Search FQXi


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

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

Contests Home


Previous Contests

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

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

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

read/discusswinners

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Odessa Sabah: on 1/5/17 at 13:09pm UTC, wrote The other difficulty in responding to your essay is in my own personal...

Peter Jackson: on 5/31/15 at 11:09am UTC, wrote Ramin Thanks for the link. I'm not qualified to comment on your paper as...

Peter Jackson: on 5/11/15 at 16:04pm UTC, wrote Ramin, I can't pretend to fully understand your highly mathematical paper....

Peter Jackson: on 4/27/15 at 16:15pm UTC, wrote Kevin, Thanks. Another high score mine missed! It seems not to matter...

Kevin Knuth: on 4/27/15 at 6:44am UTC, wrote Dear Peter, I have finally had a chance to read your essay and I really...

Steve Agnew: on 4/27/15 at 3:02am UTC, wrote There are any number of ways of handling the phase of matter and...

Peter Jackson: on 4/26/15 at 12:09pm UTC, wrote Donald, A brilliant and perceptive analysis. I've also just read your...

Donald Palmer: on 4/25/15 at 21:36pm UTC, wrote Peter: A very interesting essay with evidence for the need to open one’s...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Manistha Jain: "Thanks for the Information, I was looking hair care and hair transplant in..." in Serious Science. Serious...

Alex: "Another variant ..." in Constructing a Theory of...

Georgina Woodward: "That the seen spacetime, and reference frame of the observer, those..." in Breaking the Universe's...

Georgina Woodward: "Perhaps I can word that more clearly. The human observer's self generated..." in Breaking the Universe's...

Jonathan Dickau: "Sorry again... I should have read more of the linked attachment before..." in If the world ended...

Jonathan Dickau: "Sorry, Some of these arguments appear vacuous, or depend on hidden..." in If the world ended...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar..." in Dissolving Quantum...

Joe Fisher: "Robert Lawrence Kuhn ℅ Closer To Truth November 17, 2018 Ref: Get out..." in Dissolving Quantum...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

Constructing a Theory of Life
An all-encompassing framework of physics could help to explain the evolution of consciousness, intelligence, and free will.

Usurping Quantum Theory
The search is on for a fundamental framework that allows for even stranger links between particles than quantum theory—which could lead us to a theory of everything.

Fuzzballs v Black Holes
A radical theory replaces the cosmic crunchers with fuzzy quantum spheres, potentially solving the black-hole information paradox and explaining away the Big Bang and the origin of time.

Whose Physics Is It Anyway? Q&A with Chanda Prescod-Weinstein
Why physics and astronomy communities must take diversity issues seriously in order to do good science.


FQXi FORUM
November 21, 2018

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: The Red/Green Sock Trick. Can Mathematics Demystify Nature? by Peter Jackson [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 10, 2015 @ 15:38 GMT
Essay Abstract

We suggest it's entirely reasonable that mathematics is a useful tool for describing physical entities and their evolution. We consider mathematics as fundamentally digitised geometry, so well able to approximate natures 'non-linearity'. As Galileo pointed out; “He who undertakes to deal with questions of natural sciences without the help of geometry is attempting the infeasible.” Mathematics can seemingly predict any findings to some finite limit. However, we argue that algorithms do not automatically model natures mechanisms, and that assuming it does so hampers improved understanding of nature. We cite various tricks which mislead us, not the fault of mathematics itself but of it's poor application due to our limited conceptual understanding. Reliance on mathematics as the 'language of physics' became pragmatic necessity when we were unable to classically rationalise findings. Many now believe no classical rationale is possible at quantum scales. John Bell describing that view as 'sleepwalking.' We suggest problems increase as improved data gathering has produced 'information overload', physics is divided into increasingly disparate specialisms and quantum computers are still theory. We consider if there's a greater potential for complex problem solving using other methods and the organic computational systems in our heads with abilities different to computers. We identify that better mathematical formalisms may also emerge. We show by example using a pair of 2-ply red and green socks and the '3-filter' anomaly how we can be tricked. Brackets and 'bracketing' are cited to illustrate the problem and a solution.

Author Bio

Astronomer/Observational Cosmologist (RAS fellow), Architect, Environmental Scientist, Energy and Renewables Consultant and Practice Principal (Consultant team leader on the two largest UK energy projects). Visiting Student Mentor at two UK universities. Various professional qualifications, studied optics, plasma, aero/ hydrodynamics and maths but switched to Architecture to explore other analytical and computational methodology. Offshore representative racing yachtsman. Born Kent 1951.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Alan M. Kadin wrote on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 02:55 GMT
Peter,

I enjoyed reading your essay, and I remember some of your previous FQXi essays. I need to read it over more carefully.

Given your focus on the limits of mathematical understanding in the context of quantum entanglement, you might be interested in my essay, "Remove the Blinders: How Mathematics Distorted the Development of Quantum Theory". I argue that contrary to universal belief, a simple realistic picture of the microworld is possible, completely avoiding the paradoxes that plague orthodox quantum mechanics (including entanglement). QM is not a universal theory of matter; it is rather a mechanism for distributed vector fields to self-organize into spin-quantized coherent domains similar to solitons. This requires nonlinear mathematics that is not present in the standard Hilbert-space formalism. This also makes directly testable experimental predictions, based on little more than Stern-Gerlach measurements. Remarkably, these simple experiments have never been done.

So while mathematics can provide important insights into physics, an incorrect mathematical model that becomes established may be seen as virtually religious dogma which is not to be questioned. That prevents further progress.

Alan Kadin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 15:45 GMT
Alan,

Many thanks. Despite intent it's still rather densely packed, but at least below the length limit! I look forward to questions.

It seems we're in close agreement on fundamentals yet again, maths CAN well approximate nature, but often doesn't, however dogma still dominates.

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

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 14:23 GMT
Hello Peter,

I see you continue on your research with this intriguing and interesting contribution. I have given it a first superficial read and will read again. I am seeing for the first time, "The 3 Filter paradox". I checked the website in your reference 5. Apart from the Anton Zeilinger team in Vienna is there any other team elsewhere who have obtained same results?

If confirmed it will be a major plus for the particle picture of light. A wave picture would find it difficult to explain how interposing a filter at 45o 'releases' light.

My own essay is more philosophical than scientific but when you have the time an aspect I will like you to comment on from your unique perspective is 'how to cut a line'?

Regards,

Akinbo

*You have been on off blogging for a while, kind of 'sabbatical leave' or enjoying yachting?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 20:55 GMT
Hi Peter,

As always, an impressive essay, full of relevant examples, and focused on the overview. You begin by noting that our organic computational systems have abilities different than computers and suggest that one proper use of these abilities is to

"keep looking for the boxes outside the boxes which the boxes came in."

