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 forums@fqxi.org 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


Previous Contests

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

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 Fund.
read/discusswinners

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

read/discusswinners

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
read/discusswinners

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

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
read/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
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
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 6:53am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Richard Kingsley-Nixey: on 9/29/12 at 10:17am UTC, wrote Thanks. I read Peters and cited many others here in mine. Shame so few seem...

Hoang Hai: on 9/27/12 at 3:04am UTC, wrote Dear Matthew Jackson and Charli Cotgrove Your suggestion is very...

Peter Jackson: on 9/25/12 at 16:09pm UTC, wrote Steve So JJ Thompson said 'ether' properties arise from electrons! I never...

Stephen Sycamore: on 9/24/12 at 19:52pm UTC, wrote In my post I missed giving a paraphrase of the paragraph in your paper I...

Stephen Sycamore: on 9/24/12 at 19:34pm UTC, wrote Hello Matt and Charli, Among the many essays here I'd like to read and...

Hoang Hai: on 9/19/12 at 14:45pm UTC, wrote Dear Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us are convinced...

Matthew Jackson: on 9/18/12 at 17:55pm UTC, wrote Richard Thanks for your encouragement. We'll read yours for sure. I think...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: ""The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Jim Snowdon: "On the permanently dark side of the Earth, the stars would appear to stay..." in The Nature of Time

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Jorma, some thoughts; You mention mutual EM connection. I think you..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 26, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: The Measurement Solution, Wrongly Assumed to Be a Problem by Matthew Jackson and Charli Cotgrove [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Matthew Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 14:31 GMT
Essay Abstract

It is proposed that the solution to what is assumed and termed as the 'measurement problem' may resolve questions over the collapse of the wave function and uncertainty. We find that the proposed answer also allows the coherent unification of quantum and relativistic physics. We proposed that the resolution lies in the details of 'detection and the two or more spatial or temporal points required for any measurement.

Author Bio

Matt is a specialist in measurement and surveying at various scales working with laser plasma technologies, and also a mature research student in other areas whilst working in part time privaate consultancy. Charli works in closed environment horticulture specialising in environmental quality and purification. Other interests of both include physics, astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 03:07 GMT
Dear Matt and Charli

I enjoyed reading your essay and nodded approvingly at many a point. I was happily surprised to find my name in the acknowledgements thanks. Which of my papers did you read?

My first impulse on reading your essay weas that you, as a measurement specialist may like to read the fqxi paper (and many others on his unquantum website) of Eric Reiter. He describes by experiment and by theoretical researches where quantum physics got it wrong about measuring quantum effects.

May I ask if Matt is the son of the Peter Jackson who contributed a fqxi essay ? If so please give him my best regards.

And to you,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Matthew Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 12:35 GMT
Vladimir

Your nod of approval is appreciated. We had a quick trawl through your website and looked at a few papers, I was certainly impressed with your work. We'll add Eric's paper to our list.

Good guess about Matt and Peter. They disagree about most things so it's nice for me to be able to point out commonality, or at least consistencies. I'm quite convinced by the different science that's implied as it's answered many questions and doubts I've always had.

Thank you again.

Charli

Bookmark and Share



Michael Lee wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 20:02 GMT
Hi,

i read your essay and i wonder how your explanations could fit reality.

Light coming from about 10 Billion lightyears away towards our earth is redshifted. Your explanation: this is due to the movement of the measurement apparatus on our earth. Standard explanation: this is due to the expansion of space. If space does not expand - and this must be the case in your theory, because otherwise our earth expands away from the lightsource and we have again our standard explanation - do you assume that the light source isn't 10 Billion lightyears away from us?

And if so, why all the information in the light sources "10 Billion lightyears away" from us show structures that show the evolving of stars, galaxies and other large scale objects that fit very well into the big bang scenario?

I would be happy about some answers.

Greetings from germany,

ML

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Matthew Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 12:57 GMT
Michaeal

I don't think your description is really what we are saying. There may be some redshift from the medium on the way, and from some expansion, but not necessarily accelerating expansion.

Two detectors in different states of motion will then also find different redshifts when the light arrives and interacts with their lenses.

I think there's a lot of doubt about distances. It seems to be always thought of as redshift (z), with distance ony found from applying a 'cosmological constant' or Hubble Flow, which is based on assumptions so is quite at large!

The findings of what is (was) there shouldn't change just because the distance (so time) may not be precise.

The things found don't seem to fit any better into the big bang scenario than a number of other possible scenario's. In fact the big bang was designed around earlier findings so should have an advantage, but leaves a lot of questions, and some more recent findings are even less consistent! i.e. very old red galaxies at very high redshift.

I hope you're happy with my attempt at the answers. Do you think very differently? (most seem to). If Matt thinks differently he'll get back to you.

Thank you for posting.

Charli

Bookmark and Share



jez wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 13:40 GMT
M&C

so are you saying that the moon really does not exist as we see it if no light from it is reaching any lens !?

Jez

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Matthew Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 13:05 GMT
Jez

Copenhagen QM is just logically interpreted. It can be characterised in many ways, but if there is no lens anywaher detecting any light from the moon, then we can say that there is no such representation of the moon in existence anywhere.

But a real dusty spherical satellite still orbits Earth, and light will still reflect off it. So even if all lenses are pointed away we can still see shadows cast by it's light.

This is much more Matt and Peters department, but to me it was a wonderful realization that even the most bizarre bits of QM can be logically and consistently understood, even by a non physicist.

What do you think?

Charli

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 11:29 GMT
Charli & Matt

I have to commend your extension of logic to the measurement 'problem', consistent with the Copenhagen 're-'interpretation which I've discussed elsewhere here. This slots in nicely with the 'collapse' of the wave, if not the wave function (see my essay end note calcs).

A far better submission than I'd expected from the abstract. Congratulations. Perhaps we agree on more than I assumed. Do please study my essay carefully. I confess it may be less 'readable' than yours despite the 'theatre' as I perhaps tried to cover too many assumptions and aspects. Please let me know if if the important findings emerge clearly, or how you feel they may better be explained.

I also commend Ken Wharton's essay as consistent and worth reading, plus Macken, Mackinson, and in fact many others.

Very best of luck in the voting.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Matthew Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 17:40 GMT
Peter

Thank you. Copenhagen logically explained is a massive coup, but I've seen how it emerged from your essay anyway. We're trying to find the time to read more and willl add those to our lists.

Best of luck, you deserve to win for the content alone, but loved the theatrical analogies as well.

Charli

Bookmark and Share



Chris wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 16:03 GMT
I enjoyed your essay. It seems that the problem of "collapse" is a fiction created by the observer. It is akin to viewing a cartoon either as a movie or one frame at a time, as single distinct drawings. In the aggregate, cartoon characters appear to move, travel distance, and take "time" (movie may take 60 minutes to watch), but in reality the cartoon images don't do any of the above. They are individual frames not separated by time and not moving, only casting the appearance of it to the observer. It seems that observation and the possibility that the point of observation creates a false reality of collapse, collapsing the illusion of movement to the reality of a frame.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Matthew Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 17:46 GMT
Chris

Collapse is not really fiction as it can really happen, but I like your analogy and characterization. Local Reality is created by each observer on detection.

Many thanks for your support. I don't feel many consider the reality of interaction and motion enough.

Charli

Bookmark and Share



Jude wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 09:38 GMT
Quite brilliant unification solution. Has anybody tried to falsify it yet? I only see consistencies elsewhere.

Congratulations.

Jude

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Matthew Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 17:49 GMT
Jude

Thank you. I think it's consistent with many falsifications of other theory which proved inconsistent. People will misinterpret at will! t does seem consistent with others we've read, which is pleasing.

Charli

Bookmark and Share



Domenico Oricchio wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 22:01 GMT
I am thinking to the detection idea, or collapse in quantum mechanics, reading your Act 1-Scene 1.

I am thinking on the double slit experiment: the screen is a quantum macroscopic object; so is the photon that make interference, or the multiple screen not-correlated electron (and proton) to make quantum effect? Is it possible to distinguish the two effects?

In general a measure is a collapse of a quantum function using a macroscopic object, this is the reason of my problem.

I think that the Act 1-Scene 2 is very interesting: what happen in a half transparent(index n)-half vacuum tube in movement with velocity v, with two mirror that reflect a photon? What is the law n(v) in the rest system, and in the movement system? What happen for a neutrino in the same system? If there exist an hypothetical transparent observer (like very intelligent jellyfish), then the light velocity is the maximum velocity in the medium (for example glycerol)? The neutrino is more quick!

I must make some calculus, but your article give me some suggestions.

Saluti

Domenico

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Domenico Oricchio replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 22:11 GMT
Excuse me!

I make a mistake: Matthew Peter Jackson essay for Peter Jackson essay!

Too many essays.

Saluti

Domenico

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Matthew Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 17:51 GMT
Dominico

I recognized the Act 1 Scene 1 reference. Some of your comments apply to ours as well so I do hope you'll read it and comment.

Peter

Bookmark and Share



Richard William Kingsley-Nixey wrote on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 11:21 GMT
Mathew & Charly,

Excellent solution to the measurement problem. Local reality from 'uncertainty', brilliant concept! Yours should be way higher up the list. It's also consistent with a number of others on a similar theme that to me identify the real answer to the main current problems of physics.

Please read my own, which also describes the boundary mechnism, as found at the Earth's bow shock by the Cluster probes. I think this is entirely consistent with yours. I think the helix is also consistent with many.

Well done, and best of luck.

Richard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Matthew Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 17:55 GMT
Richard

Thanks for your encouragement. We'll read yours for sure. I think I understnd your boundary mechanism, which is quite exciting. It also seems exactly what Peter Jackson is defining in his play so do read his also.

Best wishes.

Charli

Bookmark and Share


Richard William Kingsley-Nixey replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 10:17 GMT
Thanks. I read Peters and cited many others here in mine. Shame so few seem to get read by so many. I beelieve th bondary mechnism, which I've read Peter characterise as a 'fluid dynamic coupling', is one of the biggest advances in physics for hundereds of yearsm, but here it site, on what is supposed to be a progressive foundational site, being virtually ignored.

I've read Peters last years essay too, and I think he must be either very frustrated or resigned at the lack of comprehension. There are many essays here dealing with esoterics, but this is the only big and verified breakthrough here, and where are we? Yours should certainly be far higher in the rankings. At least Peters essay is doing reasonably. Perhps it may be read by the right judge, who can droop assumptons. But I wonder.

Rich

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:45 GMT
Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 19:34 GMT
Hello Matt and Charli,

Among the many essays here I'd like to read and ponder, I recently read yours. In a sense, many of us here seem to be heading towards a similar outlook in the unification of classical, quantum and relativistic physics with a special focus on wave mechanics, absorbing media and measurement issues. Your essay expressed that in a unique and fresh way.

When you...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 19:52 GMT
In my post I missed giving a paraphrase of the paragraph in your paper I quoted. In reading this, please consider that the word "ether" as it was used 80 years ago may well have meant only the energy structure associated with the electromagnetic fields or merely the media and nothing so crude as what some associate the meaning of the word. On page 29 of "Beyond the Electron" Sir J. J. Thomson says

"... the super-dispersive property is due to the presence of the electron, in other words that the electron provides its own ether."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 16:09 GMT
Steve

So JJ Thompson said 'ether' properties arise from electrons! I never read beyond the electron and have never seen that quoted. So Thompson was already 90% of the way to the holy grail, and my own thesis is only 10% original! Good thing perhaps.

Sorry to but in Charly, but thanks for your support and comments above, (and just a subtle reminder that voting time is approaching). I'm pleased to say I've already scored yours highly as it desrves. I think making sense of the Copenhagen interpretation is a real coup.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 03:04 GMT
Dear Matthew Jackson and Charli Cotgrove

Your suggestion is very interesting.

But in my opinion: measurement techniques should be considered after we was identified specific and more detailed: the thing that we want to "measure" or: should more clearly define it.

Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:53 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.