CATEGORY:
Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015)
[back]
TOPIC:
The Red/Green Sock Trick. Can Mathematics Demystify Nature? by Peter Jackson
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 10, 2015 @ 15:38 GMT
Essay AbstractWe 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 BioAstronomer/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
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
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.
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 45
o '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?
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
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 rationale [re Bell]
is possible", and discuss the herd behavior that shuns any deviation from conventional wisdom so that few dare to break ranks.
Your '3-filter' example beautifully summarizes the nature of propagation, and is followed by Zeilinger's very important observation that:
"
...Light always has the polarization state given by the last polarizer and has no memory of its earlier history."
That is essentially the insight that I employ on Stern-Gerlach, i.e.,
the dipole moment aligns with the field, versus the QM view that it is only "
the component in the field direction" that is being measured. But the 'unaligned' initial spin possesses precession energy, and there is no precession energy when the moment is aligned with the field.
Where does that energy go? Obviously it goes into the kinetic energy of the deflection from its initial momentum. Thus the energy of precession when the initial spin enters the field is exchanged from the precession mode (rotational) to the deflection mode (linear) and this determines the scattering of the particle in the inhomogeneous field as indicated by the position measurement.
Bell assumes instead that the particle simply continues to precess all the way through the apparatus and thus has no way to produce any but a constant deflection, normalized to ±1, and, as this is compatible with the basic Quantum Credo that "
measurements yield eigenvalues", he imposes unwarranted constraints on the problem. Much of my essay is concerned with
why he does this.
In a nutshell, he is tricked by math, assuming that, because the Dirac fundamental eigenvalue equation
"looks like" the Pauli provisional eigenvalue equation, which is valid only provided a constant field is present, which it is not! You note on your page 2 Wittgenstein's analysis that
"looks like" was the reason why all 'knew' the sun orbited Earth. Today it is the reason why all 'know' that no local model can produce the quantum correlations, which my local model
does produce.
The whole argument is subtle, or it obviously would not have evaded physicists for 50 years, but now it is a fundamental part of the QM faith, and it is dangerous for the faithful even to discuss it, judging from comments on my thread [or lack thereof].
Anyway I know you have been concerned with this problem for years and I hope you will find the time to study it until you understand it, or will ask me questions otherwise. Last year I promised you a new approach, but it took longer than I thought to work out all the details.
My very best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
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
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
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
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
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
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 weave our work into the FQXi theme). The examples you used to highlight the differences between math and reality were excellent. I had forgotten that polarized light acted the way you described and found it interesting that the scientific community continues to use the concept of “filter” rather than “modulator”. Filters were used extensively in photographic products but we knew there was some “unwanted absorption”. I also liked your examples that remind us that physics operates at the local level within a background and going outside the brackets can mislead us.
I was pleased to find that you also publish on academia.edu since I have found several people with similar interests on that website that say they read papers (but never interact beyond that). Your continued and deep insights into entanglement are well documented there. To me it says that nature uses complex numbers and is efficient at arriving at solutions that we can only observe as probabilities. I should probably derive more meaning from it. I do believe that every atom is identical and that they are manifestations of the physics that is everywhere and identical. As such, I am not surprised by correlations but this does not lead me to superluminal “cause and effect”.
Your quote regarding “finding new ways of thinking about [facts)” is on point. I tried to “reverse engineer” nature by creating models. My interest in information theory led me to thinking about facts as probabilities. That led to a concepts that I used to model cosmology, force unification, gravity, atomic binding energy, elemental abundance, perception, black holes, meson and baryon masses, decay times, etc. I tried to point out in my essay that it was not nature. It was a new way of correlating natural phenomenon and makes it easy to understand. This is a preliminary step to true understanding just like the simple math that Newton used to correlate gravity. People don’t get it (probably because I am not a very good communicator).
Gene H Barbee
view post as summary
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
report post as inappropriate
George Rajna wrote on Apr. 6, 2015 @ 05:51 GMT
Excellent essay, enjoyed to read it!
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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 natural sciences without the help of geometry is attempting the infeasible.”
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 toclassically rationalise findings. Many now believe no classical rationale is
possible at quantum scales. John Bell describing that view as 'sleepwalking.')
I too believe that Mathematics,numbers ultimately come down to Geometry. The main reason why maths mislead us in any scenario is not the fault of mathematics but we don't understand the compatibility of mathematics with physics/natural sciences. There are certain laws of invariance behind mathematics itself,being a geometrical phenomenon and what is generally done is that we don't try to check whether its intrinsic law of invariance matches with that of the physical scenarios we are dealing with, and this leads to the mutual conflict and friction that can mislead us.
