have the vision to perceive the truth of any such 'different' solution until 2020 (see my 2011 Essay). The subsequent essays have shown the proofs, being exceptionally well supported, (2nd Community last year) but translating that to a paradigm shift is a long way off it seems.

I do hope you might look back to better understand to logic and quite solid evidence (see also me recent comments here) which will help you better understand my classical solution here, also how QM and SR are indeed marriageable once the interpretations of both are just slightly modified by the same mechanism; electron/plasma re-scattering at the electrons own 'c'. I call it 'joined-up-science', a bit like learning 'joined-up-writing as it invokes well known effects from disparate 'disciplines'.

I'll also check back on your essay. Thanks for your comments.

Best wishes.


Anonymous wrote on May. 17, 2014 @ 20:46 GMT
Hi Peter,

I did think some more about your essay, but am not sure I fully got the point. This is not the fault of the essay but as I said I find Bell's theorem discussions very subtle and for me it takes time to digest. I had the same reaction the first time we covered Bell's theorem in grad school (we were using Sakaurai's non-relativistic QM text which has a good description of Bell's...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Douglas Alexander Singleton replied on May. 17, 2014 @ 20:48 GMT
Hi again. The above was me. I guess you get logged out if the post is too long.



report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 19, 2014 @ 11:56 GMT

It took me a few years too. What Bell does is 'limit' the inequalities possible from random variables, so although the experimental results vary from QM (as they're subjective) they actually exceed the QM violations. The non subjective mechanism which the experiment models reproduces the QM (Cos^2) predictions precisely.

I think we've exposed the real...

view entire post

attachments: Electron_Model_Max_Planck_inst..jpg, 7_Kit._FIG_5.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 21, 2014 @ 00:27 GMT
Hi Peter,

I wanted to add one more comment in regard to a technical part of your essay that is interesting. You're proposal (or at least Alice and Bob of the essay) do this EPR/Bohm experiment with electron spins rather than photon spins. As far as I know the actual experiments have only ever been done with photons. You have looked in the experimental status of this to a greater degree so...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford wrote on May. 18, 2014 @ 07:20 GMT
Hi Peter,

You take us, the readers, on a journey. We see reality from the point of view of characters (Alice and Bob) that seem to have real lives. I'm always amazed by the imaginative scenarios you use to frame your discussion of the physics!

Your main hypothesis, that "quantum spin includes OAM" and so "'non-local state reduction' is not required", seems feasible enough to me, but it would be great to get some experimental results to confirm it.

On the other hand, I wouldn't agree that all aspects of nature are necessarily entirely "logical". I would think that, in a non-platonic universe, logic is not the standard to measure nature - it's more a case that nature is the standard to measure logic. I think that logic (i.e. that which seems to us to be consistent and make sense) is the product of nature, not the other way round.

A very readable and interesting essay.



report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 18, 2014 @ 18:35 GMT

I like; "nature is the standard to measure logic" because as I highlighted in my 2012 essay, famously; "all logical systems are ultimately beset by paradox". With the exception of only one (which also proves Occam's razor);

That one is the simple 'TRUTH FUNCTION LOGIC" (TFL) which I described in that essay and which is the logic I invoke. In a nutshell, It...

view entire post

KoGuan Leo wrote on May. 18, 2014 @ 15:51 GMT
Hi Peter,

You write beautifully and the content is even better. The essay is packed with so much information. I read it once but I have to read carefully it again. I just give you my encouragement now because it is one of the best essay here. I will comment and rate it soon.

Best wishes,

Leo KoGuan

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 19, 2014 @ 18:12 GMT

Thanks for your kind words. I've read your own quite unique essay and commented there, including on apparent commonalities. It's an interesting thought to find such fundamental harmony 4,000 years apart. I look forward to your detailed and valued comments.

Best wishes


KoGuan Leo replied on May. 24, 2014 @ 12:53 GMT

I think your essay is outstanding and very creative. I like it very much. We don't agree on everything. At least I agree that "there was no boundary between the classical and quantum worlds". If I may explain that KQID theory is monism. Therefore there is only one physics and one entangled hologram Existence. KQID Five Ones: one source Qbit( 00, +, -), one principle of "Giving first Taking later", one theory of "bit is it, and it is bit", one formula Ee^iτ = A + S ⊆ T that iteratively produce unitary one (1), that creates and distributes one entangled hologram Existence. We are all connected.

Your essay is a masterpiece, it is unique and it is creative. I rated your essay the highest score ten (10). I noted from your comment that many trolls in this contest thus I noted that before I voted you got 5.9 average score voted by 42, now it is 6.0 voted by 43.

I wish you the best and hope we can become friends,

Leo KoGuan

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti wrote on May. 18, 2014 @ 22:03 GMT
Hi Peter,

Good to see you in another contest. Finally got to your essay, which I always look forward to.

One thing I found of interest is the idea of electrons actually having two components. And these components are what creates the spin of the electron.

Please allow me to offer a somewhat similar idea that may integrate with yours. The two components of the electron are two wavelengths, a deBroglie wavelength and a Compton wavelength. The sequence of these wavelengths form what we call spin. See:





To date, Bell's theorem is generally regarded as supported by a substantial body of evidence and there are few supporters of local hidden variables, though the theorem is continually subject of study, criticism, and refinement.