You also note "most believe no classical...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 18:19 GMT
Edwin,

Thanks for your kind comments (I've already printed yours off to read).

It sounds initially as if I will understand and agree at least most of your thesis.

I'm very interested by your precession point so will read with interest as I arrived at a slightly different balance of energy on axis flip, but haven't tried to derive it mathematically.

Once you've quietened down from reading essays I'll post you the link to a recent joint paper giving a quasi-classical resolution of QM. Also a short video.

I look forward to discussing details of the essays first.

Best of luck in the contest.

Peter

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 09:52 GMT
Dear Peter,

I read with interest your depth analytical essay in the spirit of Cartesian doubt and new ideas. I fully agree: "But show the trickery is not the fault of maths but from misuse due to our poor initial conceptual understanding and analysis of empirical findings and thus valid formalisms. We propose more focus on teaching well developed methods of improving conceptual analytical and visualization skills, and also identify the importance of countering increasing 'compartmentalization' of physics by wide research and an open mind."

The problem of the ontological justification (basification) of fundamental sign systems, Mathematics and Physics - is the main task of knowledge. Ontological revolution Planck-Einstein must be completed. John Wheeler left physicists good covenant: "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers". But how many people follow this covenant? What is needed is a synthesis of all knowledge accumulated by mankind. This problem is well formulated Edmund Husserl in "Origin of Geometry»: "Only to the extent, to which in case of idealization, the general content of spatio-temporal sphere is apodictically taken into account, which is invariant in all imaginable variations, ideal formation may arise, that will be clear in any future for all generations and in such form will be transferable by the tradition and reproducible in identical intersubjective sense."

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 11:14 GMT
Vladimir,

Great to see the importance has come across. For anyone else; 'Apodictical' means;

"incontestable because of having been demonstrated or proved to be demonstrable."

(I did have to read the seminal Husserl quote 3 times!)

The great red/green sock switch trick is revealed to have a fully self evident solution, not yet recognized by (confused and flawed) theory, so we apply mathematics incorrectly and confound logical understanding. Such great truths seem most invisible to those most deeply entrenched in the wrong assumptions, ignoring even Wheeler.

I look forward again to reading yours Vladimir.

Thank you kindly for your inspirational support.

Peter

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Apr. 16, 2015 @ 10:14 GMT
That's right, Peter. E.Gusserl has many good ideas which demand deep judgment. There is no doubt that mathematics and physics require semantic ontological extension, primarily the category "space". Alexander Zenkin has well said in "SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS" : "Truth should be drawn …

Good luck in the Contest!

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gene H Barbee wrote on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 02:58 GMT
Peter, thanks for your communication. I appreciate that you are an architect with broad interest. Your suggestion that we avoid compartmentalization is easy to relate to since I am an engineer who spent many years in compartmentalized industry which probably destroyed Kodak, the place I worked. Your essay was on point regarding the FQXi question (unlike many of us that used the opportunity to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 03:33 GMT
Hello Peter my friend!

Just dropping in to tell you the Great Abyss you thought swallowed me could not digest me. And had to spit me back into the pages of these Forums! Good to see you here as always. Feels like home!

I have tried to download your essay in my iPad Air, but got a red flag warning! What's up with that? I will try again from a PC.

In the meantime, analyze this! The Anthropocentric Principle: Our Knowledge of the Universe is such as to make Life possible" From my current essay, "The 'man-made' Universe"

Constantinos

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 21:55 GMT
Constantinos,

I hope you've accessed the essay. I've now read yours, find much consistency with mine, and think you've nailed the subject excellently. I'll post on your blog.

Good to hear from you again.

Peter

Bookmark and Share



Georgina Woodward wrote on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 08:49 GMT
Hi Peter,

I have found your essay much more accessible than your previous one's. Perhaps because you are talking, in some sections, about more familiar things that I have also given some thought.I have also talked about the 3 polarisers in this years essay but offer an alternative solution to your own.

Once again you have given us lots to think about, and I will, but best of all it didn't feel that hard to read this time.

Good luck and Kind regards, Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 22:00 GMT
Georgina,

I hate making assumptions, but may I assume congratulations are in order?

Thanks for your comments. I've tried hard to reduce the density. I look forward to reading of your 'alternative' to the Zeilinger 3 polariser analysis and seeing the evidence, but I suggest it can't affect the solution to the sock trick.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 22, 2015 @ 21:59 GMT
Peter,

Good arguments to support your thought that "Science can sometimes be more about entrenched 'ways of looking' than sound techniques.

I agree with you well-supported statement, but aren't we saying, in effect, that the weak link is the human mind, standing between physics and math and that a system of peer review could help keep us honest (BICEP2, for example). Many of the old school go to the extent of decrying the easy tools of calculation like calculators and computers, but it's our programming that is at fault not the tools.

My connections: mind, math, and physics speaks of this.

Good read,

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover replied on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 02:34 GMT
Peter,

I don't see you as duplicitous, so I am assuming the 2 was an honest mistake, not your true feeling.

"I don't think your score represents the essay and think it should be higher. I'm certainly marking it so. Best of luck in the competition."

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 09:34 GMT
James,

I didn't score it, but I noticed it had just dropped (along with mine!). Evil trolls lurk in these parts. I mainly tend to 'moderate' by reading many and scoring later, but in this case I'll add your (high!) score now.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share


James Lee Hoover replied on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 15:59 GMT
Thanks, Peter,

I generally do the same in scoring, but had already scored yours. Such trolling is too common. I think we all have experienced it.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James A Putnam wrote on Mar. 31, 2015 @ 03:58 GMT
Peter Jackson,

Our approaches remain to this day very different. However, I recognized and stated several competitions ago you arrived prepared. Good essay that deserves comments from deliverers of such low scores.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Rajna wrote on Apr. 6, 2015 @ 05:51 GMT
Excellent essay, enjoyed to read it!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hasmukh K. Tank wrote on Apr. 6, 2015 @ 16:00 GMT
Respected Peter Jackson,

because, you are 1951-born, whereas i, in November 1952.

The quality of your essay is also far superior to mine.

All physicists should read your essay.

When i was first introduced to the three-filter-paradox, i could see no paradox in it. The very name 'polarize r' means that it is the polarize r which polarizes the light. You have used more appropriate word "modulator". There is no paradox. Only the mathematical logic was wrongly applied.

Similarly, i agree with your other ideas.

With my best regards,

Hasmukh K. Tank

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Apr. 7, 2015 @ 02:22 GMT
Hi Peter

Thank you for your generous comment on my page. You also placed a link for a video about your ideas which I watched. I have read your essay and as always find it refreshing that you forge bravely to investigate new ideas, debunk old ones, and still adhere to a general 'theme' you have been investigating over the years - helical motion.