The true reason why mathematics is effective in physical scenarios : first of all we have limited physics to certain criterias to be able to explain it mathematically. Further,once we have done it, its infact the hidden laws of invariance behind the mathematical setup (geometry) which explains the laws of invariance of physical setup, even if the scientist/mathematician may not be aware of this intrinsic invariance behind the mathematics itself. This is the key point.
In context of Skolem paradox , as I have mentioned in my essay how model theory succeeds to explain some aspects of aphysical scenario while fails in other aspects. This is because of the instrinsic compatibility & incompatibility of their hidden laws of invariance.
The main focus should be to peep into that hidden laws of invariance behind the mathematical setup itself . This is greatly revealed i probably the most important problem of mathematics"Riemann Hypothesis. David Hilbert said - if he wakes up after 1000 years , the 1st question he will ask - has RH been resolved ? I personally have devised a method to attack RH that its true and the clue is to reveal the intrinsic invariance behind the mathematical geometrical setup itself.Numbers are nothing but Geometry.
As you have mentioned
(Mathematics can show that multiple inversely proportional 'complementary' sine and cosine curves naturally and physically exist for various qualities, as they do for the Dirac paired inverse spinors in so called 'unphysical' quantum mechanics.
Yet some higher order curvature is always superposed, at reducing scales but ensuring no entirely linear and precise mathematical description can be possible beyond the limits identified by Gödel. Many will find the visualisation methods revealing the relationships difficult, but they are powerful conceptual tools which
can be taught.)
You have also dealt with The Filter paradox.
The concern is paradoxes. the paradoxes reveal the fundamental discrepancy lying at the root of mathematics. They arise because of underlying structural conflicts.
I am also focusing on Godel incompleteness and Inconsistency theorems.
Now, if they arise, there are two ways.Either, considering it as the the end and accepting the limitation and secondly,trying to resolve the limitation by making some structural and fundamental change in the way way formalistic mathematics has been developed. I am concerned with this shift in the formalistic mathematics by allowing time and reference dimension to mathematics to sort out the paradoxes like physics. What we do is we take physics to be in time and reference dimension and take mathematics to be in timeless absolute dimension. This is the cause of paradoxes.If physics is in timeless , absolute, then so is mathematics and if physics is within the periphery of time and reference frame and the so is mathematics. This is because Physics and Mathematcis both are the cause of vibrations.
As you have mentioned :
(
We suggest then that 'new ways of looking' at large sectors of physics may then be
possible by using mathematics in fundamentally different ways, improving
understanding. However it seems that those 'different ways' are not visible using
just the 'lens' of current mathematics. We need formalisms to avoid the various
fallacies and hidden tricks and invalid proofs of a system which can prove 2 =1
via 'division by zero' easily disguised for instance by any term with a value of 0)
We certainly need formalistic mathematics which can sort out the fallacies,paradoxes,inconsistencies to deal with physical scenarios in a improved ways beyond conventional approaches.
Hence,as I have mentioned that we need to restructure formalistic mathematics itself based on their intrinsic characteristics to look at physics in fundamentally different and improved way. we need to operate the laws of invariance behind mathematical(geometrical )set up itself before explaining to physical /other natural sciences.
Anyway you have written great essay.
Thanks,
Pankaj.
view post as summary
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(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 prizes. So I have long abandoned any illusions I might have had. It is enough that the FQXi forum gives voice to a minority viewpoint that it de facto opposes, and I am grateful to the Institute for that, even when I think it could do more.
There is an even lower score than mine, given for a far better essay by Vesselin Petkov, and -- I expect -- is low for the same reasons. I am going to do a lazy thing, and quote Vesselin's reply to a recent forum participant, because it matches my opinion: " ... if Minkowski had lived to see the advent of general relativity, he would have realized, as a mathematician, that the mathematical formalism of general relativity implies that gravitational phenomena are merely manifestation of the non-Euclidean geometry of spacetime (not an interaction). Einstein made a gigantic step by linking gravity with spacetime geometry, but even he was unable to overcome the seemingly self-evident 'fact' that gravitational phenomena are caused by gravitational interaction (which, unfortunately, is still the accepted view in physics)."
Things are changing. I got an Email from The Minkowski Institute Press just a few days ago that they are publishing
Cristi Stoica's PhD thesis (congratulations, Cristi!) , which is relativity-based, with a perturbative path to quantum gravity (my own solution is non-perturbative, but we are pretty close).
In regard to your own defense of conventional quantum theory in the Bertlmann's Socks analogy, I applaud your expansion of the pedagogy, and give high marks for that. It is deservedly among the best of Bell's output (and your own, for that matter).
If you don't mind, I am going to do another lazy thing, and reproduce this reply in your forum.
All best,
Tom
view post as summary
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
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
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
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 approach.
