FQXi Community

Essay Abstract

Einstein's view; “For the time being, we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics, which can be regarded as its logical foundation.” 1940 ('Science') corresponds to Karl Poppers views on poor foundational solidity in science,1 to Russell's 'Turtles all the way down' and 'piled' foundations of structures on boggy ground relying on local consistency, friction and inertia. We argue that 'fundamental' is relative not absolute within reductionist hierarchies and may be infinitely recursive. However 'condensation' of massive particle pairs with discrete rotations may occupy a non-arbitrary position in a sequence with no known smallest possible scale. We identify that at it's ridiculously simplest just relative motion may produce & characterise a ground state of matter and provide a detectable foundational mechanism, pehaps valid at all gauges. Most solutions in science seem simple and obvious once discovered. We explore whether a most fundamental cause may exist, also simpler than assumed. Relative motion in viscous fluids produce paired vortices at all known scales. Additional motions and interactions then build increasingly complex 'particulate' momenta. We test the simplest as a candidate for 'most fundamental' using a Reduction by functionalization variant of the severest Nagalian reductionism test; the unification of established theories. The two 'pillars' of science, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, often seen as fundamental, may share a single derivation, perhaps even the most ridiculously simple one. Using plain English we test this proposition analyzing outcomes of interactions between one of the simplest motions spherical rotation. Surprising results close to with Einstein, Bell & Von Neumann's ideas are found and tested.

Author Bio

Studied UKC, UCA, PCL/Westminster widely over 11 years in Sciences, Architecture, Philosophy & Engineering. RIBA, APS, AAS and Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society. Interest include astrophysics, plasma, observational cosmology, aero & hydrodynamics. Consultancy Head & lead consultant on defence, petrochemical & renewable energy etc. projects. Semi-retired to research & mentor students at 2 universities Including to think outside infinite sequences of boxes. UK representative racing yachtsman, RNLI Governor.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Peter,

I enjoyed your essay immensely. Your remark that "time increases local bonds and resistance to motion" seem to be directed to architectural pilings, but is a wonderful metaphor for physics, as I'm sure you intended.

You begin by noting that "calling time fundamental or 'absolute' fails with special relativity", but then point out that Einstein stressed one needs...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 13:04 GMT

Edwin,

Thanks. In saying SR & QM use different 'time' concepts I'm saying one at least is wrong. I look forward to reading your 'energy' approach. I define energy itself as simply relative 'motion', so, as clocks move, your concept looks valid.

Most first reads will skip over my classic QM proof of CHSH >2 which if correct is a mega breakthrough AND unifies SR!! I hope you might study and help falsify it, even repeat the simple experiment (protocol in end notes). Also see Declan Trail's short essay, which appears to give a full mathematical coding proof consistent with my rationale and finding!

Interesting times.

Best

Peter

Hi Peter,

You hit the nail on the head... Your statement here sums it all up:

"The two 'pillars' of science, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, often seen as fundamental, may share a single derivation, perhaps even the most ridiculously simple one."

You may be interested in reading my essay - The Day after the Nightmare Scenario

All the best,

Scott S Gordon, MD

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 13:10 GMT

Scott, Thanks. I've found unification very possible. You may have missed a logical and experimental proof in the essay. If so do look again and comment. Your essay sounds interesting. It's now on my list and I look forward to discussing both.

Peter

Scott S Gordon replied on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 00:44 GMT

I just want to thank you again for looking at my theory... I re-read you essay and I just would like to say - The reason why the theory of everything has not been found is because everyone seems to think that it can be derived from current math or through explaining an new experimental finding - Those methods will not work.

I can tell immediately if a person is on the right track or not.... If a known equation is used - it's over. All known equations must be derived from the primordial ingredient and energy - My book does just that and answers basic questions - What is distance? Why does spacetime has three spatial dimensions? WHat determines Straight? How are energy fields created? And I derive the math of maxwell's equations, GR and QM but under one model.

I entered this contest for people to be introduced to my work. I don't need the money - I am an orthopedic surgeon and my wife a cardiologist. I also entered because I will eventually be writing a book about how long it took for my work to be recognized. To show how my essay came in last place will be quite the irony in my story! LOL!

All the best!

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 17, 2018 @ 10:32 GMT

Scott,

I do understand, and like your confidence. My 2010 essay on 'wrong assumptions', called "2020 Vision", Suggested it's be 2020 before any paradigm change. Will that do you? But as well as our state of intellectual development state that was partly as it famously takes 10yrs to change a paradigm. So do you think we're now looking at 2028!?

You say; "If a known equation is used - it's over" so I assume you had no objection to my essay! What you would like is my recent 'Red/Green Sock Trick' essay identifying flaws in current mathematics - which came top in the community scores!

I understand you don't do this for money, nor me. I have the houses, yacht, Aston, Mercs etc. We share the selfless motivation of advancing humanity. I'm also not seeking 'recognition' or kudos (I had enough as a representative sportsman and it can be a pain) as I think that and the Nobels are the bane of advancement.

I had yours down for a decent score, mostly for originality and going deeper than almost any (I now assume no falsifiability then?) - but do you suggest you'd rather come last? Let me know.

Very best

Peter

Dear Peter,

I have read your essays in the past, and you always have something interesting to say. You have “simplicity” in your title, and I agree that the fundamentals should be simple. However, although you identify many problems with orthodox theories, your solutions are less clear and simple.

You might be interested in my own essay, “Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics”. I propose that slight modifications from classical physics give rise to a consistent unified realistic physical picture on all scales. There are no point particles or gravitational singularities; abstract spacetime, Hilbert space, and entanglement are mathematical artifacts. Electrons are distributed wave packets. Space and time are separate, and are defined by frequency and wavelength of these real waves, which can shift in a gravitational potential. This gives rise to the phenomena associated with general relativity and quantum mechanics, without requiring separate mathematical formalisms. This neoclassical synthesis is far simpler than orthodox theory, and is subject to direct experimental tests.

Best Wishes,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 14:06 GMT

Alan,

I greatly look forward to reading yours. I never did subscribe to 'point' particles, Hilbert space or 'space-time' as an entity. Have you done any new 'direct experimental tests'?

I'm sad mine looked "less clear and simple" but all new concepts first will!

It really IS simple and I hope you'll look less quickly & help to falsify it. Look at this short video, 100 second video Classic QM & non-integer spin, but in a nutshell;

1. 'Pairs' have random (x,y,z) but parallel polar axes, and each the TWO (Maxwell curl/linear) states, inversely proportional over 90^o as I show.

2. A,B polarizer fermions have the same or opposite axis subject to setting angle.

3. Momentum (as known), so exchange varies by Cos theta 'latitude' inversely for each state (equivalent to rotational velocity distribution).

4. An amplitude varying with (x,y,z axis) angle hits orthogonal photomultiplier channel (fields again! but charged). The Cos angle distribution repeats (so Cos²). High energy at any angle = *click* low doesn't.

5. Click rates are then 'collated' and misinterpreted! Diracs 4 'spinor' equation and offset Cos² plot is reproduced. CHSH >2 and 'steering equality' >1 so closing the so called 'detection loophole'.

My experiment (see photo's & end notes) confirms it. Also see Declan Trail's short essay with a perfectly matching maths code & plot!

Re-emission is always at fermion centre of mass rest frame. Speed c is thus localised by ALL interactions! SR is then implicit (though not quite as present misinterpretation).

I was counting on your help. Initially to falsify. Do ask questions.

Best

Peter

Hi Peter,

Here we are again all together, thinking about 'what is fondamental"

I have read your essy with great interest as I read all your thinking.

Again you touch the foundational differences og our perceptions.

We architects are always trying to construct the settings of human life, but only creating them is not enough for you and me, we need to EXPLAIN.

Your points of view hare helping , but as any point of view they are influenced by the SUBJECTIVE SIMULTANEITY SPHERE that surrounds every agent. Each agent has its own explanation of reality. I liked the interpretations you made very much and hope that you also will take the time to read mine in my essay : FOUNDATIONAL QUANTUM REALITY LOOPS

I valued your essay high , keep on thinking free

best regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 14:09 GMT

Wilhelmus,

Thank you kindly. I greatly look forward to reading & discussing yours.

Peter

Narendra Nath replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 11:09 GMT

Thinking freely does not mean we can think the way we like. Science has developed a methodology of operations where we have some postulations. These are build up to explain the process under study. The outcomes are expressed mathematically. The process is continued till we reach the objective we have set to explain. Finally, our approach has to be confirmed experimentally, no escaping that. Pure Mathematics has no place in Physics unless backed by logic of postulates based on existing knowledge. Kindly indicate your response if you differ.

report post as inappropriate

Peter,

Indeed, often correct explanations in Physics turn out to be ridiculously simple.

In my 2012 FQXi essay titled “A Classical Reconstruction of Relativity” I show that length contraction (and mass increase too as a result) is caused by Doppler shifting up the upstream and downstream components of matter waves.

I have found your past essays, and now your latest one, very interesting and helpful in advancing our understanding of how the EPR experimental results are obtained by the combined effects of polarizers and photomultipliers resulting in a cosine squared dependence on angle. My essay this year titled “A Fundamental Misunderstanding” addresses the EPR result and shows conclusively that Classical Physics can fully explain the result, even for the latest ‘loophole-free’ Steering Inequality experiments.

Best of luck with your essay...

Regards,

Declan Traill

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 17:12 GMT

Declan,

Thanks. This looks like really game changing physics; You'll have seen the code in yours and the mechanism and protocol in mine match almost perfectly, and for the first time reproduce a >2 inequality with local causality, and no conflict with SR!

Many don't understand QM (not surprising!) but you have to understand the problem to recognise the solution. Of those who do it seems most are just convinced nature is 'weird' and won't countenance a real physical analogue. That may not leave many so prepare for the most rigorous discussion!! (from those who understand the importance).

I have an Email for you and sent a message (mine's in an essay you cite) as well as commented on & scored your essay.

Very best of luck in the contest. It's doing well, which mine was before getting 1 bombed already!

Peter

Peter,

Einstein's view; “For the time being, we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics, which can be regarded as its logical foundation.” 1940

I offer such logical foundation in my essay. Have a look.

“We stay focussed on the fermion and consider it first in the simplest way; as a rotating sphere, so as Orbital Angular Momentum (OAM).” ...

Waves are translating or ... rotating around. Peter, the process of pair annihilation shows the way ... particles as looping rotating waves just opening up and are now translating ....???

Long Time no "see",

Best of luck,

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 13:30 GMT

Marcel-Marie,

I agree, duality is explained. But considering the fermion as spherical rotation with seperable momenta state pairs is also critical to allow a classical derivation of QM's predictions. I disagree photons and any 'signals' are particulate until re-quantized by interaction ('measurement').

I have yours on my list.

Peter

Peter,

There are some parallels in our thinking but we use different language. Your concept that relative motion is fundamental requires time. I agree with your statement that fermions require spin. In my essay, spin is motion in one direction opposed by a field representing the opposite direction. It takes both to have relative motion. I spent a lot of time with the PDG meson and baryon data and didn’t expect that properties would balance to zero but I think it is important. Your illustrations on the ball remind me of parity. The simple rotation (looking down vs looking up) super-imposes two results for the same object.

But what separated directions so that we can have relative motion? As I mentioned, I use P=exp(iEt/H)*exp(-iEt/H) based on the MIT reference (search MIT22 Evolution of Function Chapter 6). My neutron model finds the E’s in the equation, t is time around a circle and H is Planck’s unreduced constant. I placed an excerpt from the proton model below. The values of E that satisfy P=1 are 13.797, 5.076, 101.947 and 0.687 MeV. For example 5.076 MeV comes from the equation E-2.02e-5*exp(12.432).

There are 4 E’s, and P=1=psi*psi*psi*psi=exp(13.797it/H)*exp(5.076it/H)*exp(-101.
947it/H)*exp(-0.687it/H). The imaginary numbers multiply out and each Et/H=1. The equation also represents energy zero. (13.8+88.15=101.95+0.687 (MeV)). I believe that probability 1, energy zero was an initial condition but I can’t escape association with collapse of a wave function and consciousness. It seems to me that consciousness is the intersection of P=psi*psi*psic*psic=1. This is a busy intersection as consciousness develops since fermions make things we recognize. The “quantum circles” probably represent a plenum of information from which we develop an internal model of the things around us. The P evolves and separates nature into many possible concepts.

Do you have thoughts about what “sees” the relative motion?

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 09:51 GMT

Gene,

Interesting. Yes, motion does need time, but I see time as unphysical and focus on the physical, even if at sub matter scale.

That brings us to; "what “sees” the relative motion? I assume you mean to 'define' it, so before all 'detector' fermion interactions. Yes. I invoke that sub-matter scale 'dark energy' that's 84% of the universe. It CAN have some 'rest frame' as long as it doesn't couple with EM, so Dirac's 'new ether', but not 'lumeniferous'.

So perhaps in the beginning, simply; "something moved". Once something had moved the vortices started (more movement) and there went the whole neighbourhood! before you know it (just a few billion yrs) we've got a massive messy universe of motion! Does that gel with you at all?

Our views on consciousness are compatible. Mine was rationalised on terms of interaction layers and feedback loops in last years essay leading to much discussion but pleasingly no dissent (yet!). I like your description to.

Have you looked at Declan Trail's mathematical proof of my ontology for classical QM yet? That looks like a major advancement but I'm very disappointed it seems it's scared off any comment so far! Any thoughts?

Best

Peter

Dear Peter,

I read with great interest your deep analytical essay with important ideas and conclusions aimed at solving the problem of a single "foundation" of knowledge. Only I believe that the "big bang" hypothesis must be subjected to a very deep philosophical doubt in the spirit of Descartes.

Good luck!

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 13:25 GMT

Vladimir,

Thank you kindly. Nice to hear from you. I agree your BB doubts. Indeed the model leading to a Classical QM derivation previously showed a recycling cosmology as far more consistent, though including regular 'big whooshes' very much like a scaled up version of active galactic nuclei (AGN's, so opposing quasars jets re-ionizing most matter).

Recycled galaxies are one gauge down giving a full evolutionary cycle. Around 70% of the mysteries of the current Concordance/BB model can then be simply explained. I published jointly on it with Minkowski if you haven't read it yet; DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4540.5603

How does that fit with your thinking?

I greatly look forward to reading your essay.

Very best

Peter

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 14:56 GMT

Peter,

I will definitely look at the article. Here is an open letter on the "big bang" issue... I recall the good thought of Karl Popper: "I, however, believe that there is at least one truly philosophical problem that any thinking person is interested in. This is the problem of cosmology - the problem of knowing the world, including ourselves (and our knowledge) as part of this world. All science, in my opinion, is cosmology, and for me the value of philosophy is no less than science, it is solely in the contribution that it has made to cosmology."

All the best.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Hi Peter,

I highly appreciate Your statement "

The two 'pillars' of science, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, often seen as fundamental, may share a single derivation, perhaps even the most ridiculously simple one."

We are on the same track!

see my introduction:

Neil Turok: "And so we have to go back and question those founding principles and find whatever it is, whatever new principle will replace them.". Cheers Leo

The...\'')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()">

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 11:00 GMT

Leo.

Indeed. As an RNLI governer to me it looks rather like this; Most of moderate intellect on the ship agree; "It's foundered and slowly sinking, we need to leave and find better ones.", Yet run the lifeboats alongside and none even looks at them!

I look forward to reading your essay. Please do look at, comment on or question mine.

Very best,

Peter

Dear Dr Peter Jackson,

You wrote in the Abstract: “Einstein's view; “For the time being, we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics, which can be regarded as its logical foundation.” That am because physicists obsess over trying to explain the Universe in finite terms.

I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Your barmaid quote is evidently not Einstein but Rutherford instead.

Anyway...your approach has certainly evolved from the old days, nicht vahr?

As long as you continue to cling to the allure of continuous space and time, you will always be limited in the cosmos.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 11:29 GMT

Steve,

You're right that Rutherfords (slightly different) comment almost certainly came first; "If you can't explain your physics to a barmaid, it is probably not very good physics."

But I quoted Einstein's; "you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid," which I'm sure was derived from it, as much of his work (and most of all of ours!)

The point is I think both are very wise and true but don't you agree habitually ignored by most of the academic community?

On the Cosmos; I agree. As a Cosmologist ('observational') and RAS Fellow I feel the need to focus attention on understanding the cosmos better before we try to fly beyond it. That's not to say I don't explore hints from the data now & then!

I gave your essay a 1st speedread and hope you'll be pleased I market it as worth reading again & discussing. Being brief may have helped in that but I found that didn't diminish quality.

I wonder if you read & understood mine and have any intelligible questions or comments? (doing so in conjunction with Declan Trail's helps).

Very best

Peter

Peter Jackson

A very good article.

Can spin be an illusion due to polarization?

From ______________ John-Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 14:00 GMT

John-Eric.

Thanks. No. Spin is no illusion, but so called 'quantum spin' it CAN be reprodcud from simple rotation, which YES; produces north and south poles (left/right 'curl'). BUT; OAM (in spherical rotation) is more complex than most theorists have assumed, we should include BOTH Maxwell's state momenta pairs; so LINEAR (zero curl) at the equator and CURL +1/-1 at the poles.

Correcting that allows the whole of QM to become classical (if retaining recursive uncertainty, i.e. of left/right near the poles). SR then needs the same mechanism and Einstein's 1952 ideas to unify it.

Yours is nearing the top of my list.

Very Best. Glad you're still going strong & hope you're well.

Peter

John-Erik Persson replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 19:16 GMT

Peter Jackson

Yes, my health is OK. Thank you.

I am glad that you like my article. My main interest is in SRT. Light takes the fastest way as pronounced by Schnell's law. Stokes missed that when he reduced Michelson's prediction by half. The missing part opened for Lorentz to introduce the GAMMA factor, and thereby absurdities.