Please also allow me to put in my two cents, and argue that Bell's theorem is founded on a fundamental misconception. Bell assumed that local hidden variables were a possibility. He then showed that this is impossible. The logic is good so long as a local hidden variable is as conceived by Einstein. Both Bell and Einstein demanded that particles be "continuous in space-time". If particles are not continuous in space-time (Heisenberg's concept in matrix mechanics), the Bell theorem produces confusion because garbage in produces garbage out. We do not see the garbage in and try to find meaning in the garbage out. The fundamental reality of QM is discontinuous, it can be observed in experiments (Alain Aspect) but never proved, it is just a fact of nature (IMHO).

I believe you are pushing the boundaries of our concepts of reality.... a very practical way to steer the future.

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 19, 2014 @ 12:38 GMT

Thanks. See the attachment in my above post to Doug, I agree there's a close analogy to what are termed the DeBroglie and Compton wavelengths, but also that they may be just two gauges of continuous hierarchy consistent witch Godel etc. and Chaos theory.

Bell's theorem's logic is circumvented not collided with. I agree it's " founded on a fundamental misconception.", but not quite exactly as you describe. Again see my post to Doug above. Whatever the details It's certainly a case of; "garbage in produces garbage out."

Don't forget Aspect discarded 99.999% of his data as there was no theory to fit it. There now is. Also repeated with Weihs experiment.

Thanks for your support. After recovering from reading essays I'll see if I can get anything new from the papers above. Are any of the recent updates?

Very best wishes


Luca Valeri wrote on May. 18, 2014 @ 22:59 GMT
Dear Peter,

beautiful essay! I also liked the story around it. Although in trying to understand quantum physics for so many years I somehow took Bohr's side in the struggle for an interpretation of QM, I think your essay is a precious contribution to the debate and earns a hight rating.

Recently in trying to figure out how the information is transferred in a coin toss I had similar vision as Bob in space, as there is now up and down for a coin if not relative to gravitational field. I didn't come far with the informational part of my thinking. But I figured out, that the quantum mechanical probabilities could come out for the simple coin toss.

A similar realistic toy model was used by Diederik Aerts in this paper to show, that if the state is disturbed by the measurement apparatus Kolmogorovian probabilities do not hold any more and they have to be generalized.

In my essay I take a non realistic view of physics in the sense that objects get their properties by interaction with the measurement apparatus and don't have these properties per se. I hope you find the time to read, rate and comment it.



report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 19, 2014 @ 19:18 GMT

It sounds like our propositions are very alike, but I've shown that your view of Copenhagen can also be realistic. Unlocking a single invisible padlock releases the chains that prevent both QM and SR from moving towards unification, and the key is that objects have a RANGE of properties, and observer interactions can modulate BETWEEN those rather than just 'imparting' them.

I greatly look forward to reading your essay and feel a genuine high coming on! I read the Aerts paper and it's astonishing how close they came without recognising the padlock and turning the key (flipping the electron with the filter EM field).

Of course even when revealed it seems that circumvention of Bells theorem will be ignored as it's not the answer the experts 'expect'. I currently have Richard Gill swearing black is white and denying simple logic as he's solely focussed on the Bell/CHSH barrier which is left behind. Our blind faith in our embedded beliefs in the face of consistent logic and the scientific method is astonishing.

See you on your blog.


Luca Valeri replied on May. 20, 2014 @ 06:38 GMT
Dear Peter,

However Aerts paper helps to understand, why the Bell inequalities do not hold. Abramsky and Hardy show that all the possible inequalities can be derived from the really simple what they call Logical Bell inequality. As in Aerts and your model because of the disturbance, the Kolmogorov probability axiom do not hold anymore (as Aerts shows) also the Logical Bell inequalities do not hold for these models and so the ordinary Bell and CHSH inequalties.


report post as inappropriate

Luca Valeri replied on May. 20, 2014 @ 06:59 GMT
Here a link for the Logical Bell inequalities that works.


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on May. 19, 2014 @ 20:43 GMT

The fact is that humanity, as well as everything on this planet, are dynamic processes and as such nature's 'technology.' I'm certainly willing to give your paper a go, address is brodix at earthl!

However, as you have well experienced, we all interface with our world on our own terms and your set of criteria are likely somewhat different from mine. Having been...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 20, 2014 @ 04:05 GMT

I would also argue the proper measurement function of that collective fuzziness is thermal.



report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 20, 2014 @ 10:12 GMT

"Moving people is as much art as science." Amen to that, but the real point is that "Nature" is also as much art science! or at least what we call "science". I'm discussing Nature. Frankly, once the truth is out, much of "physics" will be consigned to the tip anyway! If it DOES get out that is, so only if our understanding ever DOES reach that plane. That must be the...

view entire post

Anonymous replied on May. 20, 2014 @ 17:25 GMT

No! It's an i.

I have to say I think I offer a pretty foundational observation, that the vector of time, on which our cognitive processes and civilization is based, as in narrative, sequence, causality, history, etc. is actually an effect, not foundational. Yet even you are unwilling to see it as anything more than a pet obsession of mine.