Both the video and the essay introduce rather a dense domain of ideas, and it is impossible to absorb them all in one viewing/reading the video in particular needs pacing. The other difficulty in responding to your essay is in my own personal unquantum state just emerging from my annual bout of cherry-blossomitis fever trying to capture this glorious Japanese season in painting and photos leaving me drained. You deserve better!

I have a feeling that your geometrical/conceptual speculations will be comfortable in an absolute universe where, for example, each point on the Earth's surface rotating and also going around the sun is an actual ellipse in 3D space free from the observer-relativities of SR and GR where everything is in 'straight lines'. Ditto for the polarizer paradox. Oh I think you meant Buckminster's Domes not Bucky Balls - their Carbon-60 molecule version.

With best wishes from the other Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Apr. 7, 2015 @ 15:54 GMT
Dear Peter,

As I told you in my Essay web-page, I have read your beautiful Essay. Here are my comments:

1) I did not know Galileo's statement that "He who undertakes to deal with questions of natural sciences without the help of geometry is attempting the infeasible". This is exactly my dream of researcher, i.e. the geometrization of physics, which is also the foundation of my 2015 FQXi Essay.

2) I agree that the solution to Bell's problem can arise only from a merging between maths and imagination (Einstein stated that "Imagination is ore important that knowledge").

3) I did not know the Vienna experiments by Zeilinger A et al. Thanks for pointing them out.

4) Concerning your question if departures from paradigms are ignored or shunned as not mathematically driven, from fear of abandoning old beliefs, or simply from unfamiliarity, I suspect it is a mixing of both.

5) I like the similarity you raise between difficult financial periods and theoretical physics concerning the "bracketing".

6) I find intriguing the statement by Sir Bragg that "The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them".

7) I am a bit perplexed by Susskind's interpretation of Eulero's equations in terms of Cosmic Strings.

8) I learned a trick to prove 2 = 1 when I were at high school. I remember that my maths teacher became astonished!

Finally, the reading of your nice Essay was very interesting and enjoyable for me. Thus, I am going to give you the highest score.

I wish you best luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 10, 2015 @ 11:56 GMT
Christian,

Thanks for your kind and perceptive comments.

Susskind's interpretation led to string theory, but is far from complete or the only possibility. I show what seems a more coherent and powerful variant in this short video;

Time Dependent Redshift effect. A number of other quantum/relative and particle solutions just seem to flow from it. Do please comment or ask question as it's quite 'dense'.

many thanks

Peter

Bookmark and Share



ABDELWAHED BANNOURI wrote on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 17:13 GMT
Dear PETER

I find your essay very interesting, because it raises many other issues. Certainly, we share many things. but for the moment, I think, we should go step by step . In my essay, I suggested that quantum mechanics alone is not enough,because we have to explain, how particles spin around the center of the atom. How the milky way rotate around the center, for this, it was neccessary and fundamental to introduce Mechanics Iterative. I think it is one of the possible way to justify,from where the polarization comes... the rhythm. Only, in this moment, I realize that the formula was correct, because it explains the origin of the time. ie units iterative, are the source of 'acceleration, force and time. They are the real core.

In my opinion, a mathematics that reflects the reality remains a priority for the current science. Bi-iterative calculation, could be the right math .because it has all Characteristics of a pure mathematics.

“NUMBERS”

first, are integers

second, are geometric shapes

Third, are physical quantities with infinite degrees of freedom

Fourth, always maintain the aspect ratio ....

fifth are elastic ... ..

Sixth are compact, and unseverable by two egual part.



That's why, I firmly believe that this can be the math right.

Any thing we do is characterized by the repetition, for example, The language is a sequence of words (voice waves) each word has its stamp and its duration.

sincerly yours

Bannouri.A.Wahed

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 10, 2015 @ 14:42 GMT
Bannouri,

I agree QM is a small part. Indeed the first of a finalist essay string considered electron absorption and re-emission at local c.

2020 Vision.

The 2013 essay looked closer at the issues you raise, and the role of maths;

The Intelligent Bit.

I also agree "a mathematics that reflects the reality remains a priority". My point is that we're not quite there yet, because we can also mis-use mathematics so fool ourselves and confound understanding. 'Bi-iterative', if used in a recursive sense to increasing 'fractal like' orders certainly seems the way to go. I show a powerful physical mechanism it can describe in the video I've just posted to Christian above. It's only 9 minutes but really should be 30 to cover the topics so may need 'stop/starts'. Do ask any questions.

Many thanks for your comments. I hope your essay keeps rising.

Peter

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Apr. 12, 2015 @ 09:54 GMT
Hi Peter,

Was able to take a quick look at the video on youtube. Quality and content wise was quite nice. Must have taken a lot of effort and time to turn out so.

I observed I made one of the earliest comments on your essay on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 14:23 GMT. I had forgotten. After that comment, in my exchange with Gordon Watson, I got to know of Malus' law which seems to be saying something similar to the 3-filter paradox.

As you know the wave model of light is my preference and I have been wondering what would become of that with Malus' law/ the 3-filter paradox. I think a way out will be for Polarizers, rather than being a medium of propagation like ordinary glass to rather be absorbers and re-emitters of light. I know in your model you prefer all media, ordinary glass or polarizers to be absorbers and re-emitters.

More on the OAM and the video later if I can cope with amount of turning and turning that comes with model. When you say charges spin is it the same way earth spins or a different way? I think in QM, it is said the spin is a different way and characterized with half, 0, 1 etc.

All the best in the competition. I will do my scoring a day or two to the end when the 1-bombers are most devastating. Thanks for your rating.

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 12, 2015 @ 20:47 GMT
Akinbo,

Yes. I analysed Malus's Law in my last 2 essays, and derive it physically here; Quasi-classical Entanglement, Superposition and Bell Inequalities. The 3-filter analysis is a proof.

In the DFM ALL dielectric media consist of or include absorbers and (usually) re-emitters of light. They're one and the same.

"When you say charges spin is it the same way earth spins or a different way?"

The same ways as Earth. That's not a typo, you've just found the invisible wall of the next level 'box' most thinking is stuck within I've pointed this out before but our brains seem unable to assimilate it; Earth spins BOTH ways at once, entirely subject to observer position or orientation. Imagine yourself encountering ANY planet in space. If you see the North pole it's anticlockwise. if the South pole, it's clockwise. Similarly the equator may be spin up AND spin down, depending on which side you are and even which 'way up' you are; Quote; "There is no 'up' in space"!! That and it's implications demands much thought and assimilation. I still feel 2020 may be an optimistic estimate for most, if ever!

Sometimes we can find that in testing a hypothesis so many disparate 'jigsaw pieces; all fit coherently together that it would be rather difficult for the axioms to be incorrect. But again, if you do see any apparent flaws do raise them.

Thanks for your kind comments. Fewer seem to be reading and (genuinely) scoring this year.