If you like my article, as you said, you can comment on my page.

Thanks and good luck from ______________ John-Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate

Peter

You mentioned "vortices". What is the connection?

What are you suggesting the vortices are?

Hodge

What...\'')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()">

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 10:53 GMT

John,

Anything in motion in a matter medium creates paired vortices. Often we see them; in smoke, at wing tips and in all viscous fluids. If 'dark energy' has some sub-matter existance, and the same applies (i.e. pair production, Unruh effect, Higgs process etc.) Then the vortex will be the electron positron pairs (as their opposing 'spin').

As of 'what they're made of'? It's what you and I and everything in the universe is 'made of'! Apart from ever smaller states of motion we don't have a clue and haven't even yet thought it needed a name! Some years ago I suggested 'Comprathene' just for the sake of a name. I'm sure we can do better. Any ideas.

Good to see you back.

Very best

Peter

John C Hodge replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 12:06 GMT

So, an electron (for example) is a spinning vortex of smaller matter particles. The positron has the opposite spin. When vortics of opposite spin collide their energy sums to zero. Vortices of the same spin can add.

I'll think about your suggestion.

I had been thinking the vortices were in an inviscid medium (plenum. ether, space, etc.) as a result of the motion of matter. Electron produce vorticies with a spin opposite to the positrons. Only 2 rotation directions with an axis in 3D. The vorticies manifest as the coulomb field that travel outward according to the spherical principle (1/r density). Neatly solves "What is charge?'

The next issue I thinking about is the EM signal within the STOE.

Hodge

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 17:54 GMT

John,

Your 2 descriptions both loosely describe what I hypothesised, but a Majorana fermion is found to be 'it's own antiparticle' which is exactly the paired opposing polar spin states of a SINGLE sphere of torus! Think about that for a bit; we can never interact with both hemspheres at the same time, so only FIND either clockwise OR anticlockwise (+1, OR -1)!!

Yes it's 'motion' (of matter) that creates the vortices. Electrons (or rather all fermions) then don't 'produce' spin, they ARE spin! The energy density reduces around the vortex so the overall spin density distribution in the greater area around a 'vortex' will be 'flat'. We'd experience the local uneven density distribution around matter as 'gravity'. If the matter is 'annihilated' the potential goes flat (no gravity).

The validity of that general approach is supported by the resolving power of the model when turned to QM. i.e. the astonishing classical derivation emerges!

EM waves (fluctuations) can only propagate in the ether at c, but not 'couple' or be modulated by it. However interaction with fermions DOES modulate, to LOCAL c giving CSL, so producing the effect we call SR in the process.

Does that help your understanding of the hypothesis, or compatibility with you own model?

Very best. (Yours is on my list)

Peter

show all replies (2 not shown)

John C Hodge replied on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 10:03 GMT

Peter:

When I first saw your observation that vorticies are present at all scales, I thought this is exactly the kind of mechanism that should help describe QM phenomena. My mind raced. Then I thought the way this can fit in the STOE.

Your suggestion is also interesting. If a +1 (positron?) collides with a -1 (electron?), the result is photons. No gravity for photons seems the generality accepted view but debatable. At least energy survives.

Thanks I think I understand your model more. I'll think about it.

Thanks for the insight. Vorticies have to fit in somewhere in the Quantum world.

Hodge

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 10:49 GMT

John,

Good. I'd remind you that electrons and positrons are opposite poles of a single 'vortex' body/fermion 'particle'. If opposite poles meet the potential reduces to zero 'annihilation', so the gravitational potential in the region flattens. 'Photons' would then be the result of interacting with the fluctuations from the disturbance (we can't measure any wavefront without interacting with and 'requantizing' it (via fermions) so will always find the energy in 'photons'.

But also. As the wave motion is 3D at every point, we CAN also assign notional 'particulate' characteristics to it's orbitals, which normally also have helicity. That's difficult to visualise at first but clarifies with thought & slots right into many vacant 'link' gaps in the optical sciences.

I should be at yours soon.

Peter

hide replies

Dear Peter,

I think FQXi.org might be trying to find out if there could be a Natural fundamental. I am surprised that so many of the contest's entrants do not appear to know what am fundamental to science, or mathematics, or quantum histrionics.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 18:06 GMT

Hi Joe,

I'm not sure 'fqXi' or most anyone would recognise a 'natural fundamental' at present! As Sabine H says, it's clear Academia really doesn't know what the f*** is actually going on, and it's unlikely the solution will come from that direction!

She's probably right, but then also applying to your second sentence regarding most all outside academia. I've suggested that's no shame, simply a function of the state of mans intellectual evolution.

I predict a heap more 'quantum histrionics' in the next few years as the revolution takes it's toll!

Very best

Peter

Peter,

That is a very forceful and clear description of various of the more taken for granted problems in physics(which is to say a lot deeper than strings), but I do think it misses the obvious. In trying to peel away the layers of the physical to find what is fundamental, Physics ignores the context, space. Which is something else Physics has spent a few generations trying to reduce to geometric abstraction, yet unlike more energetic processes, it sits there quietly.

There can be no proven "first cause," but space doesn't need or provide cause, just primary context. That, like a blank sheet of paper, or canvas, is fundamental.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 18:19 GMT

John,

Glad you're back. I've described 'space' as a 'sub-matter' medium, certainly not condensed matter but possibly just smaller states of the 'spin' that forms matter, i.e. the condensate, just with slightly different behaviour at that scale (see my post to John H above).

After presenting the evidence for it's existence as obvious I then said lets focus on the lowest 'matter' state before we get deeper into speculation, which identified a key solution. So one step at a time!!

Of course 'between' those smaller ('dark') energy states may be none! though there's no actual evidence of that apart from that we don't 'see' anything, and we don't 'see' 98% of the universe that we know is there!!

So in that case did I really "miss it"? And could it give the same solution to QM & SR?

I hope to get to yours before too long.

Very best

Peter

John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 21, 2018 @ 23:16 GMT

Peter,

A further point that arose in discussion with Georgina, Our senses detect form and motion. Forms are finite, while motion is positive/negative disequilibrium. Which would seem to imply equilibrium and infinity as preconditions. The absolute and the infinite, with the extant between them.

This also goes to my argument that there are two directions of time. That energy(motion) goes from past to future forms, while these forms coalesce and dissolve, going future to past.

To really press the issue, consider that galaxies are energy/radiation expanding out, as gravity coalesces in. Further aspects of this dichotomy are covered in my essay.

Think of absolute zero as volume, without any action. While it might be unattainable, the fact it provides a conceptual end point, or equilibrium between positive and negative, makes it hard to completely dismiss. It took mathematics a long time to appreciate zero.

Good Luck!

John

report post as inappropriate

Peter,

I always enjoy your essays since you tend to emphasize measureable and observable things.

Your 10 axioms seem reasonable enough ... especially regarding polarizers. BTW, are those polarizers linear or angular? I want to buy some and don't want to buy the wrong ones.

I'm not familiar with Transition Zones or the behavior of antennae ... so that was new to me.

I have seen a video on the "Quantum Erasure". It is certainly difficult to understand. I tend to think that the wave-function is instantaneous and therefore it determines that the signal is recombined in path B while the signal is still travelling in path A.

All in all, this is a good essay.

BTW, I really think you would benefit from quaternions.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Peter,

Thanks for the comments in my forum.

I'd still like to know if I should buy linear polarizers or circular polarizers:-)

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

We will see, if the mentioned scientific r-evolution will be speedy or gradual, Peter. This remains an open and informed guess: the paradox and the mystery are part of science.Complexity is simple and simplicity is complex. The inter-section between logic and ethics is human communication; almost 30 years ago, I worked on paradigm change in technical science, consulting T.Kuhn often for his views. I tempted to say: the time is now.

report post as inappropriate

Stephen I. Ternyik replied on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 10:17 GMT

I am tempted...

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 12:33 GMT

Stephen,

If only...!

My 2010 essay '2020 Vision' suggested 10yrs. But it assumed an optimistic rate of intellectual evolution. The QM solution only emerged from a test of the SR solution there.

But even those most respected and experienced are simply ignoring it, no analysis, just paying lip service to the need for change but plunging heads into the sand.

I'm told that's stage 3. I think the next is; "It's self apparent anyway." 2020? Hmmm.

Very best.

Peter

Sherman Loran Jenkins replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 07:16 GMT

Peter,

2020 sounds good. Once two people have a common understanding of a truth it may catch fire.

Sherman

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Dear Peter,

I really appreciated your essay, even if sadly my lack of mathematical tools was an issue for many part of it (my formation is in philosophy).

You point out that (and I agree)

> the word 'fundamental' should be qualified with 'more' or 'less'.

Then you conclude that

> the apparently most ridiculously simple of concepts can resolve & unite incomplete and incompatible theories [...] That simple concept is relative motion.

I wonder: how something relative can be considered fundamental? Should we consider relativity itself, as set of relations, as even more fundamental?

It's a topic in common with my essay about absolute relativism, so I'm very interested in it.

Bests,

Francesco D'Isa

report post as inappropriate

Francesca,

Many thanks. I minimised maths but we must pay homage. See my 'red/green sock trick' essay (top scorer 2yrs ago). Declan Trail's essay gives the code and cos^2 plot for the classic QM ontology identified.

I started with just 'motion' but motion is an entirely relative concept, which needed saying. I see no dichotomy in cheese being tastier than music. Without relative motion there would be no matter so no perceptible universe, so I set the foundation at the condensation of matter while giving a nod to the condensate we can only speculate on.

Sure it's a 'set of relations'. I look forward to finding the 'even more' fundamental in your essay. But 'Special' Relativity is, as AE defined, a special case, and resolvable if the matter condensed couples with EM fluctuations and re-emits at the new LOCAL speed c (=CSL). Well I never, we know that happens! It's only our disjointed physics and thinking (and theoretical inertia) that blocks advancement in understanding. We even ignored AE when he got it right in '52 (spaces in relative motion within spaces') as initial assumptions were by then embedded.

Yes I agree 'absolute relativism' is fundamental. You're on my list. (Do also read Trail's essay for the holy grail proof if you haven't yet).

Very best

Peter

Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 13:48 GMT

Dear Peter,

thank you for your answer and for your interest in my essay. My point of view is more philosophical, and it has the virtues and vices of this kind of approach; the "more fundamental" level I refer to are relations – but you'll find it better explained there.

I read Trail's essay as well, which I found very very interesting in its conclusions, but sadly I'm not able to evaluate their correctness.

Excuse my very ignorant question but:

> Without relative motion there would be no matter so no perceptible universe

motion of what?

All the best!

Francesco

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 17:48 GMT

Francesco,

Good question. I suggest in my essay ever smaller states of motion as vortices. The QV and dark energy states may form the condensate but there's no known bottom (or 'top' for that matter!).

So yes, I agree. I'll discuss on yours.

Declan's, as mine simply gives a second option, effectively;

A. Jet engines work by weird & magical probability drives coupled with distant pilots waving their arms.

B. (New hypotheses consistent with evidence) Burning fuel spins turbines compressing air and pilots have direct control.

Science has had to live with 'A' for 100 years so it's now established, though apparently unphysical. 'B' can't be right because it's different to 'A'.

Stony silence from the academic community.

I'll discuss 'what' on yours as that also seems no longer in professional physicists terms of reference.

Peter

Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 21:01 GMT

Dear Peter,

that's even more interesting... and mysterious. Sadly I've no means to evaluate – nor even to comprehend – Declan's physics hypothesis, nor yours, but sounds quite revolutionary as it is stated. Anyway the history of science is full of thunderous silences.

yes, the "what" can't be maybe (yet) defined in physics frame... we maybe need a little philosophy.

Bests and thank you for your answers,

Francesco

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter

IMHO, " the moon IS there when we stop looking! " because there are other copy moons looking down to every quantum of our moon. HOW?

According to my Quantum FFF Model, we live inside one of an even set of instant entangled symmetric copy universes. Based on a new particle ( Charge Parity) symmetric Big Bang process.

See also my essay:

"22, We seem to live...

view entire post

Dear Peter

IMHO, " the moon IS there when we stop looking! " because there are other copy moons looking down to every quantum of our moon. HOW?

According to my Quantum FFF Model, we live inside one of an even set of instant entangled symmetric copy universes. Based on a new particle ( Charge Parity) symmetric Big Bang process.

See also my essay:

"22, We seem to live inside one material universal bubble of an instant entangled (Charge Parity Time) CPT symmetric raspberry bubble multiverse. Each quantum jump or wave function collapse or human choice is guided by this instant entanglement at long distant. If our material universes has a chiral oscillating Higgs field, then our material Right Handed DNA helix molecule could be explained. However it also suggests that in our opposing ANTI-MATERIAL multiverse neighbour universe the DNA helix should have a LEFT HANDED spiral.

Also: according to Max Tegmark: in an entangled multiverse we may ask: is there COPY PERSON over there, who is reading the same lines as I do? If this COPY person is indeed living over there, then even our consciousness should be shared in a sort of DEMOCRATIC form, Then we are not alone with our thoughts and doubts, see: Democratic Free Will in the instant Entangled Multiverse.

Conclusion, Quantum FFF Theory is based on Non-Local Realism. The CP(T)-symmetrical raspberry shaped multiverse (with 8-12 berries) is non local instant connected down to each quantum. Each quantum can be visualized as a deformed Axion-Higgs ring able to convert into other shapes and able to form compound structures like quarks, muons or even Tau leptons. So realism (cogwheels) connected by symmetric non-local instant entanglement. http://vixra.org/pdf/1401.0071v2.pdf See also: “Democratic Free Will and Telepathy in the Instant Entangled Multiverse.” http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0026v3.pdf "

An old but extended simple experiment made by Benjamin Libet is able to prove our human VETO statistics as cruxial part of our FREE WILL by our veto freedom..

See: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0003v1.pdf

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

While reviewing my reading list - essays I promised or just want to read but I was a bit slow - I noticed that your feedback to my essay disappeared, which seems quite strange. it doesn't matter, I just thought that you may want to know. I remember it was there, because you wrote that your favorite line from my essay is the last one, in which I convey the message that despite the arguments I brought in my essay, I don't consider holomorphic fundamentalness proven yet and I don't want to take myself too seriously :). Something that I guess you did more straightforwardly, already in the title of your essay. Your essay is well written, and you took an interesting path to making the case for the thesis "turtles all way down" based on condensed matter. (If I would explain in terms of turtles the core of my proposal, it is as if there are base turtles everywhere, but none of them is special, various hierarchies of turtles being related by isomorphisms, somewhat similar to how different frames are related by transformations.)

Best regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Cristinel Stoica replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 13:59 GMT

Hi Peter,

You said:

> You didn't seem to notice or comment on the main important new finding in my essay, but I don't know how up on QM you are.

Don't take this personally, I gave up discussing here proposals for "fixing" quantum mechanics by making it classical years ago. Let's just say we disagree.

Best,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 11:55 GMT

Christi,

We'd be in serious trouble if we all 'agreed' on everything. Understanding would never advance! (I suppose that's why 'agreement' isn't a scoring criteria).

But I should say this is more like 'agreeing or not' to a longish but basic arithmetical equation. Under the rules it's either correct or not. The only thing most should struggle with is the different starting assumptions. Either

A) No hypothesis about the pairs except some unexplained 'superposed' spin states that can't be rotation; 'up or down'.

Which you and all are so familiar with it's become 'intuition' despite it leading to unphysical weird outcome interpretations.

B) Using proven distributions of momenta, orthogonal as Maxwell's, which vary with interaction angle.

So it seems really just a test of intellect over 'intuition', or an individuals ability to overcome cognitive dissonance (or embedded beliefs). Of course I expect most people to stick with A) for some time to come. Maybe forever, even though John Bell stated clearly he knew an equivalent to 'B)' must exist. Is that not simply the human condition?

very best

peter

Cristinel Stoica replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 14:14 GMT

Peter,

I see what you're doing here :) So you say it's not simply to agree to disagree, because it is intellect vs 'intuition' (i.e. prejudice? bias?). You've got me, I live in superposition on Hilbert Space Ave. and my house is filled with Schrödinger cats, so my intuition is quantum :) So since you put the problem like this, I have no choice but to accept the provocation. I'm kidding, I'm not 5.

If I accept, I think there will be a very long discussion, from which nothing will be gained and no agreement will be reached. But let's say that you will convince me that you are right, then what would you expect? I'm not in the Nobel committee :)

Here are some ideas:

- Find the closest University and discuss your findings with a professor of QM.

- Submit your papers to a peer reviewed journal with IF, and see what the reviewers have to say.

- Hire a physicist who is giving consultations for such things.

Of course, it's your choice, and I told you mine.

Good luck!

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (5 not shown)

Hi Peter, I have read your essay twice. It still isn't ridiculously simple to me. Many subjects are considered leading up to the quantum physics part, which I didn't find easy reading.

I think you are over complicating matters by trying to explain exactly how the particles are moving, for example. It is enough that what happens, because of the way in which the particle is behaving interacting with the measurement apparatus and or protocol, does not exist in isolation prior to that happening. The measurement itself provides the limited state or value.That the particle is behaving classically, in some way, is not sufficient to save local realism.

It seems enough, to explain deviation from expected classical outcomes, that polarizers alter paths and do not just block them. So that simple arithmetic using pre and post filtered particles doesn't work.

I realize a lot of thought and effort has gone into your work and presentation. It is good that you have had lots of good and positive feedback. Kind regards Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 14:41 GMT

Georgina, ..Hmm, that was me below -autologged out! here again;

I confess the 'sequence' is longer than we've expected. It's the basic 'rule' that's simple. Like arithmetic as I wrote to Christi above. Once children learn the new rules of +,-,x, angles and squaring it's simply a case of longer strings. Of course if it was short & DEAD simple it'd have been found before! It was nature who made it seem a bit complex not me! But he also used simple rules and gave us brains able to apply them!

