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: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

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


Thomas Ray: "(reposted in correct thread) Lorraine, Nah. That's nothing like my view...." in 2015 in Review: New...

Lorraine Ford: "Clearly “law-of-nature” relationships and associated numbers represent..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Information Channel. An example from Jon Barwise. At the workshop..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Please clarify. I just tried to put a simple model of an observer in the..." in Alternative Models of...

Lee Bloomquist: "Footnote...for the above post, the one with the equation existence =..." in Alternative Models of...

Thomas Ray: "In fact, symmetry is the most pervasive physical principle that exists. ..." in “Spookiness”...

Thomas Ray: "It's easy to get wound around the axle with black hole thermodynamics,..." in “Spookiness”...

Joe Fisher: "It seems to have escaped Wolpert’s somewhat limited attention that no two..." in Inferring the Limits on...

click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

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.

January 18, 2018

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: The Intelligent Bit by Peter Jackson [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Peter Jackson wrote on May. 31, 2013 @ 13:04 GMT
Essay Abstract

An intelligent 'IQbit' from 'it' is found in hierarchical 'Sample Space' subsets hidden in the Excluded Middle between binary 0,1 values. Complex causal intensity distributions are found equivalent to Gödel's 'n-valued' or 'Fuzzy' logic, not accessible to binary systems. New orbital degrees of freedom provide the IQbit's power. When tested by asking beyond the 'yes/no' limit John Wheeler identified, the IQbit proves surprisingly capable of resolving the EPR paradox causally, without superluminal signalling, action-at-a-distance or 'loopholes'. New experiments comparing single-photon pairs are proposed, predicted to find 'cosine curve' distributions from each detector, as John von Neumann's 1932 proposition for consistent QM. 'Squaring' 2D waves creates a 3D helix as an axially translating toroid harnessing multiple orbital angular momenta. Malus's Law is invoked at polariser and detectors giving relative field orientations on detection, varying intensity distribution as Cosine-Theta. Uncertainty and determinism emerge consistently 'superposed'. A new law of nature with a domain limited to 'real' entities and interactions, derives QM's statistical probability amplitudes as Bayesian inverse distributions. This is termed the “Law of the Reducing Middle”. Probabilities of any occurrence in an infinite universe are non-zero. A related suggestion emerges; that no two real entities at observable scale are precisely identical at any time. The fundamental rule of mathematics, predicate logic and calculus; A=A is then replaced for natural phenomena with the 'similar' case A~A. The natural 'Dividing Line' discussed by Dirac between precisely mathematically describable entities and the rest is identified, the two parts distinguished as; 'metaphysical', and 'physical entities and interactions'. The metaphysical class retains excluded 'middles' between binary 0,1. The class includes; cardinalised integers, assigned symbols, algebra, statistics, finite values and numerical derivatives; speed, frequency, correlations, statistics etc. Bell's and Wheelers starting assumptions are shown to lead to the paradoxes.

Author Bio

Consultant in natural and renewable energy technology. Astronomer (Fellow of the RAS) and Chartered Architect specialising in (and dissertation in) environmental sciences and energy. Perpetual part time post grad research student for over 40 years in physics, astronomy, optical science, meteorology, structures, fluid dynamics, dynamic logic, philosophy, history of physics, observational cosmology etc. Studied UK Canterbury, PCL/ University of Westminster. Born UK 1951.

Download Essay PDF File

Author Peter Jackson wrote on May. 31, 2013 @ 19:36 GMT
The cosine curve video link for the EPR case is here; cosine curve animation as it's corrupted on pdf versions (sorry if you found the Barclays advert!) or just Google; ' sine-cosine-wave-animation.mp4 '

For any unanswered questions the unabridged version (a few dozen key words longer, still 9 pages but no end-notes) is now at; Independent Academia; the IQbit.

Thanks guys.

basudeba mishra wrote on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 03:27 GMT
Dear Sir,

We don’t understand why scientists should talk mystique language. One example is the way entanglement is presented as an exclusive quantum phenomenon.

Schrödinger coined the term “entanglement” to describe the connection between quantum systems. The entangled state is not an independent state, but a state dependent on another state in some way. For example, if a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 11:30 GMT

Good to see you here. I agree most of your comments, and look forward to reading your essay. If it follows you prior work I'm sure I'll agree that too.

There are experimental doubts over your 'a few km' as 10k+ is claimed, but I identify a big difference between local harmonic resonance effects and a truly conserved ''handed' spin state. Hopefully I then remove all the mystery. Your comments give your view but may be better proffering opinions on each essay.

The one thing I wish to explain better is the difference between the 'excluded middle' (A=A) and Godel's n-valued logic (the reducing middle of a probability amplitude distribution). I go to lengths to identify the different 'classes' of real physical 'entities' on one hand and 'assigned symbols/names numbers' on the other. As I respond to Paul below, those embedded in mathematics will not easily distinguish between these, as you haven't. I was astonished to find Paul Dirac HAD found that a line needed to be drawn 'somewhere'!! Though he could not discern where.

If you know anything of logic you'll know famously that maths can't be derived directly from logic, and that all logical systems, like mathematics, are 'ultimately beset by paradox' (including infinities, singularities and transcendental numbers etc). This is however only if logic is based on the foundation of the excluded middle A=A, which ignores quantum uncertainty. So I identify Dirac's 'LINE' as allowing A=A for all mathematics etc, as 'good approximation' od nature, but A~A to allow non paradoxical logic, reality and quantum physics.

If you can however identify or show me ANY two ACTUAL physical entities that are identical down to microscopic level, even grains of sand, then you may stand a change of being correct. I suggest not. Do you think you could?

basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 12:00 GMT
Dear Sir,

Our paper has been published alongside yours.

We are unable to see the physical significance of the excluded middle or the n-valued logic in relation to particles. Can you apply the concepts of the excluded middle or the n-valued logic to proton-neutron conversion? As the famous Cambridge coconut puzzle shows, all of mathematics is not physics. Dirac’s solution of the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 13:42 GMT

The value is in it's power to resolve paradoxes. The sternest test is the EPR paradox. In denying Aristotle = Aristotle you had in mind the name only. A series of man made symbols. Now consider the PERSON and you will find A=A cannot apply, as it cannot PRECISELY to any 2 coconuts. I'll even give you £100 if you can show me two printed letters 'A' that I can't distinguish with an electron microscope!! That is 'physical reality'.

SO as I say for NATURE A=A is false. For mathematical representation it's essential.

You're obviously not familiar with Logic. The word is used loosely in mathematics. Of course you can retain that basic form. But are singularities and transcendental numbers logical? Tell me what precisely, in less that a year, is 2/3rds of 2? Godel showed the limit with his n-valued logic, which gives the Bayesion inverse distribution curve BETWEEEN integers. Cardano and Godel showed how any assumption by mathematicians that A=A is also 'real' leads inevitably to to the paradoxes.

I'n not familiar with proton-neutron conversion, but QM uncertainty must apply, and THAT is what is rendered logical by the 'reducing' middle from a real physical interaction between particles with orbital angular momentum.

But I don't expect all to be able to make the distinction or see it's value in application. According to my thesis we all think differently!

best wishes

PS Please call me Peter

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 03:52 GMT
Congratulations Peter for the new essay. The various topics you touched upon are all interesting and very relevant to this year's fqxi contest question. Like you I have concluded that qubits are basic in physics. Your IQubits sound good, but as in everything else new in physics will have to be understood and tested by experts. Unfortunately experts more often than not cling to tried and tested concepts and simply do not make the effort when there is something new to check out and develop. So people like us proposing new ideas will have to beome our own experts and try our best to present our nebulous ideas in such a way to convince others to think along the new lines.

I see that you subscribe to probability as basic and axiomatic. This is one of those long-held views in QM - it may well turn out that probability is emergent from a deep order in the vacuume, as I suggested in the last section of my paper.

In your essay you mentioned Malus's law. I could not help a personal interest in this physicist. Malus was an officer in Napoleon's army that invaded Egypt and Palestine in 1799. They attacked and brutally ransacked Jaffa, my family's ancestral town. Malus describes in his diary the resulting massacres and plague which infected the troops including Malus himself. The story is told in SPIE's Optical Anecdotes (available in Google books online). Malus returned to France and recovered to make history where it mattered, in optical physics!

Let the Qubits roll!

Good luck in the contest


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 11:10 GMT

Good to hear from you. The IQbit is only a vehicle to demonstrate how non fundamental the bit is. I've now read your excellent essay and agree your 'deeper order', which is equivalent to the infinite ordered 'subsets' of sample space probability distributions I identify, probably well below Planck scale, but like a vanishing point on an art work, it it not reality as there is no such real thing as a 'point'. So I conclude causal 'DETERMINISM', but that nothing is 'PRE-DETERMINED,' a subtle but important distinction. (see my linked unabridged version conclusions)

I particularly agreed, exposing Basudeba's belief above and as my note to Paul below, your comment; "in arrogance and short-sightedness we have fallen into the trap of confusing our derived knowledge of Reality with Reality itself."

I'm disappointed no comments so far on my EPR case resolution, which I think is original and seminal. I know it's complex, is it too complex?

Paul Reed wrote on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 06:59 GMT

“no two physical entities are identical”

Why is this surprising? If there are 2, or more, then by definition, they are different. Indeed, everything is different over time. We know this, but do not follow it through to its logical conclusion, instead we rationalise it in terms of ‘it changes’. Which is a contradiction, because if there is change then it is different.

“will be found absolutely identical when observed at above molecular level”

The point about difference is not just related to one aspect of existence. Apart from anything else, existence only occurs in one form, what is, or is not, observable is irrelevant, that does not affect existence. Which can only occur in a sequence of discrete definitive physically existent states of whatever comprises it, otherwise the dichotomy of existence and difference cannot be resolved. Objects as conceived at a higher level do not exist as such, they are conceptualisations of the existential sequence based on superficial physical attributes.

“in an infinite universe Cox and Forshawviii are correct; everything that can happen will happen”

But we are not in an infinite universe, so this belief is irrelevant. We are trapped in an existentially closed system, where existence is only manifest to us in, what may or may not be, a particular form. But we will never know, because we cannot transcend our existence. That is what religion does, not science.


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 10:55 GMT

You ask; Why is it surprising? that "no two physical entities are identical."

You only need to read Basudeba's stated belief above to see why it needs pointing out. Most have become so familiar with the symbols we invoke to "represent" reality that they have, like Basudeba, come to believe the symbol or 'name' actually IS the real entity!, or at least is equivalent.

What I've pointed out is, as Dirac identified, that there are two CLASSES which we've mixed up. There is the REAL, which is 'entities' and 'interactions', and then EVERYTHING else!! (maths and derivatives). For most, like Basudeba, and most mathematicians it seems, this will go straight over their heads as the assumption is too deeply entrenched and hidden. You have done well to see it but you may even prove to be in a minority. However, it is the implications that are important!

INFINITE UNIVERSE. In a universe based on 'reality', if you can show any logic for either physical boundaries or temporal limits then I agree. But in saying; 'all that can happen will', I don't refer to the closed system you refer. I agree it would certainly not be true with that axiom. But if I had suggested last year that you were at 'non-zero' risk of the ground opening up and swallowing you while you slept, or a shooting star smashing all your windows, you may have called me foolish. Again it's the implication that's far more important; supporting the 'reducing' middle A~A for "reality", (Bayesian inverse probability distribution curve) not the 'excluded' middle (A=A and 0 or 1) that maths uses and is at the foundation of all logical paradox. (predicate logic).

basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 12:08 GMT
Dear Sir,

We never said that: "the symbol or 'name' actually IS the real entity!, or at least is equivalent." This is your statement. All we said is that :"Here the uniqueness is not for the person, but a name of the person – of all possible names, it is one, hence unique. There can be many people with Aristotle as their name and for all of their names, A = A is valid."

Regarding the issue of indiscernibles, please read our comment above.


report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Jun. 2, 2013 @ 06:04 GMT

I am not sure that most people fail to understand the difference between reality and representations thereof. Furthermore, representations thereof, if they correspond with existence as knowable to us, are perfectly acceptable. You seem to fail to understand that, for us, there is no reality which we can ‘directly access’. Physical existence is all that is potentially knowable to us (this explains no infinite), whether we can attain it is another, practical not metaphysical, matter. But what that means is that, once proven (within the existentially closed system within which we are confined), knowledge can be deemed to be the equivalent of physical existence.

The real issue here is our ontologically incorrect conception of reality. We conceive of it in terms of superficial characteristics, even though we know what is occurring is altering. And we do not follow that through to its conclusion. Which is that to obtain both existence and difference, then whatever comprises it must be in a sequence of discrete definitive physically existent states. That is the proper generic physical explanation of what you are trying to say.


report post as inappropriate

basudeba mishra replied on Jun. 3, 2013 @ 08:26 GMT
Dear Sir,

Your statement on reality echos the ancient Indian Philosophy of Vedanta. It was proposed to resolve the seemingly differences between various texts dealing with consciousness. Since the mechanism of perception, which is associated with consciousness (as in the statement “I know this”), is same in all cases to all persons at all times, the ultimate reality is one and immutable and cannot be directly accessed. But when we come to the physical world, the position is different.

It is true that everything is ever changing. But change is ever present. And that is real. The question is: in an ever-changing world, how do we define reality? The only possibility is by accepting the “representations thereof, if they correspond with existence as knowable to us” – as per your statement. This correspondence is done by assigning an invariant concept to each object and giving it a name. This is nothing but information. Thus, information has three components: the transmitter, the receiver and the message. The link is perception. Unless the receiver decodes and perceives the message, it is meaningless. Since transmission is subject to interference from the ever changing environment, we have to take into account of that also.

Hence we define reality as the invariant aspect associated with all objects and consistent with other universal physical laws (existence), that can be perceived as a concept (knowability) and expressed through a language (communicability). Since the three aspects are related, anything showing these characteristics is real.



report post as inappropriate

Jacek Safuta wrote on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 10:55 GMT
Hi Peter,

Even though my own view on the reality is different I really appreciate your experimental approach. Many physicists create theories that do not generate predictions so they are not falsifiable. We disagree and we should disagree but the final judgment is possible by an experiment.

I have proposed an experiment too and I hope that some content of your essay could possibly be helpful in the detailed configuration of my experimental equipment. As I am nonacademic entrant maybe you could advise me a bit in my experiment?

Your essay is not easy to comprehend so I plan to read it once more and then try to discuss.

Best regards

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 13:47 GMT

Thanks. I'll offer any help I can. I normally disect others experiments to spot errors and poor interpretations (rife!) rather than doing my own, but it is fun.

I've put your essay on my list to read soon. I'm intrigued specifically where it is we disagree, and look forward to finding why.

Best of luck.


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 15:14 GMT
Hi Peter,

I reread your essay attentively,

and it seems that we have a lot of paralels ( not exactly the same ideas but they share the same thoughts).

* the two higher order spaces you describe as infinite hierarchical subsets of "sample space" and the "excluded middle" are perceptions of what I called Total Simultaneity, and in my essay (which is submitted now and waiting for acceptance) I try to find the origin of this Total Simultaneity in the form of the "Primal Sequence".

* Your "excuded middle" may seem like all the possible pure states between the two extremities of yes/no 0/1 etc.

you say " no two physical entities are identical". fully agree because of the fact that each individual is receivibg different data (difference in distance means difference in time observation) so Aristotle is only Aristotle for himself, all the other ones as described in history books are not the real one , just because of the fact that nor you nor me IS aristotle.

Cardano's sample space : you mention : set of all possible outcomes, sample space is also an infinite scale hierarchy of many higher order spaces or subsets...... touches my Total Simultaneity, only I place this entity beyond the Planck length and time where there is no longer before and after.

* you say : by using some datum for signal speed etc "only then can any measurement be made" We can make any measurement just by agrreing on the references but.... also these references stay relative, the reference of reference is our consciousness.

* I do not understand your line : Free space is faster than solid optics, or does it mean that in absilute vaccum light is faster as in solids ?

* In the EPR paradox you mention : The "interveing" results etc... This is what in my essay is meant by "the shades of grey".

I enjoyed very much your essay, we are both on the same road, and once I received my code for rating I will rate you in accordance.


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 15:53 GMT

Thank you kindly. I agree there are some close analogies and am glad you find so much agreement. I greatly look forward to reading yours as usual.