Best wishes.

Peter

Bookmark and Share



Branko L Zivlak wrote on Apr. 14, 2015 @ 08:33 GMT
Dear Peter,

Reading of your Essay was very interesting and enjoyable for me. Your figures are very instructive and are good with text. Thus, I am going to give you the high score. I invite you to comment my esay.

Regards,

Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 15, 2015 @ 11:59 GMT
Branko,

Thanks for pointing me to your essay which seems to provides the original and brilliant mathematical formalism consistent with the mechanisms and logical analysis I describe. These conclusions are important for improving coherent understanding. However it seems final judging still conforms to other considerations than improving understanding of nature. I commend all to read yours, and I comment further there.

best of luck

Peter

Bookmark and Share



Steven P Sax wrote on Apr. 16, 2015 @ 06:19 GMT
Dear Peter,

Your excellent essay is both refreshing and stimulating, and I appreciated how it very much addresses this forum topic. The three filter paradox (and really solution as you also exemplify) is a perfect example to demonstrate how different paradigms are necessary to explain physical phenomena, and each time I review it there's always something more to get out of it. My essay also discusses changing the paradigm used in explaining physical phenomena and the subsequent effects on mathematical abstraction, and how changing the mathematical representation affects physical explanation. I'm familiar with some of Zeilinger's work that you mentioned, but your perspective as applied to the sock trick and Bell's assumptions is very insightful and compelling. The bracketing dynamics you discussed is very interesting, and reminds me of symmetries and order theory, and of course set theory, as applied to a higher syntax. It's intriguing how you applied that to special relativity. I'm motivated to study Susskind's interpretation cosmic strings from your essay.

Very fascinating and enjoyable, I give this the highest rating.

Please take a moment to read and rate my essay as well. Thanks,

Steve Sax

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 13:15 GMT
Steven,

Thanks for your kind comments. The slightly different interpretation of the equations leading to cosmic strings is implicit in the video model of expanding helical paths at all scales with frequent requantizations, and is free of all the issues with the Susskind etc String Theory route. If you wish to look at the important relativistic foundations of this 'discrete field' model (with a similar slight re-interpretation as Einsteins 1952 paper) you might start at my 2011 essay, a slightly less abridged version here.

FQXi '2020 Vision. A model of Discretion in Space'.

I was impressed with and enjoyed your own essay and you'll have seen I commented there. If you feel you can have any input to the thesis I always welcome it.

Peter

Bookmark and Share



Author Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 16, 2015 @ 08:43 GMT
Steve,

Many thanks for the compliments. I've added yours to my 'read' list and it sounds as if I should find something valuable. This essay is just a glimpse of my fundamental work on this paradigm which proves very powerful and, so far, flawless.

To make inroads it does however need collaborations and a mathematical formalism - which is not strictly my department (I recall Einstein had similar problems!) and I think we should all play to our strengths.

I'll comment on yours when read.

Peter

Bookmark and Share



KoGuan Leo wrote on Apr. 17, 2015 @ 02:14 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you for your kind complement. Yours I agree more beautiful than my essay. I join in this essay contest to learn and join the celebration of beautiful ideas of our great bits-beings civilization with all wonderful and colorful ideas. I like them all. Yes, I combine not only Greek, Shakespearian but also Chinese philosophy that amazed me that we share common bond in ideas. People look for differences but I look for similarity and beauty of all ideas. Your red and green socks picture are really wonderful and simple to understand to explain complicated ideas. Well done! Let us celebrate diversity and enjoy many varieties foods for thought as presented here.

On serious note, our Multiverse is infinite, it can not be constrained by limited rule this or that. It must be both this and that simultaneously. We must have both relativistic time as described by KQID pictures using Lorentz's inverse transformation to KQID-Newton's absolute time that is clocking at Multiversal time clock per absolute digital time ≤ 10^-1000seconds. Believe me or not KQID has also discovered from it's equations how light speed c evolved from the Bit Bang to our present light speed c. So wonderful right if it is true. We can know Newton's mass as we know Eintein's equation of mass = E/c^2 that eluded Einstein. He did not know what is energy because he did not what is c.

Let us celebrate diversity of ideas and all bits-beings human as well as self-conscious robots and cyborgs. Let us live forever here and now in harmony and after this precious life that we have. No wars but Giving first Taking later in a regulated but free and open market of ideas.

On math, KQID picture is that math is fiction but real or real but fiction. It is both a trick and a truth. Any way, I rated your essay as usual to what it deserved a full score. Thank you again for your kind comment on my essay.

Best wishes,

Leo KoGuan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John C Hodge wrote on Apr. 18, 2015 @ 18:19 GMT
HI

I remember last year FQXi

I have rated your essay a 10 already some weeks ago.

I noted your paper on acedemia.edu, ``Quasi-classical entanglement, ...''.

You noted several aspects of my paper that won't help my rating. I agree. I thought the standards and the idea of time (rather measurement clocks) would also be negatives.

Last year I learned the papers are close to the socially accepted metaphysics get the higher ratings. Some papers suggest the "social accepted" in peer reviewed papers should be relaxed. Ironic that the FQXi rating encourages the same thing.

Therefore, I know my ideas will not score high - why try? But, some suggestions and comments help me improve such as the Ojo comment on Zeno's paradox that helped me see division and irrational numbers with an improved (my idea of improved) understanding.

So, put my ideas out and maybe some improved understanding may be gleaned.

Otherwise most of the stuff on FQXi is ignorable.

BTW, I'll be publishing the single photon diffraction paper soon. Several ideas of photons and interaction had to be made to make it work. Some of these impact your ideas on entanglement, etc.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 13:20 GMT
John,

Many thanks. Please do stay in touch on your photon diffraction work. I feel quantum and nonlinear optics and photonics are very important areas with many interesting experimental results many theorists seem largely ignorant of, possibly due to the (important!) inconsistencies with embedded doctrine, just one of which my essay addresses.

Peter

Bookmark and Share



Roger Schlafly wrote on Apr. 19, 2015 @ 20:50 GMT
Hi. I enjoyed your essay. You have a good explanation of light polarization, and the applicability of mathematics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michel Planat wrote on Apr. 20, 2015 @ 12:08 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you so much for your vote of strong confidence. I already had a look at your essay prior to this post. I hope to be able to understand what you are doing more easily that some other respectable essays with a strong philosophical taste. Recently I red "John Bell and the Nature of the Quantum World" by Bertlmann himself and this should help me. You can expect my feedback by the end of the contest that is of course very close.

Best wishes,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pankaj Mani wrote on Apr. 20, 2015 @ 15:44 GMT
Dear Peter,

I greatly enjoyed your essay. Its wonderful.This is one of the most relevant essays I have found here on this site.

The reasons are obvious.