Underlying that is the very simplest notion of 'motion', so the the 'spin' of pairs really IS rotation, but not on just ONE of the 3 axes!!!

(Look at the short video again if struggling - the 3D motion is critical)100 sec video

The 'local' UNrealism in QM only comes from Alice's outcome 'apparently' changed by Bob's action. What I SIMPLY show is that does'nt happen. If your detector is set to NORTH, and the particle pole arriving is NORTH you find 'SAME'. The side arriving at Bob is then SOUTH If Bob's is set South he also gets 'SAME'. But if EITHER ONE of you reverses detector pole (so they're the same), you find 'OPPOSITE'!!. Present statistical analysis fails to account for that due to the wrong starting assumption!!

Local reality is then irrefutably recovered. NO weird 'action at a distance' needed.

The little effort to understand and embed it is rewarding.

Very Best

Peter

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 21:39 GMT

Hi Peter, local realism has a particular meaning. Its meaning is not only that something is happening that is local and real but the outcome state or value exist prior to measurement.I.e. not as a superposition of states or in an indefinite condition. The state or value being thought of as a property of the particle alone.

Both you and I recognize that the state found depends partly on behaviour and partly upon the choice of measurement angle. So, the state/value is not merely something about the particle itself. The measurement is forming a relation that enables a determination to be made, rather than it already being definite and just awaiting discovery.

Your mathematics may work but that does not mean that is therefore how the particles are moving. Meant matter of factly not disrespectfully.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 21:41 GMT

Georgina,

You're right, QM did axiomise that initial state affects outcome, but Von Neuman recognized 'the meter is part of the system'. What I've done is identify EXACTLY

A) WHAT links the pair & carries through ('entangled' quality) and

B) WHAT changes the interactions effect and outcome values.

A) Only has to consist of maintained paralell polar axes to produce the apparent effects we call 'nonlocality'.

B) Is then the non-linear inverse distributions of the linear/curl state pairs identified, changing with (random) attitude and 'detector' (x2) field rotations across all 3 axes.

QM simply said the couldn't be done! at all.. ever!! Bell disagreed. He just showed it couldn't be done simply with QM's assumptions. It now seems he was right.

Your last paragraph is wrong & not 'fact' because there is NO MATHEMATICS in my essay and none were used in finding the mechanism! The ontology itself describes the full process and motions (visible as long as you can visualise it). You only have to look at non-linear or quantum optics on wiki to see how particles move and what rotations do to phase. That's what John Wheeler said we should do - work it out first only THEN do the mathematics to match it for the proof.

But don't worry. Quantum physicists may fear to even look at it! Mind you I've just read Prof McHarris's essay. Spot on! Have a read.

Very best.

Peter

Georgina,

I confess the 'sequence' is longer than we've expected. It's the basic 'rule' that's simple. Like arithmetic as I wrote to Christi above. Once children learn the new rules of +,-,x, angles and squaring it's simply a case of longer strings. Of course if it was short & DEAD simple it'd have been found before! It was nature who made it seem a bit complex not me! But he also used simple rules and gave us brains able to apply them!

Underlying that is the very simplest notion of 'motion', so the the 'spin' of pairs really IS rotation, but not on just ONE of the 3 axes!!!

(Look at the short video again if struggling - the 3D motion is critical)100 sec video

The 'local' UNrealism in QM only comes from Alice's outcome 'apparently' changed by Bob's action. What I SIMPLY show is that does'nt happen. If your detector is set to NORTH, and the particle pole arriving is NORTH you find 'SAME'. The side arriving at Bob is then SOUTH If Bob's is set South he also gets 'SAME'. But if EITHER ONE of you reverses detector pole (so they're the same), you find 'OPPOSITE'!!. Present statistical analysis fails to account for that due to the wrong starting assumption!!

Local reality is then irrefutably recovered. NO weird 'action at a distance' needed.

The little effort to understand and embed it is rewarding.

Very Best

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Welcome back, Peter. Your entry is quite impressive as usual.

I made it easy for myself by grabbing the definition of fundamental is that which is Essential for existence. You took the weightier tract. Russell’s pile of turtles are in keeping with the anatomical “fundus” definition and does seem to orient toward the larger and weightier at the bottom but then of course there are many interpretations of fundamental which you point out. I’m hoping for “the barmaid effect,” hoping the slopped-over beer suds do not obfuscate my attempt.

Your essay embarks on a journey of multifaceted interpretations of fundamental, some quite complex. We do want our mysteries to be simplified. You ably prove that fundamental is not a simple theory of everything. Maybe fundamental should be qualified with “more or less.” I believe fundamental evolves with discovery and that we must say “more or less” with our discoveries because our understanding always seems to be incomplete. Regarding the "lower reductionist limit of condensed matter," I use the creation of metallic hydrogen as an achievement relating to the evolution of of fundamental through discovery. Hope you get a chance to read mine.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 21:47 GMT

Jim,

Thanks. I promise I'll get to yours. I've always found them interesting & well written. I agree Hydrogen is the first real 'matter' only one step above my condensed fermion pairs. See you over there soon.

Peter

Thanks for your kind comments on my essay Peter.

I am not of the expertise to assess your essay but enjoyed what I could understand.

Good luck in the competition,

Jack

report post as inappropriate

Hi Peter Jackson

Your words “However 'condensation' of massive particle pairs with discrete rotations may occupy a non-arbitrary position in a sequence with no known smallest possible scale” are really wonderful dear Peter Jackson, why don’t you have look in my essay also where energy to mass transformation is predicted…. I highly appreciate your essay and hope you please spend some...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 10:31 GMT

Dear Peter,

Thank you very much for nice comparison with discrete field model. You said…..” All in all not a bad model but still inconsistent and with a couple of major conflicting assumptions. None I can see that are fatal, but it looks to me like more solid foundations are still needed.”…. can you please explain them further?

Best wishes to your paper…

=snp

report post as inappropriate

snp

Thank you. I recall your model, much in which agrees with the discrete field model but also much doesn't. As a quick check;

1-5; I agree. 'Collisions' are interactions and common (but not galaxy growth by collision). 'Black Holes' exist but as Active Nuclei, quite different from early theory still often assumed and including a larger scale fractal version as a 'big whoosh' recycling process not bang. No 'worm holes', but all matter is re-ionised and used again with other freshly condensed - so maybe a similar result!

All than agreed rejected up to 'dark' matter (but only n=1 fermion plasma) and dark energy (condensate) which do exist.

No multiverses but all the complex CMB anisotropies emerge in detail from the 'AGN' type recycling model.

Then; NO accelerating expansion required to explain redshit, Newton incomplete, linear 'absolute' time, ...then often qualified support for most of the rest.

By all means raise any item and I'll explain my comments. All in all not a bad model but still inconsistent and with a couple of major conflicting assumptions. None I can see that are fatal, but it looks to me like more solid foundations are still needed.

I'll post this on yours and have your essay on my list.

Very Best

Peter

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 10:34 GMT

Dear Peter,

Thank you very much for nice comparison with discrete field model. You said…..” All in all not a bad model but still inconsistent and with a couple of major conflicting assumptions. None I can see that are fatal, but it looks to me like more solid foundations are still needed.”…. can you please explain them further?

Best wishes to your paper…

Sorry I posted above..

=snp

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 12:47 GMT

Satyav,

You asked me to explain further.

For Dark Energy the evidence of something beyond out detection and understanding is now overwhelming from every source, and even with flawed cosmological theory we know it mus contain ~86% of the total mass energy of the universe. It's also the 'condensate' from which all matter condenses. Can we really thing 'pair prooduction' comes from...

view entire post

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 20:16 GMT

Dear Peter Jackson

Thank you for all the nice explanations…

I want to ask you few more questions, if you don’t mind….

………… Your words……

You asked me to explain further.

For Dark Energy the evidence of something beyond out detection and understanding is now overwhelming from every source, and even with flawed cosmological theory we know it mus...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Dear Peter,

You wrote an interesting, provocative and entertaining Essay which deserves the highest score.

It is strange that John Bell's comment on Bohr et al's assumption that no classical QM derivation could exist seems the opposite of the result of his famous theorem.

I have a question: Are your statements that

“the apparently most ridiculously simple of concepts can resolve and unite incomplete and incompatible theories. That simple concept is relative motion”

connected with general covariance?

Concerning your statement that

“Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, often seen as fundamental, may share a single derivation”

maybe you could be interested in my Essay, where I discuss physics unification from another point of view with... Albert Einstein!

Congrats again and good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 15:02 GMT

Christian,

Thank you kindly. John Bell was very consistent, as usual we've taken his 'theorem' alone and ignored what he knew and said it proved; that "The founding fathers were in fact wrong". & "..quantum mechanics is at best incomplete"

Q; Connection with "general covariance"? Not directly. Indeed I found it a rather woolly concept and have looked closer. A better definition does emerge. Sure, 'Laws' don't often change, but much else does.

One example of a law the DOES change is Snell's Law of refraction. It fails at the (Maxwell, Lorentz, DFM etc) near/far field transformation zone TZ. We then find 'Fraunhofer' radiation, as familiar as it is poorly understood to date but clearly derived in the new model. Also look at 'kinetic reverse refraction', which appears with the co-motion CREATING the TZ and for which there's NO law (I must get round to that!) as nobody else yet understands it! (fancy helping, so it'd be the JC law?)

I greatly look forward to reading yours.

Best wishes

Peter

Christian Corda replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 08:15 GMT

Dear Peter,

Thanks for clarifying. By the way, I did not know such details of Snell's Law of refraction. I will look it closer.

Thanks again, I look forward to read your comments on my Essay.

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson

I like your article very much, but there is one exception, and that is your explanation to destructive superposition. I have written that reservation on my own page also. In my opinion your explanation is not logically consistent. The same can be said regarding your explanation to the disappearance of your comment.

With the best regards from ______________ John-Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 17:21 GMT

John Eric. Thanks. But consider this;

I show you a spinning sphere. I ask you to touch it and judge the clockwise or anti-clockwise rotation. You touch the south pole and clearly say 'Clockwise'.

Now I can make your result disappear to ZERO without removing the spinning sphere!

I simply rotate the sphere half a turn on either the y OR z axis. You find 0!

Now stay there and start again. I ask you if it's spin UP or DOWN. Easy! But then rotate 90 degrees and THAT ALSO goes to zero! (there's no up/down or left/right momentum at the equator) We can rotate either the sphere or just YOU! (and at 180 degrees you find the opposite).

The energy does not disappear! The spinning sphere is still there. It's all about at what angle we measure things. It's then entirely logically consistent once you use the correct starting assumptions. Exactly like QM in fact! Remember a two channel photomultiplier has orthogonal channels.

Peter

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 10:27 GMT

John-Eric,

There's also a simpler way to test if 'destructive interference' is real. Move the back board of a 2 slit or similar interferometer experiment slightly forward or rearward. The light fringes become dark and vice versa. Huygens construction helps rationalise but modern quantum optics does even better.

The 'build up' of 'single photon' events to a fringe pattern does however also show the retained 'particulate' characteristic on interaction ('requantization'). Richard Feynman thought 'duality' was just confusion, but things are now far less confused.

(I'm sure the '1' applied to mine at the time of your last post wasn't you John-Eric.)

Very best

Peter

Peter Jackson

Thanks for mail. (I wrote this on my own page also.)

I agree with Feynman that wave or particle confusion indicates that we do not understand light. Since fringes are changing over the surface they should also change over transverse direction. So, i do not think that your simple test is certain.

Regards from _________________ John-Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 22:54 GMT

John-Eric, (copied)

It does. It depends on polarization type and direction. Just turn the slits by 90 degrees and the fringes are transverse.

Best

Peter

John-Erik Persson replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 11:55 GMT

Peter Jackson

Of course the pattern rotates with the equipment, but that does not prove how the pattern changes when you move the detector. So, you cannot prove energy to exist in light. You know that there is two transverse fields, but you cannot know if there is a longitudinal field.

Best

John-Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 19:28 GMT

Eric,

I'm not sure what 'proof' ever is, but rotation has three degrees of freedom not just two. Ellipticity change can be from rotation on any axis.

Don't you agree the changes found when changing the backboard distance seem evidence enough of longitudinal change? (If plotted progressively it describes the same fluctuation pattern).

The 'impact' axis energy in beams such as Bessel beams & lasers is quite well known. And what of the photoelectric effect?

Peter

Hi dear Peter

It is nice to read your next attractive article. I can say most of that you saying seems to me very right. I believe too that everything can be don ridiculous simplicity, but matter is many things has been don simply wrong at the far-beginning. So, we must considering that the main problem has more psychological (or, maybe political) character than a technical (I mean math or experimental aspects.) Thus, you and me can crying and to prove whatever we see is right, but the matter is not what here is right or wrong. The important thing is - what we need (or, they) to see there! And I see you says almost the same:

//It seems Einstein's view that; "we should be able to be explain physics to a barmaid" may then be valid but, if so, may pose issues for many of us. Do most in physics really want it's mysteries to be simplified so all can understand at will? Some may perceive it as not in their best interests!//

So, I can only support and wish you succeeded in this contest!

My best wishes to you!

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson

3 fields and 2 must change; 1 of 2 transverse and longitudinal. Does not prove energy motion inside the wave fronts; and not prove energy to even exist in light. Instead, 2 transverse fields can represent information (potential forces) that later become real when light hits the detector (charge) we use. If so, energy comes from the ether.

John-Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate

John-Erik Persson replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 12:24 GMT

Peter Jackson

You are perhaps interested in my last comment that I wrote on Josephson's page. Take a look!

Best regards from John-Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 12:58 GMT

John-Erik, I can agree the following;

1. Nothing can 'prove' anything in physics.

2. Energy is found from interactions with light. Precisely how? we don't know.

3. As 'meters' are part of the system they DO influence detected values.

4. Dark energy does exist, not as 'matter', but can condense to pairs.

You don't explain what 'potential' and 'real' forces are. I could rationalise them as 'dark' and condensed particle energy (with all 3 degrees of freedom not just 2) but I suggest we can't say more.

Best

Peter

John-Erik Persson replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 18:45 GMT

Peter Jackson

The distinction between POTENTIAL and REAL is clear. However, the meaning of BLACK can be discussed.

In the comment to Josephson I suggested light that not transferred energy. What do you think?

John-Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Hi Peter,

I see your still working on your classical OAM model. Me I'm still working on a Bohr interpretation of physics and think to have found a mathematical sound formalization of Bohr's view. I always wondered, what Einstein or Bell would have said to my interpretation.

I would be happy if you could find the time to read my essay called The quantum sheep - in defence of a positivist view on physics.

Best wishes for the contest

Luca

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 11:30 GMT

Luca,

Yes, I certainly adhere to all Bell & most of what Bohr said. I'm also sure if I'd been at Solvay in 1927 and shown the way to unify SR & QM we may have avoided ~100yrs of confusion!

Did you see my 3 pre 2014 essays showing how SR is implemented by the same absorption/re-emission mechanism?

I have yours on my list and look forward to some positivism.

Very Best

Peter

Basically Peter Jackson and Decaln Traill have have shown – that the indistinguishable i – can be thought of as the two indistinguishable constants of closure on the geometry (of a sphere). Or the “Fundamental Theory Of Algebra” needs two constants to close a general “energy count of a measurable outcome”. Clearly we need two halves at work from their work, that seem to imply we close...

view entire post

Basically Peter Jackson and Decaln Traill have have shown – that the indistinguishable i – can be thought of as the two indistinguishable constants of closure on the geometry (of a sphere). Or the “Fundamental Theory Of Algebra” needs two constants to close a general “energy count of a measurable outcome”. Clearly we need two halves at work from their work, that seem to imply we close Peter's equations on his sphere using (up,down) & (left, right) etc two ways.

From wiki – That is, i is a unique (i.e. distinguishable) number defined as the square root of minus one, i.e.,i ≡ +√-1. Since there are two possible square roots for any number +√ and –√, clearly the square roots of a negative number cannot be distinguished until one of the two is defined as the imaginary unit, at which point +i and -i can then be distinguished. Since either choice is possible, there is no ambiguity in defining i as "the" square root of minus one.

Clearly looking at Traill's computer programme and Jackson's physical experiment – what is being mapped out is how +i and -i are indistinguishable, all his programme does is to use random numbers to show that quantum vectors can distributed over a whole sphere, as a classical system. All we do is assign +1 or -1 (via Bell/EPR duality), and then as compared to pure randomness, when we do the actual measurements as a series, we get quantum correlations. One half of the sphere we get +/– 1 and the other half we get +/– 1.

Well the indistinguishable +i and –i each has it's own +/– signs. That is, what Traill and Jackson have done is do the experiment to show that the “complex imaginary unit” (where +i and –i are indistinguishable hence we do the extraordinary as they have shown) in our current theories has been using only one-half of the indistinguishable “complex imaginary unit”. See attachment didn't know how to attach diagrams in this message box.

I really enjoyed reading your essays over the last few years so full of details and always with an experiment as well. I think you have done some good work here, and I have mark you highly

see my essay "What is Fundamental is the area of the imaginary unit” for more details,and Peter please read the attachment in the first post as well. It is a FAQ post.

https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Tiainen_Essay_2018
_Final_2.pdf

Also Peter I have attached a PDF of more comments about +i and -i using your red/sock trick, it features heavily in my essay. Enjoy Harri

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Jouko Harri Tiainen replied on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 05:44 GMT

again

report post as inappropriate

Jouko Harri Tiainen replied on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 05:46 GMT

Sorry Peter I cannot seem to attach files to posts for some reason - if you send me your email I can sent it to you- will attempt again tomorrow.

report post as inappropriate

Jouko Harri Tiainen replied on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 05:50 GMT

again

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Jouko,

Thanks for the eulogy and fresh view of what we've achieved. I'll check it out.