Fortunately, I still understand you to be a local realist to the point (as spelt out in my essay) of being an Einstein-local and a Gisin-realist.
To be clear re our differing methodologies: For my part, I am investigating a very small part of physical reality: one where, like a stone in my shoe, most interpretations contradict my basic understandings of that reality; at the same time aggravating my fundamental sense of comfort -- as a successful engineer -- with my intuitions re such.
That small part, as you know, relates to the many and varied interpretations of many and varied Bell-tests: whose results I accept without question, since they are exactly the results that my own views endorse.But I reject the common interpretation that local realists like us must give up Einstein-locality (for nonlocality) or Gisin-realism (for un-realism): and, in that regard, I happily note the increasing trend of old foes to be moving to my position (which is, hopefully, still
our position).
In particular, my small corner of the business holds out hope for a new quantum theory: one devoid of Hilbert space (since spacetime appears to be sufficient) and certainly absent nonlocality (since, to be blunt, how on Earth could any such thing be possible). For a very simple critique of the mainstream view, just skim paragraph
#6.1 of my essay.
Nevertheless I see a growing trend to go for the Full Monty here; and though I'm not in favour, it's good to see that trend reflected in the very high standing of your essay.
However, from my own broad experience (and for those who are aware of it), the Full Monty does not quite measure up against what I have to offer!
With best regards, and hoping to keep in touch;
Gordon Watson: Essay Forum.
Essay Only.
* Jackson, P. A., Minkowski, J.S. Quasi-classical Entanglement, Superposition and Bell Inequalities. Academia.edu 9th Nov 2014.
view post as summary
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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 you like to say) polarized photon is a superposition of two linear polarizations with a pi/2 phase shift.
A linear polarizer prepares a photon in two circularly polarized states and a circular polarizer prepares a photon in two linear polarized states. There is no paradox therefore in how this game works.
A photon or indeed any particle also exists as a superposition of polarizations or spins or two paths with a beam splitter or a dual slit or any number of similar techniques. The basic issue with quantum effects for civilians is that phase and amplitude and interference and coherence are simply not yet part of our gravity reality. We think that the incoherent reality that we normally experience with macroscopic objects is how all the universe works.
This is not how the universe works, but it is close.
I actually do get a lot out of your intuitive grasp of reality because your eliptical plasmas do seem to represent superpositions of coherent matter states, you just do not have the math to make it work. The superpositions of coherent matter states are at the root of quantum action, but are not yet a part of gravity action.
Your DFM plasma refracts light just like any dielectric medium and my quadrupole gravity photon field seems to behave just like your DFM plasma. A quadrupole photon field surrounds all matter objects and derives from the photon emission for each object over the history of the universe. Photon waves emitted from an object matter in the past result in the quadrupole photon field around each object that we call gravity. In effect, each photon wave emitted from a matter object is equivalent to a photon wave coming back to the object attenuated by the size of the universe.
The quadrupole photon field that we call gravity deflects or delays a single photon at twice the Newton deflection or delay of an MEE equivalent particle. This as it turns out is due to the additional dielectric effect that a photon dipole has in quadrupole gravity. An equivalent oscillating matter dipole will then show the same deflection as light does in a quadrupole gravity field.
view post as summary
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
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.
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
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 along with the connection to complex numbers. If we have a squared value, then the ‘real’ (un-squared) value can be either positive or negative. Since we cannot know which it is, from only the squared value, there are two paths by which the squared result can be obtained. We cannot know which ‘path was taken’, so long as we live in a ‘real’ world constructed with Real numbers. In this world, there are always two paths. This is not the case if we use all complex numbers, in which case the path can be known.
Integers, Rationals, Reals, Complex, Quaternion are all ‘bracketed’ levels of mathematical knowledge with specific mathematical contexts that present a multitude of mathematical spaces. Algebraic equations with integer coefficients, rational coefficients, real coefficients are examples. Also equations with integer exponents and rational exponents bring us into much more complex mathematical spaces. We can consider algebraic equations with real coefficients and integer exponents or rational exponents. What about such equations with complex coefficients and complex exponents? Can we even do this?
Are we using the correct spaces to understand our physical world? (I will suggest we are using one layer of your hierarchical relationships) Do we have the correct tools to make use of certain mathematical spaces? It would appear we do not, since we cannot represent a complex number in the same way as we represent real, rational, and integer numbers - as completed values without unknowns (complex values today always have the unknown ‘i’). If this is true (we don’t have the correct tools), then we would be forced into ‘heuristic necessity’ in order to address situations that require math tools that we do not have.
If we do not have the appropriate tools, then what might change, if we did have the appropriate tools? A complete complex value might be capable of measuring quantities we currently do not consider measuring, since we are unable to measure them using real values. If we could represent complex values as complete, without unknowns, then we should be able to compare them (greater or lesser) and rank them along a continuum. The universe might be better represented (not ‘Finally’ represented, however) using a possible complex continuum. (The separation of the Continuum Hypothesis from current foundational mathematics should allow this without destroying current foundations).
Given your presentation of red-green spin as a spinning sphere that ‘flips’, what if this is reasonably accurate, however the spinning sphere is occurring in a geometric space with a physical dimension that we currently do not include in our models (not some tiny rolled-up invisible one)?
If our mathematical tools cannot adequately measure quantities along this dimension, then we would not have a reason to include it in our models (even though this could be leading to ‘heuristic necessities’). It could be directly in front of us and we would not see it, because we do not realize it as a measurable quantity.
One last conjecture: This dimension is scale. It is exponential in character, is not measurable by current ‘real numbers’ (decimals are limited to specific scales), and is unaccounted for in current models of space (and it is ‘right under our nose’). Our body, at each level of scale - organ, cellular, molecular, atomic - is always a 3-D volume. This 3-D volume is populated by different objects at each level. Connecting the levels at any 3-D location gives a 4-D line (a line mutually perpendicular to the other 3). Note that a complex numeric system will likely require a system of numeric representation that, beyond the addition/subtraction, multiplication/division, and exponentiation/logarithm incorporated into current ‘real numbers’ (eg. decimals), will add integration/differentiation into the operations inherent in constructing a complex value - thus requiring a complete revamp (major upgrade) of all computing systems.
Maybe this is a maths fantasy and maybe it is maths imagination, yet not maths alone as it is coupled with a significant change in physical perspective. It also follows your hierarchic boxes within boxes approach, as it simply expands current ideas and levels, not destroying existing ones.
(Mark as 'inappropariate', as appropriate.)
view post as summary
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
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" Architects go far further with imagination, as Wittgenstein found, and Zaha Hadid's work needs new maths to keep up!
I agree the right 'space definition' mathematics don't currently exist, or are not refined and used. In fact Cardano did first find a good relation with 'sample spaces', now part of probability theory but nor physics, but perturbation theory to higher orders seems to offer a basic formalism. There are other analogies.
I pretty well agree 100% with everything else you say. In fact you perhaps seem to be an excellent candidate for taking over those aspects of the model as we're presently rather inundated with the coherent physics flowing out across the board. We already have archived papers on a 'disparate' (previously) range of specialisms but are overwhelmed. I'm used to working with specialist teams on such large projects. (Most physicists seem to want to be primadonnas's, which I don't agree is the best way to advance understanding).
I assume you read the latest QM paper and saw the video rather than perceived all from the essay? If not I hope you will. The links are scattered above and all over, trying for fertile ground. I'm told some of the Academia links are corrupt. I'll try again here;)
Academia.edu web archive Jackson, P. A., Minkowski, J.S. Quasi-classical Entanglement, Superposition and Bell Inequalities. That now seems to work, uniquely for Academia the first colon and http have to be removed for it to work! (quantum weirdness? lol) many others are archived there too.
Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
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
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 formalism from symmetries based on the concept of consistent quantification. Of course, my essay focuses on a simple case of combining objects, which obeys specific properties such as ordering, closure, commutativity and associativity. Given these properties, one can show that the numbers describing the quantities of objects must be additive. What is the local domain? Well, this is precisely the domain where you have ordering, closure, commutativity and associativity! Where you promote the general idea, I demonstrate it through practical example.
I believe that rather than assuming that some specific mathematical formalism applies, one should derive it! Only then do you really understand the foundations. I do believe that this is possible. You may enjoy two of my papers on Emergent Spacetime
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jmp/55
/11/10.1063/1.4899081
and on Fermion Physics
http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.1667
In these works, I derive a good number of physical laws and relations from symmetries and this idea of consistent quantification. The domain boundaries are then well-understood as they were derived!
I enjoyed your discussion of the 3-filter and the work by the Vienna group. My adviser in graduate school, John Broadhurst, often discussed this problem with me pointing out that there are important clues here that have been overlooked. He said that one cannot think of vectors as arrows with directions, but rather they are cosine distributions, which are spread out.
I believe that you mentioned Sherlock Holmes (or maybe it was a post in response to your essay), but regardless, physicists can think of themselves as detectives. As such, these little clues are critical to finding the path to understanding. In addition to the 3-filter experiment, there are serious problems with the concept of motion, energy is related to frequencies, energy and time are Fourier transforms as are space and momentum. If space-time is a physical manifold, then what is momentum-energy? These are important questions that are not considered and cannot be answered as long as these concepts are taken to be fundamental.
Thank you for an excellent and thought-provoking essay!
view post as summary
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
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
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
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.