As you have mentioned

("We consider mathematics as fundamentally digitised geometry, so well able to approximate natures 'non-linearity'. As Galileopointed out;

“He who undertakes to deal with questions of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 14:25 GMT
Pankaj

Many thanks. You've identified most of the key points in the essay. It pleases me greatly they're now being recognised and understood, not true of previous essays. I hope that's partly due to the development of my writing style which I've been working on. It seems communication is as important as content.

But the next and far more onerous test is of course the judges!

Keep up your own good work. Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share



Alma Ionescu wrote on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 13:50 GMT
Dear Peter,

You are so right that the time is now short. In a “last hundred yards” kind of effort, I read your essay this morning and was about to vote when I saw your comment. I just hope my opinion is enough to put your essay in a well-deserved place, as you gathered a lot of votes per total. Your essay is catchy from the abstract, where you say math is digitized geometry. I realize that I maybe like this idea because of a confirmation bias, because I find my ideas in yours, but I like it all the more! You are making a very strong case that real and deep understanding is the key to progress by reducing the time spent on the way in various dead ends and misinterpretations. I think the trickery is somewhat inevitable as it happens that people simply forget on the way what they’ve put in their equations in the beginning. I will be honest and say that while I find your ideas very interesting, some of them require at least a second reading so I can properly assimilate them; the filtered light is a very intricate logical tapestry which caught my attention and I proposed myself to put enough time aside these days to read it until I can grasp its consequences. I do however understand your point regarding how randomness is unsatisfactory. I also found notable the rope hinting at sub-quantic composability. Thank you or your kind words about my essay! Thank you even more for providing me with food for thought through your work :)

Warm regards,

Alma

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 14:46 GMT
Alma,

I'm really pleased your brilliant essay ended in the top group and think perhaps it should have been top. Both your perception and writing style are beautiful and I'm sure it has more chance than mine of a prize. (2yrs ago both Christian Corda's and mine, top and 2nd, were omitted in the judging).

But what would be far more valuable to me is to have a collaborator with your brilliance to help coherently assemble and describe the more consistent model of nature behind by my essay(s). You may be surprised to find the QM derivation fell straight out of a slight re-interpretation of SR consistent with Einsteins 1952 concepts and descriptions (QG is also lying there awaiting description). Your descriptive skills and other attributes far exceed mine.

First perhaps some careful readings of the full complex progression here, which seems still slightly beyond most (including 2 editors);

Quasi-classical Entanglement, Superposition and Bell Inequalities.

Just let me know any or what questions you have or subjects to test the 'discrete field' model with and I'll answer or post a link to the relevant paper.

Did you watch the redshift (etc!) video?

Very best of luck in the judging.

Peter

Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 16:05 GMT
Dear Peter,

Your essay contains many ideas not all I am familiar with. In general, it is pleasant to read although I would need more time to understand the underlying refinements. I am sorry that at this stage, my comments will remain a bit superficial.

* The 3-polarizer paradox: I don't consider it so much paradoxal since there exists a quite simple interpretation in terms of the Malus' law found to be valid even for set of single photons http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~phy225h/experiments/polariza
tion-of-light/polar.pdf

* The Sock trick: here we are closer to Bell's trick and may be it is better to follow Beltram's viewpoint that I already quoted, it seems to be difficult to escape the contextuality viewpoint that I follow.

* Brackets: I wonder if what you are saying is similar to the Majorana bracketing in Kauffman and Rukhsan essay.

* It is strange that you also use the helix paradigm in the rest of the paper as in Hoover's essay.

Thank you again and my best wishes. I give you a well deserved good mark.

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 14:56 GMT
Michel,

Strangely my comprehensive response appears to have vanished into cyberspace! Was it operator error, system failure, or some aliens overlooking us finding it too close to truth!! If I mislaid it and you find it do respond and advise. If lost, I'll try to sneak the other responses to you.

Essentially you need to read this, carefully and probably at least three times to remember it as it's a complex progression

Quasi-classical Entanglement, Superposition and Bell Inequalities.

I look forward to your thoughts and questions. Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share



Ken Hon Seto wrote on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 16:43 GMT
Hi Peter,

I read your excellent essay.

I gave it a very high rating and hope that you will do well in the contest.

Regards,

Ken

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


sherman loran jenkins wrote on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 18:41 GMT
Peter Jackson,

Your essay deserves a ten, love those socks and speaking true.

I hope to post a little more at my essay site to answer some questions raised by you and others. Check at my present essay entry later here or you can see additional at my entry to the first FQXI Essay Contest on The Nature of Time.

Sherman Jenkins

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 14:16 GMT
Sherman,

Thanks. For me the validity of 'Turtles all the way down' improves each day, but in the 'discrete field' model each turtle is simply an ever 'smaller' state of orbital angular momentum (OAM) like octaves in music and wavebands. Translation than gives helical paths within 'charges' with helical paths. (At just one level planet earth has a helical path through the galaxy). The next below the Planck length exists and does NOT couple with EM, but does form the larger 'spin state' polarisation scale motions which does ('Higgs process') when disturbed, like simple vortices. Then all becomes consistent with photonics etc etc and the puzzle pieces all start to fit.

'Ant's crawling round wires'? Apart from the one helical path I see no value in that. Where was it from?

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share



Domenico Oricchio wrote on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 19:09 GMT
Thank you for reading my essay, I read them all, and I voted for those who deserve.

It is interesting, if I understand well, what you say that the mathematics is only a means to obtain a computer calculus (or in old days hand calculation) of a real phenomenon, so that if we use the brain to create a physical equation then a calculation analogous to organic computation (quantum computer simulation, parallel computer, etc.) could get interesting results to obtain physical equations.

I think that mathematics is pure imagination, pure symbolic play, and the “shut up and calculate” is – for me – a mathematical point of view (you have the game rules, follow them).

The three filter paradox is interesting because it can extend the logic (the filter like brackets), and with different routes I had thought that the logic can be represented by bracketing of symbols (if the elementary operation are binary and asymmetric).

Is it possible quantum calculus, with lasers and semitransparent glass and filters, using Zeilinger apparatus with multiple layers?

A good essay make you think, so your essay is a good essay.

Domenico

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 15:41 GMT
Thanks Dominico,I only managed to read 2/5ths and am sure I missed many fine ones. You're right about the potential for quantum computing, you may recall I discussed and analysed that 2yrs ago with my helical 'IQbit'. Zeilinger has recently transmitted a picture across Vienna using that method to prove it's potential.

best wishes

peter

Bookmark and Share


Domenico Oricchio replied on Apr. 24, 2015 @ 10:44 GMT
I had thought (reading your essay) of a optical neuron, where a Faraday rotator in the Zeilinger apparatus can change the polarization of the intermediate three filter case, so that could be an optical memory devices for a laser light: a combination of filters could run storage and calculation logic.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John C Hodge wrote on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 20:10 GMT
Jackson

If you haven’t already, I suggest you look at papers by Tamari, Schultz, and Dariano.