I look forward to reading your essay, also the pdf, send direct to; pj.ukc.edu@physics.org

All help is welcome in overcoming the massive theoretical inertia, here as much as anywhere.

kind regards

Peter

Peter, I watched your Vimeo video of 38 minutes (in your bibliography) and then read your essay. Listening to you speak in the video helped me to read your voice on the page.

It seems you advocate a "language translation" between models: the model used in your video to the current Standard Models for example. I wonder if the translation might be done formally following the diagram of the...

view entire post

Peter, I watched your Vimeo video of 38 minutes (in your bibliography) and then read your essay. Listening to you speak in the video helped me to read your voice on the page.

It seems you advocate a "language translation" between models: the model used in your video to the current Standard Models for example. I wonder if the translation might be done formally following the diagram of the "infomorphism" on page 73 of "Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems" by Barwise and Seligman.

My own belief is that we will never understand the Universe-- there will always be mysteries. And then there is the old story about the blind men encountering an elephant for the first time. One grabs the tail, and the tail becomes the model in support of his statements about the elephant.

Much like your sphere in various situations becomes the models supporting your statements in the paper. Much like experiments become the models supporting statements in the Standard Models.

Of course in the old story about the elephant, each blind man has a different model, each model supporting their differing statements. Although there would be no infomorphism between some statements-- such as the elephant being like the branch of a tree for the man holding the tail, while for the man feeling the leg, the elephant is like a tree trunk-- there may be other statements which translate exactly. For example, the smell of the elephant would be largely the same for each man.

My own approach In this contest is to translate from the probable experiential knowledge of particular pre-socratics (Thales, Xenophanes, Parmenides, and then Socrates himself)-- specifically about their probable experiential knowledge of "the self"-- into possible scientific knowledge for a community of researchers, for example, those who have the know-how to use non-wellfounded sets, co-algebras and streams. Especially when the likes of string theory seems beyond verification by experiment.

As for the blind men feeling the elephant, for each domain of mathematics such as field theory, co-algebras etc., there may be infomorphisms between each language, including yours.

Thank you for making me aware of your work!

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Peter:

Excellent essay. Got the deserved high marks. Sharp and witty language as expected from a Brit!

We are FUNDAMENTALLY in agreement !

I agree with you that the light bending by the Sun is most likely due to refraction by the gradient index of its corona plasma.

You have quoted Einstein’s desire to find the foundation from a fundamentally new way of thinking. This is critically important. Otherwise, we will remain stuck in the “success rut”, as I have mentioned in my essay.

However, I do see differences in our approaches. This is only because I am a hardcore experimentalist and coming with a background optical science and engineering. I also differ from you from the sociological implication of “Revolution”. We know from the history of politico-economic revolutions that they are very disruptive and more damaging, specifically, for those who were supposed to have gained more economic freedom. In reality, what we see is that again a minority of “Tribal Leaders” have taken over the helm and only a small fraction of the revolutionary benefits have “trickled down” to the masses. Therefore, I prefer, slow, steady and incremental changes in our SCIENTIFIC ENTERPRISE where the funding steadily shifts towards out-of-box thinkers who are system engineers in their epistemology. After all, nature has been the most impressive system engineer in creating, managing and letting the universe keep evolving.

Chandra.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 12:04 GMT

Chandra,

Many thanks. Most agree big change is overdue. I suggest

Dear Peter Jackson

Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.

My essay is titled

“Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin”. It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.

Thank you & kind regards

Steven Andresen

report post as inappropriate

Peter,

Thanks for your kind words. Seems to be sparse reviewing and rating in this essay contest so far. I am revisiting those I have reviewed and see if I have scored them before the deadline approaches. I find that I did score your on 1/27.

Luck in the contest.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 09:59 GMT

James

Thanks. You're right. I've found reading seems to be going out of fashion. Many professors have been reading 1/20th of the papers I have in recent years! I'll ensure I apply yours shortly.

But I think the system's cracking up anyway, gaps exchanged for 'n's!!?

Best

Peter

Peter Jackson

Regarding what you said about hf=E or dfh=dE. Remember that we do not see the light. We can only observe electron behavior when they are exposed to light. Therefore our image of light is indirect and quantization can be done by the electrons. Therefore, Planck's constant can represent an electron property.

Regards from _______________ John-Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 09:48 GMT

John Eric

Partly yes, as my essay identifies. But the detector electrons will do nothing if the signal doesn't arrive, and the momentum exchanged is a function of BOTH, so observed states can't be JUST 'an electron property'.

My essay identifies excactly what information is shared between signals A & B (polar axis orientation and energy), and how the exchange produces the observed results.

All 3 degrees of freedom are required to rationalise it classically, and also produce so called 'non integer spin' states, (as this video);100 sec video

Best

Peter

John-Erik Persson replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 19:02 GMT

Peter Jackson

No, it is not so. The emitting electron exchanges energy with the ether. After that, at a time interval, the detecting electron exchanges energy with the ether. Therefore, excluding the ether caused the problem in quantum physics.

I could not open the video you sent me.

Best regards from _____________ John-Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 11:30 GMT

John-Eric, Yes I see the link is dead. Try one of these;

Youtube 100 sec Classic QM.

Vimeo 100 sec video.

As foor your model, I've agreed it's novel and interesting and we must test all. But the QM test is like a complex jigsaw puzzle we're told can't be solved. There is only ONE solution (be it describable in many ways).

Your theory don't yet derive such a solution. Our classical mechanism DOES do so, and unarguably because its classical mechanics. So if you suggest our solution is 'wrong' it's the same as saying the completed jigsaw puzzle is wrong! (it also produces non integer spins, remarkable in itself!)

You may still be right if a flaw in the puzzle solution is found. Nobody has yet but you might. OR a modified s description may be consistent. Our model also works with a plane wave from a 'photon' emission interacting with detector electrons. Could you not say in a way that's not inconsistent with yours?

Very Best

Peter

Peter, hoping this helps, I've transferred the following reply from my essay-thread

More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

....................

Thanks Peter,

It's good to see that we’re on the same map when it comes to resolving Bell's “action-at-a-distance” dilemma and related matters. My "neo-classical" foundations are intended to support...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 10:43 GMT

Gordon,,, Thanks ... I agree.... I confess to using a bunch of symbols in an earlier essay, ,, perhaps you could check them out for me. . Some are in the body but most in the end notes; . 2012, Much Ado About Nothing.2012 , scored 7th. . Very Best. , Peter

Dear Peter

An immensely rich essay! I like what you said about 'Nature is weird - Live with it'. It seems to be a mantra for today.

Best Wishes

Mozibur Ullah

report post as inappropriate

Peter

I generally read essays once, as I have done of yours. However when I elect to read an essay a second time, it is personal interest. As I will yours before forming a proper reply.

In my opinion you are a deep thinker with quality deductions, these informing your world overview and guiding your general scientific inquiries. But you also have a handle on an abundance of highly technical considerations, an ocupational hazard I guess.

Nearly everybody else assumes the answers to fundementals of the world are berried beneath layers of additional complexities of theory. You and i look in the other direction, toward symplicity. You assume one day a revelation will lead us to say, "so simple and explains so much of the world's charactor". And you also persist the search for hidden variable for bells inequality. I share these general deductions with you.

I'll write you again once I've built my ubderstanding of your work. But in the mean time I rate your essay a 10.

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundemental Origin

report post as inappropriate

Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 07:28 GMT

Peter

Your essay is no minor piece. Infact surviving review, it would prove a ground-breaking work. My only reservation is to acknowledge my limited ability to qualify such a work.

I’m glad we share some general points of view, that science might be restored to a semblance of realism. That an imaginative leap might link QM and relativity, and that “time” is an important, if...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 11:15 GMT

Peter

What I have discribed might sound foreign to your theme on first account. But what it might do is fill in another piece of the puzzle. You have discribed an object that can express the various positions that decode bells inaquality. But discribing positions can only be part of the story, because there must be a process ocuring, a mechanism, an interaction between the quantum object and the detector.

It's going to be a forceful interaction, because what other type of physical interaction is there in the world? Force and resistance to force.

The pole in a gravitational field is only comparable to the simplest quantum object, a photon. The priciple becomes a more complex range of considerations when comparing to massive particles which you have modeled with a sphere. But it remains a consideration of force given, and an objects resistance to that force at verious angles

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 17:03 GMT

Steve,

Answered below. There is definitely no increase in 'weight' as the pole is leant over. It weights the same (vertcal vector) whatever angle it's at and however it's held.

If held at an end there IS a tortional force, which does NOT affect weight. Then; Yes, the tortional force (orthoganal vector) changes with angle by it's cosine, which yes, IS interesting. Pythagoras actually first found it but didn't apply it to rotation.

In the leaning motor cycle case you can have the person holding it at weight zero and the total weight would still be the same at any angle!

Very best

Peter

show all replies (1 not shown)

Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 02:22 GMT

Peter

Thanks for following up on that discussion. I couldn’t determine if you were recognizing that which I referred too. Telling me that the poles weight is an overall constant was irrelevant to my point. But yes, you do understand me now. The transition of weight for the top end of the pole, as it is leaned over. You refer to as torque.

I am not familiar with how this...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

Peter Jackson

See my comments above

John-Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate

Peter

You are a visitor for long time of Fqxi website, with interesting ideas.

Your essay is a good essay, but with honesty and frankness, I don’t read the fundamental idea.

I chose to give only high votes in these contest, so that a my non-votes for your essay is better of a downgrading.

Ragards

Domenico

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 12:32 GMT

Hi Domenico,

Thanks for looking. The fundamental requirement for all and any matter is identified as 'motion' which is a relative concept. Motion then requires some entity, some time period and a background. Without those there can be no matter and no universe at all! Condensed matter (fermion pairs) is then the simplest spherical rotation.

I thought I'd got that across in stating it, but then went on to derive how unbelievably powerful that simplest action could be, the mechanism classically reproducing QM, so removing weirdness!

I'm disappointed but not surprised so few even seem to understand the stupidities of QM and need to resolve them. Ce la vie. Perhaps the solution (Penrose called the 'holy grail) will be lost in space!

Very Best

Peter

Peter,

WOW! That's INCREDIBLE. I've just read it a third time after brushing up my QM for the last fortnight... and it really works!. That's 90 years of stupidity we can escape from. Well done you! And truly from the most fundamentally simple action in physics.

I've also read your previous papers and see how it allows unification with a slightly less flawed...

view entire post

Peter,

WOW! That's INCREDIBLE. I've just read it a third time after brushing up my QM for the last fortnight... and it really works!. That's 90 years of stupidity we can escape from. Well done you! And truly from the most fundamentally simple action in physics.

I've also read your previous papers and see how it allows unification with a slightly less flawed interpretation of the Special Theory of Relativity. You may rtecall a few years ago my essay included the Cluster Probe data analysis which matched your own.

I also read Traill's essay (or rather computer generated proof and graph), and gather you're now collaborating on the astonishing finding.I didn't notice your end note experiment explanation the first time. That's important as its cheap and easy to reproduce. Finding the last peice of the puzzle, the squaring of amplitude to get Intensity, was truly inspired! and again so simple!!

I want to track down the rest of the solutions to the bizarre quantum explanations for things. I think I've seen most in your other work and the video's (the long one needs updating by the way!) but how do you explain short range tomography?

The down side is the dimwitted among physicists either don't understand QM well enough, or as you wrote, are so convinced the world is weird they won't be able to accept a classic solution can exist, even though Bell insisted it did. Best of luck there! Anyway thats a 20 from me! (if I could) I see someone mentioned it being worth a Nobel in the discussions, that's certainly correct, if you live long enough!

I hope you'll read my own essay, a bit more philosophical but I think you'll agree with it. Do tell me if not.

Thaks, I'm truly uplifted, at last! I'm sure you were even more so when if fianlly came together. Most just SAY we need new thinking and new physics but don't seem to mean it and do the necessary, so just hollow talk. Now we'll see if they DO mean it!.

All the very best for the scoring & judging.

Richard

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 13:20 GMT

Richard,

I'm relieved a few understand QM without blind 'belief' in weirdness, so can see and understand the solution when presented. But is is far to few! I've read your own excellent & perceptive essay and commented. I think you'll find Declan Traill, Gordon Watson and Sue Lingo among others worth reading.

I think 'dimwitted' may be harsh of most in academia, but do agree the...

view entire post

Richard,

I'm relieved a few understand QM without blind 'belief' in weirdness, so can see and understand the solution when presented. But is is far to few! I've read your own excellent & perceptive essay and commented. I think you'll find Declan Traill, Gordon Watson and Sue Lingo among others worth reading.

I think 'dimwitted' may be harsh of most in academia, but do agree the approach of many is poor and they all have a responsibility most are not meeting. But that's merely the state of our intellectual evolution. My last essay identifies the strength of 'Cognitive Dissonance'; i.e. they may SAY new physics is needed but when encountering something that works better, they reject it a priori as it's to unfamiliar. I'd just like some help & support from someone who DOES want some kudos!

Most have careers invested in the old stuff they regurgitate year on year so fear the thought of throwing it away. Indeed I discussed recently that the whole profession has 'fear' based culture which is mainly what prevents advancement (and just 'maths based' being much of the rest!).

We may eventually evolve to intelligent beings, though yes, the jury's still out! Though true it's a massive leap I don't think there's the slightest chance I'll be going up for a Nobel! I don't do research for that, wouldn't want to and am 67 so will likely be long gone before the paradigm change!

But thank you for your kind words, inspiring you is an inspiration to me to keep fighting through the (Popper) mud.

And yes, I do recall your excellent essay invoking the Cluster results which, like the WMAP, COBE and Planck findings, are still now not interpretable due to the flawed theory used to try to do so - yet they wont try anything else!

Bless em!.

Lastly; Yes tomography has helped screen to solution. It's 'entanglement' effects only work locally so seems to be a field effect then using QM to misinterpret it as similar to the long range statistical case. It's mechanistic sequence is explainable ontologicaly in the same way as in my essay, just one more level of complexity beyond where most brains have reached. In a way this is a test of the Academic community, which so far most have failed.

Best of luck in the contest

Peter

view post as summary

My comment to Peter Jackson in reply to his comment to me on my paper’s page on Feb. 5, 2018

Dear Peter,

Thank you for the positive comment on the essay and hypothesis and the comments on language and communication. I do have a tendency to transfer the information without always including all of man’s language structures in the written form because they are not included in the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 11:57 GMT

Paul,

Wow to that to! Much agreement, but I'll just focus on your questions.

1. The 'We' isn't quite the 'Royal' we. I've worked with other specialists on various aspects of the discrete field model (DFM) first described here in 2011 removing some of the nonsense interpretations surrounding SR (postulates are fine) to resolve the 'ecliptic plane/stellar aberration' issue and many...

view entire post

Paul,

Wow to that to! Much agreement, but I'll just focus on your questions.

1. The 'We' isn't quite the 'Royal' we. I've worked with other specialists on various aspects of the discrete field model (DFM) first described here in 2011 removing some of the nonsense interpretations surrounding SR (postulates are fine) to resolve the 'ecliptic plane/stellar aberration' issue and many more. Classic QM was a severe test, which it's nicely passed, now with computer code support from Declan Traill.

2. Yes, it's all about motions within motions. Twin vorteces without a 'surface' (i.e. water) can be seen at wingtips etc. and often produce toroidal dynamics, as a galaxy and its active nucleus AGN ('Black Hole' in ancient theory!) However all galaxy discs rotate within an oblate spheroid. Earths EM field on the other hand it toroidal! Obtaining QM output from complex toroidal spin proved tricky but wasn't needed!

3. how come we don’t see new fermions popping up everywhere, since motions are moving around all over the place? Look hard, because WE DO! It's fine structure surface electrons, also 'surface charge' increasing with motion, the Unruh Effect, the Coma of ALL bodies moving in space and Earths Bow Shock. Just look at the heat as they reach max plasma density 10^22/mm at the shuttle nose on re-entry! We've known of 'pair production' for 100+years. Also see earlier essays. And of "Fermion pairs DO ‘pop up’ from a sub-quantum condensate (motion induces pressure changes).” Is the sub-quantum condensate the same thing as the fluid that you mention earlier..? Yes. And it's by the Higgs process.

4. In a field all local fermions will have the same axis, so N near S, yet in their case like poles don't 'attract' but keep a quite even 'lattice type' distribution! There's something we don't know, and with know known 'bottom' to scale below 'matter' maybe your '5th dimension' direction has validity. But yes, stars DO of course explode, then the torus re-forms! Google the HST Crab Nebula core shots.

But someone/something must have 'moved' in the first place many cycles ago!

I hope that's the main ones but comment or ask on.. Great to find someone who connects and asks.