In case you haven't noticed, I do express a lot of ideas and interests and the reason I keep coming back to this one, is because I do see it as fundamental to many of our misconceptions about reality. Not just the modern epicycles of spacetime, but our inability to see beyond our own particular perceptions, based on that singular narrative of our lives, to appreciating the essential fuzziness of our mutual connectivity.

As it is, I like things simple, so hopefully you have distilled your premise down to the clear points and applications.

No, heat is mostly amplitude of oscillation. Even rapid oscillation only projects as heat to the extent it ramps up the amplitude of reception. Lots of little waves quickly creating one large wave.

The measure of time is frequency and that is much more like temperature, than space!!!!!



report post as inappropriate

Kevin O\'Malley wrote on May. 20, 2014 @ 05:33 GMT
Hello Peter:

Thank you for logging onto my essay discussion. I'm afraid I'm swamped and won't be able to getting round to reading & rating your essay until next week.

best regards

Kevin O'Malley

report post as inappropriate

Member Daniel Dewey wrote on May. 20, 2014 @ 12:53 GMT
Hi Peter,

Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to offer you much helpful feedback on the physics of your essay. To be constructive, though, I will mention that I found it hard to understand how your theory relates to the theme of the contest. I would have been helped by a more explicit statement of how you're recommending humanity should steer the future, and more direct arguments for why the way you propose is a good one.

Best of luck!


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 20, 2014 @ 14:27 GMT

Thanks. I'm a practical guy and recognise that all significant advancement is led by advances in science and technology. See my post to John above. I consider most essays here are either stating the obvious, give some ideal, or discuss a specialisation. Few actually point and steer a negotiable path with real chance of big progress. The 'quantum leap' I cite.

Have you noticed the propensity for unintended and even 'reverse' outcomes? That's because people take the obvious view and don't think through cause and effect. As an 'enabler' that's my job. I see most wandering around lost with no tangible way of making real progress or understanding of where to start. Clearly no one thing can improve our understanding better and more widely than unification of physics and removal of confused nonsense.

I'd thought your essay showed you understood the importance of identifying and focussing on the right and key things in science. Was I wrong? I'll re-read it before I score it.

Best wishes


Judy Nabb wrote on May. 25, 2014 @ 07:37 GMT

I noticed that your comment to Doug Singleton may be misconstrued as suggesting photons are spin 1/2, which I know from the blogs you well understand isn't the case. I know your solution also covers spin 1 but suspect Doug missed that and you may have missed that he did so.

Daniel Dewey's comment above is similar. Co-incidentally I've just commented on Dan's essay. It seems lack of familiarity with fundamental physics hides the great problem of Unification from more than we realise. I agree it seriously confuses all areas from cosmology to neurons and electrons, i.e. 'everything'.

However clear and important your case is there are many who haven't understood that so the argument needs repeating. I see it as the human brains weakness of often only seeing immediate not consequential effect. I still think your essay gives the most massive direction and advance of any here. Don't loose heart!

I'm still surprised that's missed by so many but I do now better understand your view that it may be 2020 before man has the vision. Do you think that acceptance of that might make you a little too laconic in presenting the case?

I really hope your essay finishes strongly, for our sake as much as yours!


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 27, 2014 @ 16:53 GMT

Thanks. I've clarified to Doug that QM is logical for both photons and electrons. Sorry if I'm laconic. It's a massive advancement, but I'll only get upset if I expect it to be seen by all.

I feel as I do helming a yacht when the race crew are distracted. I've worked on strategy and tactics and have a direct route to success, but when it comes to the last manoeuvre no matter what I say they're all looking in different directions, chatting or wandering around aimlessly, so we fail.

Preparation is everything, but they say the most important bit of kit on the boat is the nut on the end of the tiller extension (the helmsman). Unfortunately he can be a genius to no avail if he can't get the message to the crew. But it does no good ranting. A good skipper must be patient, but must also inspire.

Thanks for your support. I hope you finish strongly.

Best wishes


Petio Hristov wrote on May. 25, 2014 @ 09:10 GMT
Hi Peter,

I thank you for the high rate which gave me.

I have gone over your essay and I am interested and impressed by your ideas and believe that it disserves a high rate. Unfortunately I will be quite busy these upcoming weeks and we will have to postpone our discussion. After the 12th of June I will give you a more detailed feedback regarding your essay.

Best regards,

Petio H

report post as inappropriate

Robert de Neufville wrote on May. 27, 2014 @ 03:12 GMT
Very interesting essay, Peter. You did a great job of mirroring the science with human themes. I particularly liked the way you parallel a pair of particles with a pair of people. You used macroscopic objects to illustrate QM ideas beautifully.

The idea of spin within spin is fascinating and completely new to me, although I admit I'm not qualified to judge whether it gets around Bell's prohibition on local hidden variables. It wasn't quite clear to me what the implications for how we should steer the future would be, but resolving the conflict between QM and relativity would certainly be a huge breakthrough.