Dariano

Are models based on probabilities `physical theories’? I suggest `physical models’ necessarily require a cause - effect model. I think probability models suggest a cause - effect model. The probability models are measurement models.

Would you classify the group models of particle classification the same as you classify statistical analysis? The periodic table was developed first by noting common characteristics of elements. A few holes were filled (predicted) by where the hole was in the classification scheme. Later, the causal underlying structure of atoms explained the periodic table. Indeed, the position of an element indicated something about the atomic structure. The same type of classification is true for the group models. Holes in the group model have been used to predict particles that were found. Can this be used to imply an underlying structure of particles? How would such a study proceed? Is anyone working on the structure of particles (papers I see seem to stop with the group description with no indication of an underlying structure)?

Tamari sugggested a how to build elementary particles’ structure.

Schultz suggested the patterns of the 5 Platonic solids could be the pattern of the elementary particles’ structure. The same patterns construct crystal structures.

I combine these to solve the problem of my models of how to construct elementary particles from photons. Thus, the SU() groups may be the result of structures of photons much like the periodic table suggested the structure of atoms (my fractal thinking). This would be a physical model rather than a probabilistic model.

Hodge

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 21:20 GMT
Thanks all for your valuable and kind comments and scores. I'm reading hard at present (I'm impressed you read them all Domenico!) but will answer each after tomorrow. Many answers are in this latest paper reproducing the predictions of QM 'quasi' classically as Bell and Gell Mann predicted.

Quasi-classical Entanglement, Superposition and Bell Inequalities.

or in previous essays and other papers here;

Academia.edu archive link for PJ & co-authored papers.

For those who haven't yet seen the latest video it's here, It's 9 mins but rather blueshifted to gamma so allow at least 20 to take it all in.

Condensed video.

John (I prefer to use names 'handles'); I've read Vladimir's (high scored) and have added Dariano and Schultz to my list.

P

Bookmark and Share



Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 23:39 GMT
Peter,

I just realized that many of these essays are yelling at us. Your essay calmly takes us by the hand and talks to us. The real world of Physics seems to be messy and math is the soul of order. One can see how math can fool us into seeing order even when order is sadly lacking. I don't know if I saw any new ideas, but ideas were presented in a clear and interesting way.

If you present light as corkscrews, having angular momentum and the polarization filters as slots (like for microwaves)you can have a classical picture of the three filter problem.

All the best,

Jeff

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 15:13 GMT
Jeff,

Thanks. Shame yours didn't make the cut.

Yes, some of the 'ideas' (analyses) in my essay were quite new. Those most important ones will likely be the ones most quickly forgotten as they have no matching 'hooks' in neural networks yet. I estimated 10 years 5 years ago so there's no rush (Essay '2020 Vision')

I hope what you might take away, if you needed to, to teach your students is that the only thing we really know about current theories and models is that they're 'wrong'. We might say 'incomplete', but in a similar way to a paper dart not quite being Concord. As my favourite Dyson quote; There are no 'facts' in physics.

I suspect that may get MORE interested in physics not less, but we must teach our science students 'how to think' and challenge instead. Too many professors might hate that, and all those who do should be identified and fired. Then we can advance paradigms!

Very best wishes

peter

Bookmark and Share



Cristinel Stoica wrote on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 07:38 GMT
Dear Peter,

I finally got to read your very interesting and nice essay. I like the visual approach to abstract problems. You illustrate very well the idea that mathematics can be misused (like any tool), in which case it misleads us. Using the inadequate math misleads us for example that there should be no light after inserting the diagonal filter between the two, but the adequate math makes the correct predictions. Congratulations for the high position and good luck in the contest!

Cristi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 15:21 GMT
Hi Peter,

I found your essay to be thought-provoking and easy to read – I think it's your best essay so far, and deserves to be up there near the top. What you say seems to make sense to me: the idea of multiple layers on layers; bracketing calculations so that "each proposition must be resolved in it's own LOCAL context". I'm not clear about how to decide where one layer begins and ends; where locality begins and ends. But I'm sure that : "all is potentially knowable and rational if our intellectual evolution progresses hand in hand with refinement of mathematics."

Cheers,

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 15:34 GMT
Lorraine,

Thanks. The 'domain boundary' problem was recognised long ago and never solved. It's solution via 'discrete fields' is the key, but it's still a brain teaser. Like a bracketed function, a 'spatial domain' may be ANY size, and contain ANY number of smaller domains. In maths etc the brackets themselves represent the boundaries.

In reality it's the same but trickier to imagine and we need to invoke 'virial systems', which are groups of particles/bodies WITH AN ASSIGNABLE GROUP 'REST FRAME' (state of group motion wrt some other group). A galaxy is one, all orbiting it's centre, as are the solar systems within it, a cloud is one, so are ALL LENSES, and so is each electron if in motion through a group! That's true 'locality' but takes some careful thinking through, for some weeks!

When you get it into your neural network you can then throw all the anomalies of physics at it and find it's resolving power is astonishing.

The best intro may be my '2020 Vision' essay (2011) though the model has come a long way since 2010.

Did you see the (compressed!) video yet? - showing we may not be undergoing accelerated expansion after all. Links are scattered all round.

Thanks and best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan Khanlian wrote on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 16:41 GMT
Hi Peter,

Your discussion of the 3-filter Paradox reminded me of Ron Garrett’s 2011 Quantum Conspiracy Google Tech Talk where he talked about the same experiment. He reaches the conclusion that measurement is the same thing as entanglement and we are all living in a virtual reality. I’m wondering what your thoughts are on his presentation. Would you consider the possibility of a piece of code evolving a deterministic, yet highly complex/encrypted universe which only has pockets of predictability? Do you think lots of different math used to describe reality could be encoded in one very gerneral discrete logic system (i.e. a computer)? Your F. Werner quote

"How do we know that, if we made a theory which focuses its attention on phenomena we disregard and disregards some of the phenomena now commanding our attention, that we could not build another theory which has little in common with the present one but which, nevertheless, explains just as many phenomena as the present theory'? It has to be admitted that we have no definite evidence that there is no such theory.”

has a striking similarity to one of the “Dedekind Cut quotes” in my essay.

Also your remark that paradoxes (what you refer to as “trickery”) “is not the fault of maths but from misuse due to our poor initial conceptual understanding and analysis of empirical findings and thus valid formalisms” also directly relates to my main thesis and some of the questions I pose at the end of my essay.

I would love some thought on my Digital Physics essay if you get the chance.

Thanks,

Jon

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 16:59 GMT
Jon,

Ron Garret's analysis was significantly flawed so it's not surprising he could only conclude we're only virtual not 'real' (not too surprising from a software engineer). All the effects he showed are more coherently explained in the quasi classical mechanism, including the quantum eraser. It goes off the rails from the beginning where he fails to define 'measurement' in a way far more consistent with light and photonics.

Entanglement is properly derived and defined in the full paper (see all the links above etc) and only requires a shared polar axis, which is then changed in the 'filter' (really modulator' interaction). Read it (3 times if you want to remember it!) and identify the flaw. There aint one! (It's also shown to be exactly as Bell predicted).

The real issue seems not so much to do with the science but n more to do with theoretical entrenchment so deep they don't seem to have long enough ladders to see beyond the walls, escape, or even pick up a signal to watch your movie!

Best

Peter

Bookmark and Share



Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 18:36 GMT
(copied from my essay forum -- THR)

Peter,

Thank you, that's very kind. There's no mystery to why my score languishes below the cut -- never in my memory, from the first time I entered these competitions (which dates from the very beginning), has a fully relativistic viewpoint in foundational physics gotten due respect, while some of the fringiest views in quantum theory have won big...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Giacomo Mauro D'Ariano wrote on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 01:15 GMT
Dear Peter,

I read your essay and saw your nice video that you suggested to me in my essay blog. I should honestly say that—if I haven’t misunderstood your essay and video—we are on the opposite sides of the fence: it seems to me that you want to mechanize the whole physics (including quantum), whereas I want to derive the mechanics itself from something more fundamental: pure information processing, or, to be precise, from very fundamental principles that are mathematically stated but have physical interpretation. Our two positions seem to be irreconcilable.

However, I should say that I enjoyed parts of your movie, and the animations illustrating your “mechanization” point of view.

Congratulations for your high position

Best regards

Mauro

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 17:26 GMT
Giacomo,

Interesting response. I see that view as rather 'dumbing down' the problem to that of the chicken and egg, suggesting the two views of 'which came first' are irreconcilable. In my first lines I accept your case, then reconcile it coherently with reality.

I've derived the chicken/egg solution elsewhere nearby; to simplify, It's a chicken, which contains an egg, which contains a chicken embryo, which contains the physical constituents required to form an egg, with a chicken inside, etc etc, chicken soup all the way down!

So at the bottom, when our microscopes get enough resolution do you think we'll find a mathematical formula written out? Will it be in Arabic numerals, perhaps Roman? Babylonian? or even Mayan? Or do you not agree that it's more likely to be some fundamental relative motion, spin or OAM state of motion DESCRIBABLE or representable by a simple equation (in Arabic or whatever system the observer wishes)?

In the same way SR and QM are probably only irreconcilable due to inadequate understanding I feel our approaches are Ying and Yang, both essential and more "inseperable" than irreconcilable, except perhaps in blinkered or 'tunnel' vision.

Do you really not agree? If so what would you expect to 'observe' as 'information' being processed at the smallest (sub-planck?) scale? A micro computer?

I'm not convinced we generally think things through thoroughly enough before pinning our colours to them them. Can you convince me?

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share



Gordon Watson wrote on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 03:12 GMT
Dear Peter, thanks for getting in touch via my Essay Forum. In reply:

The remarkably broad sweep of your latest ideas, coupled with your new ideas re the details (eg, Jackson & Minkowski (2014)),* is mostly moving beyond me! Dare I say, leaving me behind. I might even say that our approaches are diverging to the extent that we are moving to be polar opposites in...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 17:42 GMT
Gordon,

I don't see my derivation as 'the full monty', just the minimum required to reproduce the findings termed quantum non-locality (QNL) without abandoning local reality. I don't quite understand what it is you 'have to offer' beyond that simple need to circumvent the Bell constraint. What else is needed? Can you elucidate?

Once that tough nut was cracked, sure a whole lot of other solutions to anomalies came flooding out. They're mainly just verification, though ok, many are also important in themselves, and yes, far too much flooded out for most human brains to assimilate, but noe of thet detracts from the accomplishment of the simple task rationalising QM and QNL.

I do agree we've approached from opposite aspects, but I think that'd be useful as the problem can't 'get away' and both together have 3 times the value. I'm used to working with top teams to accomplish complex projects individuals can't, but if you don't think you could collaborate that's fine. I'm sure someone will. but I hope you'll stay in touch.

Best

Peter

Bookmark and Share



Christian Corda wrote on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 05:41 GMT
Hi Peter,

My best congrats for your winning the community rating. Let us wait the panel's judgement now.

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 10:42 GMT
Thanks Christian, indeed thank everybody for your support and, most of all, comprehension. I'm astonished that the essay has scored highest, particularly considering the excellent quality of many others. however I think and I hope that may bode well for the eventual evolution of entrenched thinking methods and beliefs required for advancement in understanding of nature.

In the long run the last bastion of such change is represented not by the essayists but the judges. That's the way it must be. Community 'peer' scoring has meant little in that final analysis and I don't expect that to change. Perhaps the placings also mean little. In a way the judging is more a test of how those in the position of judges handle social pressures than the science and essays themselves.

We're now half way through the 10 year estimate to a new paradigm given in my first ('2020 Vision') essay. I really have no idea how it's going! - but perhaps the events around us on the planet show that mankind isn't quite yet ready for any great advances.

I'm now off the a dear friends funeral. A salutary reminder of mortality, but will respond to the above posts and continue some excellent and valuable discussions for which I thank you. I'm still learning a great deal, though as Dyson reminds us (and often needs to!) 'there are no 'facts' in physics.

Peter

Bookmark and Share


John S Minkowski replied on Apr. 23, 2015 @ 22:34 GMT
Hi Peter,

Congratulations on a high community score! And as Sherlock Holmes said:

"There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact." (A. Conan Doyle - Author & Ophthalmologist)

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Apr. 24, 2015 @ 16:05 GMT
dear Peter

congratulations with your socks.

I did not participate this year because of my lack of math so I could not give a group rating but my public rating comes with this. Hopefully you are getting this year a better rating of the committee.

best regards and again best of luck

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Apr. 25, 2015 @ 17:37 GMT
I love the polarizer/analyzer game, but you have set up a fixed game with your absorbing polarizer paradox. A polarizer actually works for even a single photon and not just for ensembles of photons.

A single photon is always in a superposition of polarization states and a linearly polarized photon is a sum of a right and left circularly polarized states. A circularly (or helically as...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 25, 2015 @ 18:30 GMT
Steve,

Thanks for that. Yes, the model considers a 'single' photon (or electron), though the former are still in reality almost impossible to produce and maintain.

You describe to he doctrinal position of 'superposition' but the quasi classical sequence has has a specific relationship and mechanism for that, resulting in the effect terms 'non-local state reduction'. You need to carefully follow the logical causal progression in the paper.

Quasi-classical Entanglement, Superposition and Bell Inequalities.