Very best

Peter

view post as summary

Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 20:29 GMT

Dear Peter,

1. I guess then that you really aren’t the Pope or the king of the world as I thought you were. That is such a disappointment. I was thinking that you might have the power to open up diplomatic relations with my world. That was a Si-Fi moment. At least as far as you know. It looks like you are very concerned about making your work compatible with relativity and quantum...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 28, 2018 @ 13:23 GMT

My comment to Peter Jackson in response to his comment to me on my paper’s page on Feb. 24,2018

Dear Peter,

Thanks for the good rating. I got up to 5.3 for about a day. It then went down to 4.4 which is .1 less than it was before you gave me the good rating. The same thing happened last year. Like I have noticed in comments by others, there was no comment associated with the...

view entire post

My comment to Peter Jackson in response to his comment to me on my paper’s page on Feb. 24,2018

Dear Peter,

Thanks for the good rating. I got up to 5.3 for about a day. It then went down to 4.4 which is .1 less than it was before you gave me the good rating. The same thing happened last year. Like I have noticed in comments by others, there was no comment associated with the point downgrade. Since I am giving out information that is well beyond the current ability of man in this world to accept, believe, or understand fully, and it would require a lot of work on man’s part to confirm that the information I am giving is true and in the process many currently believed concepts would be proven to be in error, I do not expect to win any of the contests, so any who would try to work against me by giving me a low score are wasting their time because I will not win anyway and it is not my goal to win the contests, but just to help people here to advance adequately as is required by the proper time. I notice that whoever is giving out the low points must like you because you are now near the top of the heap. It is very unreasonable for anyone to waste a low score on me since even a 5.3 score would not get me anywhere in the contest anyway. It would seem like it could have been better used on someone higher up near the top. There could, however, be some other agenda at work, such as to try to minimize the number of people who see my work by making it appear to be of little value, to the scientific community because of the low score. It should make you wonder why anyone would go to such extremes to discredit the information that I am giving. It must make someone afraid for it to get out and possibly be believed. My job is just to get it out. I let the others play their games. It provides good structural social monitoring for those who look at such things and trace them back to their sources to provide future control information, etc. If I were to hazard a guess it would be that there are those in the secret scientific community who would like to receive the information, but would like to prevent it from acceptance by the public scientific community. It might be looked at as a form of damage control while at the same time getting what they want. All of these things are continually observed and evaluated by the one who gives me the information to give out and appropriate actions will be taken at the proper times. Luckily I don’t have to worry about all of that since I am only the messenger. I would wish you good luck, but it seems like you may not need it. Again, thanks for your attempt to help me.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Hi Peter, once again a very good essay, which I can say without completely agreeing on the premise of simplicity. For me, somewhat of a reductionist view only works from the macro level down to something more involved than molecules or chemistry if you will. Then things start getting increasingly difficult. If things got increasingly simple, we would have answers to all questions that can be answered by Physics. Increasing fundamentalness does not require being simpler.

As you know, my sandbox is Octonion Algebra and my opinion is the meaningful path from most fundamental is physical reality -> a subset of mathematics -> Algebraic structure. Octonion analysis is difficult enough to require use of symbolic algebra tools, and yet is more fundamental than and perhaps ruling out simpler associative algebras like tensor and spinor matrix like forms provide since these can’t duplicate what the generally non-associative Octonion Algebra can do. Then there is the unavoidable disturbance of what is experimentally being examined at the detailed level making things more difficult.

So being able to describe Physics to a barmaid, not thinking any barmaid. But I guess starting a conversation about curved space with a shapely one is an approach. It was their story it was all for science, and they are sticking to it!

Rick

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 14:13 GMT

Rick,

You're right,ish, Classic QM was trickier for barmaids than logical SR, but I've shown it possible with my rotating sphere. Viz; Get her to shut her eyes, spin it on a vertical axis, then;

1. Touch her finger on a pole and ask 'Is it going left or right?' (= 0)

2. Do so on the equator & ask 'Is that clockwise? or anticlockwise? (= 0)

3. Touch it on the N pole & ask 'Is it going clockwise or anti..? (=-1)

4. Touch it on the S pole & ask 'Is it going clockwise or anti..? (=+1)

5. Do so on the equator her side & ask 'Is it going left or right?' (=-1)

6. Same on the other side (or flip the poles) & ask 'left or right?'(=+1)

7. Finally at latitude 45supo & ask is it moving or rotating? (=both)

Now we KNOW the spin AND linear speed both change NON-linearly, by Cos latitude. Rotate the polar axis in any plane and that doesn't change. Three out of five barmaids understand.

Now ALSO tell them each sphere re-emits at 'c' with respect to itself whatever the original 'closing speed', and there are millions on the surface of a lens, and her understanding of SR allows complete unification with QM. There are a number of barmaids around who now understand that (more) logical analysis! Some were impressed enough to... well you'll need to use imagination.

Can you find logical or epistemological fault?

Very Best

Peter

Peter,

I certainly appreciate your motivation, eschewing the point-like assumption which introduces inconsistent singularities into theory. I also enjoyed the many historic quotes and comments.

Your choice to examine fermions, particularly electrons, first was astute. In fact the (tripartite) Band Theory also results in an electron geometry that resembles a sphere. [half of a sphere, see atch]

This just thrilled me! A colleague who recognizes the essential requirement of finitary particles, although...

without recognizing the Proofs available and then asserting 10 much higher-level Axioms. {I get by great with two theorems, thx}

Then the essay wanders far from fundamental issues in a discussion of light polarization ... hmmm

Anyway, apart from a traditional non-geometric extension in an attempt to include QCD, the insights were amusing and in at least one important way astute. I rated it quite highly

Thanks for writing... and any future common interest.

Wayne

attachments: Electron_geometry.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 12:28 GMT

Wayne,

Thanks for the support. The link to QED was just what someone pointed out about field depth not anything I 'attempted' to do. However your electron model attachment looks shockingly close to my own some years ago;fqXi finalit 2013-14 Do Bob and Alice have a future? (see the figs etc towards the end). However to remove the weirdness from QM just needs those colours to 'bleed into' each other rather then just 'switch'. Is that excluded in QED?

It seems you 'switched off' from the essay just when it opened up the ontology for a classical reproduction of QM predictions, as it headed off your own familiar path (indeed m MOST peoples paths!), so you missed the big finale! Do look again if you get a chance. It's consistent with Bell and this important paper, referred in Gordon Watson's consistent paper; Fröhner, F. H. (1998). “Missing link between probability theory and quantum mechanics: the Riesz-Fejér theorem.” Z. Naturforsch. 53a, 637-654.

Very best

Peter

Wayne R Lundberg replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 17:29 GMT

Dear Peter,

I don't quite follow what is meant by "However to remove the weirdness from QM {one} just needs those colours {gotta love that British spelling ;} to 'bleed into' each other rather then just 'switch'. Is that excluded in QED?"

The colors are the partitioned ~string-theoretic basis for well-known QCD color local gauge fields. There is no reason to 'bleed' but rather 'average out' their effects over weak and higher scales. Thus the cardinal importance of the mathematical operator "|" [i.e. |planck is inaccessible to colliders, |strong indirectly detectable, and the traditional use of |H> becomes (*)|H>|weak ].

The electron representation geometry image has (c) 1992, so it is with welcome arms that I find a fellow traveller on this austere path.

I am familiar with the ontology and didn't find that finale added much to the veracity of the idea. For my part, I take the massive oscillating neutrino as evidence of 'new' physics, since it clearly was NOT considered SM when I first published on the subject. Your illustrated discussion was interesting, yes, but a path to new fundamental insight?

Wayne

report post as inappropriate

Hi Peter...

In that theory is "formulation of apparent relationships or principles of specified observed phenomena...and knowledge of it's principles and methods"~ Webster

If formulation of relationships requires a Spatial measurement, then a minimum unit of Spatial measurement is fundamental to the theory... i.e. a theory is fundamental only in that it places constraints on formulation.

Even from the "the lower reductionist limit of 'condensed matter' " if not constrained in one's formulation, motion, "the apparently most ridiculously simple of concept", can be easily reduced by analysis of the requirements for perception of motion... i.e. some minimum unit of Spatial differentiation.

I agree "much theory is beyond observable" and thus "we principally constrain ourselves to the testable realm and scale of condensed matter".

Might I add, that 'foundational interpretations' of Quantum Physics... e.g. "'Many Worlds' or 'Pilot Waves'"... that have not verified fundamental units of measurement utilized in theoretical formulation of the fundamentals underlying "testable realm and scale" of specified observed phenomena, should not be accepted as constraints on one's cognitive processes.

Keep digging!!!

Peter, I cheer your tenacious investigation of constraints, and your willingness to acknowledge that "more fundamental" concepts may be required to resolve the "Limits of Understanding" that currently constrain the human species... and will rate your essay accordingly.

Sue Lingo

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

report post as inappropriate

Peter,Hi

In good agreement with your assumption on an existence of simpler - than -assumed - fundamentalness, I investigated universal Homochirality in number theory and beyond - Please,see my Fundamentalness of Homochirality.

Thank you for essay

Michael A.Popov

report post as inappropriate

Hi Peter

I wonder if you might comment on the following observation please?

A pole or rod standing in a gravitational field, weighed as it is incrementally laid over, beginning at 90 degrees from ground, and concluded at 0 degrees. Are you aware that the transitional weight profile matches the same curve given by Quantum Mechanical probability, a photon at the same angle passing or stopped by a polarization filter? This is observation, not theory!

May I ask for your comment towards this please?

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 02:47 GMT

Peter

We understand why a pole behaves as it does. In short simple terms, it is to do with balance, force and leverage of that force at various angles. I've had plenty of time to consider this in respect of photon QM probability, and there is an interesting interpretation.

Why science hasnt made note of this simple observation?

Looking to nature for inspiration clues and answers seams out of vogue in this scientific era. Health sciences are largely devout to synthetic compounds and seams intent on having little or no association with natural remedy. Infact it seams they scorn natural. Physics is largely devout to synthetic math, which is becoming increasingly distant from natural observation. Especially modern attempts toward progress. I might read a professional paper on quantum gravity, and it will be based entirely on synthetic terms, giving me no purchase on how their work relates to natures process, and natural observations. How science relates to nature is how I discern my understanding, how I orientate my inquiries. Good science doesnt divorce association with nature.

I judge your work well. My challenge I place here does not undermine what you have proposed, within circumstances you have proposed. Rather, it questions a circumstance your proposal doesn't extend solution for, only to suggest you need an additional consideration to what you have already established. You use a geometric sphere to decode Bells Inequality, which is useful while considering massive particles. I do not doubt. However photons display quantum probability also, and do you propose photons are spherical entities?

If you consider that quantum interactions are forces interacting with other forces, then the angle of interaction can conceivably introduce a leverage consideration. Much the same as a pole standing at various angles in a gravitational field. The way I see it this can compliment your work, not undermine it.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 10:03 GMT

Steve,

You didn't include a reference for the pole finding. It's essential to study the experiment. (Most would mark you down for citing with no citation).

I'd need some convincing about the 'leverage' solution. Placing the pole in a concrete base on some scales there would be no 'leverage' on the scales to explain a weight change (just subtract the block weight). There's a natural...

view entire post

Steve,

You didn't include a reference for the pole finding. It's essential to study the experiment. (Most would mark you down for citing with no citation).

I'd need some convincing about the 'leverage' solution. Placing the pole in a concrete base on some scales there would be no 'leverage' on the scales to explain a weight change (just subtract the block weight). There's a natural increase in gravitational mass as the centre of mass of the pole is lower, similar in ALL theories of gravity. That's a non-linear effect, under Newton it's the inverse square law. Now if the finding repeats in the concrete block case and is greater than the inverse square of the CofM height, THEN there WOULD be an anomaly! So we must look at the experiment.

Yes, and expanding Schrodinger light sphere (from an emission) is roughly spherical. But Huygens construction applies to interactions as photons spread and are only requantized at interactions, co-moving media can cause 'dents' and 'bulges' at the sphere ('causal') surface, and any point on the sphere surface itself (wavefront) has all 3 ('spherical') degrees of freedom so 3D motions.

My experiment and analysis are equally valid for a (nearly) 'Plane' wave front or an electron (or rather a fermion) which retains it's form in transit. So yes the Bayesian distribution applies to ALL phenomena, well beyond just light and particles! Note that though all that is consistent with specialist physics and findings not a lot is consistent with current theorists assumptions!

Have a quick look at Wiki quantum optics, phase change etc.as it shows the 'helical' path we know well, and from which you can find the implications of tiny rotations or delays. But you're right. Little of that has transferred to theorisation!

Also check this out; INVISIBILITY

We have to correctly identify cause, and rotation is the key. i.e. did you know a spinning disc weighs more than a stationary one?! In discrete dynamics matter IS spin so that's predicted, contrary to current doctrine.

Very best

Peter

view post as summary

Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 15:08 GMT

Peter

its early hours of the morning here so please forgive the brief reply. The pole observation and experiment is my own. so no points lost for failure to cite.

i think perhaps i havent explained it well though. i dont know why you have introduced a concrete block?

balance your pen upright on its end. then allow it to tilt incrementally to the table, while considering its increasing weight upon your finger. the weight transition is not linear. it charts the same curve as expressed by quantum probability from 90 - 0 degrees.

i you find something heaver than a pen, like a fence post of bigger the better, then the effect is pronounced enough to perceive intuitively. i can provide measured results tomorrow if you are interested?

steve

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (5 not shown)

Hi Peter:

Your conclusion - "... the apparently most ridiculously simple of concepts can

resolve & unite incomplete and incompatible theories." is vindicated by my paper -“What is Fundamental – Is C the Speed of Light”. that describes the fundamental physics of antigravity missing from the widely-accepted mainstream physics and cosmology theories resolving their current inconsistencies and paradoxes. The missing physics depicts a spontaneous relativistic mass creation/dilation photon model that explains the yet unknown dark energy, inner workings of quantum mechanics, and bridges the gaps among relativity and Maxwell’s theories. The model also provides field equations governing the spontaneous wave-particle complimentarity or mass-energy equivalence. The key significance or contribution of the proposed work is to enhance fundamental understanding of C, commonly known as the speed of light, and Cosmological Constant, commonly known as the dark energy.

The paper not only provides comparisons against existing empirical observations but also forwards testable predictions for future falsification of the proposed model.

I would like to invite you to read my paper and appreciate any feedback comments.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

report post as inappropriate

Hi Peter:

Thanks for your time and efforts in providing detailed analysis and comments on my paper. I appreciate it deeply.

I am not an expert in optics, plasma, plasmonics etc . Hence, I would try my best to respond to your questions in terms of relativistic formulations of the concerned phenomena:

1. Peter: “You seem to start with an assumption that photons are particles,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

My Dear Peter!

Thank you very much for your great opinion to my work.

And my opinion with my high support to your huge efforts to go to the truth I have exposed already in your page (1 of February) that maybe you just did not seen yet, (because you are overloaded!) It is not so important thing my dear, but important is that both of we are same thinkers (almost) and I always will happy to see your new works!

With my best wishes,

George

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 12:40 GMT

George (also on yours. ps I hadn't applied your score so will now)

Yes, I note you had posted and thanks for your support. I'd forgot I took yours with others away with me to read on a trip and left them & notes there. I hope to get them back soon.

Very best

Peter

Peter,

So close. Still too complicated. More fundamental still. The barmaid will still have some of the same roadblocks. Namely preconceived ideas. And “..if it was that simple...surely someone would have thought of that.” I have tried the barmaid theory more than once, no luck. What I mean is, they didn’t grasp the explanation. But you may have even less luck with the expert with their own idea and politically correct limitations etc.

Sherman

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 11:21 GMT

Sherman, (+posted on yours) -see also my fine structure 1/137 analysis there.

I agree. Physics is closed minded. So I try Feynmans method, start by explaining it to a child...

A spinning sphere works well if I'm there to explain it; child or in the bar. But let me try my fishbowl: Go down to the other end of the bar, shine a pulsed (1 sec) laser back at my fish bowl. The light slows...

view entire post

Sherman, (+posted on yours) -see also my fine structure 1/137 analysis there.

I agree. Physics is closed minded. So I try Feynmans method, start by explaining it to a child...

A spinning sphere works well if I'm there to explain it; child or in the bar. But let me try my fishbowl: Go down to the other end of the bar, shine a pulsed (1 sec) laser back at my fish bowl. The light slows to c/n glass then back to c/n air (or water or vacuum with some particles to light up) then c/n glass & back again. OK? I then slide the bowl at v down the bar & 'beam' to you (it won't fall off, I've practiced lots!)

DFM analysis; As SR's postulates, the light does c/n in the rest frame of the fish bowl k' until it exits into the background bar rest frame k, so is further delayed, by v while in the bowls inertial system. A webcam in the moving fish bowl records the pulses being encountered more frequently then 1 sec. due to the Doppler shift. The barmaids webcam half way down the bar records apparent c-v (and c+v when you slide it back) while in the bowl! However those are NOT local propagation speeds. Evidence from another frame only gives 'apparent' speed.

DOCTRINAL interpretation analysis; No 'preferred' background frame can exist so the camera lied because the fishbowl really shrunk or expanded without cracking, and 'time itself' dilated in the bowl.

Now 5 of 6 children and barmaids understand and chose the correct logical analysis, in line with all optical science. Why can't 90% of academic physicists overcome cognitive dissonance to also do so? I last year suggested (apart from fear etc) that it's just our state of intellectual evolution. Is that fair?

Classic QM was a test of the DFM, which it seems to have a passed. A tranche of more fundamental truths emerge, including cyclic cosmology, changing the 'Law of the Excluded Middle', Determinism etc, many in previous essays.

Links available. I'm sure you've found others as good or better, do pass me yours. We have a bit of a consortium to make all coherent. Prof Chandra Roych.. also wants to go that way. Are you interested?

If all else fails could we mass produce coffins and use Max Plancks solution?! lol

Very best.

view post as summary

Dear Peter,

Here we are again all together.

Thank you for the good evaluation of my work.

I like your description to. I enjoyed reading your contribution.

Аgree with Declan Andrew Traill «often correct explanations in Physics turn out to be ridiculously simple».

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 17:08 GMT

Vladimir,

Thank you. Overcoming cognitive dissonance in academia seems to be the key to advancing understanding. Our greatest achievements will remain modest until then.

I'm interested in your reply discerning cyclic lunar effects on our seas from the more distant 'waves' LIGO found.

Rarity of agreement shows mankinds strength of diversity, yet that we find is reward in itself.

Very Best

Peter

Dear Peter,

I have reread attentively your participation and liked your approach of “foundational”.

Some questions and remarks (if they are stupid to think of me as the barmaid...) between brackets is the page number.

.

(2)“a nominal 'bottom' in the Planck length. Any smaller scale condensate, continuum, Quantum foam (10−35), Coulomb/Casimir force field, 'zero...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 11:29 GMT

Wilhelmus,

Thank you kindly. I hope you enjoy your retirement.