I very much enjoyed your essay in any case. Good luck in the contest!



report post as inappropriate

MIROSLAW KOZLOWSKI wrote on May. 27, 2014 @ 15:43 GMT
Dear Peter

Always I suspect that entanglementhas kas classic basis. In any case classical theories are those with infinite velocity of informstion propagation. I put 10 scores for your essay

My best regards


report post as inappropriate

Ken Hon Seto wrote on May. 27, 2014 @ 21:16 GMT
Dear Peter,

I enjoy reading your essay especially your discussion on quantum entanglement.

It turns out that my theory Model Mechanics has a physical explanation for quantum entanglement as follows: A photon is a wave-packet in neighboring E-Strings in the E-Matrix. When a photon is chopped into two pieces these pieces become mirror images of each other and thus they become entangled as they travel in the opposite directions in these neighboring E-Strings.

I tried to give your essay a high rating but I was enable to do so. In fact I was not able to give anybody a rating at all. I will contact the administrator to correct the problem.



report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 28, 2014 @ 15:24 GMT

I hope you regain your powers.

I agree your fundamentals are consistent with the DFM and discuss the rest of the classical QM derivation on your blog. I think we may term entanglement as consistency of nature and the laws of physics as little more is required. Certainly no FTL. I have scored yours and was pleased to have raised it.

Best wishes


Member Rick Searle wrote on May. 28, 2014 @ 02:34 GMT

Thanks for your generous comments over at my essay. I have read, greatly enjoyed and scored your piece. Alas, it seems difficult to move someone's aggregate score I was hoping to get you the attention of proper physicists, unlike myself, you deserve.

If I understand your project, you are trying to find a way to return physics to the way it was understood before quantum weirdness appeared Einstein's "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." Am I properly comprehending, if vastly oversimplifying, your project.

If my understanding is correct I would align that with my own essay in this way: human beings desire not only that the world be physically comprehensible but that it be morally comprehensible as well. We used to articulate this desire for comprehensibility through Utopian thought, that is, we used Utopia to both imagine what features a

morally comprehensible world would have or as a kind of contrast to the ways our own society failed to match our desire for comprehensibility. I'd like to see a revival of the tradition minus its former hubris and other flaws.

I wish you best of luck here and in getting your ideas across to the rest of the physics community. If you have not already done so your grading of my essay would be greatly appreciated.

Rick Searle

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 28, 2014 @ 15:26 GMT

Many thanks. I responded in detail on yours.


John C Hodge wrote on May. 28, 2014 @ 17:30 GMT
Thanks for the vote.

Thanks for the reference to Hodge .

My reference to EPR was to suggest it is founded on an assumption about the distinction between local and non-local. Suppose the plenum (space of general relativity) wave traveled at 10^7 time the speed of light. Well, at least fast enough so your characters were in local space. Matter still travels at less than $c$, a distinction is the Lorentz version of $c$ (the fastest MATTER can travel). Space (plenum in STOE) directs matter so it can do the entanglement thing.

Perhaps we should continue on the link. Perhaps you would comment on my model as well.


report post as inappropriate

John C Hodge replied on May. 28, 2014 @ 17:37 GMT
Acedemia link

report post as inappropriate

Ryoji Furui wrote on May. 29, 2014 @ 03:07 GMT
Dear Peter,

Interesting essay with the story a couple rethink about their relation once ;) and thank you for your comments at my thread.

When reading your essay and seeing the picture of 1/2 spin, I had an idea about 1d string which consists with 4d curled up space time. We usually imagine 2d space sheet is curled up as 1d string. Have you heard this approach to extra dimension in string theory? I think this can contain more information on 1d string.

thank you,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 29, 2014 @ 17:33 GMT

If you follow the reference to the recent Plank institute electron finding the Amplituhedral interpretation of 'curled up' dimensions clarifies as recursive quantum gauges. A host of other physics logically connects, including from Godel to Chaos theory.


Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on May. 29, 2014 @ 05:14 GMT
Dear Peter,

As I had noted on my page, I very much enjoyed reading your essay, especially the style and imaginative presentation.

I must honestly confess I need more time and thought to understand the physics, and make an opinion about it. I am on the whole of course extremely sympathetic to the idea that we need a better understanding of quantum theory. Bohmian mechanism is a strong candidate, but how to be sure that it is right? And we still need a relativistic version of Bohmian mechanics. I am also very sympathetic to the idea of modifying quantum theory to explain the quantum measurement problem and the classical nature of macroscopic objects. Some of my own recent work has been concerned with developing a common interpretation for Einstein gravity and the Dirac equation. So I am very much with you with regard to seeking a better understanding of spin, but I am going to need more time to digest your work. I apologize that I am slow.

Kind regards,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 29, 2014 @ 17:55 GMT

Thank you. The model provides a rational geometrical derivation of Bohmian mechanics, but with a twist (invoking electron spin flip). Rather than just; "the wave function collapsing to a singlet state on measurement" I employ the 'exchange of angular momentum' (measurement) with the detector field and point out that reversing the electron spin direction reverses the direction than "found".

Then I show that the angular momentum at any point on a sphere surface changes with the latitude by the squared cosine of the angle from the equatorial plane (a revelation). 'Entanglement' then only needs to be the common propagation axis and particle 'equatorial' plane (or Schrodinger sphere surface plane). The nature of randomness does the rest. NO other model can explain the experimental anomalies, and the cosine curve plot produced is self apparent.

There's confusion due to with the different strictly 'local' case of emission 'phase lock' (tomography etc.) causing other interactions, but only at c.

For QM the Copenhagen interpretation is adjusted very slightly to be REAL detector influence, and for SR the postulates are conserved but a new constraint in the DISTANCE AWAY that arriving light speed is modulated to c in the observer frame (you may recall agreeing my entirely logical derivation over the last 3 years). There is then NOTHING preventing a unified description of QM and SR, allowing them to converge.

Of course what there IS is theoretical inertia. The idea of testing the results of new ways of thinking seems abhorrent and unacceptable to those steeped in current doctrine. How is that overcome? I hope you saw the end note experimental results. Do also see my conversations with Doug Singleton on both our blogs.

Best wishes


Brent Pfister wrote on May. 29, 2014 @ 18:04 GMT

I do not know enough to decide if your theory might be correct. But your essay says scientists are wrong about global warming, a very controversial statement for which you give no evidence. It says "QM and Relativity, still incompatible after 200 years" and "Humans had delayed the hard choices needed to secure their future for a century. But impending disasters couldn't be proved. Confidence in scientists had waned since 'climategate.'" That implies by 2120, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will rise far above 550 PPM and there will be no global warming. Also saying brains use quantum computation is controversial. A new theory is controversial enough.

I could not find the journal paper on

It is good you listed experiments that could be performed in the comments above.

What does this mean: "even if just 'quark/gluon' oscillation within polarity"?

I abstained from voting, but you have so many votes it would not matter. Good luck in the next round!


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 30, 2014 @ 11:05 GMT

Wow! Suggesting the essay says "scientists are wrong about global warming" is a worryingly opposite conclusion from; "Earth was in trouble on all fronts, humans had delayed the hard choices..".! 'Climategate' is about scientists disagreeing over the CAUSE of global warming (and the Essex evidence debacle). I'm sure you know very few actually 'deny' it completely. My point is that...

view entire post

Brent Pfister replied on May. 31, 2014 @ 02:12 GMT

I apologize, I did not know 'climategate' meant this climate research controversy. That page says "Exoneration or withdrawal of all major or serious charges".

Scientific opinion on climate change is

that "the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it". Your essay is written from the perspective of 2120. I was trying to think of a situation in which confidence in scientists would wane over climate change then.

When you write the human brain is a quantum computer, do you mean it uses quantum entanglement for computation like described in quantum mind?

Do you have a journal paper version of this essay? It appears you are working on it here. I misinterpreted "Bob, Alice and the project leader prepared a paper including the results and submitted to a peer reviewed journal" as you had submitted this subject to a peer reviewed journal. Some people will need to see math and more about experimental results.

I'm glad your essay does not deny climate change. I will vote to send your essay to the next round. Hopefully you will get productive comments.



report post as inappropriate

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on May. 29, 2014 @ 19:13 GMT
Dear Peter,

In reference to Corpuscularianism, your statement "Many held firmly to SR or QM, or even both, convinced there was no conflict. But the gap remained. Even time itself is different, one absolute one relative", is true; whereas this duality of time is differently interpreted in ECSU paradigm. In this the time that emerges on eigen-rotation of string-segments is absolute, whereas the time for the displacement of isolated cluster or clusters of string-matter segments is the relative time.

With best wishes,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 11:32 GMT

As I answered on your blog I agree that's possible s there are both real ('Proper')and 'apparent' rates of time, the latter if the distance between emitter and observer is changing, which it will with displacement. It's simple Doppler shift which we confounded by calling contraction and dilation before we learned there IS an ISM (you may recall my last 3 essays).

Bets wishes


Sebastian Benthall wrote on May. 30, 2014 @ 14:59 GMT
I'm afraid this one was a bit over my head, Peter.

I look forward to revisiting it some time when I want to learn a lot more about quantum mechanics.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 11:42 GMT

No worries, current QM is over EVERYONE'S head! It's just that not all admit it. You really don't want to 'learn' too much about that as if you ever get past the confusion it's because you're 'indoctrinated'.

You just needs to find it's predictions (spooky apparent action at a distance and a cosine curve distribution of supposed 'random' results) and Bells proof that according to QM no deterministic logic can produce it, than look at my proof from using a different 'starting assumption' (that spinning bodies all have TWO polar spin directions!) Do you know any that don't.

Unfortunately QM confounds so badly that even the simple solution seems to be invisible!

Perhaps mankind is now too deep in the theoretical rut to escape, do you think?

Best wishes


Neil Bates wrote on May. 31, 2014 @ 01:56 GMT
Peter, I think I'm getting your basic point and just need to work out details.I am yet convinced. (These wrangles about QM often go on and on, with no clear resolution - note the back and forth bickering over whether and how Born probabilities can be derived out of continued evolution of superpositions in MWI. Personally, I don't think that will work, and am as appalled by many worlds as I suspect you are ...) Let me ask a preliminary question: does your argument work as easily for photon polarization as for "genuine vector spin" of say, electrons? Yes, both have two degrees of freedom in principle (Bloch sphere compared to literal expectation value of spin direction, at least when v much less than c) but I'm wondering if the point works out the same way.