Yes, when talking about signal speed; "Free space is faster than solid optics", meant propagation speed in fibre optics is far slower than a vacuum, in fact almost exactly 2/3rds as fast. But free space then has other issues, whether air or a so-called vacuum, due to uncontrollable stochastic (random) interactions etc.

Best wishes


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 15:15 GMT
Thanks Peter we agree about some basic things. I re-read your proposal concerning EPR and Bell's experiment. Are you proposing using green and red light? How can such an entangled pair be produced? It is a highly technical field that I do not have the gumption to enter at this time! I am entangled in lines of computer code trying to simulate some scenarios in my Beautiful Universe theory

To my mind the crux of EPR and Bell is that everyone, Einstein and friends included, assumed that the two photons are probabilistic, so that when it turns out they are related it seems so strange and some hidden explanation is necessary. Not if one thinks that the pair are in sync (but with opposite spin) from their initial emission until they reach the detectors. It is the randomness of phase (state in the atoms) of the detectors - not the assumed probabilistic randomness of the photons - that produce the famous non-classical sensing effects. It is much ado about nothing really. I hope this explanation makes sense and can be used to demystify the experimental results.

And of course when I say 'photon' I mean a wave packet not a point particle.

Is your son presenting an essay this year? With best wishes to you both.


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 18:37 GMT

Red and green lights are fine if we have a photographers light meter to obtain an 'intensity' reading in each case. Better still, red and green lights as toroidal rings of smaller lights, which would genuinely represent the orbital energy distribution in the case of EACH interaction.

What fools experimenters at present is the belief that 'statistical analysis' of many non correlated photons in a stream can take the place of real comparisons between individual pairs. In other words, the Malus' Law orbital distribution at interaction is simply not available to most present experimental techniques.

Or the 'Shapiro' trick is used. Throw away as much inconsistent data as you need to get the result you want. Get a 1 second delay of a radar signal bounced from Venus when near the sun, then make an allowance of all but 2ns for ionospheric diffraction (not existent in SR at the time of course) then take that away from the total and, guess what; you get a result of 2ns! precisely as predicted!!

Of course SR CAN admit diffraction, but they didn't know that then, and the real data didn't emerge until much later. Venus Express has now also confirmed the cause. If an experimenter doing his PhD like Aspect found result INconsistent with Bell's prediction he'd have failed of course. Yet to his credit he was honest, in the French paper at least, about the aberrations thrown away.

I suggest now that 'wave-packet' be 'squared' by Born's Rule to work in 3D not 2D and considered as a helix. It won't happen of course!

I think Matt was a bit disillusioned last year but I don't know about Charley. It seems the trolls now start instantly; A score of 2 seemed to hit mine within a minute of appearing! I hope most are too honest to lower themselves to that.


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 19:16 GMT

Whoops! I see the hidden 'log-out' is still around! That was of course me above.

Sorry about what that horrid froggy did to your family home. Boney had a lot to answer for by the time he met his Waterloo. Their punishment is now eternally having to learn English to participate in science. A bit harsh, but serves them right!

Nice oranges.


Anonymous wrote on Jun. 2, 2013 @ 08:00 GMT
Thanks Peter!

Yes working with single packets of light if possible is the only way to study all these amazing mind-boggling phenomena. One day someone can prove experimentally whether the photon is helical or not). As you point out there are many clever ways to get wrong results, particularly when relying on statistical arguments.

As they say let's "keep on truckin'!"


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 2, 2013 @ 18:03 GMT

I've read your great essay and also agree everything you say above.

I hope my proposal for the solution to your question didn't pass you by. Drawa a dividing line; Real entities and interactions on one side only A~A), and mathematics and all related derivatives etc. on the other (A=A). Do give me your views. Basudeba (above) has objections, as I suspect will many steeped in and too familiar with just mathematical thinking.

It's great to find some mutual thinking and support. Alan Kadin is also close.

I'll respond with more comments on yours on your string.

Best of luck.

Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 3, 2013 @ 14:54 GMT
Dear Astronomer Jackson,

I am stunned by your praise of my essay. Due to my abysmal lack of a formal education, although I tried as hard as I could as I read it; I did not understand any of your essay at all. I responded to the “identical states” impossibility noted in the comments posted about your essay. I accept unequivocally your solution to the unique/identical problem.

report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs wrote on Jun. 4, 2013 @ 20:11 GMT
Peter, once again you have made a valuable contribution to the essay contest. It is a pleasure to read.

I see a lot of parallels with my acataleptic universe and I am please that you have given it a view from a different angle. Godel said that things could be true or false or undecidable, but undecidability may also be undecidable. It may also be that if it is true then it is decidable but otherwise it is undecidable and that is all we can know, so there are many possibilities and they have a layered structure.

The Monte Hall problem is the same. The correct answer is not that the probability is a half or a third. In fact you don't know the probability because you don't know the strategy that the presenter is using. You might be able to estimate the probability of certain strategies and then you would have probabilities of probabilities for the answer. This is analogous to how multiple quantisation works. I'm glad you have a reference to Weizsäcker about this.

Good luck, I will return later and see how the comments are progressing.

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 01:23 GMT

While I'm not schooled sufficiently on the technical aspects to judge it by its own standards, it does seem a very good take down of the mathematical view of reality.

If if I may go slightly off tangent, since there is little likelihood the establishment is going to come back from multiverses anytime soon, we may as well explore further, rather than be too concerned with...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 11:27 GMT

"What are "entities," other than a deeper level of interaction?" Good question, but I'd say 'the distinguishable 'result' of interaction'. then that only leaves the unknowable as unknown, what is the universe ultimately made of? Certainly not 'matter' as we know it. My point was only to distinguish the 'physical' from the rest, to allow a quite new 'line' to be drawn.

You may...

view entire post

John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 15:40 GMT

Another point would be the effort to eradicate space as a primary aspect of reality, We have the Higgs field to explain inertia and multiverses as blowback from avoiding infinities, the entire universe emerging from a point because space is treated as a measure of points, etc. I think this, the banishing of space, that will prove to be the ultimate hubris.

Can't have a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 16:56 GMT

I agree, physics is a dark labyrinth with a lot of howling and utter confusion. You have identified the magic button. The only problem with 'ether' was that it was assumed to have to be 'absolute' (i.e. one single 'frame' for the whole universe. But if 'regions' of space move with respect to other there is no problem at all. he WMAP data found just that, as Smoot's 2004 Nobel...

view entire post

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 11:40 GMT

Just untangled you from John.

Thanks. On the Monte Hall problem there's actually a more important point missed by the mathematicians, and nothing to do with host strategy. i.e. Even if a blindfold 3rd party 'opens the door', in those cases where the prize is NOT revealed, the odds remain exactly the same.

This is what the computer programme which proved the case did. The unknown 'host strategy' (which the game show competitors were all worried about) was removed as a factor. Only then could the real hidden reason be tracked down, the invisible 'probability density' hidden in 'sample space', which the maths could not parametrise.

Yet that REAL lesson is STILL not learned by mathematicians! in the same way many of them genuinely believe there is no need for any underlying mechanism to GR or SR! The solution to the EPR paradox proposed comes straight from this hidden 'subset' of data.

Did you follow that?

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 12:46 GMT
Hi Peter,

Very thought provoking essay. Many comments have already been made to which you have ably answered. I wont repeat those.

RE: In many ways the theme still boils down to the same old question asked in many ways, viz. One or Many, Discrete or Continuous, Yes or No, 0 or 1? Part of what I got from your essay is that we should make room for DUALITY, MAYBE, BOTH, ALL IN BETWEEN...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 14:30 GMT

Thanks for your positive comments. We have much common understanding.

The cat was certainly alive but is now long dead. However the expanding Schrodinger 'spheres' show that there IS also a valid analogy for 'potential' at any point in space and time. Like the members of a sports team, only having 'potential' at home, but when they all meet they become an 'entity' with power.

I refer to the NLS equation spread function as a coherent particle evolving into just waves (as the team drift away from the bar?). So I agree, time is key.

The Excluded Middle is the additional parametrisation of the smaller 'subset' between 0,1. Believing only 0 or 1 can exist hides that information. considered as red or green, the 'redness' and 'greenness' (or energy) can vary. So if we only ask 'red' or 'green'? we can never find the subtleties of nature.

I also agree mutual exclusion of 'position', as Boscovitch, Descartes and Einstein! Lines and points do not 'exist' in ANY subset of 'sample space', which merely parametrised 'how red? etc. In fact I've shown that the Cartesian co-ordinate system cannot model motion! (but not here due to space ..etc!)

I agree the plane of polarization solution but show it can also be applied to Schrodinger's coherent distinguishable wave packet; 'particles' more subtly, due to the 'transverse COMPONENT' existing, because that allows the orbital angular momentum we know they hold.

I'll check over on last years bog when I get a moment.

Best wishes


Author Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 8, 2013 @ 16:06 GMT

Replied ref light on last years. I won't repeat, but have also discussed both Sagnac and GPS in detail elsewhere, agreed but with additional insight (ref Maxwell's near/far field TZ). Including his one not fully up to date;

GPS etc. viXra.

Akinbo Ojo replied on Jun. 13, 2013 @ 12:45 GMT
Hello Peter,

I have browsed your viXra paper. Will be reading it in more detail later because there is much to learn from it. For example I had proposed testing SR by LLR in 2009 (see here) and I am gratified that one such experiment has been done which I came across in your references. I have also explored (here)whether dark matter could be the earth bound luminiferous medium. I will be comparing this with your Discrete Spaces.

Many thanks indeed,


*I just wonder why experiments contradicting LLI are covered up. But it's all a matter of time.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 11:17 GMT

Thanks for your praise. It was also great pleasure to look over your 2009 papers. We agree on much, and I have a lot more consistent work which will help. I've also had deep discussions with Dan Gezari on Laser Ranging. I have a consistent resolution of the remaining anomalies but Dan "can't" adopt it.

You ask why the 'cover up' of findings inconsistent with SR. It's been...

view entire post

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 9, 2013 @ 22:45 GMT

I've had a chance to reread your essay. As always, you're impressive! And, you old yachtsman, you are always obsessed with waves!

You suggest that far greater information capacity exists in areas not yet fully searched. Let's hope you're right. You then discuss the "orbital angular momentum" (OAM) of photons. I've collected several articles on this phenomenon but have not...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 10, 2013 @ 11:03 GMT

Great, thanks. Someone suggested the water in waves doesn't move. It does. It follows a slightly elliptical helical path (producing 'longshore drift' when they break), moving forward a little with each rotation. i.e. each molecule describes a helix, and has the power of orbital angular momentum. I agree this is analogous to your thesis.

Ref infinities; All the model does is FREE's mathematics of infinities. It does not 'rely' on infinities in any way, just removes their paradox and leaves them in the class of 'not understood'. We may still however trivially but logically say that if the universe is infinite then anything that can happen will happen.

The important thing is to recognise that between any two integers there is always a 'subset' of parametrizable possibilities, described by quantum uncertainty. i.e. Many red and green lights may also each have a distribution of intensity. That is then what Bell missed. He only asked; 'red or green'? If he went to each flash and recorded intensity, he's also find the Bayesian distribution. I think Joy may have have a point about your finding last year, but this now shows that whatever Bob and Alice do the cosine curve will be found both at each of them and in the correlation.

I'm smartening up a draft paper on the mechanism of the LT derivation and will send you a link.

Best wishes


Lev Goldfarb wrote on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 17:48 GMT
Hi Peter,

Good to see you participating in this contest also!

I finally had time to reread your essay. And my original impression has not changed: you did much interesting work but, as probably you yourself already know, the essay would have benefited tremendously from the expository editorial improvement.

Just to take one example, the first sentence of the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 15:01 GMT

You're right. I tried to squeeze too much in again! But I did indeed identify the wavefunction 'psi' twice in the essay, and refer to and explain Born's rule of squaring the wavefunction;('psi'^2)!

I'm confused that you ask if I referred to it. Did you only read the conclusions?

Then, on the "Dirac Line", I not only discussed it at length in the text but also gave the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Lev Goldfarb replied on Jun. 12, 2013 @ 15:40 GMT

"I'm confused that you ask if I referred to it."

I didn't.

"again you seem to only refer to the conclusions,"

Peter, the reference I gave is to pp. 2(bottom)-3 of your essay and not to the conclusion, but you were probably also referring to his quote on p.2.

So I still think that "the essay would have benefited tremendously from the expository editorial improvement".


, what I found quite useful is a very careful and intensive development of the paper plan/outline, in which the main points are flashed out and very carefully logically *coordinated* wrt each other. Most people don't like doing it but I find such dry/mental run of the basic ideas involved and their interconnections super helpful.

My best wishes to you!

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 10:37 GMT

Ahh.. When you wrote; "I assume you refer to this in your essay", I assumed it meant you only 'assumed' I'd referred to it.

You'd think after last year we've have stopped all this assumption!

Thanks for your kind words and helpful constructive criticism.


Roger Granet wrote on Jun. 15, 2013 @ 04:43 GMT

Hi. I totally agree with you on the need to recognize the difference between physical reality and abstract, in-the-mind reality. And that the rules that apply in the abstract world may not apply in the outside-the-mind world seems blinding obvious, but apparently it isn't to many physicists and mathematicians. It's very good of your essay to point this out and remind people...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

John C Maguire wrote on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 17:09 GMT

Your critique of Aristotelian Logic is right on. Something that has been in the back of my mind for some months now.

Your evaluation of paradox is also quite good; as I'm a believer that even science is not exempt from the saying: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

Like you, I found myself finding many synchronicities between our work; and its always interesting to see how dialectics can mystify the fact that we're pretty much talking about the same things. Very enlightening. One simple question for you pertaining to this:

"An intelligent IQbit with new helical/toroidal freedoms is found hidden in a Sample Space of hierarchical subsets, and an Included Middle between binary 0 and 1"

Basically what we have here is a type of 'fractal-information'?

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 19:55 GMT

Thanks. I'm really pleased, and impressed, that you managed to extract so much of the information so tightly packed in the ontology.

I love the term 'fractal information', It's spot on. I've also used the fractal analogy for the hierarchical inertial system 'discrete field' model underlying the propositions. If you get time I'd welcome your view on that (I need help!)

Do let me know if you can put the EPR (Bell's) proof together. Check out Gordon Watson's essay for the mathematical proof.

Best wishes


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 19:19 GMT
Uncle Peter

Very happy to see Uncle.

Uncle still like that, there is an essay with analyzing diversity and scale, as well as number of theory was always very much integrated.

At this time, the appeal be to the title "The Intelligent bit" and 6 axioms, it looks like Uncle very seriously with the causal relationships - me too.

I am always appreciated the fussy, meticulous work and scale that Uncle mentioned.

Wish Uncle stay healthy, joyful and successful with his own passion.

Of course, always going to be a high score for Uncle.

report post as inappropriate

Michel Planat wrote on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 09:22 GMT
Dear Peter,

I have red your essay with interest.

I am not sure that the questions you ask rely on quantum mechanics and the qubit concept. They may be more related to nonlinearity as it arises for instance in the devil's staircase and the Farey tree 0/1< ... 1/3...

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 11:28 GMT

Yes, mathematically, if the intervals are important and infinities are not. However I am proposing that the universe is primarily physical, and that mathematics can only easily provide a 'good approximation' (but also sometimes a mistaken one).

I agree the concept does not exactly 'rely' on QM, certainly no current interpretation anyway, but it does allow a coherent interpretation consistent with classical theory and Local Reality. I suggest that in itself has much value.

Do you not agree? Thanks anyway for reading it and your comments.

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 11:51 GMT

This important work shouldn't go unnoticed. We've known for decades that galaxies and other inertial systems have very different inertial states ('peculiar motions') of many tens of thousands of km/sec^-1. Here's the larger picture of the discrete local field motion (as DFM prediction but apparently less consistent with the Concordance model than even the problematic Planck findings); Two articles, direct video link, and link to the paper;

Cartography of the Local Cosmos Helene M. Courtois, Daniel Pomarede, R. Brent Tully, Yehuda Hoffman, Denis Courtois First Author’s Institution: University of Lyon, France. 'Astrobites' article.

Simulation video

Scitech article

Paper; Cortois, H.M. et al. Cosmography of the Local Universe., Accepted AJ. 2013. AJ Paper free link.

Alongside this a new finding that the gas and plasma content in and around the Milky Way in it's rotating rest frame is THREE TIMES higher than estimates, also as predicted by the DFM.; the He plasma fraction, not directly visible, (so 'dark' matter) is now detectable via it's CO link. Pineda, J. L., et al., "A Herschel [C II] Galactic plane survey I: the global distribution of ISM gas components", 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 554, A103. ESA Release.

"The age of discovery may yet one day force us to improve our understanding"



Manuel S Morales wrote on Jun. 19, 2013 @ 21:20 GMT
Hi Peter,

Excellent analogies and comparisons to substantiate your position that, "Quantum distributions are causally derived to a higher order, yet uncertainty never vanishes."

Although my findings also show that uncertainty never vanishes, it is not due to a new “Law of the Reducing Middle”. It is due to 'how' we get uncertainty in the first place. I hope you take the time to review my essay which addresses questions you ask of me in the past. If you do, you will find how we get spin in the first place which then leads to how gravity unifies the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces - ToE.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 21, 2013 @ 10:36 GMT

Thanks for your kind comments. I'm not sure I proposed anything as 'due to' the proposed Law, just that it describes nature correctly. Do you not agree that? If not why and where? I'm away on hol, but have your essay with me and have read most of it.

I agree with most as you know, and as an essay find it excellent and pertinent, answering more of the points raised on the theory. I suspect Gerard t'Hooft's comments may be a bit too focussed on the SM and it's preservation, but nobody will abandon any liferaft however poor until a clearly better one is right there.

However I'll discuss your on your blog, when I return.

Best of luck.


Sreenath B N wrote on Jun. 22, 2013 @ 16:42 GMT

I have gone through your essay once and I want to go again in order to post my comments on it. Mean while, please, go through my essay and post your invaluable comments on it.

Best of luck,


report post as inappropriate

Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 15:00 GMT
Dear Peter,

thanks for your comment, I'm also sorry for the delay inanswering.

I also like your point of view. It is not totally different to my approach. It contains a lot of geometric ideas, in particular the representation of the quantum state as helical wave. I also have helical states (but in the foliation).

I rated your essay also very high but a longer time ago.

Now to your question about granularity: There is an isomorphism between piecewise-linear and smooth 4-manifolds. Therefore the granularity is not important for the results. Of course there is a limit (lower bound) for the number of used cells to describe the 4-manifold but nothing more.

Best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 00:24 GMT
Hello Peter,

This seems to be one of the more interesting approaches I've read so far. Am I to understand that the Law of the Reducing Middle is analogous to there being infinite real numbers between integers?

If so then I think this turns the whole question on its head and is very thought provoking.

The nearest my essay gets to yours is that it moves beyond binary via Fibonacci's sequence, suggesting that information exchange suggests a code of nature.



report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 15:37 GMT

Thank you. Yes, Infinite real numbers between integers/binaries of any scale or set, and Fibonacci's sequence is a direct analogy.

I appreciate your ability to then see the whole of nature from a quite new viewpoint. It seems so few can, particularly those with the present popular doctrines most deeply embedded in their belief system

When we then study it more closely we can find the whole picture clarified as all the unnecessary nonsensical interpretations fall away.

I look forward to reading your essay.


Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 16:05 GMT
Hello Peter,

Great, I thought so. That's testament to your great writing ability - I think you've done a fantastic job here removing peoples preconceived and stubborn ideas!

The law of reducing middle reminds me of some of my work on entangled spin using geometry, so love the idea!

Thanks for your kind comments on my essay - I've (hopefully) answered re- outward pathways.

Best wishes,


report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 04:20 GMT
Send to all of you


To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 10:19 GMT

Thanks for your most inciting and harmonious essay. I completely agree with you when you say Superluminal signaling is false as I myself have written an article on quantum entanglement and in which I have shown how QE has nothing to do with Superluminal signaling.

Best of luck in the contest.


report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 02:18 GMT

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Jun. 28, 2013 @ 20:37 GMT

I am still not sure what that intelligent bit is. You speak of quantum computers. Does your quantum computer concept address all quantum-mechanical phenomena such as superposition and entanglement? What role does consciousness have in your scheme of things?


report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover replied on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 03:41 GMT

Incidentally, as you probably know, one could make a career out of studying your piece. It's quite esoteric.


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 11:44 GMT

Thanks. Very insightful!

I'm not quite sure what the IQbit is either, but I think it's just a whole lot more information then yes/no held by the bit waiting for the right question.

Imagine an arrow. In a bit it points either up or down. In a qubit it points both up AND down ('superposed') but when you ask 'up or down?' it only gives one answer. In the IQbit the arrow is rotating. You can then ask it; "OK, exactly "how much" up or down at this instant in time, and how much at that instant. You can then have in inverse (Bayesian) amplitude distribution curve to describe the possible range of answers. That is then Godels 'n-valued' (fuzzy) Logic. i.e. Things are no more just 'red and green' than 'black and white'.

In entanglement; A particle is split into left and right handed (Chiral) rotating elements, sent in opposite directions in the EPR case. Whatever we find at one, the opposite is found at the other. But as a separate case, at short ranges the emissions can 'phase lock' with each other, so changing one can change the other. You then have optical screwdrivers, tomography etc. Check out how 'Bessel beams' behave! (just Google them).

Conciousness is crucial. There is no 'observation' without it, so no universe. No sense can be made of any computation of detected wavelength over a 'time period' without 'awareness'. Unfortunately having it is no guarantee of sense. i.e. if the 'processor' assumes the wrong 'rest frame' for deriving 'propagation speed', (as we do), only nonsense results. Now if we used the relevant 'channel' frame not the 'approach medium' frame, it would all make sense. This implies that 'surface' consciousness is a limited but variable quality which can be enhanced, perhaps from the subconscious 'potential' lying beneath. Do you think so?

I have yours on my list and look forward to reading it.


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jun. 30, 2013 @ 03:41 GMT
Hi Peter,

I found your essay this time around to be much more direct, leading the reader through smooth curves rather than employing a zigzag motion like last year. I read through the first half carefully and the second half quickly, so I still need to read for detail - but my essay has not posted yet anyway.

I think I like your idea on first reflection, though I have some reservations. It appears you are correct, at least in part, and have made a useful contribution to our understanding. I'll have to read it again for a full understanding, before I make a rating or form an opinion. I wish you luck.

All the Best,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 11:51 GMT

Thanks. Glad to see you're here. I look forward to reading yours.

I hope you should find increasing value in mine towards the end. The ontological construction comes together and builds to a 3D climax.

Please do raise any reservations or questions. I had to leave out over 90% of relevant matters and evidence to squeeze it all in!


Member Giacomo Mauro D\'Ariano wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 23:56 GMT

I cannot really follow the logic of your essay. What is your conclusion?

best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 09:28 GMT

Thanks for looking. A number of conclusions emerge, possibly too dramatic to even 'see' at first, like the suggestion of our flat earth being spherical, but becoming entirely self apparent and logical once understood and assimilated.

1. Some fundamental assumptions are wrong. Nature is non-commutative (no A=A!)

2. A qubit caries more information than we ask of it, hidden in a higher order.

3. The EPR paradox may then be resolved as Bell believed, without spookyness.

4. Relativity and QM are then unified with only adjusted interpretation of both.

I agree with you the change to relativity is slightly greater, but only to the assumption that the QV can only have one 'absolute' rest frame. The postulates are proven via the quantum mechanism of scattering (CFS) at c. Close analogies with all QM interpretations seem to exist, including Copenhagen, via the proper definitions and logical application of 'detection' and 'measurement'. But you may hopefully advise on that?

Best wishes


Member Giacomo Mauro D\'Ariano replied on Jul. 2, 2013 @ 09:52 GMT
Dear Peter

thanks for clarifying your points.

My only advise is never try to patch theories. Never use nice math as a motivation. Look for solid principles (really solid from the logical point of view), and pursue them up to their extreme consequences, and you will discover new solid physics. At least, you will have the statement of the theorem: "These principles imply that ...".

Best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 14:44 GMT

Many thanks. All sounds like good advice, but in presenting the model in the part I've been told it means nothing if not primarily mathematical (but I wasn't fooled!).

I've tried not to 'patch', but look for hidden likeness and expose consistencies where possible.

It would be possible to call it a 'replacement for relativity', but as Einstein did state all of SR is in the postulates, and it derives the postulates direct from a QM, that wouldn't be accurate, and such ideas are dismissed out of hand anyway!

I have published the extreme consequences (i.e. a cyclic cosmology) but that too can't get into a PR journal. Nevertheless I agree your advice, and thanks for the moral support. More direct logical clarity is what I like.

If there's anything in particular you think I'm patching, or any parts you actually disagree with, please do let me know.



james r. akerlund wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 08:30 GMT
Hi Peter,

I have finally read your interesting submission. But reading your submission is a little like listening to a person running a stream of conscience conversation, you get everything in the conversation. Yes, you said A not equal to A, but you didn't try to contradict that with counting sheep or any other form of counting, where A = A is the rule. In my world, I see everything through my eyes, and who doesn't see the world through their own eyes, but it was nice to read your vision through your eyes. I clearly don't see the way you do.

Jim Akerlund

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 10:30 GMT

(also posted on your thread)

Thanks for your comments on my blog. With respect to the slightly peripheral matter of a=a, I'm not sure if you gleaned the full meaning from my essay, which agrees that a=a is precisely correct for mathematics, just not shown also applicable to nature. This explains why mathematics is then a good approximation of nature, but to be precise a computer the size of the universe would be required, as Shannon's implication.

That proposition is consistent with the quantum uncertainty principle and is fully falsifiable so can be falsified as described, by finding any two entities at observable scale which are precisely identical. This remains an open invitation

An early objector whose spent months with a microscope and some sand dunes gave up when he realised he'd found nothing close, even in terms of any one of the many parameters. Aristotle = Aristotle is then fine as a metaphysical concept, so for mathematics, but I'm just pointing out that assuming the physical world also uses those laws appears to be incorrect.

So perhaps it's not so much 'how' we see things, as exactly 'what' we're looking at. I suggest our understanding of maths and the freedom from infinities it brings should be as big a benefit as the improved understanding of nature. Maths should then become more useful and precise, not less so.

That's certainly an unfamiliar way looking at things, but does that make it wrong?

Best wishes


PS. Addition; You may also be aware that all logical systems famously, are 'ultimately best by paradox'. They all start from A=A, which it seems may be the issue, resolved by Godel's n-valued logic and theorem.

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 19:02 GMT

Expressing my proposal with far more authority than I is Bill McHarris in his excellent essay;

"Mathematics can state things with certainty; physics cannot."

It's certainly a 'must read' essay, mainly on chaos theory and infinite regression, and underpinning all the foundations of mine which I thought could be no deeper!

I think it very solidly supports my conclusion; mathematics can be commutative but nature is not, and the space between 0 and 1 is of ubiquitous self-affine regressive determinism.

This is not a 'problem' but seems to expose a new opportunity for precision in the modelling of nature by mathematics. I'll be interested to see whether Bill's essay influences your perception.

Best wishes


Christian Corda wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 07:56 GMT
Excellent work, Peter! I just gave you an high score.



report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 08:30 GMT
Hi Peter,

Just to let you know I will be revisiting your Discrete Space Model. That should be after the FQXi contest which has so many essays I wonder if I can read all. More were uploaded yesterday.

The DSM resolves so many problems without special relativity. However, there are aspects I am studying particularly those attributed to GR. For example will light speed, c vary from one discrete space to another. Also, the unusually high speed of outlying stars in our galaxy, will this be accounted for by DSM or do you jettison Newton's v =GM/r?

Anyway, as I said so many essays to read for now.

All the best,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 09:53 GMT

I didn't set out to resolve GR with the DFM, but when the jigsaw puzzle came together a big hole at the front of the red steam engine remained, and I had a few red bits left that fitted perfectly. Now Popper said there's no such thing as 'proof',... but I'll hazard a guess.

There are reputedly two effects making light bend; Diffraction, and Curved space-time. There are all...

view entire post

Anton Biermans wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 02:02 GMT
Hi Peter,

I must say that I find your essay quite complicated: to me the 'its' are as important as the bits.

If the information as embodied in particle properties (which are internalized rules of behavior, the expression of laws of physics) in a self-creating universe must be the product of a trial-and-error evolution, if particles, 'its' are as much the source as the product of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Domenico Oricchio wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 18:15 GMT
In response to my post

I have read and voted for each essay contest, and I would prefer to stay in the back of the rating.

Thank you for reading my essay: I do not put limits on things to say to my brothers, some are not publishable! Others can be interesting.

I reread your essay: I am thinking, like you, that the bit rate of a quantum communication channel could be high (I think the new results in the Terabyte transmission of twisted photon in optical fiber), and is the the twisting a potential qbit transmission?

I think that fuzzy logic can overcome the paradox of the logic, if each proposition is applied to the reality (like the physics), no one proposition is really true (this reminds me Descartes: truth value less of one) and we can assign a absolute truth only to the not measurable things (metaphysics).

I must read with more attention your solution of EPR paradox, although I think that superluminary signalling and not locality cannot be separate.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 21:10 GMT

Thanks. Yes, truth values between 0 and 1 contain the hidden values we just call 'noise'!

I agree; "superlumina(l) signalling and no(n) locality cannot be separate(d)" They are both falsified by those hidden values and roundly rejected in favour of Local Reality. This most importantly unifies SR and QM.

Bill McHarris's essay is consistent and also worth another read, as I think are Gordon Watson's, Edwins, Tom Ray's and Akinbo Ojo's among others.

Truth is more important than score. But then again, to spread the truth...!

Best wishes


Anonymous wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 03:17 GMT

I appreciate your lucid explanation of the toroidal dynamics of the wave form and how EPR probability distributions can be reproduced by the correlated cosine curve. (I also take an "excluded middle approach" to the transition between the quantum and classical domains in my essay "A Complex Conjugate Bit and It".)

Recent interferometer experiments confirm that a photon can be put into an ambiguous mixture of wave and particle (Nature Photonics, vol 6, p 600; Science, vol 338), thus, constituting a continuum of probabilities, rather than just a yes/no bit.

One question - how do you reconcile the IQbit with "no go" theorems like Kochen-Specker?

Best wishes,

Richard Shand

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 14:25 GMT

Thanks for the comments and support. Of course Bell's itself is a no-go theorem, by passed in the same way as nature does more than was envisaged CJD and Haag are the same, of limited validity.

Kochen-Specker or BCS makes two assumptions and point out they conflict. That then becomes a 'straw man' argument as different assumptions are used in the 'higher order' sample space producing the local cosine curves.

The 'orbit' is an additional parameter which yes/no questions can't gain information from. Bob and Alice can then then ask 'how much' in each case, and each get a related answer within an overall 'total'. Those answers are then not linear but a cosine curve projection of the 'orbiting' helical interaction at EACH detector.

In terms of Bell's '3 overlapping discs' we may say the overlapping areas blend together, so are 'fuzzy, rather than 'crisp edged'

The Photonics paper you refer sound about right. Is there a title or an arXiv link to it?

I've added your essay to my read list.

Best wishes


Richard N. Shand replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 01:34 GMT

Thank you very much for your encouraging review of my essay.

Your essay has clarified the whole issue of no-go theorems. Knowledge of Bell correlations are generated by a global deterministic mechanism in conjunction with the uncertainty induced by the conditional entropy of a local observer.

The paper I referred to is Jeff Z. Salvail, Megan Agnew, Allan S. Johnson, Eliot Bolduc, Jonathan Leach, Robert W. Boyd. "Full characterization of polarization states of light via direct measurement", arXiv:1206.2618v2, (submitted on 12 Jun 2012, last revised 1 Aug 2012).



report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 17:42 GMT
Greetings Peter,

I can see now why you said we have a view in common -- we do -- and I understand this paper much better than your previous.

Something that has not changed between us, however, is that your work is so much more ambitious than mine -- I have to look for a solid "hand hole" to grasp, in order to make useful and comprehensible remarks.

First, let me list the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 17:45 GMT
Dang it. I don't know how this log-in system works. It was I, of course.


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 12:35 GMT

I agree. A mountain is a mountain. All views of it differ, as all paths climbing it, but two views of the same mountain only add to its veracity.

Your comment on the Monty Hall case is interesting. When the computer programme was run, proving Parade agony aunt 'Ask Marilyn' correct and almost all the mathematics community including Paul Erdos wrong (1990) it seemed not to matter...

view entire post

Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 12:59 GMT
Hello Peter,

Firstly, since you are enamored of an an Included Middle between binary 0 and 1, by which I assume a continuous nature of space picture, what do you think of the Planck length? Could it have a physical significance?

Secondly, and reason for this is that I posted whats below on Armin Shirazi's blog. You may have something to say on that thread.


Dear Armin,

You ask me a couple of head scratching questions over at my blog, let me "retaliate". Talking of backgrounds, about which you know so much, particularly section 4 of essay:

1. When a celestial body curves the space around it according to GR, is this curved space carried along with the orbiting body's motion?


2. Does the body leave this space behind, thereby uncurving it, while curving the previously uncurved space in its new orbital location?


3. Is there a third consideration?

If you answer positively to 1), would this not be important to experiments like the Michelson-Morley expt?

If it is 2) you answer positively to, will such a space capable of being curved and uncurved, not be a substantival background? Taking note, that with the action-reaction principle, something can only be said capable of being acted upon IF it can also react. Then as you ask me will this reaction be instantaneous?

One head-scratching turn deserves another!




All the best,


*I saw somewhere you said you were always on holiday! Lucky you!

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 04:13 GMT

The Planck Length can be interpreted as the smallest wavelength that is permitted in nature.

It is speculative, but you may find this link interesting:

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 16:58 GMT

Not always. Last Sunday was the first time I got to sail my yacht this year!

Yes, the Plank length should be significant. First it may be the ultimate size limit for the recursive non-linear fractal higher order 'spaces' I discuss. It's also then related indirectly to the Fine Structure Constant via the wavelength minimum limit gamma and photo-ionization at the 'Optical...

view entire post

Jeff Baugher wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 12:44 GMT
Peter and others interested in his wonderful essay,

You stated in your essay " A fresh view suggests that the most foundational logical proposition; A = A, or Aristotle = Aristotle is false." I would agree and state that the theorems listed HERE aren't necessarily valid in physical theory. Let me give a thought experiment to help bolster your argument. From summation properties of vectors

From the transitive property, any equation with A+B we can substitute in C. However, in the modeling of physical phenomenon we had assumed at infinity that


Instead we find that it goes to zero at much less than infinity, but far outside the realm of human physical senses we are left with physical phenomena of multiple points that seem governed by

Is there then a difference between

such that

where allowing substitution at the human perspective level leads to pardoxes? I would state that Peter is correct.


Jeff Baugher

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 15:42 GMT

You're very kind, thanks. The implications are fundamental and most important, leading to paradox free unification of SR and QM through a discrete field model (DFM) from which a quantized GR then simply emerges. You'll hopefully find my previous three essays fully consistent and now more understandable.


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 16:27 GMT

Take two CD size discs, hold them face to face a little apart(a mate can do the same behind you). These can perhaps represent simple orbiting dipoles or monopoles.

In your right hand is Alice's detector B, in your left is an entangled particle P approaching the detector, spinning in opposite directions. Now tip the top of the 'detector' disc so it...

view entire post

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 11:55 GMT

While the source of the 'curve' should now be clear, to spell it out;

To make it more real, imagine each disc as a donut (or use real ones so you can eat them later). Imagine each detector disc A and B at 90 degrees to the 'particle' discs P. (note; it doesn't matter much where on P the two touch).

The detectors are now 180 degrees different....

view entire post

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 16:10 GMT

I forgot readers may have forgotten my fundamental essay theses of HANDED, spin, giving the helical path, and hierarchical nested higher order "sample spaces" (currently 'noise'). So the above is only complete WITH those. i.e:

The quantity giving the reading at each detector is 'CHANGE' (at charge interaction), not just 'position' around the...

view entire post

Don Limuti wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 04:18 GMT
Hi Peter,

We are on the same wavelength, some details are different. But overall I always feel good praising your work. :)

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 09:33 GMT

Thanks. Perhaps that shows good intuition!?

Harmonic phase locking may be a more important effect than we realise.


Daryl Janzen wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 20:06 GMT

Interesting essay! Your A=A is false idea was new to me, but what you said makes sense. I also agree with your point, that "Apparent changes observed are changes to physical entities and relationships NOT to any entity called 'Time'".

I think I see what you were referring to in the comment you left on my essay page, and I will have another look and try to properly respond to that now.

Well done, and best wishes!


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 19:09 GMT

Thanks. I look forward to your further comments. Do also look at my detailed EPR explanations a few posts up.


john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 15:59 GMT
Dear Peter,

I am intrigued by how you essentially describe our physics' parameters as flexible borders, and I believe you hold, as I do, that these are ultimately centered in the Human Mind.

Am I right in thinking that EPR quantifies the interaction of Mind and Cosmos? This last was a very technical exploration, and I'm thankful for the video links you provide.

I myself describe a cosmic paradigm of correlated energy vortices that not only describes a quantum/classical correlation - but describes the cosmos in terms of correlated energy vortices that include the evolving observer.

My language is non-technical, but the result is highly structural - and I think you might find it intriguing. I expand the definitions of It and Bit far beyond those signified by Wheeler, and conclude that their interaction is one of continuous and simultaneous shifts - or more precisely, of correlation.

I think your work is clearly significant, and will resolve certain apparently 'metaphysical' aspects of reality to the 'physical' Cosmos. I have rated your essay, of course, and would be delighted if you could let me know what you think of mine.

All the Best!


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 19:17 GMT

Sincerest thanks for your kind comments. I've added your essay to my read list, and I'll also score it. It sounds interesting.

My essentially mechanistic and 'real' derivation certainly has coherent philosophical, logical and metaphysical dimensions which I appreciate you connecting with


john stephan selye replied on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 13:24 GMT
Hi Peter,

When you come to my site (and I thank you in advance for doing so) please let me know if you see, generally speaking, some potential for expressing EPR in terms of my paradigm.

I've been thinking about this since I've read your paper, and I'd like to be clearer about it.

Many Thanks,


report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 19:47 GMT
Hello Peter,

I have rated you already so this does not strictly apply to you. I know you may not agree completely with this It from Bit stuff but your answer is however valued.

As the contest in Wheeler's honor draws to a close, leaving for the moment considerations of rating and prize money, and knowing we cannot all agree on whether 'it' comes from 'bit' or otherwise or even what 'it' and 'bit' mean, and as we may not be able to read all essays, though we should try, I pose the following 4 simple questions and will rate you accordingly before July 31 when I will be revisiting your blog.

"If you wake up one morning and dip your hand in your pocket and 'detect' a million dollars, then on your way back from work, you dip your hand again and find that there is nothing there…

1) Have you 'elicited' an information in the latter case?

2) If you did not 'participate' by putting your 'detector' hand in your pocket, can you 'elicit' information?

3) If the information is provided by the presence of the crisp notes ('its') you found in your pocket, can the absence of the notes, being an 'immaterial source' convey information?

Finally, leaving for the moment what the terms mean and whether or not they can be discretely expressed in the way spin information is discretely expressed, e.g. by electrons

4) Can the existence/non-existence of an 'it' be a binary choice, representable by 0 and 1?"

Answers can be in binary form for brevity, i.e. YES = 1, NO = 0, e.g. 0-1-0-1.

Best regards,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 10:47 GMT

Good question. If I haven't been pickpocketed I'd rationalise it to;

An experiment finds '1', which may then also be quantified as anything between one and infinite dollars. A repeat then finds '0', (air, not notes) which may then also be quantified as anything between 1 and infinite molecules, but no notes, aeroplanes, ice cubes etc.

The mistake we make is believing 1 and 0 is all the information we can elicit and have elicited. So;

1) Yes.

2) No, not comparably, but Yes by other means (can I feel a lump, cold or wetness, hear any jet engines or smell the fuel etc).

3) Yes.

4) Yes. But very far from a complete description of the contents of the pocket.

I'm sorry if any of that's at all 'under your radar', but it includes the 'noise' of reality ignored by binary systems.


WANG Xiong wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 13:23 GMT
Dear Peter Jackson

Thanks for your nice essay, i rated it with high mark

The bit is Intelligent, what about it? what gives rise to information?

and from a different point view, my essay may interest you

Bit: from Breaking symmetry of it

While symmetry is kind of redundancy which means loss of information, breaking of symmetry gives rise to information.

Hope you enjoy it



report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 15:13 GMT

Thank you kindly. I find the 'change' of relative motion as the fundamental of information, which very much agrees with your own thesis. I commend you on your search and believe my last two essays here may greatly assist.

Best wishes


Patrick Tonin wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 16:02 GMT
Hi Peter,

You definetely crammed a lot in your essay !

I can see some of the analogies you were mentioning in your comments on my essay.

In my theory, the observer and his surrounding world (the 2D information describing it) are moving at the speed of light (not the field) through the past/present/future information, this simplifies things a lot (it is a radical new way to look at fields, in fact we don't need fields anymore, in a certain way "we" are the field).

You said that you agree with some of my conclusions but not all of them (I suspect it is the 2D/3D aspect), if you have time, you can take a look at my website, you might change your mind on some things.

In any case, nice essay and you deserve your good position in the contest.

Best of luck,


report post as inappropriate

Than Tin wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 20:17 GMT
Hello Peter

As you know, I consider ANALOGY as a flag ship of THOUGHT AND THINKING, and LOGIC and FORMS OF RATIONALITY a necessary and important complements to it. The question only is which comes first.

Analogy comes first because it is an automatic process. As heat has the propensity to become cold (it needs work for hot to become cold: It’s 100 degree Fahrenheit in NYC right about now. AC machines are whirling like dervishes!), analogy tends toward eventual rationality. Practical examples abound: You can’t do quantum computations for long without it becoming prematurely classical. (How do you maintain coherence when there is a gale force of disturbances?)

You said “Nature is commonly assigned symbols such as 'numbers' to allow computation. Yet in this vast excluded middle ground lies most of nature and a dichotomy with logic” and “No logical or mathematical system claims to have overcome paradox.”

I completely share your sentiments – or shall I say your statements -- when I said somewhat metaphorically that ANALOGY is the iceberg under the waterline of RATIONALITY. People assigns a privilege status to RATIONALITY (math and logic etc.) because it’s the first thing they see and notice consciously and widely promoted by the way, while in reality, ANALOGY is the one that is basically supporting the foundation of RATIONALITY. Without ANALOGY, there will be no RATIONALITY.

When I have to explain such view, I think of wave-particle duality and QUANTUM coming before CLASSICAL. Your statement “Infinities and irrational and transcendental numbers (i.e. π) outnumber rational numbers!” is, I believe, saying the same thing.

Finally, Nature itself is “analogical” because it allows us to glimpse the truth with each of us wearing glasses of different colors and prescriptions.


Than Tin

report post as inappropriate

Ralph Waldo Walker III wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 04:32 GMT

First, I want to let you know that I am deeply impressed with your depth of knowledge. I am also struck the depth of your thinking, your graphics, and your willingness to 'put yourself on the line' intellectually. It takes a great deal of courage to think creatively and differently from whatever the 'conventional wisdom' of the current times happen to be.

Second, I must be intellectually honest with you in admitting that there are a number of things you refer to that I am simply unfamiliar with, and so some of the points you make are lost on me due to my personal ignorance of the subject. Nevertheless, I think I understood the gist of most of what you wrote and considering the rules, purpose and goals of the contest, believe you deserve the high ratings you've received so far from the community - which now includes mine!

Best to you, and again, I hope we'll keep in touch in the future.



report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 14:52 GMT

You're very kind. I really appreciate the 'sympatico' as I'm often made to feel like one of a few survivors trying to save a planet where most have been zombified and are trying to zombify me or kill me off!

Please do keep in touch. You may get a better idea of discrete field model (DFM) fundamentals if you wish from previous essays, or perhaps first here with others;

2020 Vision. DFM. Expanded finalist FQXi essay 2011.

Best wishes.


Ralph Waldo Walker III replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 15:55 GMT

I'll definitely keep in touch, and I will check out your previous essays and the link you've provided to familiarize (or make a valiant attempt to do so) myself with DFM.

Also, please hurry up and discover the solution to the zombie problem. I live in Atlanta, Georgia, where the television series 'The Walking Dead' is filmed and they've completely overrun the place . . . I don't know how much longer I can hold out!!!

Best to you,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 16:26 GMT

OK, I'll send Will Smith down. They missed me at Atlanta (airport) recently en route from London to NASA at the cape for the very last Shuttle (747) flight. I also drove Charleston SC to Key West. Savannah for lunch was gorgeous.

Find some truth and use that. I've found it beats them off (I was never one for hiding) but they often get mad when they attack it and fail! Only a few dezombified so far, but I'm like Ted Turner; Tenacious. If you get any ideas from reading the papers let me know.

Best wishes


Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 17:08 GMT
Dear Peter,

Evolution of an intelligent information unit of bits in matrices of probability density in super-matrix hierarchy that resolves the non-fundamental nature of bit on observation is plausible. Yet in particle scenario the outcome is intelligent rather than reality, as the observation of particle is probabilistic rather than realistic, while the Law of the excluded middle is inconsistent on this.

With different intermediate logics, zero-dimensional particle scenario of universe is transformational into one-dimensional string-matter continuum, in that three-dimensional structures of matters of universe evolve from eigen-rotational string-matter segments of tetrahedral-branes in hierarchy.

Thus the unit of information in matrix to be quantised with the incident-time of the observer for observing information continuum of string-segments in discrete cyclic-times, in reference to the linear time flow of hierarchical cyclic-times of the universe and with this unit of information the string-matter continuum is observational only in near-reality rather than in absolute-reality, as the inclusion of middle is not absolute in that your concept of ‘Law of the Reducing Middle’ is descriptive.

With best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 14:00 GMT

Many Thanks,

How do we get new Laws of Physics passed?


sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 01:19 GMT
Dear All,

It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.

iSeries always yields two sub semi...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Chidi Idika wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 07:51 GMT
Dear Peter,

It seems to me logically given and experimentally verifiable that your IQbit (the excluded middle?) should have MORE resolving power. This is granted that scale invariance is a fundamental attribute of nature(necessitating "gauge fixing" as a basic stage in any picturing process) .

The alternative really is to assume a PREFERRED (i.e. "fixed") frame of reference, and make do with less detailed imagery.

You deserve my high score. Even forgetting that you dusted me up!

And please do refer a peer or two of yours to What a Wavefunction is because one thing is to be read, another thing is to be read by people who can share one's problem definition.

All the best,


report post as inappropriate

Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 08:34 GMT
Dear Peter,

Your essay is attractive and I red it with much interest.

I have a very simple question to ask you.

Is there any difference between what you call the 'intelligent bit' (or IQbit) and what is nowadays called the qubit (the quantum bit)? In particular, there is much structure in it. The qubit has the 'excluded middle property' that you refer to, it cannot be cloned (your condition b), it can be understood from the Bloch/Riemann sphere (north and south poles are the 0 and 1). Spin and angular momentum of light can be described in the qubit language. With two qubits, new 'intelligent' properties arise such as entanglement, Bell inequalities and contextuality, and so on.

You may also be interested with my own description of qubits

Good luck,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 14:57 GMT

There is almost infinitely greater IQ in the IGbit. The bit is a bit of 2D wave either UP or DOWN. Th Qbit may simply have a choice of those 2 vectors ('degrees of freedom').

The IQbit has (as described by the Born Rule) another entire dimension, so has the potential number of vectors of a (Bloch) sphere. But the angular momentum of light also uses the additional dimension, so as a helix not as a wave.

The qubit language may be usable, but with infintely many iterations in layers reducing to gamma as id decodes the noise in the Shannon Channel to facilitate passage of the additional information. These additional spaces are analogous to both Kalusa spaces and the evolving fractal structure of chaos theory.

The consistency of uncertainty in Bells inequalities experiments is improved as von Neuman wanted, at the same time as removing any need for FTL communication! I think this stunning new finding has been largely missed (well it stunned me a bit at first anyway!)

I have read your essay and thought it well written. I don't think matters like agreement with a thesis should influence scoring.

Best wishes


Michel Planat replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 06:46 GMT
Dear Peter,

I asked the question because you don't refer to a precise mathematical definition of the intelligent bit.

Apart from qubits (2-level systtem), one has the qudits (q-level) systems.

The paper below gives some results one can get by taking tensor products of qudits. But may be it is not relevant here.


which touches the Klein foundations for dessins d'enfants.

I agree that the discussion iq what matters here.

All the best,


report post as inappropriate

sridattadev kancharla wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 12:07 GMT
Dear Peter and All,

Enjoy the absolute truth of the self. Thou art that.



report post as inappropriate

Zoran Mijatovic wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 06:51 GMT
Hello Peter,

After your generous comments on my essay I tried very hard to get to grips with yours. I must say that much of it was beyond my technical abilities, nevertheless, you seem to take a serious approach to differentiating between what is real and what should and should not be considered axiomatic for the purposed of maintaining the integrity of formulations; and that is a big plus in any scientific field. I look forward to seeing how the professional judges rate your essay.

Regards and good luck.


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 10:03 GMT

Thanks. I'm sorry for all the complex empirical stuff, but I do believe in providing evidence to support theory. I agree integrity is everything.

I'll also be interested in the judges views, but after two years finishing 7th in the community scoring and overlooked by the judges I have little confidence in their willingness to depart from familiar doctrine. Some say they just support their peers. They do have other pressures but I don't think they give in to them that readily. We'll soon see I suppose.

Thanks for your comments and best wishes,


Conrad Dale Johnson wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 13:15 GMT
Hi Peter -

I admit I initially passed over your essay because the Abstract was so dense, and seemed way above my level... but since you indicated in your very kind comments on my essay on evolution that our viewpoints were similar, I tried to overcome my sense of inadequacy and give it a shot.

So far as I can judge, what you say may well be right, but I don't feel I've understood any particular point really well. Even the argument about A=A confused me, though it didn't involve any technical issues. I suspect you may be exaggerating when you say "Aristotle = Aristotle" is false; I think what you meant is that there's no class of physical entities that are identical? And yet since that doesn't seem to apply to the case of atoms and molecules (which I suppose are identical except for location, which may be relevant?) - I wasn't able to follow the meaning of this for fundamental physics.

I'm glad to see your work is well appreciated by many here. If you were writing for people at my level, though, you'd need to choose one or two of your many points and elaborate them at greater length. It's a basic fault in my own writing that I try to explain each of my idiosyncratic notions by moving on to expound yet another one. This is probably a difficulty for any original thinker, that our ideas make sense to us because we've developed the context for them, in our own minds, though it's not a context available to many of our readers.

Thanks again - Conrad

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 15:56 GMT

"I suspect you may be exaggerating when you say "Aristotle = Aristotle" is false;"

No, in fact I'd go further! Even two pictures or representations of Aristotle will not be precisely identical in nature. It's a fundamentally new concept, but for correspondence there must be TWO things, so A=A is fine for maths but NOT true for nature, i.e. physically. The apparently subtle difference is as important as any truth in physics or logic!

"I think what you meant is that there's no class of physical entities that are identical?"

The fundamental new truth extends to 'classes' too. It resolves the issue in logic of 'what is a 'heap.'' Nature is non-commutative.

I'm sorry if I was too technical, I think all theory should correspond to findings. At least I tried to avoid all the jargon. I hope I largely succeeded. You may also not have noticed that QM and SR emerge unified?

I understand your problem. All nature is connected. I believe it's only disjointed in teaching and the professions.

Best wishes


Than Tin wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 21:52 GMT
Hello Peter

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 16:32 GMT

I'm very grateful you think I have touched some corners of reality. you and others have too. If only we could combine them I think the whole shape of answer is here.


Chenxi Guo wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 09:05 GMT
Dear Peter

I go through your essay roughly. You have contributed a creative viewpoint for searching the realities. It deserved a high rating.

Best Wishes


report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 13:41 GMT
Hello Peter,

Just for clarification. I am taking advantage of this forum to ask this of professional physicists, of which I am not one!

Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?

You can reply me here.

Best regards,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 16:29 GMT

I think that's typical of just about every shortcoming in our understanding. It derives from using the wrong starting assumptions.

Ergo; Assuming space is 'a nothing' is entire nonsense with no evidence to support it and pretty overwhelming evidence against (see my last years essay).

If it leads to suggestions like the above it seems I can probably lay my case.

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 19:15 GMT

"Studying physical entities afresh it becomes apparent, if surprising, that for

sizes at observable scales no two physical entities are identical"


Two events have occurred in the same place and at the same time how you can different it?

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 11:16 GMT

Excellent question. That's why I specified 'at observable scale'. However. There is other evidence:

Consider for instance stem cells. Absolutely identical as far as we can observe, and each divides to make more 'clones' of themselves.

But of course they can't! Each stem cell produces a different part of a physical entity, and a DIFFERENT physical entity each time as well!

I propose we then have a reducing 'octave' based but evolving 'fractal' sequence of 'sample spaces' or 'higher orders'. Al lie between the cardinalisations 0,1 of the 'next scale up'. Decoding these stage by stage will then reduce the 'noise' limiting (Shannon) communication channel capacity and massively multiply that capacity each time. And each time more of nature is revealed.

So there are many ways to 'observe', but it's the 'processors' that interpret the observations that have failed us so far. Does that sound sensible?

I have your essay on my list as I recall last years was very good. I apologise for being behind, but I'll now make it in time to score, and have just promoted it in the queue.

Good to hear from you, and very best wishes.


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 04:43 GMT
Dear Peter,

I'm sorry I have not had much time this past week.

Excellent essay, which is why I would like to ask you a little question:

In physics, or elsewhere, what you identify as 0 and 1, if you think that reality is based on information.

I gave you a note to the extent of your excellent essay.

And good luck.

Please visit My essay.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 11:37 GMT

Thank you. Frankly I think the Pagan mysticism of stringing symbols together and expecting them to adequately describe nature and the universe in any faithful way seems self delusionary and even arrogant to the extreme. I pointed that out for the most popular quantification system, Arabic 'numerals' (The Mayan system was more descriptive but destroyed as pagan by the conquistadors). But the point is as valid for the symbols we use to represent 'sounds', and the concepts they carry.

i.e. Any greater being with an understanding of the universe would learn what we assume by 'information' and 'reality' and just smile or laugh. That is why I took a mechanistic approach in my essay. What we 'call' what we observe means nothing, only what it DOES tells us of nature. So let's explore so we can better evolve our symbolism.

Thanks for your kind words. I was very pleased to read comment on and score your own essay (upwards) recently.

Best wishes


Helmut Hansen wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 05:36 GMT
Technically challenging and philosophically deep - very few papers meet both. This is one of them.

For me the most important statement of it is: " this vast excluded middle

ground lies most of nature." This thesis reflects the courage to apply principles of fuzzy-logic to deep physical problems. I hope this astonishing paper finds many many readers, especially among theoretical physicists: It is groundbreaking.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 11:55 GMT

Your words give me great strength, much needed in the task ahead. Thank you.

The DFM belongs to nature not me, so anyone with any skills can explore, adopt and and use any aspects they resonate with, though citations are always helpful. I suspect no one person will change doctrine, however close to Wheelers 'simplest of ideas' the realization is.

The model opens the floodgates of solutions, so covers range well beyond that of this essay and the last 3 here). A number of papers are here for anyone interested; Discrete Field Model. Papers.

Do also tell all your freinds! The last 2 essays both came 7th but were overlooked by the judges. A higher finish may help. Who knows?

Very best wishes.


Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 08:23 GMT
Dear Peter,

I now gave you a good rate but it has little influence since you have so many good votes. I just looked at the Wikipedia chapter about preintuitionism where I found some background about the law of excluded middle you refer to in your essay.

Good luck,


report post as inappropriate

Antoine Acke wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 15:40 GMT

I enjoyed reading your essay. Excellent work. Congratulations.


report post as inappropriate

Wesley Wayne Hansen wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 15:42 GMT

I found your essay somewhat unsettling (it actually induced a brief moment of manageable cognitive dissonance). I understand the basis of your argument and, for the most part, agree wholeheartedly; however, I lack a sufficient understanding to make an in-depth critique. What your essay has done is make me interested enough to peruse the link to your additional papers. My cognitive...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 17:10 GMT

Thanks, and for the Pons link. That's interesting as it takes the same approach, though simply 'postulates' a complex particle structure ('cordus conjecture') rather than derives one logically from experimental evidence and a coherent ontology. Most of my paper is about building that ontological construction. None the less I agreed Pon's logical analysis specific to Bell's theorem is excellent.

What I do is bring that together with all the Born Rule, Godel, von Neumann, Fuzzy Logic, 'chaos theory' aspects, including apparently Quantum Gauge Theory as I've just learned from Hugh Matlock and need to catch up with! For me it was only a falsification test of the greater 'discrete field model' (DFM) of previous essays and other papers. It kind of ran out of other things to resolve!

Let me know the best way you think there is to overcome the shock of cognitive dissonance as most of the world may have to face it soon! Could this be the start of the new era beyond the "shut up...".? I've dubbed it; "stop and think".

Do stay in touch on it.


Wesley Wayne Hansen replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 20:54 GMT

Yes, the Pons Group admits they employ a "design approach" to come up with their cordus conjecture but their conjecture is fully constrained by the relevant empirical evidence; I thought you might find that it "nested" nicely within your own work. And being an inventor working almost entirely in the mechatronics field I can attest to the effectiveness of structured design techniques...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 15:43 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you for helping me to float. Apart from several unfair votes this game is quite democratic at the level of exchanging deep thoughts and knowledge.

I still don't know what can ultimely be reached with this Grothendieck's dessins d'enfants. I try to extract them from the treasure trove of mathematics in the context of quantum paradoxes but I also had interesting feedbacks with a few philosophically oriented FQXi competitors, and you can find the tracks of these discussion above. The secret is in the understanding of the so-called Belyi theorem. I would have to tell more on this and display many examples to convey the beauty of the concept that has fascinated Grothendieck in his'un_Programme

, I wish you not be overlooked this time.


ps: I realize that we are both born in 1951.

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 17:17 GMT
A quick comment before detailed remarks about the essay..

I've over the years given a fair amount of thought to ideas related to your 'intelligent bit' and even discussed the subject with Gerard 't Hooft at FFP10. It occurs to me that what you may be envisioning is actually what I would call an octonionic bit, which by its very nature would allow the development of procedurally evolutive forms. Just a thought. I can elaborate later.

If you haven't already; you might want to check out the essay of Michael Goodband, or compare notes with him. I asked him a related question of Michael, as I'd discussed with 't Hooft, and the end of his reply was "In a pure geometric theory with only the structure of the fabric of space, a question like, "what does the computing (over the numbers of particles)?" can only have the fundamental answer, the fabric of space - which is synonymous with the laws of physics."

Since my questions to Michael were directed at answering some of the issues raised in your essay, in terms of how his work deals with them (and it relates to the possibility raised above), it might be worth a look or a second look.



report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 17:20 GMT
Oh I almost forgot:

A link to

Michael Goodband's essay.



report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 18:34 GMT
Dear Peter

Reminding interesting quote

The average human being is a naive realist: i.e., like the animals, he accepts his sense impressions as direct information of reality and he is convinced that all human beings share this information. He is not aware that no way exist of establishing whether one individual impression (e.g. ,of a green tree) and that of another (of this tree) is the same and that even the word same has no meaning here.

Max Born My life & my views p.53

Every question like "What is the same information?" is tautology

Warren Mcculoch call it greatest riidle of the World.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 01:19 GMT
Hi Peter,

here to let you know I have read your essay. It was not such a hard task as I had imagined from reading your abstract. I think much more accessible than your previous two.

Interesting stuff about the excluded middle. Even with a coin toss the outcome could be seen as more than the outcome of a binary choice. There is for example the direction (N,S,W,E) in which the queen's (or other's) head points or orientation of the image on the tails side ,i.e. where (N,S,W,E) the lion faces for a UK 10p coin. There is also where in space the coin lands. Also the possibility that the coin lands on its edge suspended between heads and tails, such as if it falls into a small crack. I have seen something similar with a die which came to rest balanced on one edge. Whether it is practical to extract the additional information and make use of it is another question. Though I don't see why not in principle.I have recently read about greatly enhanced information storage in crystals, going beyond binary digital information by using different polarizations -and- the 3 dimensions of space ( if I remember correctly).

Also an interesting point about the important differences between every real macroscopic object not shared by identical mathematical entities that represent them. Joe Fisher makes the same point in his essay BITTERS talking of the uniqueness of every real thing unlike information.

Wishing you Good luck again this year, Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 04:33 GMT
Some time need remember Quotation by Ludwig Wittgenstein

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 20:55 GMT

My favourite alongside Popper.

I agree; There's far too much noise in physics!

Israel Perez wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 09:29 GMT
Dear Peter

I'm sorry I couldn't read your essay before, I have a lot of work here with my research and it's difficult to keep up with the reading of the essays. I'm trying to do my best.

With respect to your essay I find it very interesting but I must confess that I still don't get why you use the adjective "intelligent". In what sense do you mean the qubit is intelligent? I would be glad if you could comment on this.

I also realized that you went on to discuss the problem of entanglement and the EPR paradox. I think this is a thorny topic that requires a deep understanding of the foundations of QM and I admire your braveness for addressing it straightforwardly. I think that you did a great analysis and I congratulate you. Unfortunately, I don't consider myself a specialist on this topic although I understand the main ideas. I also support locality and I believe that this kind of experiments have a more mundane explanation. I have to tell you that I dislike the spooky action at a distance but some people have found it quite natural and useful, not only in QM but in other fields.

I haven't hear before about the toroidal wavefunctions could you recommend a reference where I can see their mathematical definition.

I would recommend that you take a look at the essay of Alan Kadin who has been working for many years in the foundations of QM. He is developing a more intuitive approach to deal with entanglement. You can find some other experts in this forum too, such as George Ellis and Mauro D'Ariano. I think it'd be worth asking for their opinions.

I can see you have a great score and a great audience, thanks for drawing my attention to your essay, I can see why this is so. Good luck in the contest!

Best Regards


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 20:49 GMT

The word 'intelligent' is merely a comparison between the information capacity of a simple 'wave' with one binary degree of freedom; (0,1, or up/down), with the almost infinite degrees of freedom or a helix, representative of a Bloch sphere.

We can only ask the Bit one question and get a 'yes/no' answer. But the IQbit has almost infinite answers by comparison. This is why the...

view entire post

Israel Perez replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 00:09 GMT
HI Peter

You: The word 'intelligent' ... .... a Bloch sphere. Ok, I got it. Thanks for the reference, I'll take a look at it.

You: Yes, I've discussed with Alan and Mauro..., ... how few do!

Yeah, not an easy topic for everyone.

You: Unfortunately the Bell inequality is now so deeply entrenched in doctrine it's achieved religious status and few can accept any apparent challenge! I hope it may be noticed by the judges this year...

Unfortunately, you're right, it's sort of a dogma. But with strong arguments and a new formulation things may change. We should persevere.

With respect to your last question, the answer is no. I don't see the direct connection, sorry I can't help with this.

Finally, I can see that you are already in the precious list, hopefully you could make to the end. Good luck!



report post as inappropriate

David M Reid wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 06:53 GMT
Overall, the main idea of your essay is good. There are a few minor mathematical points which could be cleaned up a little for a purist, but the necessary changes would not alter the points you were trying to get across, so I hope you don't mind my pointing four of them out.

[1] You state that A=A is false when interpreting = as identity because, you state, no two things are identical....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 19:38 GMT

Don't mind at all, very pleased for the suggestions. I understand and agree with them all, except, to cite Godel..(!)...;

[1] Thank you for A=B, which needs adding, but I don't claim A=A is false for mathematics. I'm thinking more of assumed commutivity, so saying that A=A mathematically is not the same as saying A=A in nature, which is false (a vector is a derivative not a physical entity) I think that's a very important hidden point. Do you agree it's valid?

[2] Yes. I'm referring to both the additional dimension per se and it's probable connection to Born's Rule.

[3] Agreed. But the 'probabilities' I'm really referring to are the 'ocurrance' quantifications in the Bayesian distribution. I discuss truth function and quantum dynamic logic in last years paper, finding the overall hierarchical structure of my underlying physical 'discrete field' model (DFM) emerges. I wonder haw we decide what 'can' and 'cannot' happen?!

[4] I refer to the well known statement "All logical systems are ultimately beset by paradox", so I think the fundamental 'systems' I refer are not in the ('subset'?) systems you refer to, correctly, as logical finite 'systems' within themselves. i.e. a common semantic matter of underspecification.

Thanks for the Deutsch link, I'll check it out. I've now read your excellent and fun essay, also helpful, and will also catch up with model theory.


David M Reid replied on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 16:29 GMT
Hi, Peter,

Thanks for your responses; I enjoy a good discussion, and have responded to your comments to my essay in the corresponding place.

Could you explain which citation you mean? Gödel was a prolific writer.

Of course, these are, as I said, only small points that would only occur to a purist.

[1] First, I wholly agree with your general idea about equality, which I would break up into two parts: (a) that people use "equal" extremely loosely when they mean "equivalent to", and (b) people sloppily use "equal to" between syntactical statements and their semantic fulfilments. However, since the language of physics is mathematics, perhaps a different formulation would better satisfy those who are sticklers in matters of formalism. . (I also understand what you want to say with your example of "a vector is a derivative", as they can both be used to represent change, but you will have to explain to mathematicians in your readership that you are taking a bit of poetic liberty.)

[3] It sounds as if a formalization of your ideas would be handled in modal logic, possibly with Kripke frames.

[4] I'm afraid I don't know this quote. Although it sounds nice, you might want to make explicit the exclusion which you wrote were implicit. Basically, you are referring to systems which contain enough arithmetic that can be used as a coding mechanism to be able to produce undecidable sentences. However, first-order theories of: Boolean algebras, and of hyperbolic or Euclidean geometries, among others, are decidable, and are obviously useful in describing nature. I guess "many systems are plagued by paradox" doesn't pack the same literary punch, whence the quote you cited.

I am sure that your readers are not bothered by such small formal points, but will concentrate on the main ideas, and enjoy.


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 16:53 GMT
Conversation continued on David's blog, finishing with these comments;

Aug 2nd;

Hi, again, Peter, I had a bit more time than anticipated today, and so was able to read your two papers that you sent me the links to. Superb! Too bad I cannot time-travel back to those years to give you tens.

My surmise (made before reading the papers) that your differentiation in speeds followed...

view entire post

Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 12:24 GMT
Dear Peter,

I copy a comment to Hughes Matlock. Have a look if it fits some of your findings. Thanks.



I am quite sensitive to your (software) picture of the cosmos for the following reasons

1) First but not least, I understand it. I already met (not physically except for Carlos Castro and Laurent Noittale) most of authors you refer to.

2) Your model is relevant, interesting, of wide range and influencial.

3) The S3 sphere has several clothes (i) the conformally compactified Minkowski space, as you mention,

(ii) the single qubit (Peter Jackson call it the intelligent qubit!)

as described in quant-ph/0310053, R. Mosseri, "Two and Three Qubits Geometry and Hopf Fibrations"

with the Hopf fibration

(iv) Dirac Monopole

, just to cite a few.

The Hopf fibration of S3 by great circles S1 and base space S2 is that interests me here.

This is because, in my essay, one important object is S2 (that can be seen as the Bloch sphere, the

Riemann sphere or complex projective line CP1, you can see

Many Dessins d'enfants (those of genus 0) arise from S2 (say) with three singular points 0,1 and infty.

The idea would be to lift them to S3, through the inverse Hopf map, endowed with three rigidified circles corresponding

to aforementioned singular points. I wonder is such a picture was ever imagined.

This would be an instance of your implicate to explicate projection, I suspect.


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 14:33 GMT

Thank you. Yes, I've read and commented on Hugh's essay as we have great commonality. I've picked up his links to Recursive Quantum Gauge Theory. unfortunately he seems not to be responding, so his essay will certainly end up far lower down than it should, which is a shame.

I don't know if he's read mine. How do we check with so many posts? (I see I have 100 more than you!) We need a local search facility.


KoGuan Leo wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 05:01 GMT
Dear Peter,

I like you idea of IQbit that is similar to KQID Ancestor FAPAMA Qbit as Planck's matrix of all matter and Maxwell's infinite being with unlimited storage capacity so that this being does not need to erase any information and we as human being as information is therefore immortal. I explained more in my thread. I am not so sure what comment to make except that your essay has very sophisticated argument and serious work of a lifetime. I admire your dedication to science and truth. I will rate it accordingly.

Congratulation for your high rated essay by your peers and admirers.

Best wishes,

Leo KoGuan

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 12:04 GMT

Thank you. I'm greatly honoured by your views. But my essay is but a glimpse of an improved foundation to build from. I hope it helps your and others work.

In my essay two years ago I estimated it would take 10 years, so 2020 for science to gain the vision as we're now so swamped by information and dogma, but I've seen more green shoots this year. Who can know?

Bless you.


Anonymous wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 12:36 GMT
Hello Peter

Having read quite a few of people's posts on this page, I am starting to see why you left such a positive review on my own page. We do seem to have a similar perspective of the world in many areas. That said, I haven't read your essay yet, and will do so.

I noticed the robust discussion regarding no two physical objects being identical. My GPE has been accused of being the Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles in disguise, so I spent some time considering this. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) has a great page on this. Forrest finds that the PII is ‘unproblematic for medium-sized objects’ because they can always be distinguished by physical difference, if ever so slight. But, he comments, fundamental principles are widely held to be necessarily true: uncontingent.

The matter is complicated by quantum mechanics (French 2000 - SEP), in that we find ‘fundamental particles of physics cannot be regarded as individual objects.' I think that the GPE clears this up from a rationalist standpoint, by globalizing the argument, and wonder if you agree.

The bother is, as you mentioned earlier, people are so convinced that the way they see the world is a proper rendition of the underlying reality. Kant wrote a book about it, and both he and Popper used it to show that we are all limited in our world models by it. And it ain't so, at least not for the endpoint rationalist.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 11:57 GMT
Hi Stephen,

(At least I think it's Stephen as there's no name!)

I think Basudeba understood my popint in the end (on his blog) but agree I need to explore the PII a bit more along with Lebniz Law. There's more precedent than I thought for my proposal.

I also agree the GPE certainly seems to offer good rationalisation for the anti QM view. There are also others, Walter Smilga discussing the 'rich structure', though I'm concerned at the apparent meaning of his conclusions that there's nothing beyond binary systems!

I look forward to your comments (and points) when you've actually read my essay.


William Amos Carine wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 21:52 GMT

This essay was formed very well and flowed with the use of experimental evidence much like an on-going thought experiment. I look forward to reading papers that have been linked or suggested.



report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 13:45 GMT
Thanks William,

I like the; 'on-going thought experiment' as I propose we should leave the era of;

"SHUT UP AND CALCULATE" ..and enter a new one of;


So we can better develop the skills of the best quantum computer we'll ever get.

As I've said to Walter Smilga, For all the sense of Bohr's reamark about 'what we can say' he's deflected us from the whole point that;

If we can find out and understand more we can then 'say' more!

So QM is now a cop-out, assuming particles can have no characteristics. No wonder we're in a mess. Now it's up to YOUR generation!

Best of luck


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 12:53 GMT
Dear Peter,

Congratulations for your essay and the high rate in this contest. Although many physicists claim these days that there is nothing more to be understood about the foundations of QM, in addition to the operational description, many are still trying to understand more (myself included, although I am skeptical to the possibility or even the need of explaining EPR with local hidden variables). I am impressed to see to what level you bring your quest of better understanding the quantum world. We may have different views on some points, but let me emphasize some common points. We both consider waves to be fundamental to this problem, and that there is more information in a qubit than the usual bit obtained as a result of a quantum measurement (although it seems to be impossible to access). And it seems to me that we both consider that QM and GR may be compatible without big compromise, despite the prevalent views these days.

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 14:16 GMT

It depends what we call 'big' I suppose; Everything's relative after all!

I showed how unification is done in my last two essays. '2020 Vision' was coined not just because we can't yet 'see' that simple answer right before e-[our eyes (literally) , but because I estimated it would be 2020 before enough could do so. I have a bet for a pretty expensive meal riding on it not being earlier! I do like win-win scenario's!

Thank you, and good luck in the run in. I've been advised that the peer scoring will be ignored by the judges again anyway. Perhaps that should be expected. They have other pressures, we're all human, subjective and fallible, and the rules is the rules after all. I have faith.

Best wishes


Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 23:14 GMT
Many thanks guys,

My replies have been lost in cyberspace with many other posts. Brendan thinks he can magic them up again, he must be a very good physicist. If they don't show up I'll revert.


William C. McHarris wrote on Jul. 31, 2013 @ 20:10 GMT
Dear Peter,

Finally, I got around to being able to peruse your essay — and it's remarkable! I thoroughly enjoyed it, although I must admit its density posed quite a challenge, so I had to take a lot of things on faith. The idea of information existing in the so-called "excluded middle," and accessible via fuzzy logic is quite novel and worth pursuing further. I hope that you plan to expand the necessarily-limited space of the essay into a much larger opus.

I also located and read your essay, "Subjugation of Scepticism in Science," with Dr. Moszkowski in, and I agree with your premises there.

Thank you also for your dialog with Mauro in the threads under my essay on Nature and Nonlinear Logic. I just wrote a response, which I think you'll appreciate.

Congratulations on your highly-rated essay, and may you have continued success as a welcome, fresh voice in the now somewhat stodgy arena of physics.

Bill McHarris

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 17:15 GMT

Thanks. I think yours is remarkable too, in fact I'm stunned how many physicists seem quite 'scared' of chaos theory. I think it's fear of the unknown. (Why on earth they're in physics then god only knows, if he exists!).

Did I mention your overlapping discs which bled into each other from one of your papers I perused? That is precisely what I derive from disqualifying points and lines from nature, where the fine grain 'grading' appears between the integers. I have a draft paper in which I intend to include it, I assume I can also refer to yours, was there another original source? The only missing element in that area of mine is relevant mathematics. I now know what Einstein meant when he wrote about mathematics only focussed doing it's own thing and not what's needed. I hope you may be able to help or collaborate to make inroads.


Hugh Matlock wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 05:01 GMT
Hi Peter,

An great essay, with a lot of great questions and an idea that might answer them. You wrote:

> It's been assumed that simple 0,1 spin states are all a photon has to offer. But what if they have more to give?

You might enjoy Tony Smith's description of "conformal graviphotons".

> Essential to mathematics and metaphysics A = A is proposed as not applicable...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Than Tin wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 06:22 GMT
Dear All

A standard-issue big city all-glass high-rise stands across the street from my usual bus stop. When I look up the high-rise facade, I can see the reflections of the near-by buildings and the white clouds from the sky above. Even when everything else looks pretty much the same, the reflections of the clouds are different, hour to hour and day to day.

After I boarded the bus,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 18:50 GMT

Excellent, yes. And the angels have dresses sewn by needles on which we can also dance with the angels with their white dresses...

I note I did't rate your essay with my first comment so have done so now. I still love your perceptive comments imagining QM without weirdness, and "Any slice through nature gives "answers that differ with the scales we probe and the premises we adopted. But Nature itself is quite agnostic and mum and plays no favorites"."

The screen tells me I'm logged in, but I suspect, like much of current physics, it is there only to fool, confound and confuse.

Best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Hugh Matlock wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 09:04 GMT
Hi Peter,

(It seems that most (perhaps all) of the comments on July 31 and Aug 1 were erased... and perhaps the voting reset as well. Seems like FQXi might have reset the database for some reason. I am just surprised there is no announcement or explanation. Anyway, I will re-post my comment now. )

A great essay, with a lot of great questions and an idea that might answer them. You...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 20:59 GMT

The Ptolemaic model used gears, the height of technology at that time, to show the motion of the planets, the most complex thing known at the time. Currently we use the bits of digital electronics, the height current technology, to understand particle Physics, the most complex thing we currently know. That parallel makes me concerned about the relationship of “bits” to physics.

I must confess that I reread “the intelligent bit” a number of times and it still buzzes over my head. If I get this right: an intelligent bit occupies the same Hilbert space as Quantum Mechanics, but is a binary value of 0 or 1. What we see of this bit is a projection in real space, which is no longer a pure 0 or 1, but a state from 0 to 1 that favors the ends (near 1 and 0) more than the middle. The law of Malus, used in polarization, was used by Feynman to help explain Quantum Mechanics and is used here to explain this principle.

The universe might be composed of “intelligent bits”, I have no way to prove or disprove this point. Strangely, I am not really concerned with what composes the universe, but what I can use to explain the universe. Matching boundary conditions then solving a differential equation to get a wavefunction is something I understand. I don’t know how to solve an “infinite square well” problem with discontinuous bits.


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 23:10 GMT

The whole point is that it is NOT discontinuous in any way. In fact the moment you mention Hilbert space you were probably in the wrong universe. I did not invoke Hilbert space, and it is NOT a value of 0 or 1.

Let's look at it from the 'other end'. Can you get quantised 0's and 1's if working your way along an Archimedes screw? Or from a spinning torus? With a helix it has to be 'dumbed Down' to project the orbital path on the a 2D surface, then look at the wave and ask of each bit are you going up, or down' - only then have we simplified, so 'digitised' the complex 'Bloch sphere' degrees of freedom enough to get 'yes'/'no' answers. That is what QM does.

The point is not what the universe may or not be made of, NOTHING can be proved, it is that QM is an inadequate interpretation of nature, and the EPR paradox can be resolved without FTL, so Unifying physics by deriving SR from a quantum mechanism with a recursively reducing uncertainty. The wavefunction collapse is resolved by the surface scattering implicit in the model. If you look at the foundations in the last two essays you may get a fuller picture.

The solution is geometrical, so a precise description of uncertain nature, not cardinalised, so precise in itself but only a good approximation of nature.

In other words, I think you have missed the important implications of the solution. The preconceptions we all have always add difficulty. Did the further description help?


Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 14:27 GMT

Your description helped because you told me I had it all wrong, which is a start toward understanding.

Is the bit just for matter waves?

I see "bit" and I think 0 or 1 do you mean the infinite set of numbers between 0 and 1?

Thank you for your help,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 15:35 GMT

Certainly not all at all but a basic assumption about the bit you asked about. But now you're now closer. It's not quite; "The infinite set of numbers between 0 and 1" as it removes all infinities, but the "set between 0 and 1" and then the subset between each 0 and 1 in that set. This gives recursive quantum gauge theory.

The best way to visualise it geometrically may be a Block sphere. Take 2 opposing vectors, up and down. We can then have a subset of vectors on one plane between them, we can then have higher order subsets of orthogonal planes on each of those subset planes. i.e. the 'degrees of freedom' are almost infinite in a hierarchical gauge system, because in dealing with nature we are dealing with ever changing 'curves' not steps, right down to gamma.

Maths can only do things in precise steps (quantisations). Nature is not so obliging! Thus 'quantum uncertainty'. As you said; "Mathematical systems like kinematics imperfectly intersect with the physical universe." I propose a solution that the mathematics need needs to be 'layered' to reduce uncertainty.

In this way we can, stage by stage, decode all the background 'noise' in Shannon's channels. This is what is now being researched in quantum computing but it seems it's effects are far more fundamental. One thing that needs doing to tie up loose ends is rationalising this model mathematically with Huygens Construction and 3D potentials, which seems to evolve the NLS equation. Can you see how that may be possible?

Both SR and QM end up more consistent (no spookyness, or FTL, and von Neumann's more consistent QM is allowed. The McHarris essay shows chaos theory is also closely analogous.

My precurser essays would help with the axioms of the model. It does need your view of 'intelligence' to visualise the hierarchical relative kinetics, not just "high rate data processing" I agree.

Best wishes


Chris Fields wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 08:56 GMT
Hi Peter,

Do you believe that individual entities have identity over time? Your description of travelling waves suggests that you do. If so, why?



report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 16:56 GMT

If we define a (non-'matter') entity as any discernible 'difference' in a ground state it will then include 'soliton' waves, which we consistently find. In that case an identity exists over time in the same was as 'matter'. What it may 'consist of' is then immaterial as it only needs be a 'peak' in energy level. I agree with you it is only then a 'model-theoretic'...

view entire post

Akinbo Ojo wrote on Aug. 4, 2013 @ 10:46 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thanks for bringing the Dark Matter post to my attention. I must confess my current ignorance of Plasma Physics. The nearest I came was when someone referred me to read "The Electric Universe", which you might google and preview. My motivation for and impression of dark matter is for something that can be gravitationally bound and be so relatively inert as to be undetectable if it forms an earth-bound medium. If Plasma can form such an undetectable earth-bound medium to render the M-M result null then it is a candidate that I would love. My thinking is that given the claimed and assumed abundance (over 90% of all cosmic matter) of this medium and our planetary location right in the middle of the galactic zone where the stellar velocity rotation curves suggest it is most abundant in our galaxy, how can the earth be so privileged as to escape such a medium being bound to it? If the earth is then not so special, then perhaps the way such difficult to detect medium can be experimentally verified is from experiments like M-M, Sagnac, GPS which indicate the differing behaviour for light at terrestrial surface vis-a-vis extra-terrestrial light source. This would bring back the Galilean relativity principle.