I'm glad you understood the simplicity of the ontology, but you have the training to do so.

Feynman's admittance that decoding nature was "to difficult" at the time led to the interim "shut up and manipulate numbers". Many in academia can only now think in maths so maybe they've lost the ability to use rational logic.

It's then an interesting test. Chandra R is one of the few to show he still can but I'm still patiently waiting for most. Hopes are fading. It's the human condition!

Very best.

Peter

Hi Peter,

Happy to see your essay , I liked it , I am wishing you all the best,

ps :) they turn so they are :)

friendly

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 17:16 GMT

Steve,

Thanks, Great to hear from you.

I hope you and your spheres are well. I used them a lot!

On the spot! ('spot on')

Very best wishes

Peter

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 12:45 GMT

Hello Peter,

Thanks , it is nice.I am not well Pezter , my country destoys me , they are going to take my house now and I am going to be without job and home, Oh My God, what a world.I am lost and finished there.Are you on Facebook ? best regards

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 11:18 GMT

Steve,

Really sorry to hear that. I'd understood social security and state benefits in Belgium were good!? Are you receiving what you should?

If you know how to use the surface 4 inverse rotational momenta of a sphere (cos of latitude angle) to get a Lagrangian and arrive at a Hamiltonian for the mechanism in my paper, that would be very useful for a joint publication. Are your maths up to it?

I wish you the best.

Peter

show all replies (8 not shown)

MR. Jackson,

About your essay, i read and rated it. Further words are useless

"...think outside infinite sequences of boxes..." would you mind if we change some perspectives about "loop thinking"?

Silviu

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 17:13 GMT

Silviu

Thank you kindly.

Feedback loops were last years essay, but yes, crucial to learning, consciousness and tying all those boxes together!

Very best.

Peter

Peter Jackson,

Thanks for reading my Essay on Electron Spin and giving your views. I have read your Essay and regarding QM, Einstein was right when he did not agree with the EPR experiment conclusions and had said, “spooky action at a distance” cannot occur and that, “God does not play dice”. Please read Linear Polarization http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0174v5.pdf

Kamal

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 21:35 GMT

Kamal,

Thanks I had a look at your viXra paper. That's really good. Not quite complete or fully consistent with leading edge quantum optics / photonics but considering you're not apparently entirely familiar with those it's excellent.

The thing about a polariser is, in most cases it actually ROTATES the axis. It's actually a bit more complex as only a small phase shift (i.e. delay) will rotate it. (A simple start is to look up 'half wave plates' on Wiki). Your vector circle should really be a 3D Bloch sphere as spherical rotation has 3 degrees of freedom (axes). Your arrows do then not all represent the same 'time', as the morphology is helical, as I think your paper this year indicated.

A 45 degree rotation BY the polariser will then allow a significant proportion of the light through the final 'filter'. (filter is the wrong word and misleading)

A clear conclusion from top man Anton Zeilingers Vienna work is that "light has no memory of it's pre-polarization state" which is different. See their website. My own experiment is consistent with their data and conclusions though their analysis/interpretation wasn't complete so they missed the classic QM solution!

I'm sure your aware your graph plot isn't of the QM prediction & findings which is Cos^2 not Cos distribution (also as Malus' and Born's Laws). But excellent work.

Very Best

Peter

I forgot to rate it, sorry. now it's done

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

Thank you for the interesting question for all.

«Apart from obvious angular considerations; What is the difference between the variations in G potential from the moon at any one position on Earth?

And are not our seas excellent meters of such G fluctuations? (The tidal flows around the UK are largely moon dependent)».

If we consider the influence of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 17:59 GMT

Vladimir,

Thanks. Interesting. But as a level 1 racing yachtsman I have a logic and direct correspondence between ~13hr tidal periods, spring & neap tides, & sun and moon and can even predict adjustments for wind. I understand your description, which doesn't seem to conflict, i.e. more net gravity with no bodies overhead so less UP vector leaving more DOWN, giving a 180 degree major axis ellipse, but I'd like to understand why you find 'vector summing' doesn't work the same way after allowing for lag, flow momentum and angular influences, which can be major factors. However that wasn't what my question was about.

I'm interested in why & how the motions of larger bodies further away are assumed to be a different case to smaller closer bodies. In my own field a body of mass is a body of mass. All should have the same influence on the magnetosphere, however it's 'described'. Surely there aren't two different 'types' of gravity?

Sure it may be 'detectable' but I suspect they just haven't thought far enough out of the boxes and away from theory so have confirmation bias. i.e. there's no explicit proof of the 'curved space-time' hypothesis in the LIGO finding. Is that fair?

Very best

Peter

Peter,

Did you forget to rate my essay? I NEED your vote. I DID vote for you, even if I did not understand it all. Logical Foundation for physics has to be QG?

Ulla Mattfolk.

report post as inappropriate

Ulla Marianne Mattfolk replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 21:36 GMT

Thanks :)

I have had your file open the whole day...as also some other Days...

The sub-quantum' or root function is beginning to see light. It is the monopole as instance, as a bending loop, rotated. The most surprising (or not surprising at all?) is it is an solitonic expansive state. What cause the expansion? Maybe just the vanishing complexity? It must go into i-World, as I don't...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 12:23 GMT

Ulla,

Not found Sari yet, but others, and also the 'Poincare Sphere' "complex superposition of two orthogonal polarisation states". So there all along!

https://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=1107006341

Did you see my last years finalist essay? The two figs explain it simply.

(PLUS the cognative dissonance most accredited physicis can't seem to overcome so halting any advancement!, and do look at & comment on my feedback loop/ quantum switch cognition derivation.)

very best

Peter

PJ

You have offered a rich set of ideas regarding fundamental concepts. Motion is basic and three dimensional space is filled by rotation. There are particles that have intrinsic spin but also some with zero intrinsic spin. Compared to linear motion, rotation needs higher spatial dimensions and thus offers a larger set to help explain phenomena. I may disagree with your conclusions but commend your effort in seeking that which is most fundamental in nature.

JK

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 17:25 GMT

John, . (.. copied from your string)

Thanks for your nice comments on mine. As my conclusions were a logical consequence of the classical reproduction of the Cos[su]2 curve can you identify what you thought was missing from the mechanism, or logically 'wrong' in the conclusions?

The finding is very important if correct, though I know varies a little from your prior views, but I suspect I may not have described the ontological sequence in a way to allow it to be kept all in mind at once.

If not I need to identify any error you saw.

Many thanks

Peter

John Rider Klauder replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 20:30 GMT

PJ

At your request I offer one questionable statement you make. You write

The Dirac electrons 4 spinors are equivalent to Maxwell's linear & curl states handed, inverse with each other over 90o and reversing over 180o.

I do not agree with that statement if I understand its intention The 4 elements of Dirac refer to two separate particles (the electron and the positron with different charges) and two polarization’s or spin orientations that each particle enjoys. The connection of 4 aspects of Maxwell EM refer to a different set of properties. Both systems have 4 elements but I find the assumption that they are related by that fact is a stretch.

JK

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 10:45 GMT

John,

I really appreciate your reply. I agree, in fact more than 'a stretch'! such a "new way of seeing things will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us. In any case it seems that the quantum mechanical description will be superseded." JB p.27.

It followed from Majorana, (e it's own antiparticle) also; "..a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal." p.172.

We know the underside of Maxwell's left hand has opposite (right) polar spin. My table top experiment, (photo's in text, protocol in end notes) confirmed the two inverse orthogonal momenta pairs with Cos theta (latitude) distribution for EACH particle!!, that's for ALL spheres at ALL radii (so 'through coloured').

I also thought Diracs handing must be 2 particles but he's only describing ONE each time then correlating so that fails logically! A,B have one each. Lets split a sphere spinning on any axis and send half each way, each still has BOTH poles. A,B polariser electrons are the same & can be flipped independently. So B reverses his dial & 'opposite' becomes 'same'!

Not detects are explained by the phase difference at measurement angles. The solution hits the steering violation to close the detection loophole (as Traills essay). Born's (Malus') 'law' also then emerges with the second nonlinear Cos momentum transfer at the photomultiplier field. The statistics then don't represent what Bohr & statisticians assume. (Prof. Phillips Bell curve essay helps explain).

Of course ANY classical way to reproduce CHSH >2 was though impossible so needs checking out. It's a small collaboration but the problem is no top PR journal will overcome cognitive dissonance and accept it without a more authoritative figure such as yourself involved -??

Very Best

Peter

show all replies (1 not shown)

Thanks for the encouragement -- yes that is the way to do it Peter -- Shockingly (neither of us seem to mind shocks) I falsify Cartesian 'wire frames' and substitute planes forming enclosures, which seems to fit your schema. Each plane is a near/far field transition (or LT).

Yes planes (or 2-D areas) that are enclosed is the ticket -- that is the basic idea.

I'm writing up the technical version (Thanks to Armin and Edwin for their input) which is all maths -- which has whole heaps of diagrams to help people work out what a S sedenion in abstract algebra is, the sedenions form a 16-dimensional noncommutative and nonassociative algebra over the reals, I actually draw a S as an enclosed area and then I can draw O Octonians and then H quaternions (8-D) and then C then R then N all as areas. Which is what are you saying in the above quote.

Each plane is a near/far field transition that is shown in the diagrams as well. Thanks for the email address when it is ready I will send you a copy Yours Harri.

I will send it off and I will look over your links to other essays. Harri -- go the new revolution

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

reading your essay, I appreciate your idiosyncratic efforts to come up with "ridiculously simple" concepts that explain and unite a number of phenomena in different fields of physics.

But I have trouble to see what your main idea, or main claim, really is. You are listing many detailed facts in several different fields of physics, but it would have helped to build these into a more coherent message or conclusion. For example, you mention 10 axioms on page 4, but you never refer to them later.

Also, I wasn't sure how to interpret your QM section. Are you claiming there to give a local realist model of a singlet state? We know due to Bell that this is impossible. What is the point that you are trying to make with your explanations in these two paragraphs?

Thanks, and best wishes,

Markus

report post as inappropriate

Peter,

You asked: ...(copied to mine)

«I'm interested in why & how the motions of larger bodies further away are assumed to be a different case to smaller closer bodies».

«Surely there aren't two different 'types' of gravity?».

Answer: «there are no two types of gravity».

There is the only remote mechanism in the Universe for forming the force of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Markus, Thanks,

The main finding, yes is an "astonishing"! classical QM. Despite beliefs John Bell did NOT show "a local realist model of a singlet state" is impossible! He showed some assumption was wrong, which I identify as JUST 'up/down spin'. Let's listen more carefully to him;

"..in my opinion the founding fathers were in fact...

view entire post

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 20:15 GMT

Pete,

you are a yachtsman. Your running rigging is laid with a right hand twist of left handed strands. Your sheets are laid left handed of right hand strands, because most people are right handed and will spool a line onto a winch clockwise, and so a left handed lay tails off the winch in fair manner. But both lays are counter-torsional and intended since Xerxes' bridge engineers, to reduce stretch and prevent the strands from untwisting and the fibers from then pulling apart.

So until physicists can agree on a realistic model of what a *photon* IS, a singlet state is an imaginary numerical playmate.

Worm and parcel

with the lay.

Turn and serve

the other way.

Best jrc

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 20:45 GMT

jc,

Check out the Poincare Sphere electron model, the 'singlet is really a doublet!

https://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=1107006341

"...represents the complex superposition of two orthogonal polarisation states. Right- and left-circular polarisation ... (a) (b) —TC (C) 1 it I0'p> I intensity I."

My standing is rod and my running is braided, so are my sheets, thus we coil them unaided! But though I'm pretty old my memory's not faded.

So I exactly what you mean, yes, and we spooled with a figure 8.

I raced across the channel with some Delft students in Sept, explaining the reason we were doing 7.2 knots in 4.8 knots of true wind, using SR in a strong current with 3 'background' rest frames! They struggled as they'd learnt there can't be any! Not only did we win we ended up the only ones to finish!

(see attached)

Very best

Peter

attachments: Assassin_Calais_Aug_17_b.jpg

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 21:50 GMT

Thanks Pete.

Sounds like your channel run was a lot of fun. Congrats!

Yeh, I would flemmish my garden hose, before renting, for fast tangle free drawing. There is a lot of accumulated wisdom in preindustrial arts. And when it comes to deduction of possible physical form at quantum level, I don't think we can discount macroscopic natural forms. I think with caution that we can find...

view entire post

Thanks Pete.

Sounds like your channel run was a lot of fun. Congrats!

Yeh, I would flemmish my garden hose, before renting, for fast tangle free drawing. There is a lot of accumulated wisdom in preindustrial arts. And when it comes to deduction of possible physical form at quantum level, I don't think we can discount macroscopic natural forms. I think with caution that we can find transcendence of scale by shapes. I once built a scale model of an architectural design which was a stack of octahedrons with the equilateral face of one module on the horizontal so that the next module reversed the orientation of vertex. It goes 4pi, and gives a triple helix for both hand torsions. I often wonder if that isn't associated with magnetic equilibrium.

The definition of *photon* is so blasted ambiguous that there are very many who immediately say. "Is Not!" But we cannot even say that the Planck Quanta isn't really a composit value of work. If we take e=hf literally, then each photon is a single quanta waveform, and to register any measurable effect it must accumulate to a system value. So intensity becomes confused with rapidity and number. So hey, maybe a photon is really built up of quanta strands, twisted and laid up like a short piece of rope? I think when it comes to scales of macroscopic Bell-Aspect experiments, that might illustrate what we are dealing with. (It's a trick bulb, man! Keep your money off the bar!) Sorry, though. A couple pages to qualify each of 10 axioms is a bit much for my attention span.

But best of luck. I think it axiomatic myself, that for inertia to translate throughout a discrete energy quantity that some parameter must relate to the whole quantity of energy. And if that be density, than a small portion of the total energy existing at a constant density at a c^2 proportion to the total quantity, would quadraticly fit the bill. So a 'charge' quantity could have a center of inertia without having a greatest density that would be inelastic, as would a subluminal particle, if the quantity of energy was small enough. It would still be dense enough to react to magnetic fields orthogonally, and would be less resistant to length contraction and thus more easily accelerated towards c by inductance reactance. So your helical rationales would not lack an inertial center. Best wishes, jrc

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Hi Peter,

This is one of the more readable and better-argued "there is no such thing as entanglement" papers I've seen, so that’s a plus.

You have way too many ideas for a full assessment, since I’d have to track down a lot of your ideas, many of which are highly non-standard and so would take some time to learn.

I’ve already provided a quite long set of comments inspired by your notes on your essay, so I’ll leave it at that with the above link for anyone interested. You triggered quite a few discussion of related topics, too, so anyone interested in my view on some of these topics can find quite a bit of info on that too at the above link.

Also, I owe you a “thank you!” for inadvertently helping be find a John Bell quote that I had forgotten or skimmed over long ago. Bell’s intriguing take on this issue is highly relevant to my own computer modeling argument that you can have a distinguished-frame or even single-frame universe that nonetheless has exactly the same full and beautiful all-frames-are-equal symmetry of “standard” special relativity. Here’s the Bell quote, for whatever it’s worth:

Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics by John Bell, page 180: “As with relativity before Einstein, there is then a preferred frame in the formulation of the theory … but it is experimentally indistinguishable^20,21,22. It seems an eccentric way to make a world.”

Again, thanks for a genuinely intriguing read and argument, and for your generosity in encouraging other essayists!

Cheers,

Terry

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 10:40 GMT

Terry,

Of course I'm NOT saying "there is no such thing as entanglement" at all. I show an 'entangled' relationship of antiparallel polar axes reproduces QM predictions, and only then say "there is no such thing as spooky action at a distance" required!

The below is from your string;

Terry

Thanks for looking. You clearly have your own well established ideas,...

view entire post

Thanks for your comment in my essay.

I rated your's some time ago. After my input, your essay was first place (a 10).

See you next year.

Hodge

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 10:36 GMT

John,

Thanks, that didn't last long, a bunch of 1's sunk it. We really need a rule change!

I'm disappointed so few had the patience, knowledge or analytical power to follow the ontological sequence of the classical QM derivation. It's an indicator we need to work harder on presentation, but I suspect it comes from over reliance on just 'shut up and use your calculator' for so long, since Feynman said it's 'too hard' to work things out logically.

The trouble is that's all students are now taught. I hope this long 'lull' in theoretical advancement since then won't end up being permanent!

Keep well

Peter

Beg your pardon MR. Jackson

As you may know, this contest is almost finished, but I noticed (despite your nice words) that you didn't rate my essay. It is for a particular reason or you just forgot?

Respectfully,

Silviu

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 18:01 GMT

Silviu,

Started rating today, I was pleased yours lifted your score.

Peter

Peter Jackson,

Thank you for a great essay. You have obviously thought and explored the thoughts of others a great deal. It's too bad there isn't a suitable forum for exchanging thoughts such as these. It seems that most people go into self-promotion mode which does little to advance community thought.

You seem to be a listener. The community needs more of that balance. I need more of that balance as well. It is not easy to listen. Your evaluation of so many views demonstrates this.

Best wishes to you.

Richard Marker

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 18:06 GMT

Richard,

Thank you. Nice to agree, we learn all from input and zero from output.

Peter

Hi Peter

I enjoyed reading your essay, it gave me a lot of ideas how nature is functioning and I do agree that "Nature is weird, live with it".

I wish you best luck with your essay in this contest

Regards

Basil

report post as inappropriate

Hi Peter,

You are on to something with relative motion. I come at it with a bit of reverse philosophy. The speed of light does not have relative motion ....why? My answer is that perhaps all observers bring their own frame of reference with them and that is why we need observers (see pic on my essay of what dark matter looks like).