In any case my take is that your argument revolves around (I just can't resist those apt phrases) the Bell tests ultimately being about relative angles of spin detectors/polarizers, whereas the properties of the particles themselves are actual orientations (or at least, that not being accessible or definable in terms of relative angles, and hence not making the same point about local realism that the traditional view of the Bell argument implies)? - which I then found basically stated by you in a few sentences bottom of page 6. That could be fruitful. I'm sure you realize you're up against the claim that the Bell argument is "universal" and works no matter what realist features are claimed - however, if you can successfully revise the fundamental logical framing of the properties in question, that will be quite a feat.

report post as inappropriate

Judy Nabb replied on May. 31, 2014 @ 10:32 GMT

I'm familiar with Peters new approach from the 'Sphere's' blog. It's actually the detector electrons that flip with the field angle setting reversal, which is well known physics. What he then also points out is that the relative direction "finding" from that interaction must be reversed!

I think that's simply brilliant thinking, but 'too' brilliant it seems for those steeped in the old assumptions. Most others are so confused by the nonsense arguments surrounding QM (who wouldn't be!) that they're completely befuddled. It needs clarity of thinking to cut through all the nonsense.

Bell himself agreed such a circumvention was possible and even 'must' come! (Someone quoted the Bell interview from 'Ghost in the Atom'). Peter just used a different starting assumption to Bell. The big implication is that it removes the block to unification with SR.

My own essay points to the need for the better thinking approach that Peter, Bob and Alice use to escape doctrine and analyse afresh.


Sorry to butt in. I hope that's right. I came along to congratulate, commiserate with the modest support and wish you well as I'm off at a conference for a few days. I think it's the only one that really steers us noticeably in the right direction.

There's little to do with fundamental physics or even real hope of progress in many others. I hope the judges see the massive value, but that you continue the work in any event.


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 12:11 GMT

Sorry I've been away. Richard Gill didn't wave back from his Baltic Isle. Judy's about right (thanks Judy). Yes, I'm showing that electrons and photons may be treated the same. Photons may even be considered in wavefront terms to the same effect as they meet tangentially to the detector electron 'sphere' at some latitude (angle from the equatorial plane).

Your 2nd para doesn't quite capture the whole quintessence. Try this; Bell inherited Bohr's limited description (singles state) but gave it a 'physical reality'. I say it didn't need THAT reality. Bohr is satisfied with a reality that we can only interact with ('measure') one hemisphere at a time of our spinning globe, so that Bob COULD find clockwise OR anticlockwise subject to HIS field orientation no matter which Alice has found!! THAT is what circumvents Bells theorem.

I agree, it would be 'quite a feat', but only to get any attention for the finding or recognition of it's validity. It was simple to 'find', just taking a different way of thinking to track down and challenge assumptions. A bit like your teaching 'mistake avoidance' which earned top score. I hope you agree mine may be worth the same. With all the positive comments it keeps slipping down from contention!

Best of luck in the final run in.


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on May. 31, 2014 @ 17:41 GMT
Hello Peter,

I found your essay an interesting read from a non-physicist perspective. I've read through some of the comments and they echo my concerns about the application of your conclusions to steering our species' future. I've read some of your responses, and I agree with your sentiment that we should not address the symptoms of our problems and should instead address root causes.

I'm intrigued as to how such a unification as you propose would affect our understanding of the mind and the development of artificial intelligence. One of the root causes of our species' problems I identify in my essay is that the human mind is not the best instrument for addressing problems that could be existential for our species. I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on this specific topic.

Thank you!

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 12:40 GMT
Hi Anon,

Unification allows a physical understanding of 'measurement' as an interaction between particles transferring oscillation patterns, but as the eye and brain are separated, (by a Shannon 'channel' optic nerve) and only the brain applies 'time' (='frequency') then the first (eye) modulation is to 'wavelength' NOT frequency. That then allows us to logically rationalise how our neural networks physically work, so why our 'minds' have been unable to unravel the process.

I agree (and it was an excellent question) that at present the human mind is a poor tool for addressing fundamental problems, partly as we're too 'belief' based but we just don't think through consequences well. An AI shouldn't be so hampered. However! AI's designed by humans may still inherit some human limitations. I suggest the better understanding we have and use we make of our on-board quantum computers the better AI we'll develop. Also perhaps the safer AI we'll develop!

I hope you agree and thanks for prompting me to think about that. Top marks for the question. (Confess who you are and I'll check I've read/scored your essay).

Best wishes


Philip Gibbs wrote on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 18:45 GMT
Peter, it is good to relate the essay topic to physics in the way you have. My views on quantum and relativity are somewhat mainstream but I still think there is much to be gained from exploring alternative views. Good luck

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 21:49 GMT

Thanks. That's an unexpected view. How do you reconcile the time issue between QM's 'absolute' and SR's 'relative' versions. I assume you disagree that unification is the 'holy grail'. How do you overcome the (Penrose etc) analysis of the 'chasm' between them preventing compatible mainstream views of both?

Or do I assume yours is a passive acquiescence 'don't know' approach? (probably the most honest though looks the opposite).

Best wishes


Margriet Anne O\'Regan wrote on Jun. 3, 2014 @ 09:42 GMT
Hello Peter from Margriet - of the 'women are superior' fame !!!!!

Although it's rather churlish of me to say so - after your most kind remarks abaout my essay !! - but haven't you "shoe-horned" in your favourite topic rather than address the issue of humanity's future !?!?!? Naughty boy !!!!!

I've followed all the sciences since I was a child including quantum physics - pretty much...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 3, 2014 @ 13:23 GMT

I promise you QM isn't my 'favourite topic' by a long way! History has proved conclusively that despite our common view it's the advancement of understanding of physical nature that has always dictated and directed our development. Our psyche has rather followed behind, confounded by what it all means!

I argue and demonstrate the power of advancement of THINKING methodology. Stop using brains as repositories, use them to find and challenge old assumptions and 'analyse' better. Our brains have the capacity, as Judy says; we just need to teach them how and practice it.

That's what my essays's really about, making a real tangible LEAP in the right direction, realistically possible immediately! What other essay does so?! I'm a little sad I've failed to get that across (to so many the way my scores keep building but slipping back down). But of course we all THINK that we think outside all the boxes so ignore the greater possibilities. Energy without fossil fuels then slips back to the future a little more!

Thanks kindly for reading it anyway. I hope you may at least have seen how the nonsense of QM CAN be understood classically, unifying understanding (I hope you saw the end note experiment you can do at home).

Best wishes


Author Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 3, 2014 @ 14:58 GMT

I forgot to mention, I'm not 'shocked' by the Electric Universe and Thunderbolts project as I've been very familiar with Wal Thornhill and the whole groups work for some time. Mainstream theoretical doctrine mainly hates plasma as it doesn't 'fit' old models and is still poorly understood, yet it's the essential at the heart of most other physics!

Many of the EU2014 lectures were authoritative and brilliant. I do however have to distance myself from the odd excess such as the 'Thunderbolts of the Gods' video which I think could undermine the solid credibility of the work for many. Why so many deny electricity in space, half the EM phenomena, is quite beyond me. Fundamentally the problems all stem from the prohibition of a field in the flawed original 'interpretation' of SR. The disciples grasp it like a lifeline!

Have you read my logical cosmology paper explaining the coherent role of plasmas yet? There are various preprint links around.

Best wishes

Peter (copied to yours)

Anonymous wrote on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 06:42 GMT
Hello Peter,

1. I read your essay without rating it. I stopped rating the essays a long ago because I feel confused about how the authors rate each other. me va me

2. I understand that you like your essay. Your rating is good. You produced a great number of posts and were polite to everybody.

I am sorry, I do not like your essay. I will try to formulate why.

First, your essay has tables, charts, number values, etc. It looks like a final draft ready for publication. I am not a specialist in styles, but I can guess

online interdisciplinary journal?

I formulate it this way, the form is important, but the conceptualization is even more important.

Second, I think your model assumptions are incorrect. You may want to find somebody in the field and have alive conversation and verify your asumptions.

Every model is the model of something that exist or may exist in nature.

You may look into the vorticity and gyroscope models in 2D and 3D and potential vorticity maps.

I wish you all the best,

M Iudin

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 14:17 GMT

Thanks for your interesting post. I agree rating is inconsistent between authors. I consistently use the criteria, which I think mine fits well, but we do wrongly tend to favour things we also 'agree' with. Mine seems to be love or hate, I've had many '1' scores with no comments upping the total. Few seem to identify fundamental 'cause' of change as opposed to 'symptoms', but...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Member Flavio Mercati wrote on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 19:47 GMT
Dear Peter,

just a question: I'm confused why you say``Earth's population has doubled after 2020''... the indications now are that the population growth should stop before 2050, stabilizing around 9-10 billion people. Just wondering whether you have a particular reason not to trust these estimates or yours was just an unimportant remark, put for stylistic/rhetorical reasons...

anyway best luck,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 20:38 GMT

For Earth's future population I chose the ~90th percentile of the many estimates, but trivially to remind us that we don't 'know', so may have serious problems from many more areas than just climate change. I recognize stabilization as a low-end scenario.

The curves I've seen give little indication of that yet (but didn't add the putin factor!) Have you seen better data? My point is anyway that treating symptoms almost certainly won't advance us enough. Why not then take the fundamental quantum leap in unifying our understanding of nature if available?

Best wishes


Author Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 7, 2014 @ 23:54 GMT

After racing past Richard Gill in the Baltic and flying over Eckard's head (Magdeberg) I'm in Prague for the 2014 European Space Expo catching up with progress on Galileo and Copernicus (global warming). The up to date population data ESA are using is the current increase of 20,000+/day and projection of 11 billion by the turn of the century and probably NOT leveling off. I know that's a little over the UN projections but there seems continuing controversy about those.

But projections are all trivial. I see more of a problem 'locking ourselves in'. Did you know there will soon be a million bits of junk in orbit of 1cm or more. Just one collision could take out a satellite, creating dozens more. We can then have a cascade effect, creating a cocoon of bits doing thousands of mph in all directions! Galileo alone (ESA GPS) is another 30 satellites going up in the next few years.

If we don't escape this theoretical 'entrenchment' (Lahav 2014) soon I suggest we may not escape it at all. Is that 'alarmist'?


Orenda Urbano Hernández wrote on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 20:45 GMT
Mr. Jackson,

Fabulous essay, a prepossessing way to lead the attention to this fabulous ten axioms.

Wish you good luck with your essay.



report post as inappropriate

Ryoji Furui wrote on Jun. 13, 2014 @ 04:12 GMT
Dear Peter,

Congratulations! Being finalist might be still usual for you but wish you good luck continuously :)

By the way, I just found an interesting paper at as you suggested at my essay site. I don't know why I could not find this till now but simply searched with keywords "graphene" and "fusion". it actually did experiment described in my essay. And result shows fusion can be generated in the graphene sheet as they observed two energy excitations (cold and hot pulasma). It is just several page paper so hope you check once!



report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 13, 2014 @ 09:15 GMT

Many thanks. Being a finalist is one thing, penetrating the judges entrenchment in old physics is another. Bracketing (playing safe) is de rigeur but I think Sci-Am is often far more leading edge than the essay judging.

There does seem to be interesting new physics in the graphene fusion work you cite, but remember that was only a simulation. I've noticed a dangerous but increasing tendency for simulations to be treated as real experiments!

Keep up the research. I read 20+ papers etc. a week, many 'cross discipline'. Many professors read zero, relying only on the odd conference! (It shows). But always focus on methods and findings not interpretations, which result from assumptions, mostly hidden.

Best wishes


Ryoji Furui replied on Jun. 13, 2014 @ 16:07 GMT
Dear Peter,

Yes, it is just a simulation as you pointed out. But i guess it is very plane simulation and not sure how much quantum effect will mess its purely excitation in actual experiment. What made me surprised was that it tells what we only need to maintain is just the reactor's temperature in certain range and this would keep ideal fusion excitation in graphenes.

thank you,


report post as inappropriate

Luca Valeri wrote on Jun. 17, 2014 @ 07:36 GMT
Hi Peter,

I just saw this two papers from Soiguine. On a first fast read they reminded me Bob. In the older paper he used the tossed coin with its different rotation axes. I think you can translate it one to one to your experiment.

The new paper is about the reality of the state function. But I think merrely a repetition of the older paper.



report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 17, 2014 @ 11:29 GMT

Brilliant! Dr Soguine's maths perfectly describes my 3D state transformation. He's a genius, thank you. I knew the geometry worked and that the current maths was inadequate to describe it but couldn't picture the extended use of quaternions.

I couldn't quite seem to make sense of Joy's maths in that task. I can see Dr Sequine's describes the transform, and my discrete field Bloch sphere geometry takes it from there with the physical analogue. (I'm sure Tom will describe how Joy Cristian meant the same thing anyway, and I still suspect Joy was about right). The helical paths and hopf fibration as the descriptor of the Born rule (squaring the wavefunction) discussed in my previous essay forms the rest of the link. As the Galileo quote says;

He who undertakes to deal with questions of natural sciences without the help of geometry is attempting the infeasible.

Have you checked out Bells 'beables'. The 'reality' before the interaction? I simply derive that there is both that reality and the 'transformed' reality, which are equivalent but simply different in certain properties. I don't agree with the interpretation of reality being what is 'unchanged.' Bell was convinced there WAS a real analogue to QM and said professional physicists "should be able to do better" than the vague nonsense of a description we still suffer today.

This is solid and revolutionary stuff. Shame that seems to mean it'll probably never be allowed past the 'sanitization' barriers protecting old myth and legend. Does it?

Best wishes


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 30, 2014 @ 18:50 GMT
(As also mostly posted on the Quantum blog);

New Physics! And strong support for the causal QM of my essay, well timed!

Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?

The only thing that doesn't really do, and the key to everything, is show how 'non locality' can be produced classically. I recently lodged a short (2 page) 'summary' resume of the fuller derivation in my essay, consistent with the above, here;

Classical reproduction of quantum correlations.

Paradigm changes can't be instant but my original 2020 estimate now looks more realistic; 2020 Vision. A model of Discretion in Space'

The same electron (Compton/Raman) scattering mechanism at c in the electron C of M rest frame ('discrete field dynamics' or DFM) appears able to coherently rationalise both SR and QM without paradox to allow convergence (see the other 3 essays). If anybody can spot any apparent flaws do please flag them up. Thanks.

Could this be a red letter day for fqxi? Hmmm.

A quote; "..blames the "preposterous" neglect of the theory on "decades of indoctrination." At this stage, Goldstein and several others noted, researchers risk their careers by questioning quantum orthodoxy."


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 7, 2014 @ 17:42 GMT
Update Summary Version; B

Identifying that Bell validated this model all but for one different assumption he used (spin axes random on ALL planes, not our 'propagation on spin axis' with random polarity) which gave rise to the problems and limits he described.

We also show how the intermediate OAM values are produced; which is from distribution of AOM with latitude' so 'entangling' the relative setting angles along with the spin axis.

Classical reproduction of quantum correlations. Summary; B.

Please do comment or question. Or see the "Why Quantum..." blog.


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.