So the basic question is how undetectable can Plasma be? And how can it also be detected? My little understanding is that Plasma exists at very high temperatures only and not at room temperature.

NB: That among other things after things become more leisurely after this demanding essay contest I will be revisiting your Discrete Space Theory with a view to buttress the model or puncture it, if I can and if you don't mind!

Best regards,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 09:47 GMT

Plasma doesn't have to be hot. It's very poorly understood and has various similar descriptions. It's essentially electron rich (followed by protons, anti-particles and the ionised gasses) where not yet at the CO and molecular gas stage. It can be very diffuse in space, but as space is generally quite big it has the same effect as a short thick bit of medium. n=1. In fact astonishingly, experimentally it's found then n can equals fractionally under 1 at some frequencies (theoretically slightly superluminal!). It can be detected indirectly and kinetically (as well as gravitationally of course!) and more so directly with better fidelity, and with actual probes, as actually found in the recent AMS results.

It is found at great abundance at the bow shocks around moving objects (local fields/frames). Check out my 2011 essay, 2020 Vision 2011 FQXi Finalist. and Richard Nixey's 2012 essay analysis of Earth's Bow Shock, consistent with mine. Nixey; Bow Shock Plasma (see Fig.).

I condenses precisely as required due to dark energy compression at the discrete field domain boundaries, resolving a swatch of dozens of anomalies in one go.

We don't quite return to Galilean Relativity. The LT's Gamma curve is a real effect, but with a real PHYSICAL derivation I've described in another paper.

Yes, I'm really pleased to have help trying to falsify it. Try hitting it it with all you can find! I can no longer even scratch it! but it can't yet be anything like complete.

Best of luck in the final roller coaster/dash!


Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 12:58 GMT

As to Plasma playing a very significant roll in the Earth's Bow Shock I am ready to concede but will still have to check your references later. I am conceding because electromagnetism features prominently in the phenomenon and as you rightly said Plasma is rich in electrons and ionized material, etc.

What is your explanation in case you are disagreeing with Newtonian, v^2 = GM/r, when analysing the speed of outlying stars? The v is so high, making a higher M inevitable to preserve galactic structure unless you want to change Newton's theory.

I didnt get what you meant by the LT's Gamma curve

Then, concerning whether Plasma can exist and remain plasma at room temperature will need the reference. My thinking is that electron and particle motions are so high in the Plasma state.



report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 18:37 GMT

Newtons seems a pretty good approximation, but the discrepancies further out can be better modelled by the Yukawa (or 'screened Coulomb') potential which has a slightly sharper cut off and doesn't theoretically go on 'forever'. Insofar as the dark matter halo distribution has been 'mapped' it corresponds excellently. The peak potential at the shock then 'transforms' to the 'next...

view entire post

Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 04:39 GMT
Peter - nice essay, although sometimes a bit hard to follow at times.

I enjoyed your inclusion of the law of the excluded middle, and after reading your essay wondered if this could also be interpreted as a reflection of superposition?

There was a nice focus in the essay on the difficulty of emitting creating single photon emitters, and detectors ! Your end notes was a treasure trove of interesting references and connections. Thank you.

Nice job. I plan to follow up on all these references as soon as the contest is over.

Kind regards, Paul

report post as inappropriate

Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 10:38 GMT
Dear Peter,

I have read your essay; I think it is quite original and I've rated it accordingly.

I have two comments about the formal aspects of your essay.

1) In the line of the comment of David Reid above, I cannot agree with you that the atomic formula A = A is false: not in mathematics and not in nature. The case in mathematics is discussed above. But also in nature a every individual is identical to itself. I may agree with you that no two separate individuals can be identical, as in this horse here and that horse there cannot be identical. But the identity relation is reflexive, so this horse here is always identical to this horse here. I think it's untouchable.

2) In the context of the law of the excluded middle, the values 0 and 1 are truth values at the metalevel (0 denoting false and 1 denoting true). Probability theory is merely an application of set theory: the values 0 and 1 in probability theory are constants at object level. A nonzero probability is a value in between these latter values 0 and 1: it has nothing to do with the truth values 0 and 1. If you define any event E, then a formula 'P(E) = ½' is still either true or false. The same goes for the probabilities in QM: these are real numbers in between the constants 0 and 1 at object level, they have nothing to do with the truth values at metalevel. So I do not understand your link with the law of the excluded middle. Of course there are other logical systems, such as that of Brouwer's intuitionism in which you cannot infer A from ¬¬A. Or am I missing something and do I have to see your theory in an entirely different logical framework?

Best regards,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 17:20 GMT

Many thanks for your comments. I'll take the points in turn.

1. See David Reids final point above agreeing the model and comment on my precurser essays.

2. I agree self likeness, but that makes A=A only true metaphysically. As there are no two separate entities in nature we cannot claim commutativity, so we can then say there are two distinct cases, the physical one...

view entire post

Michael Alexeevich Popov wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 12:52 GMT

My later reading of your essay showed an importance of following passages :

> “ Binary based mathematics relies on the Law of the Excluded Middle between assigned symbols 0,1, A,B, or yes/no for waves”.

> refinement. May be philosophically in the terms of analytical tradition, it is correct, however, mathematically speaking, it is a kind of Wheeler’s...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 15:59 GMT

Many thanks for your comments. I agree both your refinements. These are also consistent with a number of other essays here. There seem to be many valid recursive gauge theories.

There is however another level to the time question. When considering dilation it need only be Doppler shift of the artefacts of a sequence of emissions due to the physical speed change between real spatially bounded inertial systems (frames).

You may need to read the above again and imagine a balloon moving along a corridor. Light is from ahead scattered to c in the balloon frame by it's skin on entry, propagates at c in the balloon frame while IN the balloon system, (Contraction) then back to c in the corridor rest frame. Moving the other way it is dilated in the balloon from when propagating through the balloon.

You may find you need to read the ALL again! Or see my previous years papers. Does that make any sense to you?


JOSEPH E BRENNER wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 20:00 GMT
Dear Peter,

I have not replied to your notes, for which thanks, as I have just returned home from a short trip to Germany. I have looked for a first time at your essay and decided that there is a possibility for us to "join forces" against the "guardians of doctrine". The difference is that you explicate (very clearly) your theory whereas, following what I thought was the assignment, talked only tangentially about mine. Hence, I will ask you if you will agree to read a paper of mine which should interest you. For example, the core of my logic, grounded in physics, is the Law of the Included Middle. Real processes follow a spiral path moving from partial actuality to partical virtuality and vice versa in a way that may be described by your "hidden higher-order variables". The first axiom of my logic, exactly as you put it, is that there is no real A that is identical to any other real A, and so on. Naturally, the first thing I would like is that you acknowledge, if you would, the belated receipt of these intitial comments.

Best wishes,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 11:53 GMT

Thank you. I agree you adhered well to the brief. Interestingly I also really only used this essay as an opportunity to falsify the more comprehensive discrete field model (DFM) on QM, an area I've previously largely avoided. I was astonished at it's apparent resolving power even in a cobbled together state.

I'd be absolutely delighted to read your paper and look at joining...

view entire post

eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 22:16 GMT
Dear Peter,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 10:25 GMT

Thank you. I agree a new coherent paradigm should emerge. Unfortunately they don't seem to produce them any more.

I tried London's west end, where apparently you can buy anything, but few seem to know what I'm talking about and most believe it can't happen!

I wonder if that means we're stuck forever with the ones we have?

(I have most of the components if anyone has the rest and knows how to create on please help!)

Thanks for rating my essay and the invite to read yours, I was pleased to read and rate it in July.

I'll listen out for the 'good news'.!

Very best wishes


Stephen James Anastasi wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 11:20 GMT
Hello Peter

A good effort, I thought.

I have a bother with one of your axioms. If in an infinite universe all probabilities are non-zero, then the sum of these probabilities is infinite. Is this what you meant to say? The sum of an infinite number of finite values is infinite, so how does this affect your probability? I think it implies that the chance of anything happening is greater than 1, which would make for a challenging sample space, and sets that contain more than they contain. I think my General Principle of Equivalence [/] would have a bother with this.

If I have it wrong, my apologies. If I am right, I recognize that it will take a deal of work to heal.

Best wishes

report post as inappropriate

Stephen James Anastasi replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 11:29 GMT
PS. I have rated your essay and would appreciate a rating on mine[/]. It provides First Cause from Cartesian Doubt, and from that, studies the first structure of the universe, which turns out to be mathematical. This is not supposed to be possible, apparently.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 12:57 GMT

You say; " If in an infinite universe all probabilities are non-zero, then the sum of these probabilities is infinite. Is this what you meant to say?"

No. Though I agree from the old viewpoint that may appear logical.

However I have removed 'sums' from the equations of nature as they lead to mathematical infinities and there are no infinities in the DFM. The way it works we can't and don't need to 'add' 'probabilities'. They are not additive qualities but simply 'different outcomes', with a distribution which may better be described as likelihoods of occurring. (Maths of course can keep it's infinities).

I know this may be hard to first accept as it takes about 17 steps backwards to disengage with all assumptions and gain the overview. The recursive spaces are also not quite completely 'fractal' as each slightly evolves (see the McHarris essay on chaos theory). There is however a bottom end stop, at the Planck quality relating to gamma, where the model has derived the LT from a quantum mechanism. I'll send you a link to the paper if you wish.

I'm pleased to say I read and gave your essay a well deserved high rating quite recently. Please do ask about the above if you don't think it works. The reply was rather off the cuff.

Best of luck for getting in the final group.


Angel Garcés Doz wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 14:09 GMT
Dear Peter,having scored his essay, many days ago, with high punctuation, I'll give my opinion on your essay.

First: his essay is superbly structured. Second is an ambitious essay, as discussed numerous topics in quantum theory, which are of primary importance, including: Bell's theorem, the fuzzy logic, the EPR paradox, among others. He even admits the possibility of the existence of extra dimensions.

In regard to your comment, made in a post of my essay, I can tell you, that indeed the expansion of the sphere 3d; has its role. The proof is this beautiful formula:

Kissing number in 24d = 196560

1) EXP( 4Pi/3 + 2^3 )-(4Pi/3 + 2^3)-1= 196560 = K(24d)

3 dimensions space ==> 3 Qbits = 8 bits ==> octonions and 8d extradimension; 8 + 3= 11d


(K(24d)x 4Pi)/10 ~( Higgs boson mass/electron mass)

24d = 4d permutations ( dimension space-time not warped in circles or spheres 1 dimension)

In short, I am sure you will be, as a minimum, the finalists of this contest. Oh, and do not worry too much about the math, because I am sure you have ample knowledge on them. Greetings. Angel Garces Doz

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 10:16 GMT
Thanks Angel,

I did study maths but found fundamental assumptions I wasn't entirely happy to follow the crowd on so tested othe paths. I find geometry and dynamic visualisation very rewarding and a bit more 'real'. Si I find my thoughts on current maths reflect Dodgeson's Einstein's and Wheelers ("never do a calculation till you know the answer").

Statistics seems simply self deception, analysing the 'map' not the territory.

Stay in touch.


Karl H Coryat wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 19:20 GMT
Hi Peter, thanks for your comment. Quite frankly I've lost interest in this particular contest (I had much more time to obsess about physics last time), but congratulations on your essay doing so well. -KC

report post as inappropriate

Jin He wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 23:11 GMT
Dear Peter,

According to my galaxy study, the universe is alive at whatever scales!

Therefore, the argument of bit and it is meaningless.

So I can not rate your essay against my own belief.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 11:32 GMT

I term it a semantic question. If we don't know what 'it' is, and can't define 'information' apart from 'change' then I agree the question is meaningless. But if we then test what form 'it' may take up, we may perhaps be able to "say" more than Niels Bohr could 90 yeas ago. I think Niels may have hoped we could!

I'm not convinced there is room for 'beliefs' in proper science. But there seems far too much. With religion moving away from it science and it's doctrines may well take the lead anytime soon!

I've tried not to rate essays here in terms of how closely they may happen to correspond with my own findings. That is 'science by votes!' This is an essay competition. I've rated some essays with a very different approach very highly if they're well presented and argued, interesting, original or a pleasure to read. Those should surely be our criteria.

None the less we are all humans and all part of nature, so must all do what we feel is correct. That is our strength.

Best wishes.


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 23:20 GMT
Peter, I found your article to be quite a complex and multifarious investigation into the fundamental topic of quantum information. Your attention to issues of logic and semantics reminds me of Jennifer Nielsen's essay, which I also thought well of. I am particularly pleased with your attention to the importance of spin and angular momentum in QM (and as expressed in polarized states along the full degrees of freedom such as elliptical), an issue crucial to the thought experiments of my own essay. Furthermore, you realize the importance of *orbital* momentum and not just the conventional spin type. (I had been amazed by the reports of light with OAM and the significance to theory that single photons would of course express that same state - yet this has been largely overlooked.)

Also, in a sea of ruminating philosophical essays it is refreshing to see another author propose or reinterpret, experimental tests that can reveal new truths about quantum states. I had gotten a bit depressed and lost much interest in this contest after seeing so many "speculative" papers without specific proposals, and seeing my own effort sink rather low in the ratings. Somehow I had forgotten that yours is instead, like mine in offering testable new perspectives: "New experiments comparing single-photon pairs are proposed, ..." Indeed! I personally believe that the results of standard QM would be upheld but it is good for someone to challenge the orthodoxy.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 10:26 GMT

I'm very grateful, for both your words and contribution to my thoughts. Somehow we really ought to be able to get a wide collaborative group together to develop and present our common ideas properly in mainstream journal. This also need philosophy mathematics and real experimentation. i.e. coherent joined up science, just like nature really is. Joseph seems up for it (see above). I certainly don't have the time and expertise to do so alone and I suspect none now do. Physics is too deep in this rut.

As I've just written on a blog; "We've been down so long it looks like up to us"

Wotja think?


Neil Bates replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 01:36 GMT
Peter, thank you. That would be a great idea and I want you (and other interested parties) to stay in touch. I am a member of some high-quality forums of Facebook and can invite you if you're connected and interested. I want to help other independent scholars and amateurs make a difference, and people like you can help. Please reference my paper as desired (altho allow me to send you a corrected copy, there is a tiny error.) Regards and good luck.

report post as inappropriate

Neil Bates wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 23:26 GMT
Peter, sorry I showed as "Anonymous" - I was sure I was logged in. Something keeps kicking me out.

- N. Bates

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 01:16 GMT

Thank you for calling my attention back to your essay. You are right the abstract is bit off-putting, while the actual work is quite impressive. It definitely does compliment McHarris' paper on non-linear dynamics and I thought that important in drawing attention to similar work in other fields, while yours does seem to go to the heart of the matter. It's is good to see a "real world" entry come in at least second.

As for the gap I refer to in my own paper, it is not so much a consequence of filling in the physics that has been distilled from the math, but simply a fact of how we have to distill information from the physics, in order for it to be information.


John M

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 10:42 GMT

Many thanks. I agree, it's a dangerous thing to assume we can only get 'physics from maths'. I suspect what we really need is to get 'knowledge from nature'.

I've proposed a new era to replace that of; "SHUT UP AND CALCULATE"

I've suggested it may perhaps be called; "SLOW DOWN AND THINK"

What do you think?


John Brodix Merryman replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 17:06 GMT

Something similar has been running round my head during this contest. I lay the basic concept out in my essay; That perception is a function of the particular focus and in many ways, looking at the broad and general, is as fundamental as the specific and exact. Yet physics as we have it today, is obsessed with ever more concentration of the focus. I just happened to read Peter...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 17:09 GMT
Sorry for the poor editing on that post.

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 04:19 GMT
While time draws short..

I enjoyed your essay, and thought it deserved a high rating, so I boosted yours a bit. I wish you luck. And may my left over octonionic bits serve you well.

Have Fun,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 16:20 GMT
Thanks Jonathen. I left a not on your blog. If they come in nested 'Russian doll' sets we'll probably need a load plus someone who can use them.

I'm not entirely sure that doing that magical slight of hand thing juggling foreign symbols to try to predict the future is really the best way to do it, but I know such approximations do come in very handy to communicate with.

Best wishes


Franklin Hu wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 05:49 GMT
"An intelligent 'IQbit' from 'it' is found in hierarchical 'Sample Space' subsets hidden in the Excluded Middle between binary 0,1 values"

Huh? Is that even English? Looks like word salad to me. At least you appear to address the topic, but your conclusion appears to be 'no' to the question of whether the world is binary or not.

After reading through a number of essays, they all have the same problem - much to technical to be engaging to the public at large.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 17:12 GMT
Hi Franklin,

Yes it is my mother tongue (you should have read my sonnet last year!) but I agree your point. I think I tried to compress a precee of the essay into the abstract, which put a lot off reading it.

My conclusion was a bit more subtle. In 'Public at Large' speak; Lets say a binary pair represent 2 halves of a Russian Doll, painted red and violet. Now inside all the colours and hues of the rainbow are represented by the ever decreasing size dolls. However, at present, even with all the dolls opened up, we only ask; 'Red or Violet?, so Wheelers; 'Yes' or 'No'? The green ones become very uncertain, but towards each end of the spectrum it's clearer. However, the point is that far more information is available than we're asking. At present we just call it 'noise'.

So if we change our questions to; blue or indigo? At each detection the system will tell us. The subtle bit is the 'non linear' distribution caused by an 'orbit' not a 'line'. However, for each smaller Doll we may say we have another binary choice. So there are 2 ways of 'describing' this;

1) It is far MORE binary than the single 1,0. as there are recursive pairs.


2) It's not binary at all but an 'orbit each time (which why pi is infinite).

Of course while you're right, we had to be a bit more technical than that, we were (as specified) not supposed to be writing for the public at large but the "average Sci Am reader". I think most did that well except the ones with all the formulas.

The Lego universe was fun though. Don't you think it a bit suspicious it was invented in Dennmark?


Branko L Zivlak wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:05 GMT
Hello Peter

I am late in commenting your article because I read it a few times. Good article and I wish you much success.



report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 17:23 GMT

You're very kind. I think your work on meteorology and uncertainty are very important in understanding nature. Once we can predict the weather with any real certainty we know the maths is becoming a more useful descriptor.

I agree cyclicity is probably the most foundational form existing at any level, from a universe down to a condensed fermion.

We all suffer information overload, but do stay in touch.


Richard William Kingsley-Nixey wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 13:01 GMT

Incredible work! Sorry to only just get to it. I also looked at your links in the first post. The abstract did put me off a bit first read. I should hve expected this as your last two were clearly building up to a big crescendo. Thanks for being one of the few to look at mine. Outreach seems more valuable than most think. I also really like your apparent total lack of arrogance, it's very refreshing.

So you predicted Aspect should have found major inconsistencies, then found them hidden in his French language paper and omitted from his results. That's quite some story! Has nobody else spotted it?

A very important finding and paper. Well done. Let's hope the judges take note of the posts above and have a bit more vision this time around. This needs to be capitalised on by fqxi. If you want any more help or collaborators I'd be up for it, but I think it's now beyond me.



report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 21:09 GMT

Yes, I think the Alain Aspect aspect has been missed. It did come a bit late for the first essay version. The other reference paper to the predicted anomalies I found is posted above but also here;

Aspect's Asymmetry Anomalies.

Yes, it is pretty hot stuff. Alain hasn't yet replied to my letter. The implications are that both SR AND QM become entirely logical and freindly, subject to the ever diminishing uncertainty of course.

Thanks for your very kind words, but in my 2011 Essay '2020 Vision' I estimated there'd be no paradigm change until at least 2020. I suspect that may still prove not far off, but just one good experiment would help.

Any volunteers with contacts with a good optics lab?

Many thanks, best wishes and bless you.


Gene H Barbee wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 19:36 GMT
Congratulations on your essay and the high marks. I read your essay and very much appreciate your explanation of EPR. I also visited and looked at your papers. Your broad interests are impressive. Not being an academic, I am relegated to vixra but I have 6 recent papers there I think you would enjoy.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 12:20 GMT

Thank you. I'll try to catch up with your work. In terms of the eye and brain it would be great to work with you to better define my own description and implications. There is a massive implication for SR that needs careful re-reading of this plus my last two essays to expose.

I'm trying to find a great link I had on the rod/cone receptor mechanisms from which I think I pulled out this; Lens wavelengths (colours) distribution.

Sorry yours missed the cut.

Best wishes


Lorraine Ford wrote on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 02:26 GMT
Hi Peter,

One might argue that "The IQbit may help with processor upgrades" points to the existence of prescience!! Seriously though, I found your analysis, discussion, axioms and evidence to be compelling reasons to not ask "just yes/no questions". I hope that an experiment using true single pairs of photons can be done to verify your proposed new "Law of the Reducing Middle".

A top essay, excellent work.


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 13:50 GMT

Impressively perceptive! But is it just wisdom or 'counterfactuality'!? I'd expected more comments on that one. I did want to slip in meaning hidden in layers, but before the readers eyes, between the lines. That is of course precisely the point the essay is making. It's all there when we perceive how to look. Well done.

After reading all (most of) those brilliant essays, including yours for sure, the line in the Monty Python sketch comes to mind " My brain hurts". I'm now planning an upgrade clinic. But NO counterfactuality!

Really sorry you didn't make the cut. At least the tension's over. I've had disappointment from 7th two years running!

Maay thanks, and see you next year.


PS. Did you see the peculiar orbital anomalies predicted in single photon pair comparisons have been found in the (vast majority of) Aspect date ditched due to inconsistency! ...YES!!! (see link in response to Richard above).

Chris Granger wrote on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 02:48 GMT

Interesting essay! When I get some extra bandwidth I'll be able to give you more substantive feedback. Based on my initial review I have given you a high rating, and though I do have several reservations regarding your premise and its conclusions, there are also areas where I concur - and I certainly found your approach thought provoking on many fronts.


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 14:17 GMT

Great, thanks, all feedback and falsification really welcomed. That's what the models doing here. Ref premise, you need to read my previous 2 (precursor) essays to understand the dynamic logic. They're very readable, though maybe as 'dense' as this one. I'd genuinely love to hear and discuss your reservations on the whole Discrete Field Model ontology.

It's very simple really, for instance Earth's ionospher is at rest with Earth and light scatters to c wrt Earth on entry and vice versa to the Barycentric frame. Exactly what we find in fact, just made logical. The problem is people often think they understand but can't see the unifying implications. Did you know Dan Gezari back at JPL?

Some not making the cut may be a bit disgruntled around now, that's human nature, so I appreciate your honest objectivity. Glad you found it thought provoking. I've found our thinking really does need substantial 'provoking' (as post to Lorraine above)!

Kind regards


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 07:26 GMT
Dear Peter,

You are perhaps clever when calling real numbers intelligent rational ones. Since your new essay reached high ratings, I feel no longer obliged to hide my criticism. Let me be honest. I don't see your essay difficult to understand

because of densely presenting too much breathtaking new ideas. On the contrary,

your own ideas like a “Law of the Reducing Middle” cannot prevent me from feeling bored. While Hilbert's finitism has led to EPR and Wheeler's preference for a digital model of the world, I wonder if your mere preference for a non-binary bit will offer serious benefits. It may however serve as a vehicle for feelings and vague speculations of all those who are unhappy with some hard to swallow doctrines in physics.

In principle, I appreciate that you reminds us of the role by Cardano, Bombelli, and Galileo in mathematics. You just made it unnecessarily spectacular. Why didn't you mention Hilbert space and rigged Hilbert space? In Fig. 2 of my previous essay I addressed the question too.

As an aside: I object to "there is no boundary". Isn't there a border between past and future?

While your Fig. 1 is certainly unnecessary because circular polarization is well known, your explanation of your Fig. 2 is perhaps unacceptable. It is uncommon to imagine an middle as reducing. One does not immediately understand what you meant with "The curve is proposed to also representthe inverse Bayesian or Gödel many-valued 'reducing middle' between the certainties".

Your criticism of some experiments might be justified, and if it is correct, you are definitely deserving getting honored for it. I still consider the style of your essay far from the standard of scientific work. Nonetheless, you made progress. Please go successfully on to reveal flaws in experiments.



report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 16:28 GMT

I hope you're well. You shouldn't feel obliged to hide criticism. That's why the model's here! Scientific falsification is test and assault with all valid weapons (not just 'beliefs' or'opinions' of course). You make many points, which I'll extract.

1) Easy to understand. Good, but the real value is in also seeing the implications.

2) 'Feeling Bored' I apologise, but...

view entire post

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 00:11 GMT
Wow; does being number two make you try harder?

I hope the expert reviewers think we both worked hard enough this time, to deserve a prize. They must be getting sick of you and me by now, Peter, but you did a stellar job and deserve kudos for that, at least. I finished in 3rd place once, before it went to the judges, but like yourself no prize. Perhaps that will all change this year, so I wish you the kind of luck you have not had before. May you be found not wanting, and therefore worthy of rewards.

All the Best,


report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 10:18 GMT
Hi Peter,

As you said real roller coster ride. Thank goodness I stayed awake with my laptop (5am! here). I would have been eaten by the sharks who make no comment or contribution during the contest but sneak in at the end to eat essayists fast asleep. Your advise about such an eventuality really helped.

You have given me a list of things to read. This will take some time as I am not retired.

You seem to be an encyclopedia of sorts as I came across an article on your blog related to EPR which I found interesting and just referred Gordon Watson to it.

As I said in the coming weeks I will be looking at the Discrete Space Model. As I am also interested in knowing what influence a space that is discrete and can also participate in motion can have on Quantum theory and its mysteries that will be another area of focus.

Best regards and thanks for interacting.


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 10, 2013 @ 21:23 GMT
Thanks Guys, Well done both of you too.

Tackling QM and reading some of the brilliant and consistent analysis here has given me a far more sage and settled view on life and reality. Bill McHarris's essay on chaos was also a revelation. I was astonished how well it fitted into a consistent picture.

My greatest worry now, having had no time to update the many papers in draft or start on the list of new ones, is that, if the discrete field model dynamic DOES start to become more widely understood, is it "ready"? Then as Milton Freeman said, any new theory would be incomplete at first. Though still using the game theory view 'winning is a decision you take' I now also take the view what will be will be. I just hope this can become a 'team' effort.

To that end I'm now off to race my yacht (Google; Ramsgate Week. 'Assassin') to deal with some real hands on dynamic Fourier wave transforms (team of

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 10, 2013 @ 21:32 GMT
...aha! I forgot and used the 'up to' arrow sign, which cuts the rest of the post off! it was just 'team of max 13.' Dealing with a coherent entity interacting with waves and 'hands on' Fourier wave transforms and Doppler shifts by accelerating (relatively) moving fields of air molecules. Great fun!

Very best wishes.


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 10:14 GMT
Dear Peter,

With all my heart I congratulate you with the second place in the first phase of the V International FQXi Essay Contest 2013!

I wish you continued success in your research!

I wish you new ideas for the good of all mankind!

Thanks for the nice comment and appreciation of my ideas!

I am very glad to have met you!

Thank FQXi!

Good summer holiday!

With great respect,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Aug. 10, 2013 @ 21:38 GMT
Thanks Vlad. You too, it was a pleasure. We all need a break now.

(Google; 'Ramsgate Week, Assassin')

Have Fun.

Christian Corda wrote on Aug. 9, 2013 @ 19:10 GMT
Hi Peter,

Congrats for this fantastic result. Now let us cross the fingers for the final judgement by the FQXi experts panel.



report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 25, 2013 @ 15:50 GMT

The recursive gauge theory dimensions implicit in the helical 3D IQbit described in the essay is also directly analogous to the infinite reducing dimensions of the new and beautiful 'jewel like' multi faceted "amplituhedron" mathematical object.

The only difference is that the IQbit has curved sides too, i.e. consistent non-linearity.IQbit as a 'master amplituhedron , "with an infinite number of facets, analogous to a circle in 2-D, which has an infinite number of sides."


Discussed has been found as self organised in the tokamak form of quasar jets (AGN/BH superluminal outflows) new example of self-organization in an MHD plasma, and are also as found in light and described in new articles here;

Coherent optical vortices from relativistic electron beams, Nature Physics. See also;

Tokamak transport...driven by quasi-neutrality and helical asymmetry.


Finally, in support of the logic and view expressed in the essay on mathematics, a new paper consistent with the proposals is here. The Reasonable Ineffectiveness of Mathematics.

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 28, 2013 @ 12:22 GMT

The model described in the essay proposes, contrary to the assumption of John Bell, that the particle field of (Bob and Alice's) detectors in space have a particular orientation dictated by the setting angle (electro-magnetic field). The close spin-axis link between HII and molecular gas or 'dust' is confirmed, so plasma as well as gas refracts light in space consistently wrt the spin orientation.

This orientation then allows an additional parameter in the detection interaction with handed (+1/-1) singlet state spin particles propagating on their axis from the (Stern-Gerlach etc) splitter. Using the ubiquitous toroidal EM field particle morphology, and the consequential non-linear interaction with the aligned detector particles, then recovers John Von-Neumann's "consistent QM" specification of a cosine curve AT EACH detector. So RESOLVING THE EPR PARADOX without FTL communication (as Bell anticipated).

The proof of this predicted alignment has just been announced, with the comment;

"The effort promises to untangle a theoretical logjam about key elements of the interstellar medium". It sure would - if anyone were to understand and take note! Scitech Newslink here. of full paper pre-print;

arXiv; B-G Andersson, et al., Evidence for H2 Formation Driven Dust Grain Alignment in IC 63, 2013, ApJ, 775, 84;

This is a key piece of evidence consistent with the VLBA plasma kinetic refraction findings above and the DFM dynamic logic of interaction mechanism at domain boundaries.

The finding also supports this Dark Matter proposal; Okada; Simple fermionic dark matter models and Higgs boson couplings.


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 11, 2013 @ 12:46 GMT
Stunning new findings consistent with the essay propositions keep coming in. I have to thank a fellow top 20 essayist for providing the link to these;

Proof that assumptions are false, and that the Resonant Interaction of Multiple Waves; " completely different from what happens in coupled nonlinear Schrodinger equations (NLSEs), where energy exchanges are forbidden." So 'superposition' is real and can produce particles by multiple sphere surface intersections in the same way as 'Rougue Waves'. Rogue Waves Emerging from the Resonant Interaction of Three Waves. Phys Rev Letters 111, 114101. 13 Sept 2013.

Directly related but considering LIGHT in Airy pulses in fibre Optic cables is this, including the comments;

"Accelerating light waves in the form of Airy beams moving along bending trajectories have recently drawn a great deal of attention. A remarkable feature of these beams is their acceleration, an inherent property rather than a result of interactions with other waves. In addition to spatial Airy beams, the dynamics of temporal Airy pulses was also studied. In the latter case, the acceleration of temporal pulses is characterized by their varying group velocity." Inversion and tight focusing of Airy pulses under the action of third-order dispersion. Note the dispersion pattern in figure 4 in particular.

These are all important individual pieces from disparate research areas fitting neatly into the 'jigsaw puzzle' ontology, rationalising current theory by confirming the false assumptions identified.


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 11, 2013 @ 17:28 GMT

I highlighted the problems of so called single photon production, which most often has not been. The Model I Described, the IQbit, and resolution of the EPR paradox can all be falsified with single 'time resolved' photon emissions.

Alain Aspect apparently DID manage to do this to some extent, as the 'orbital asymmetry' predicted in my essay WAS FOUND! in the vast majority data he discarded as there was (then) no theoretical explanation (see the C Thompson paper linked, and Aspect's French language full exposition).

But true single photon production has now improved; Single Photon Streams. All that's now needed is to slow them down to ensure actual singlet pairs can be precisely correlated and the verification will be possible, proving von Neumann correct by producing a quantum cosine curve at EACH of Bob and Alice's detectors.


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 25, 2013 @ 19:12 GMT

Two more exiting verification papers;

This shows how the DFM is consistent with and now fully rationalises the Friedman universe; On the variation of vacuum permittivity in Friedmann Universes. AJ, 429; 491-498, 1994.

Also this, out today which is consistent with much of the foundation of my essay and shows similarly links helicity to the unification of classical and quantum physics; Bliokh, K. Y., Bekshaev, A. Y., Kofman, A. G. & Nori, F. Photon trajectories, anomalous velocities and weak measurements: a classical interpretation. New Journal of Physics 15, 073022 (2013).


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 5, 2014 @ 17:53 GMT

It seems the 3D helical quantum 'IQbit' is proving it's potential in practice already;

Garret Lisi's great video here suggests that particle physics may now be on the right track to solve it's problems too; Lisi.


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.