It's not easy as most brains can hold 3 concepts at a time. This has ~7 which is why it wasn't found before. I also show it's precisely as Bell predicted. Only the last step, deriving the square of the amplitude for the Cos^2 intensity, invokes QED and the multi electron modulator 'field' effect.

The basic change to the standard notation is in the paper, but it's initially a physical model; a helical path skewed on any and each axis, giving the 4 'twin stacked' complementary Dirac spinors in spherical co-ordinates. The video shows the real dynamic paths and hierarchical scale sequence, etc.

90min video blueshifted to 9 mins.

Quaternions seem a perfectly reasonable approach, and your description sounds generally quite consistent. QG seems to emerge courtesy of Bernoilli, resolving a couple of tough paradoxes, but you seem to perhaps have a slightly different approach there. Do you predict that bodies will weigh more when they spin?

All interesting stuff. Please do read the paper very carefully and revert.

Thanks

Peter

Bookmark and Share


Steve Agnew replied on Apr. 27, 2015 @ 03:02 GMT
There are any number of ways of handling the phase of matter and quaternions are an equivalent to complex algebra. Heisenberg matrices, Hadamard matrices, spinors and Lie algebras all have the right properties to represent phase.

Personally I do not believe that these other techniques make the math of Euler any easier, but they do get to the same place.

Of course an object will weigh more when it spins since it has more energy and energy is equivalent to mass. The first thing that I look for in any theory is MEE, mass-energy equivalence. The next think that I look for is the Schrodinger equation, which says that the change in matter with time is proportional to that matter, but with an orthogonal phase factor. The proportionality constant is the bonding matter that holds that object together.

Then I look at time, since time must have both an atomic moment and a universal decay. Finally, any theory that is bound up in space and motion is bound to end up in the same conundrums of mainstream science. We must break this dogma of a priori space and motion in order to advance to the next stage of spectral awareness of objects.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Donald G Palmer wrote on Apr. 25, 2015 @ 21:36 GMT
Peter:

A very interesting essay with evidence for the need to open one’s mind. Thank you.

I do have one concern with your essay (being educated as a mathematician) - that maths “doesn’t do ‘imagination’.” And I agree with your statement that any “solution is unlikely to emerge just from maths”.

Consider the number of squared quantities in physical theories...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 26, 2015 @ 12:09 GMT
Donald,

A brilliant and perceptive analysis. I've also just read your exceptional essay and regret missing it earlier (we may have had another 10).

I agree on 'imagination' but all is relative. I've also agreed Ken Whartons point that physicists are far more resistant to new concepts than mathematicians. Bucky Fuller said "Physics confuses the telephone with the conversation" ...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Member Kevin H Knuth wrote on Apr. 27, 2015 @ 06:44 GMT
Dear Peter,

I have finally had a chance to read your essay and I really enjoyed it.

You make several thought-provoking arguments, which I will have to revisit and carefully consider.

I like your assertion that specific mathematical formalisms may be limited to local domains. This is precisely why, in my essay, I discuss how one can derive the appropriate mathematical...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 27, 2015 @ 16:15 GMT
Kevin,

Thanks. Another high score mine missed! It seems not to matter anyway. I expect yours suffered as mine did from low marks by 'neighbour' authors. Your excellent analysis shouldn't have missed the cut, but as you're a member won't it get in anyway?

I agree the full maths derivation is needed, but need to work with someone else for that. As I wrote above; I find effective advances need a team of specialists. I see the one man 'primadonna' physics approach as part of the problem. Perhaps the Nobel prize system is counterproductive.

I look forward to reading your papers. I have the live links, but for the scitation link I get 'page not found'. Could you post another using the 'link help page' link just above this box, or direct.

Have you also read my most recent paper or seen the video yet? See the links in my posts above. Some are broken, the most recent are ok. I'd value your comments. So far you've only had a glimpse of the widely coherent work.

Thanks, and best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share



Author Peter Jackson wrote on May. 11, 2015 @ 16:04 GMT
Ramin,

I can't pretend to fully understand your highly mathematical paper. I can see it's structure and matrices have some consistency as a descriptor of a consistent physical model so am sure it has value. A few questions and points however.

1. Does the formalism include provision for hierarchical recursive scales?

2. Do the algorithms throw light on the physical mechanism underlying the fine structure constant?

Saying that "algorithms do model natures mechanisms" seems to 'dumb down' the true question and miss my point. I suggest that algorithms CAN model natures mechanisms, but also show that the current ones often DON'T do so - and therefore CAN fool us. That important point has been missed, possibly also by you. Though I agree your own formulations may do so more closely I think we'll only keep fooling ourselves by worshipping at the alter of the integer. (As all coins have two sides, the physical must underly maths and vice versa). Have you read my 2013 essay here on that subject? (+others from 2011), seen the video? read the QM papers (all are linked above). Any comments on those?

In terms of usefulness I must ask, do your formulations resolve in any way the great list of anomalies and paradoxes in physics? (which the underlying physical descriptions I provide do). I was taught "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". I'll give just a few examples to help, but do pick others;

1. How do 'Superluminal quasar jets' of up to apparent 46c resolve within CSL.

2. Why does Snell's Law of refraction fail at co-moving refractive planes.

3. How are special relativity and QM unified?

4. What were the condition before the postulated 'big bang'?

5. What is 'dark matter'.

I'd also be interested in the compatibility of your maths with Kevin Knuth's excellent groundbreaking work, also linked above.

Best regards

Peter

Bookmark and Share



Author Peter Jackson wrote on May. 31, 2015 @ 11:09 GMT
Ramin

Thanks for the link. I'm not qualified to comment on your paper as it's too purely mathematical. I do agree on the impossibility of monopoles, and that a 2D description of electrons is possible.

However I comment that the 2D description is incomplete in a crucial way. I explain why in full in my (scored 2nd) essay here in 2013;

'The Intelligent Bit'

It's that extra dimension which then leads to coherent solutions to the big questions above.

All those solutions are described in detail in the various papers here. Academia.edu papers

. The hypothesis may not be entirely correct or complete, but rather like jigsaw puzzle pieces, when they all fit so well together there seems a fair chance the picture they show may be the ONLY right answer.

If you can find any flaws in any of the model I'd appreciate it as no-one else yet has, but mostly refuse to look and dismiss on 'a priori' grounds as, admittedly, it includes some physics which many would call 'new'. You should understand it far more easily that I can understand yours, so you can comment on any commonalities adding to both. I'd be very interested and may well then better understand your own work.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share



Odessa Qamar Sabah wrote on Jan. 5, 2017 @ 13:09 GMT
The other difficulty in responding to your essay is in my own personal unquantum state just emerging from my annual bout of cherry-blossomitis fever trying to capture this glorious Japanese season in painting and photos leaving me drained. You deserve better 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.1

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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