Thanks for visiting my blog. I came late to the contest and am attempting to catch up before the end.

Some thoughts and a queation:

1. Frodo can overcome dogma (gollum) and find the ring :)

2. Your conversation with Terry Bollinger was superb.

3. Thanks for helping to break the mould. Sorry, best pun for today.

4. Can you tell me in a sentence why spheres are "fundamental"?

Hope my vote helps your find the ring.

Thanks for a thought provoking essay.

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 21:00 GMT

Don,

I agree entirely with; "perhaps all observers bring their own frame of reference with them" (which is as my 2011- 2015 essays). Light goes through each lens at the same speed irregardless of the relative lens motions.

If spherical rotation didn't exist there would be no matter, no universe and no Frodo. Of course that's still not the bottom, but we may have many smaller scale rotations rotating at bigger radii. Each motion also MUST be discrete at each scale (Pauli/Boscovich exclusion) Is that fundamental?

Thanks for the score.

Peter

Dear Dr. Peter Jackson,

Thank you for your nice essay and stimulating ideas of reductionalism.

I really enjoyed it

With the best regards

Maxim Yu. Khlopov

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

A well-conceived essay. It deserves a good score.

Regards,

Branko

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter

Thank you for the comment, I will also comment yours soon after reading it

Best regards

Bashir.

report post as inappropriate

AS MOST STRUGGLE WITH THE CLASSICAL SEQUENCE (TO MUCH TO HOLD IN MIND ALL AT ONCE) A QUICK OUTLINE INTRO IS HERE;

1. Start with Poincare sphere OAM; with 2 orthogonal momenta pairs NOT 'singlets'.

2. Pairs have antiparalell axis (random shared y,z). (photon wavefront sim.)

3. Interact with identical (polariser electron) spheres rotatable by A,B.

4. Momentum exchange as actually proved, by Cos latitude at tan intersection.

5. Result 'SAME' or 'OPP' dir. Re-emit polarised with amplitude phase dependent.

6. Photomultiplier electrons give 2nd Cos distribution & 90o phase values.

7. The non detects are all below a threshold amplitude at either channel angle.

8. Statisticians then analyse using CORRECT assumptions about what's 'measured!

The numbers match CHSH>2 and steering inequality >1 As the matching computer code & plot in Declan Traill's short essay. All is Bell compliant as he didn't falsify the trick with reversible green/red socks (the TWO pairs of states).

After deriving it in last years figs I only discovered the Poincare sphere already existed thanks to Ulla M during this contest. I hope that helps introduce the ontology.

Peter

Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 11:59 GMT

Peter, from my thread:

Peter, how glad am I (as previously explained) that I got out early on this stuff! Some thoughts.

Maybe:

1. Sketch it like the Figure in Fröhner that I referred you to.

2. Importantly, sketch each of your beables and interactions on separate sheets of A3 paper; in time sequence: so that details are not lost when you make slides for online display. Supported by 3D models.

3. Recall that, in Aspect and EPRB, the Detector unit-vectors a and b are in 3-space; not necessarily orthogonal to the line of flight.

4. Purely hemispherical or sgn models do not work.

5. Get familiar with the FEW QM models that deal with polarizing particle-field interactions.

6. NB: Understand the BB dynamics via GA and my vector-product approach.

7. Convert your coded scribbles (above) to complete sentences, with all abbreviations defined at the start.

8. Then, please, tell me again what your goal is.

8. Sorry if it looks like I'm saying, "LOOK; over there", as I sneak out .. .. .. ..

Good on you, hang in there, +++, and all the best; it's way past my bedtime; Gordon

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 22:49 GMT

Gordon,

Thanks. So many in the community who SHOULD follow the ontology don't seem able or bothered it's a bit of a disgrace. John Bell view of that current acceptance of the nonsense of QM was that "professional physicists really out to be able to do better". Seems he may have been right.

I appreciate your points;

1. Froher was incomplete, figs ok, I know what you mean, but I think the coloured versions in my previous papers & essays i.e. 2014 Essay; Do Bob & Alice.. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2104 should be clearer.

3. & 4. yes, 5. Got any links?

6. I agree the vector product approach.

7. Yes, a fuller sequence 'checklist' will accompany the figure/s. I also neglected to include the key 'elliptical polarity' matter.

The initial goal is to get the paper published in a high index PR journal. I understand you don't like collaboration hope you can assist and agree an algorithm with Declan.

Very best.

Peter

Peter Jackson

I really enjoyed reading your essay, and also rated it to highest.

On the other hand, I feel sorry of the the gap between human understading and the effort to approach simplicity by overcoming the difficulties of complexity.

In other word, to reveal simplicity of fundamental physical theory by thinking deeply with the Nature's puzzling and related effects is...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 22:31 GMT

Bashir,

Thanks. I agree, recent habits of 'interpretation without ontology' along with reliance on the calculator not our brains will be fatal if allowed to prevail.

Very best

Peter

Hi Peter,

After the poll closes, on my essay page, I will post a somewhat detailed/lengthy/hard to read response to your inquiry as to whether a "falsified Cartesian" "boxes within a boxes" configuration would resolve the issue I have with the Cartesian coordinate system's inability to resolve closure of a point Source Volumetric Singularity in a manner that inherently defines the unified/uniform geometry of a minimum unit of Space (QI).

Hopefully individual essay pages are maintained until the contest is concluded in May, and you will pay me a virtual visit when essay reviews are no longer prioritized by rating deadline.

REF: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3000

I must admit I get entangled in reviewing each essay I read, and have not read as many as I would have liked to, but am unwilling to rate what I have not reviewed, and it is now time to go to the poll.

Expect a 10 bump on your essay in a few minutes, and may qualified "reductionism" take the "What is fundamental" contest field.

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

report post as inappropriate

Whoops!!

I actually bumped your essay rating yesterday, got logged out, then nterrupted, and forgot to edit the above before I posted it today.

Good luck in the final moments of the essay open poll!!!

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 22:54 GMT

Thanks Sue. Appreciate the support from the limited number who understand the concepts and ontological sequence. I look forward to the '3D spaces' analysis. Did you see the consistent Einstein & Minkowski quotes? Rated your max a while ago. Hope you get in as a finalist.

P

Sue Lingo replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 20:04 GMT

Hi Peter...

If the essay, as a finalist, would come across Gregory Chaitin's view, it might provide momentum for qualified reductionism.

Gregory Chaitin was one of the other 4 panelist of the World Science Festival "Limits of Understanding", and if I read his body language correctly, he was dismayed at Mario Livio's pronouncement that "... we can not know what is fundamental.".

In any case, may this contest clearly differentiate qualified reductionism from Don Palmer's, and others' expressed view of "pure reductionism".

sl

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

An interesting essay with some evidence in support. I had to read this twice and then read some of the posts in order to gain a better understanding of it.

As I am not a proponent of reductionism, a couple comments:

* What if the answer to the recursion of reductionism is to consider the whole continuum that the recursion continues to move through? In this case...

view entire post

Dear Peter,

An interesting essay with some evidence in support. I had to read this twice and then read some of the posts in order to gain a better understanding of it.

As I am not a proponent of reductionism, a couple comments:

* What if the answer to the recursion of reductionism is to consider the whole continuum that the recursion continues to move through? In this case it is scale. What if reality is a whole and all levels of scale need to be considered as connected - which would mean recognizing an additional direction to reality (that of crossing scale)? Rather than limit the understanding of reality to what physicists currently study, what if we need to consider the continuum of scale across which nearly all disciplines of science work - connecting then all along this continuum?

* A sphere is a geometrically scale independent shape. What you mention for spinning particles, on a very small level, applies to a sphere at any scale. We do not experience reality as working on only one scale (eg. that of particles) and so what needs to be considered is if a sun is spinning in a galaxy, which has a planet spinning around it, which is itself spinning, and on its surface (will it matter at what latitude or longitude?) is a boy spinning a globe, which has spinning particles in it. If pure reductionism is correct, then all we need to consider is the actions at the scale of the particles. I do not see any way or any explanation that all the other motions (at larger scales) will not have an impact upon those spinning particles that make of the globe. We have no theory that can explain these actions across scale and I very much doubt any explanation that only starts from the smallest particles will be able to account for (as in casually explain) such actions at much larger scales. I believe this is a requirement for any 'theory of everything' or fundamental theory.

So I will suggest that the reductionist program so limits any concept of reality to one scale or another that it exempts much of what we experience (and other scientific disciplines study) as being part of reality. The program is, therefore, doomed to fail.

Any fundamental theory of reality must explain the inter-relationships across the vast expanse of scale we have discovered over the course of the last few hundred years. And I do not see where any theory that limits itself to one scale (or even a couple near-by scales) can possibly succeed or be called 'fundamental'.

Don

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 20:24 GMT

Don,

You may be surprised but I agree entirely. If you read my other work you'll see how and why. (including in past essays scored 1st & second) So yes, the spherical momenta distribution is at ALL scales, indeed it's proof comes from geophysics as well as Poincares sphere. I also discuss what the rotation is 'made of' which can only be smaller rotations! My thought process is then 'scale invariant'.

I've also published on a cyclic evolution mechanism that includes galaxies as the mid/upper scale of a continuous fractal structure. www.academia.edu/6655261/A_CYCLIC_MODEL_OF_GALAXY_EVOLUTION_
WITH_BARS See also my 'Law of the Reducing Middle' rationalising that 'fractal' recursion.

I'm now scoring, so no more time to discuss details now but expect a boost.

Very best

Peter

Many thanks Dear Peter!

And I am very agree with you about of Declan's work that was really impressive for me. That is nice we are not alone in our efforts to understand where is the main root!

Be well, my dear and succeseful in this contest as you doing really a huge work!

Sincerely,

George

report post as inappropriate

Hello Peter,

As an expat in the US, it was a pleasure for me to read a paper written by somebody who cares about English grammar.

Your introduction draws the reader’s attention immediately to the fundamental question, ‘What IS “Fundamental”?’ in the singular, distinguished from ‘What ARE “Fundamental”?’

But before we can confidently identify THE...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your essay! That was a wild ride full of so many ideas. It will take some time for them to settle in my mind. I will definitely have to revisit this essay.

I liked your statement "Deep familiarity with complex

(if incomplete or flawed) theory may then dissuade many from adopting new unfamiliar concepts, even, or particularly, if ridiculously simple! "

One of my favorite quotes (anon) is "familiarity breeds the illusion of understanding." This is even true in the case of familiarity with incomplete or flawed theories. It is a dangerous business!

Thank you again,

Kevin Knuth

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 13:07 GMT

Kevin,

I greatly value your unencumbered (with beliefs) thoughts. To recognise we're all 'heavily biased' goes far to overcome the cognitive dissonance plaguing advancement. Is dogma wrong? Yes! Is doctrine? most likely! All building needs foundations but the moment we forget they're provisional we're in a fatal rut.

So to the model; 3yrs since showing Dr B's Red/Green Sock Trick 'Classic QM' works! It's overly compressed in this 100 second video but at least it's some pictures to help frame a new mental model. You should also go through the 8 point quick mechanism checklist a dozen posts up (though missing detail like elliptical polarity at the Pm channels etc).

Did you see Declan Traill's supporting code & plot yet? You also need to refresh on the discrete field dynamics you've liked previously for which classic QM was just a falsification exercise. (It has vague links with your own 'causal sets' approach).

But it needs all the help it can get to penetrate the dogma/doctrine! We have some, and once you've worked it through and overcome the trauma I hope you may collaborate. Are you familiar with Froher by the way? Gordon Watson is also on the right lines and includes a link.

My respect for you was high has just increased, as has my score of your essay I dare say. Is that right? Well just a bit!

Very best. Look forward to your questions and chatting more.

Peter

Dear Peter,

Thank you for the interesting question for all.

«Apart from obvious angular considerations; What is the difference between the variations in G potential from the moon at any one position on Earth?

And are not our seas excellent meters of such G fluctuations? (The tidal flows around the UK are largely moon dependent)».

If we consider the influence of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Peter,

Finally getting to your essay, going item by item and numbering

1. reductionism - final paragraph caught my eye, agree both with qualities you suggest 'most fundamental' should possess, and with your emphasis upon relative motion. I think here we find perhaps the deepest connection between our models, as that which Michaele and I present is based upon an epistemologically...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Peter,

darn. just got another of those anonymous 1 ratings, drove Michaele and I from 7.1 to 6.7. Agree moderators need to take those behaviors into consideration. Reading their rating guidelines to contributors, my guess is they already do in their final selections of which essays go to the referees, adjust their perceptions regarding justified ratings accompanied by comments and penalize the backstabbers as well. Simple software to catch the outliers, tag the perps. Tho it doesn't compensate for the fact that higher rated essays get more attention.

Would help to have a more sophisticated fqxi search interface imo.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 15:05 GMT

Peter,

Just lost the will to live. Spent an hour answering your questions and lost the post!

Most answers, i.e. always LOCAL backgrounds but no 'absolute' one, are clear, consistent and in my prev essays from 2011 and/or archived here; Academia.edu, plus see also This 100 sec video glimpse inc all non-integer spins from 3 axis rotations.

Then come back with probably a better ideal greatly reduced list.

Just checked and I have yours down for a top score, not yet applied, so will do now. Hope you wish to do similar.

Very best

Peter

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 16:03 GMT

Peter,

Shame you seemed to drop away at the end. Answers to your questions on my post.

1. "How does your understanding of relative motion relate to the concept of background independence?" Not needed, always a LOCAL background, one of an infinite heirerchy. The LT is at Maxwells 'REAL' near far field 2 fluid plasma TZ, subject to J D Jackson/ Ewald-Oseen extinction...

view entire post

Hello again Peter,

Thanks for your generous ranking.

In tune with the comments above by Peter Cameron, the last day for the acceptance of Posts is full of mischief; a bit of a 'downer' you might say.

Perhaps after all, relatively speaking, 'reductionism' is the name of the end game!

I presume that this is not a rude awakening for the FQXi sponsors and that Peter C's 'guess' is correct. I am taking this to be so and rewarding him with my top ranking, not that he didn't earn it in his own 'write' anyway.

You carry my best wishes, Peter. Just remember that it is the process rather than the goal that 'counts'. I still expect to see your name on the final list.

Cheers,

Gary

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

Thanks a lot for assessing my Essay The Mysterious “Fundamental” https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2998. I feel honoured. I have gone through your essay twice and given it the best rating. I am amazed by the in-depth knowledge contained in it. However, I found it quite concentrated- this may have something to do with my academic background and the word limit. I have flagged it and would read it once again at leisure after making use of references.

Best wishes for outstanding performance in this contest.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 16:17 GMT

Brajesh

Thanks. Yes, a little TO 'concentrated' for most it seems. I always tend to push the 10^22/cm^-3 max plasma (optical breakdown) density where communication breaks down (i.e. on shuttle re-entry).

I've found we really do NEED better in depth knowledge than most have to unravel natures mysteries. Unfortunately most of Academia is still belief led so few see the need.

My past work & essays will help, and do ask questions. Some videos here too;

Peter http://independent.academia.edu/JacksonPeter/Papers

VIDEO Time Dependent Redshift etc.

Video Classic QM Full;

100 se glimpse.

Very best

Peter

Peter,

Sorry, but I only gave you a 9. It was a couple of days ago and I'd just scored Ed a 10, since he really is focusing on the issue of time, which has been my pet peeve. Space might be foundational, but that's like a flatline is more fundamental than a heart rhythm. If you want to know who I'm riffing off, give Tom Ray a good score. He deserves it. I really only entered to join the discussion and I think the most interesting one I had was with Christinel Stoica, where he was willing to present a fairly establishment position and still listen to my point of view. As it went on for 22 posts, it did get into detail. If you want to read it, it's on his thread, starting Feb 19.

Good luck and good to see the outsiders doing so well.

Regards,

John

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 16:28 GMT

John,

Thanks anyway. Of course that's not actually a scoring criteria, but it seems few adhere to those anyway. Yes, I read & gave Toms a good score this year though it seems few others were impressed.

And Christi gave me some good advice on dealing with the system to. Nothing really new, but it's always nice to have methodology focused when it's a 5 mile uphill battle! (that gets us to the bow shock, which resolves everything).

Very best

Peter

PS How do we explain Coulomb, Casimir, Dark energy, Impedence, Permittivity, pair production etc if the flat 'line' remains flat down at below observable scales!? You do know there's no such think as a 'line' or 'plane' with zero thickness don't you! I don't subscribe to the belief that if WE can't see something it means there's absolutely nothing there!

John Brodix Merryman replied on Feb. 28, 2018 @ 03:04 GMT

Peter,

If the reference was to my debate over dimensionlessness, that was more logic, than physics, as in whether describing something as dimensionless is a useful abstraction, but overlooks the aspect of eliminating spatial dimensionality, then insisting space arises from the resulting geometry. Is geometry a mapping of space, or the platonic foundation of it? The old map versus territory...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 28, 2018 @ 11:14 GMT

John,

"..that was more logic, than physics," I think logic loosing out to calculators is what has stopped theoretical & comprehensional advancement! Feynman only said "shut up and..'use them'." when he said QM etc was "too complicated" to understand. So a provisional measure. I've now show it CAN be understood! A fundamental change! - but perhaps I'm to late and the skills have been lost.

On cosmic redshift; Same skill shortage; I showed an 'absolutely simple' geometrical cause years ago; VIDEO Time Dependent Redshift

Is man really to dumb to understand or 'believe' it? You tell me. The 'rubber sheet' analogy works fine as simply the dark energy density distribution around the condensed 'nodules' of (spin) energy we call 'matter'. However - that IS 'space' and it IS then anisotropic in energy density, just as a gas may be until the particles evaporate again. How is that at all crazy?

I agree doctrine is largely nonsense, but as most other ideas are groping in the dark people are bound to cling onto something. With just a little light I've found a it all clicks into place very simply. No-ones found flaws, and my papers cite pages of consistent 'anomalies' resolved etc. But it's just too unexpected and unfamiliar for most to make the leap of faith.

That's the human condition.(or please do tell me if it's ME going mad! lol)

Very best

Peter

show all replies (1 not shown)

Peter,

Rating your now. Certainly the star of the show fir fundamental advancement of understanding and I'm surprised how a number of the Academics have reacted (or not reactred!) Dogma rules it seems, here as much as anywhere. Also interesting how few seem to really understand QM. Shocking really.

Very well done. I'll keep an eye on Classic QM.

Rich

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 16:42 GMT

Richard,

Thanks for your support. Actually I wasn't to surprised at the unwillingness of most Academics to look, and inability of most to comprehend or fear of responding. As Classic QM really IS revolutionary few will easily overcome normal cognative dissonance and warm to it. It's the human condition.

It's really up to me and collaborators to simplify it's explanation to allow it to be grasped more easily. Quite tricky when it's a long mechanism with a few unfamilar aspects. Not speculative, just unfamiliar or forgotten is enough.

I saw the comment from Sabina that "advancement is unlikely to come from the academic community". Of course she's right at present but they're entirely at liberty to allow themselves to escape current dogma. One day perhaps.

What worries me is our long reliance on calculators and symbol manipulations, dulling our ability for rational thought. I know you agree theoretical physics has been the only science not to advance since Feynman said 'it's to complicated' to understand..' All then seemed to give up! I hope we don't loose that ability.

Really glad to see you and enough others to get my essay into the top 10 DID understand it. Thank you for that. Maybe there's hope yet!

Very Best

Peter

Dear Peter

Thank you for your asking about CMB.... My Paper on CMB is available at

http://viXra.org/abs/1606.0226

CMB is nothing BUT star light, Galaxy-light and Light from Other inter stellar & Inter Galaxieal Objects in the Microwave region. CMB anisotropies and variations were were calculated and and discussed in the in the above paper given by the above link

I request you please have a look at this paper and calculations..........

Best Regards

=snp

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 28, 2018 @ 11:39 GMT

Satyav,

That was an impressive paper, good work and I agree most of it. However it didn't contain the derivation of the underlying large scale CMB anisotropic patterns I referred to. Those are the background 'Helicity' in the 'whole sky' distribution, the 'dark' holes, and the overall 'linear' anisotropy; ie. analogously we seem to be towards one side of a 'river' of energy, so each side of us is different.

These are important indicators of the inadequacy of our cosmological models (as well as all the smaller ones!) so must be fully explained in any proposed replacement model.or it'll just be ignored & dismissed.

I have to say I also suggest no theory is complete without some indication of pre- 'BBT' conditions. (Not that I subscribe to a BB OR static universe).

The anisotropies are complex and have confounded most all. There is only one model I know of which derives them, which I was involved with in 2012-13. It may be worth collaborating on an update. It starts with a method familiar at multiple smaller scales from nuclear tokamaks up, at stellar and most familiar at galactic scales. Please do study it carefully and revert if you see a flaw;

Jackson, P.A. Minkowski, J.S. A Cyclic Model.. HJ/VOL36/HJ-36-6.pdf

Very Best

Peter

Dear Peter Jackson ,

Thank you very much for the very nice and elaborate reply. Thank you for for complementing words……………….

That was an impressive paper, good work and I agree most of it. However it didn't contain the derivation of the underlying large scale CMB anisotropic patterns I referred to. Those are the background 'Helicity' in the 'whole sky' distribution, the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Peter--

Sorry this has taken a while to get to (intrusions of life), I hope you are still reading comments.... I enjoyed your essay and found the ideas stimulating, but I must admit that I don't find it persuasive. In that respect, as well as some others, this essay reminds me a bit of Alan Kadin's (which I also liked). My critical feedback to you is similar to what I gave him. You spend a great deal of effort devising a clever way to explain one particular result using a different model (i.e. different from the orthodox explanations), and then conclude that you have overthrown the reigning paradigm. But how does your approach explain the other many thousands of extraordinarily well-established results? For example, can you derive band structure in periodic potentials, superfluidity in liquid helium, neutron capture cross sections, the energy level diagram of a multi-electron atom, and so on? Because QM, in its presently understood form, can explain all of these phenomena. A rival that would seek to displace it must do so as well. I am very interested to see your response to this point, and I anticipate that it will be as stimulating as the essay itself. I hope you find the constructive criticism stimulating and not off-putting.

--Greg

report post as inappropriate

Greg, No probs.

First; Nothing's 'overthrown'. Dirac's equation stands, so all those finding do to. What it DOES do is remove the need for (EPR paradox) 'non-locality' by reproducing the results from physical mechanism. Many other explanations are implicit; 'Superposition' is simply the Poincare (4 vector) sphere,' 'Measurement' is momentum exchange subject to interaction 'tangent point'....

view entire post

Greg, No probs.

First; Nothing's 'overthrown'. Dirac's equation stands, so all those finding do to. What it DOES do is remove the need for (EPR paradox) 'non-locality' by reproducing the results from physical mechanism. Many other explanations are implicit; 'Superposition' is simply the Poincare (4 vector) sphere,' 'Measurement' is momentum exchange subject to interaction 'tangent point'. 'Collapse' is just re-quantisation /polarisation, non-integer spins are concurrent z axis rotation, etc etc. It also confirms a far wider model. Viz.

In 2010 my top 10 finalist essay '2020 vision' used Maxwell's near/far fields and the 2-fluid plasma we find at field transition zones with speed delta dependent density, only needed re-emission to be at c in each electron centre of mass rest frame to remove all paradox from SR, yet KEEP the postulates! (read that essay and the 3 after). That had the issue you described; how widely powerful was it? It seemed very! It seemed to lift thick mist from many areas, i.e. Stellar aberration was a big one. It even pointed to a solution for the problematic 'excluded middle' in logic, also a cyclic cosmology, natural cosmic redshift, stellar aberration and a tranch of other astrophysics problems! Sounds silly I know, but just look (some in papers not essays).

So QM was simply a test of an extant model that we'd failed to falsify any other way. I say 'simply', but of course it wasn't, needing more research in photonics, plasma etc. etc. I tested all QM's assumptions and found a flaw; the 'no assumption' assumption for pair morphology. The data was then wrongly interpreted to suggest 'singlet states' but 'superposed', when the two momenta pairs were REAL state vectors! I knew angular momentum of a sphere (i.e. Earth) varied by Cos Latitude, and it was clear what A,B's (rotatable) polariser electrons DID find; either 'SAME' or 'OPPOSITE' vector for each of the ELECTRONS 4 states! So with antiparallel conjugate pair polar axes; both A and B can independently REVERSE the finding! Einstein wins! (after a draw in the first leg).

Frankly even with collaboration I can't handle half the implications and papers required. Are you any good at maths? My 2015 Wigner essay did score top, but that doesn't mean I'm a mathematician.

So in summary; The 'discrete field' model already has shown it's wider worth. If doesn't need to 'overturn either SR or QM but does allow unification. Of course changing the deeply held beliefs of physicists is quite another matter and likely impossibe (see my last yrs essay & 'cognitive dissonance'. '2020' certainly seems optimistic!

There are many links to papers & videos in the posts above, or just ask. What's your own speciality? Many papers are on Researchgate, arXiv or here; http://independent.academia.edu/JacksonPeter

very best

Peter

view post as summary

Hi Peter...

Congratulations on taking qualified reductionism to the finals!!

I did not get a chance to read or rate the #1 community rated "Demolishing prejudices to get to the foundations by Flavio Del Santo and Chiara Cardelli", before the poll closed, but I read it yesterday.

In that the paper advocates anti-reductionism without making a clear distinction between logic reduction... e.g. initial state analysis... and accelerated particle annihilation, I was motivated to write a review, and if you get a chance to read my post to their page, it may illicit your addendum to my thread.

I do not know how long FQXi graciously maintains the contestants individual essay pages, facilitating commo exchange between the contestants, but I posted my promised detailed/lengthy/hard to read response to your inquiry as to whether a "falsified Cartesian" "boxes within boxes" configuration would resolve the issue I have with the Cartesian coordinate system's inability to resolve closure of a point Source Volumetric Singularity in a manner that inherently defines the unified/uniform geometry of a minimum unit of Space (QI), in our thread on my essay page, and it will be there for you, assuming you get there before the essay contestant pages are closed.

REF: Knowledge Base (KB) Access as Fundamental to Info Processor Intelligence https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3000

Peter, may you rise to the top, on the tide of "change in a ruling paradigm".

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

report post as inappropriate

Sue Lingo replied on Mar. 10, 2018 @ 01:54 GMT

Hi Peter...

To date, I wear all hats on the UQS project, and spent Winter hibernation as CAD app. designer, writing and sequencing digital code conditionals... i.e. eliminate all ambiguity and duplicity in CPU instructions.

Coding the degree of detail required to achieve anticipated output from the CPU, is a tedious task, and results in tenaciously precise content.

Example:

IF ENZ0 AND ABS(ENX) NOT= 1 AND ABS(ENX)= ABS(ENY) AND ABS(ENZ)=ABS(X)-1 THEN CON$="CONBIL" AND SSB$="-x,+y" AND RETURN TO CALL

IF ENZ

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 10, 2018 @ 11:47 GMT

responses are on Sue Lingo's essay string..

We seem to have lost our powers to 'see whole post'!

P

Sue Lingo replied on Mar. 20, 2018 @ 02:53 GMT

Hi Peter...

No problem...

Have posted all my FQXi "What is fundamental?" commo on-line in UQS Social Media and Forums Log http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSSMF.php

The short of it:

[(Redshift) NOT = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion)] NOT = (No Accelerating Expansion)

(UQS Emission to Shell 5) = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion)

IF (Redshift) NOT = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) AND (Accelerating Expansion Verifiable to UQS Emission Shell 5) AND [(Accelerating Expansion) NOT = Constant)] THEN (Recursive Entity Interaction Density) NOT = Constant

IF (Redshift) NOT = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) AND (Accelerating Expansion Verifiable to UQS Emission Shell 5) AND [(Accelerating Expansion) = Constant)] THEN (Recursive Entity Interaction Density) = Constant

(UQS Emission to Shell 5) NOT = [(Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) = Constant)]

(UQS Emission to Shell 5) = [(Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) NOT = Constant)]

Thanks Peter for the Energy to keep me "Going On", I am putting down tracks... i.e. I code all visual mapped UQS conditionals/differentials, for UQS "calculus", as digital logic statements rather than symbolic equations.

S. Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Peter,

I am always astonished about what researchers call fundamental. They usually take a rather complicated subject that bases its structure and behavior on other much deeper concepts. A fundament must be very simple and easily comprehensible. In mathematics, a set is a very fundamental concept but mathematics contains a complete theory about this simple concept. In physics, anything that must be expressed or measured in numbers is already a high-level concept. Thus time and space are certainly no fundamental concepts. Anything that is observable is necessarily a high-level concept. In contrast, a relation can be fundamental and a relational structure can be a well-defined construct. Again mathematics defines a complete theory around lattices, which are relational structures. Classical logic is a special kind of lattice. About 25 axioms define classical logic and make it a self-consistent theory. This might be the argument that caused Birkhoff and von Neumann to name their discovery that the set of closed subspaces of a separable Hilbert space is a particular lattice, to call that lattice quantum logic. They hoped to have discovered a self-consistent theory. And that it IS. Mathematicians call it an orthomodular lattice. At that time nobody interpreted the discovery as a seed from which much more can be derived, such as a plant evolves from a seed. However, the orthomodular lattice is a true fundament of a huge and very powerful theory.

The orthomodular lattice contains no numbers and no fields. It only contains relations and it defines precisely, which relations are tolerated. That is also what classical logic does.

So, the orthomodular lattice is not ridiculous simple. It is just simple enough to be able to figure as a foundation of physical reality.

Hans

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 7, 2018 @ 16:15 GMT

Hans,

Does the orthomodular lattice of quantum logic not share the same simple construction as the rules of brackets in Arithmetic and my argument for discrete field in realtivity, in my (scored top) 2015 'Red/Green sock trick' essay?

Peter

Hans van Leunen replied on Mar. 7, 2018 @ 20:02 GMT

Peter,

A complete webpage of my Wikiversity project: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_Project#R
elational_structures is devoted to the lattices of classical logic and quantum logic. The set of modules in the HBM form another lattice. As far as I know, it has not yet a name. In connection with the orthomodular lattice the paper “Division algebras and quantum theory” by John Baez. http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5690 and the original paper of Birkhoff and von Neumann are interesting.

G. Birkhoff and J. von Neumann, The Logic of Quantum Mechanics, Annals of Mathematics, Vol. 37, pp. 823–843

report post as inappropriate

You have covered a lot of ground as usual, but at least now your apparatus shows one lens, and so you are making progress. But as usual, you dance around the hard issues of quantum phase entanglement and decoherence. Do quantum superposition states exist or do they not exist?

You do have good intuition about the nature of physical reality, but classical intuition of space and time is limited. The notions of discrete aether and discrete action seem to be more fundamental than those of space and time and as any barmaid knows, the entanglement of matter and action is a lot easier to explain alone than entangled causal set of space and time and matter and action.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 11, 2018 @ 12:28 GMT

Steve.

Thanks. I actually hit entanglement & superposition head on. but didn't dwell; Superposition is REAL, as the experiment confirms, but not what we expect. It's Maxwell's 'curl' with in inverse distribution to linear 'up/down', so NOT 'singlet' states!

'Entanglement' only needs to be retained parallel polar axes of the pairs. A,B 'measure' with rotatable field electrons; so each output is actually either 'SAME' or 'OPPOSITE' at some amplitudes. Think hard; non-locality is then NOT REQUIRED!

The only thing I've found at all limited about "classical intuition of space and time" is my ability to get it's logic across to those with different beliefs embedded or their own focussed viewpoint. SR was fully logically resolved in past (top 10) essays with the discrete (space/'time') field model (DFM) of nested spaces defined by relative motion and bounded by 2-fluid plasma interaction. i.e. your 'action' concept is indeed at it's heart.

Just identify what parts you don't recall resolved in the DFM and I'll run though it again. Not sure we can now access long posts, (yours?) so I'll stop here.

Best, Peter

Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 16, 2018 @ 02:39 GMT

Your discrete plasma field is a good intuition, but you still seem to conform to continuous space and time. Once you go discrete, space and time are no longer continuous. The causal set approach for a granulated universe has many good barmaid stories...it is just one thing after another...yada, yada, yada...

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 16, 2018 @ 11:33 GMT

Steve,

Thanks, but I'm not sure where I've gone smooth. I confess I never really understood causal sets theory and didn't see how could be 'fractal'. To explain, In the 'Discrete Field' Dynamic all apparent 'smooth' Lagrangian behaviour is granular at the next scale down, naturally recursive, rather like the amplituhedron. Rotation is what DEFINES a discrete state or 'granule'

So; The 'vortex' state of a (Majorana?) fermion ('electron/positron pair') as the smallest 'condensed matter' state, is made of many smaller vortices, the 'pressure' distribution of which around the fermion (etc) is what we call 'gravity'. I feel that's more in line with granularity than continuity. No?

If you feel the two can combine for something greater than the sum... do advise.

Peter

Peter Jackson

If you read this you may be interested in my last blog at:

blog

Best regards from _______________ John-Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate

John-Erik

Thanks. I agree with much. But were you aware in the final great Michelson experiment, at Chicago with Gale & Pearson (MGP) he concluded; ETHER! Which worked in the way of the Stokes 'ether drag' model, which is now as Minkowski (1908) & Einstein's (1952) 'spaces (or 'discrete fields') in motion within spaces', as the DFM.

Ref the discussion in your blog post the following are directly relevant and pertinent. Do question them;

http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7163 Jackson. P. A., Minkowski. J. S. Resolution of Kantor and Babcock-Bergman Emission Theory Anomalies

VIDEO Time Dependent Redshift

Inertial Frame Error Discovery Derives Stellar Aberration and Paradox Free Special Relativity Via Huygens Principle

Best

Peter

John-Erik Persson replied on Mar. 14, 2018 @ 17:34 GMT

Peter Jackson

Thank you very much for these interesting links. They are of value to me since I do not have the details, although I have heard about these papers.

About my blog:

It is about the conflict between Potier and Michelson regarding the transverse arm in MMX. I have demonstrated that it went wrong. This mistake was important when the Lorentz transform was introduced. We have not regarded the difference between ray and beam. So, take a look at my blog again and write a comment at the blog if you support Potier or Michelson. I support Michelson and this means that we do not need time dilation.

Regards from _________ John-Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson

I would like to discuss with you regarding the conflict between Potier and Michelson in 1882 that I describe on my blog. I have given you the blog address above. Write on my blog.

John-Erik

report post as inappropriate

John-Erik Persson replied on Mar. 20, 2018 @ 18:53 GMT

Peter Jackson

My opinion is that Poitier (and others) made a terrible mistake 1880. I am sorry that you do not have a clear opinion on this point.

Best regards from ________________ John-Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 20, 2018 @ 20:02 GMT

John-Eric,

You may be right, but I said all I could on the blog. Sorry couldn't find anything to support 'infalling ether', only 'dragged frames'.

I found Lodges 'glass disc' path error rather more serious as it led to Lorentz dismissing Stokes model, bringing confusion and the need for SR. Had Lodge used the correct observer frame he'd have found the true (Poynting) vector and scientific advance wouldn't have 'parked up' for 100 years!

Ce'st la vie

Best

Peter

John-Erik Persson replied on Mar. 22, 2018 @ 19:44 GMT

Peter Jackson

Of course you could not find anything. Potier made an error 136 years ago, and it was not discovered that he made an error and it was instead Michelson that was right.

Regards _______________ John-Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate