CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]
TOPIC:
Space and Time, Geometry and Fields: An Historical Essay on the Fundamental and its Physical Manifestation by Michaele Suisse and Peter Cameron
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author peter cameron wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 22:35 GMT
Essay AbstractWe address historical circumstances surrounding the absence of two essential tools - geometric interpretation of Clifford algebra and generalization of impedance quantization - from the particle physicist's tool kit, and present details of the new perspective that follows from their inclusion. The resulting geometric wavefunction model permits one to examine the interface between fundamental and emergent.
Author Bioindependent researchers
Download Essay PDF File
David Lyle Peterson wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 11:00 GMT
Dear Peter and Michaele,
This is an intelligent essay, and I appreciate your timely reminder of the history and utility of Clifford algebra for physics. I agree that its relevance has been under-appreciated and will continue to broaden my knowledge of it.
Best Wishes
David Peterson
report post as inappropriate
Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 14:12 GMT
David,
Thanks for looking. I browsed your essay, admire your knowledge of group theory, and left some comments about the physics side of your groups there.
Pete
Anonymous wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 13:27 GMT
Dear Michaele Suisse and Peter Cameron you wonderful outlined in his essay the need in geometric interpretation of Clifford algebra and generalization of quantization-impedance from the particle physicists tool kit and the importance of a geometric model for the wave function to examine the interface between fundamental and emergent, to determine the boundary between the fundamental and the emergent. You may be interested in my essay, in which I showed the connection between the Lorentz factor and the wave function, and most importantly showed that the mass-energy equivalence formula is due to the pressure of the universe. I appreciate your work. However, I ask you to leave a comment on my page.
Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.
report post as inappropriate
Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 14:22 GMT
Boris,
Left a comment on your thread. Can you do quantum mechanics with your model? Is there a wave function?
Pete
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 21:29 GMT
Peter! New Cartesian Physics more than a model, it wants to be the theory of everything OO. In it, the wave function describes the rotation of space, which according to Descartes is matter.
Look at my essay,
FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. Evaluate and leave your comment there. I highly value your essay; however, I'll give you a rating as the bearer of Descartes' idea. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness.
Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.
report post as inappropriate
Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 22:54 GMT
Boris - I looked prior to posting my previous message, looked again just now, see nothing that makes me think of a wavefunction. Where are the things you multiply together to get an observable?
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 09:27 GMT
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View
/5763
My essay is a call for researchers to remember the identity of space and matter of Descartes, and to continue his theory of everything in the light of modern achievements of physics.
I think of wave function as on the oscillations and rotations of physical space, which for Descartes is matter.Rate The Descartes
Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 16:44 GMT
Dear Michaele Suisse and Peter Cameron[,
FQXi.org is clearly seeking to confirm whether Nature is fundamental.
Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.
All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist 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.
Only the truth can set you free.
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 22:16 GMT
Dear Michaele Suisse and Peter Cameron,
Thanks for entering another essay focused on geometric algebra as the preferred tool for physicists. I had intended to review your viXra papers during the last year, but never found the time. Assume that I am reasonably competent in GA and please tell me which papers I should study to best understand your impedance-based approach (pre-quantum, if possible).
One thing I have had time to do is study John W Arthur's excellent book, '
Understanding Geometric Algebra for Electromagnetic Theory'. Thankfully, he presents both 3D+1 and 4D approaches. Until recently, I tended toward 4D, but after developing my current essay, I find 3D+1 extremely interesting.
Much of your work seems focused on the quantum interpretation of the impedance model. Since "
impedance governs the flow of energy", I am interested not so much in E8-based schemes as in how one applies your concepts to Maxwell-Hertz-Heaviside equations(5) in my essay. I hope you will read my essay and comment from your impedance perspective. Thanks.
My best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 15:28 GMT
Ed- Understand where you're coming from re finding time to chase our interests.
regarding your request
"Assume that I am reasonably competent in GA and please tell me which papers I should study to best understand your impedance-based approach (pre-quantum, if possible)."
The first thing to keep in mind is that the impedances are calculated from electromechanical interactions,...
view entire post
Ed- Understand where you're coming from re finding time to chase our interests.
regarding your request
"Assume that I am reasonably competent in GA and please tell me which papers I should study to best understand your impedance-based approach (pre-quantum, if possible)."
The first thing to keep in mind is that the impedances are calculated from electromechanical interactions, for instance centrifugal force keeping two oppositely charge particles orbiting (in the absence of synchrotron radiation, but that's another story). They are first calculated from mechanical impedances, then converted to electrical.
All massive particles have mechanical impedance. What led to recognition of this fundamental agency in the physical world was the years my brother and I spent designing and building vibratory piledrivers - synchronized (to convert 2D motion to 1D) spinning eccentric weights, phase evolving in opposite directions for the two eccentrics, like that of electron and positron. Gravity wave generators, so to speak. Look at them long enough and one sees Mach's principle. We built electromagnetic anaologs on my dad's test bench. He was RF tech. This was back in the 70s.
take a look at the electron impedances paper if you actually want to dig into this, the original paper that motivated what followed is published there as an appendex. At the time (1975) I submitted a paper to AJP. Ed Taylor (still at MIT) was editor then, thought it should be published, connected me with a professor at UM Flint who tried to show me how to put it in a form that looked more professional, add references,... I had no patience with it at the time, was fighting bankruptcy,...
Thank you for the reference to Arthur's book, was not aware of it, will task a look. Commented on the business about 4D vs 3+1 on your thread, hopefully it will be helpful.
re group theory schemes, truth is i probably shouldn't even type the words 'group theory'. That's how ignorant i am.
re interpretations, that's at the core of it in terms of all the confusion about the wavefunction. Point particle quarks and leptons (scalars and bivectors only) vs the full 3D Pauli algebra. Need the full geometric algebra to be able to visualize. All of QM is lost in the matrix interpretation, doesn't see it visually. No intuition in the Dirac matrics.
view post as summary
Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 15:31 GMT
Ed - link to electron impedances paper is here
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V18NO2PDF/V18N2CAM.
pdf
Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 15:32 GMT
url{http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V18NO2PDF/V18N2CAM.
pdf}
Author peter cameron wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 15:10 GMT
Ed - pasting in here my comment to the thread on your paper:
Browsing your paper for the first time surprised by the opening implicit assertion that there is something wrong with light defining a 'preferred' reference frame. Isn't that exactly what it's supposed to do? Light is the fiducial in our definition of space. The laws of physics don't change when we take light as the fiducial....
view entire post
Ed - pasting in here my comment to the thread on your paper:
Browsing your paper for the first time surprised by the opening implicit assertion that there is something wrong with light defining a 'preferred' reference frame. Isn't that exactly what it's supposed to do? Light is the fiducial in our definition of space. The laws of physics don't change when we take light as the fiducial. That's what SR tells us as I understand it. And I'm of the opinion that one needs to understand quantum gravity to properly appreciate why this is true.
Having said that, I'm delighted by the way you set the scene in the tavern. Thank you for that.
Didn't dig into the remainder of the paper in detail, see there is not much to do with the quantum in it. Logically it is perhaps good to keep in mind that SR is three body problem, Lorentz transform is just Pythagoreus. If seeking foundations exact general solutions don't exist (afaik) beyond two body. And QM is ultimately two body. Getting three things together in one spot simultaneously gets ever more difficult as one goes to every smaller length scales.
The distinction you seek to make is between partial and total derivative? I don't know if it will help you to look at this from GA perspective, but pretty cool if it does:
vacuum wavefunction in GA can be taken to be Pauli algebra of 3D space, comprised of point, line, plane, and volume elements. One scalar, three vectors, three bivectors, and one trivector. Assigning topologically appropriate electromagnetic fields to those fundamental geometric objects generates agents in the physical world.
interactions of those wavefunctions/agents can be modeled by the geometric product, which changes dimensionality of the iteracting geometric objects. The product of two 3D Pauli algebras yields a 4D Dirac algebra, a geometric representation of the particle physicist's holy grail, the scattering matrix. The fourth dimension, time, emerges from the interactions. It is encoded in the 4D pseudoscalars of the Dirac algebra.
Does this means total or partial derivative to your Tavern Keeper? One or the other? Both? Neither?
view post as summary
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 01:28 GMT
Dear Peter,
Thank you for the above information and links to info on your approach to impedance. I will try to understand it.
Special relativity means different things to different people (I know this from a year of discussions). In your opinion light is to define a 'preferred' reference frame. I cannot believe this makes sense in reality, and as I point out, the nonsense flows from space-time symmetry [i.e., light as 'preferred' frame] and vanishes with energy-time asymmetry.
You're also of the opinion that one needs to understand quantum gravity to appreciate your point. You claim to understand quantum gravity, yet I have an understanding that I'm sure differs from yours. I have a GA-based theory of gravity that leads to the field equations and also to the Klein-Gordon equation and other equations. Like you, I think there is much to be gained from re-formulating physics in terms of geometric algebra.
For many I talked with last year, the first statement that they disagree with tends to shut them down, rather than try to understand how their belief may be reinterpreted. Although quantum mechanics has probably a dozen interpretations, almost all of which yield exactly the same calculations, there is surprising resistance to a re-interpretation of special relativity that makes sense but differs from the received wisdom. I'm disappointed that you "didn't dig into the remainder of the paper", but with 200 essays it's hard to study them all.
I'm fairly knowledgeable about GA and I do not see an E8-type assignment of GA product terms to the standard model as meaningful, so we do agree on the significance of GA, but not on all physics. I'm glad you are happy to hear about John W. Arthur's "
Understanding geometric algebra for electromagnetic theory". I suggest after you read this book you may wish to reread my essay.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 15:29 GMT
Hi all, Edwin, this work does not reach this quantum gravitation unfortunatelly, it is that said a wonderful works about the works of Hestenes and the algebric structures in QFT , that is all.That said I liked its generality and the understanding of groups of forces.This QG cannot be found in this line of reasoning , it is the same with the lie algebras, it lacks several parameters.I don't undertand why peôple tries to find it with an electromagntic fractalisation without inserting new parameters like this matter not baryo,nic for example.
Best Regards
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 15:31 GMT
impedance, impedance, me I want well but ?
report post as inappropriate
Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 18:16 GMT
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 10:23 GMT
Hello Mr Cameron, Thanks for sharing this work on vixra,
I liked your planck virtual particle, but I am insisting on the fact that we must consider this quantum weakest force in a different logic than our electromagntic force, we see easily that with all the works trying to find it , we have not found it this frce at 10exp-67newton, we have problems with all the methods utilised, I am suggesting simply to insert this matter not baryonic, this DM, I don't understand why all searchers try to find this force in fractalising our electromagntic forces, we have problems of equivalances.This DM in logic can answer and I don't understand why so many scientists forget this matter ? The standard model seems encircled by this gravitation, the photons are just like a fuel if I can say.It is odd.If it was the case that this force is an emergent electromagntic force or a fractalisation of this electromagntism, so it d be accepted by the sciences community and recognised, since that I see all these works trying to reach it, we have not had a correct explaination, just because I beleive humbly this DM is forgotten simply.Now I respect your works and I liked your papper on vixra and essay.But this QG is not found simply.But it is a wonderful attempt , general and relevant to read .
Best Regards
report post as inappropriate
Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 16:13 GMT
Hello Steve,
Thanks for looking. i don't see an essay by you in the contest. Where can one look to understand your views a little more clearly?
What i understand you to be saying is that while you agree that the ratio of gravitational to electromagnetic forces between the Compton and Planck lengths is unity, you don't find this meaningful. Is that correct?
Best regards,
Pete
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 11:54 GMT
Hello Mr Cameron,
You are welcome.No I have not made this contest, I have serious problems in Belgium and my mind is not focus and also my English is not good.I will publish several white pappers this year in logic about my equation, the spherisation and quant and cosm sphères, about DM, the quantum gravitationa also, this and that,about also the spherical geoemtrical algebras that I have invented but I must admit it is not easy to formalise all these spherical volumes and their motions with the vectors and scalars, I study and read the book of Hestenes and it is not easy , I try to respect our mathematical laws but I am not a mathematician and I am obliged to study things that I don't know.Not easy is even a weak word lol , Hestenes is so relevant and his book is so difficult to understand.
About the ratio, I have never said this but I lmike your generality and the fact to try finding this QG.I liked your papper Mr Cameron you know, but I see differently simply about this QG.I am wishing you all the best in this contest,
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 14:28 GMT
Peter and Michaele,
Now I remember you folks from the last contest. Did we learn something about one-bombing? BTW, I did not criticize your mathematics. I stated that you did not include any mathematics in your essay. That was an accurate statement. In any event, I don't hold a grudge:-)
This is an excellent essay. It is As good as your previous one I'll say. I was able (I think) to...
view entire post
Peter and Michaele,
Now I remember you folks from the last contest. Did we learn something about one-bombing? BTW, I did not criticize your mathematics. I stated that you did not include any mathematics in your essay. That was an accurate statement. In any event, I don't hold a grudge:-)
This is an excellent essay. It is As good as your previous one I'll say. I was able (I think) to understand roughly 75%+ of your content despite the fact that I have little education in Physics other than two semesters in college (basics plus Maxwell). I was generally not able to understand the material in Figure 8 since I know VERY little about particle Physics. I do like the idea of a coherence length though.
If I understand your main point correctly, you argue that interactions are fundamental and that they are governed by the ability to exchange energy and information. You also argue that this ability is limited by the properties of the vacuum.
It is very interesting to me that you verbalize many of my own non-verbal thoughts. You speak of a geometric wave-function and I propose Equation 4. You propose that space-time is the result of the interaction between electrons and positrons and I propose Equations 5, 5.1, and 5.2. You state that the behavior of the vacuum is determined by five parameters. I argue that the vacuum has five dimensions. (Perhaps this is simply a coincidence or perhaps it is a clue. I don't know for certain and neither do you. I suggest that you be less eager to dismiss things as numerology.) You mention the eight component Pauli wave-function and Equation 4 expands to eight components. (Again, this is possibly a coincidence or it could perhaps be more.)
The discussion of the historical development of these concepts is useful to me in particular since I have little knowledge of those things. The essay by Eckard Blumschein was also very beneficial for me. You did not mention the battle in 1895 between the Grassmann faction and the Hamilton faction.
BTW, how do you orient a volume element? Doesn't that require a "vector" that is perpendicular to the three vectors that produce the volume element? I think of that as a scalar instead.
You indirectly mention the "shut-up and calculate" mentality without even realizing that you do so. All in all, it sounds to me like Physicists need to study some Electrical Engineering. Engineers have to study Physics to learn the rules. Perhaps Physicists should study a little Engineering to learn the practicalities?
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 23:22 GMT
Gary - thanks for the good thoughts, much appreciate the opportunity to share.
a brief aside - Does your comment appear properly formatted on your screen? On mine it seems all the carriage returns have been taken out and replaced by the letter 'n'. Have seen this elsewhere as well, in both the same and slightly differents contexts. A bug floating around somewhere, my impression so far is it enters via the fqxi gui. Broken links there work when accessed directly from chrome, and at the same time this phenomenon arose this formatting bug appeared.
Pasted that to Brendan, perhaps he has had other reports.
re the math, but of course the math is there, all that is needed to do the physics. One is required to take the geometric product of two Pauli algebras, of two Pauli wavefunctions. That gives the geometric structure of the physicist's S-matrix. Having the history is essential to the understanding. Perhaps to your mathematician's mind that doesn't qualify as 'doing the math', no argument here with such a view. Just took what I needed for the, nothing more. Have vague idea what quaternions and octonions are, but never played with them, so no real sense. So far don't see the need for the physics I want to do. Which is mostly condensed matter at this point. Practical stuff. Quantum impedance matching in quantum computing. So far mainstream appears to still be ignoring this, tho one never knows. No different than classical, gotta match to get the bits to move.
Brings to mind your mention of Hamilton/Grassman dispute. New to me, thanks for this. Got a good url?
imo your basics plus Maxwell is all you need to understand what Michaele and I are doing. It is just geometry plus fields. You have the geometric algebra, and the fields are just E and B. No connections in your head to undo.
gotta pause, gonna post and run. Will come back to eqns 4, 5, 5.1, 5.2,...
report post as inappropriate
Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 23:30 GMT
testing now, trying to sort out the formatting problem.
Previous post was not logged in, posted as anon. Now logged in as a contributor.
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 01:35 GMT
Hi peter cameron
Nice addressing of history of geometric Algebra, interpretation of Clifford algebra and generalization of impedance quantization ..... The resulting geometric wavefunction model permits one to examine the interface between fundamental and emergent..... very good... By the way...
Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed...……..….. yours is very...
view entire post
Hi peter cameron
Nice addressing of history of geometric Algebra, interpretation of Clifford algebra and generalization of impedance quantization ..... The resulting geometric wavefunction model permits one to examine the interface between fundamental and emergent..... very good... By the way...
Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed...……..….. yours is very nice essay best wishes …. I highly appreciate hope your essay ….You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance
Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :-No Isotropy
-No Homogeneity
-No Space-time continuum
-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy
-No singularities
-No collisions between bodies
-No blackholes
-No warm holes
-No Bigbang
-No repulsion between distant Galaxies
-Non-empty Universe
-No imaginary or negative time axis
-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes
-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically
-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition
-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models
-No many mini Bigbangs
-No Missing Mass / Dark matter
-No Dark energy
-No Bigbang generated CMB detected
-No Multi-verses
Here:
-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies
-Newton’s Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way
-All bodies dynamically moving
-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium
-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe
-Single Universe no baby universes
-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only
-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..
-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass
-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step
-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering
-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet
-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy
-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.
- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true….Have a look at
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.h
tml
I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information……..
Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.
In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from “http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ ”
I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you repliedBest
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 17:21 GMT
Peter,
Nice job in explaining the important fundamental errors hiding the fundamental truths we've discussed before. Sadly it's still unlikely the gatekeepers of doctrine will slap their foreheads and say 'Doh! ..Yes ..of course!' but how even a hint of that's achieved I really wish I knew!
I confess I'm still not familiar enough with that side of physics but now suspect our work may have a lot closer connections than I'd realized. I describe an ontological mechanism for EM wave interactions with fermions which successfully (are you sitting down?!) seems to precisely reproduce QM's predictions classically. A way to unify QM with SR then reveals itself. So of course I have the same problem as you!
I wonder if a combined description may be more powerful. I'd need you to look closely, ask any questions, and and give me a view. Gordon Watson's essay is consistent and Declan Traill's provides the matching computer code and plot.
Your correctness fundamentality, import and rigorous argument mean I have yours down for a high score. Very well done. I hope you agree the same of mine.
Very best of luck in the contest and looking forward to discussing.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 20:29 GMT
Peter,
thanks for the good thoughts. gatekeepers are an issue, yes. And this whole comments/scoring thing is a trip, still getting the feel for how that goes.
Took a look at your essay, going to comment on your thread. Will likely take a look at Watson and Trail's first, try to get a clearer picture.
Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 16:54 GMT
Peter,
Looked at Watson and Trail, didn't find much i could relate to.
Liked the appearance of your interferometer experiment. You have access to hardware?
This article discusses an interesting time symmetry experiment in the nested Mach-Zender interferometer
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/133
If you look at my author page on vixra, you will see a delayed-choice variant on this experiment. Any thoughts on how to get it done?
Pete
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 12:45 GMT
Peter,
Thanks for the link, yes, confirms my thesis. Backward causality is just backward thinking.
I'm afraid I have no access to sophisticated hardware. I can do simple bench top experiments, but consistent with that. Also as in my paper, the controversial 'novel' non singlet state momenta I now find already existing on a 'Poincare sphere'!
Declan just shows the classical mechanistic sequence using that start point produces CLASSICAL QM! But hard to follow without some expertise in Quantum optics etc.
We seem both to have exposed aspects of the same fundamental issues with current theory. Our essays are very close (and mine has just been hit with some 1's!) so I hope, as it seems, we equally agree the high value and fundamentality of each others work and score accordingly. Do comment on my string. I'll be applying scores shortly. Well done for yours.
Very best.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 21:00 GMT
Peter,
Our essay got hit by a couple ones as well. Doesn't take much to drop one out of the limelight when unknown late entry. All part of the learning curve I guess.
One could argue that we had it coming in the case of Michaele and I. Being perverse character that i am, decided i would learn about fqxi by starting at the bottom rather than the top of contributor ratings. Can't be honest there, or at least it became obvious that one has to be very careful with people who are looking to enhance some sort of sense of satisfactory selfness. Horrid disease that is. Stumbled a couple times, gave up on that, and searched for Clifford algebra. Pretty cool that fqxi has that search engine, tho indexing doesn't permit searching by contributor name, as you might already know. Think i understand a rationale for that, but sure would like to follow lines of thought/comment of some of the folks here in a more coherent manner.
i have no problem with someone giving me a one if they tell me why. gotta believe the moderators are clever enough to be looking at stats on this sort of thing. Sociologist's wet dream imo. Guessing the one givers get tagged at some point by the moderators. Newbie mistake, tho with good intent. I like Terry Bollinger's ratings code of conduct, tho don't totally agree with it. To my thinking it is still a little too rigid.
He also emphasized looking at Trail's essay again, in the context of Gibbs vector formalism working only in 3D space and 4D spacetime, whereas Hestenes/Clifford scalar/vector/bivector/... formalism works in all dimensions. In 3D the one is supposedly the 'dual' of the other. Odd that Gibbs representation is valid only in 3D, what sort of broken symmetry that is,...
Couldn't get my mind around Trail on first try, going back for another look.
hide replies
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 23:55 GMT
Peter,
I completely lack the formal education in physics and electrical engineering to do more that intuit your essay. That said, I do sense some essential agreement with one of my more elementary observations; That energy and form(as in everything from math to mass) are opposite sides of the same coin. Energy as medium and form as message. such that while there is not platonic realm of information/math, any dynamic is going to manifest form.
As I've observed elsewhere, the basic premise of geometry as dimensionless form is self negating, as it is a multiple of zero. A dimensionless point is no more extant than a dimensionless apple, but insisting on some infinitesimal dimensionality creates more conceptual problems, so, as pure abstraction, it is more efficient to make it dimensionless. As such, though, it becomes message without a medium. Sort of like taking a picture with the shutter speed set at zero.
So while our minds work best with abstraction, some of what is distilled away is still essential.
On a personal note, thank you very much for your seeing some sense in my observations about cosmology and time, as about 90% of the responses I get from people with strong math background is vehement rejection and insistence I make no sense, so having a few who do see the logic stands as proof some of these ideas are not total gibberish. As i said, I originally came at physics from an amateur sociological perspective; The physics of politics, so to speak, but found quite a lot of politics of physics.
If any of these ideas are useful, feel free with them. As most of my input is open source, my output might as well be also. The world seems headed for a significant reset anyway and hopefully it will have some benefits to go along with the likely negative effects.
Regards,
John
report post as inappropriate
Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 16:21 GMT
John,
sociology of physics is an ever-deepening education. At this point i know more than i want to. and am still an innocent child by so many yardsticks. what a weird world this is becoming.
there are as many ways to understand things as there are sentient beings. how one strings the moments together makes sense to some and not to others. one woman's math is another man's poetry. our best rationalizations only serve to let us go with what we feel.
Pete
Member Dean Rickles wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 23:32 GMT
Hi Peter and Michaela,
Great review of geometric algebra in here!
I was a little curious about your claim that phase cannot be given by a single measurement on account of its being relative. Can you not get phase information in a single measurement? It is of course true that you need to measure the relative phase of two things (so it is not absolute), but is it not a single measurement nonetheless: phase difference?
Best
Dean
report post as inappropriate
Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 16:45 GMT
Dean,
Glad you like the review. Are you familiar with the algebra?
re unobservability of phase, particles are little oscillators. When you dephase them, break them apart, you get a lump of energy. incoherent. The coherent phase information of the coupled modes that comprised the oscillator is gone.
this is what gauge invariance is about. One's model has to permit local phase shifts (so unfortunate that weyl's 1918 paper ended up with the word gauge in place of phase) without changing the physics. For this to be true phase cannot be a single measurement observable.
one might consider the phase difference to be a measure of how precisely one can define simultaniety. Need two things for them to be simultaneous. How does one make just one measurement of two things when those to thing are at separate locations?
this is basis of special relativity. Need three things to get special relativity. The two objects plus the observer. Lorentz transform is just trigonometry, Pythagoreus.
quantum logic at foundational level is just two things, two interacting wavefunctions. To assume logic beyond that is epistemologically incorrect imo. Phase is not a single measurement observable.
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 11:13 GMT
Dear Michaele Suisse and Peter Cameron!
Descartes wanted to do physics as geometry. The physical space according to Descartes is a matter which rotates and oscillates as a wave. I'm sorry that you didn't see my essay the wave function. It there divides into two subfunctions, one of which contains the angular momentum of rotation, and the other energy fluctuations. The ratio of the modules of these functions are included in the factor of Lorentz. Thus, shows the relationship of the theory of relativity with quantum mechanics. Visit my page and leave a rating.
FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris SemyonovichDo not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness.
Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.
report post as inappropriate
Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 16:48 GMT
Boris - the link you post doesn't work.
Terry Bollinger wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 05:19 GMT
Dear Michaele Suisse and Peter Cameron,
My less formal comments, including a couple of strategy suggestions, are provided in reply to under your kind comments on my essay. Here I want to be a bit more formal and put on my technical editor hat, because I think your ideas are not getting as much traction as you would like in part because of your paper writing style.
The biggest problem...
view entire post
Dear Michaele Suisse and Peter Cameron,
My less formal comments, including a couple of strategy suggestions, are
provided in reply to under your kind comments on my essay. Here I want to be a bit more formal and put on my technical editor hat, because I think your ideas are not getting as much traction as you would like in part because of your paper writing style.
The biggest problem is pretty simple: In your frustration to get your message across, you are trying to jam far too much content at every level — into your papers, tables, figures, charts, pretty much whatever. Or to put it another way, you are doing something that is very common in bad government technical presentations, which is that when someone tells you “use fewer slides!”, you do it by shrinking the fonts until no one can read them from the front of the room, let alone from the back. I should note some exceptions: Most of your flow diagrams, such as Figure 2, are actually quite good. Figure 3 on bivectors and trivectors is also pretty good, since it translates the definitions into nicely understandable figures.
I’ve scanned about half your papers at viXra.org — please take that as a genuine complement — and in one case you have a “one slide is best” presentation that is, um… 57 pages long? With one slide
marked as the “one slide”? Even that one slide used small fonts packed densely, since you tried to get some kind of reference to
all of your ideas into it that were then explained on all the other pages.
You are not getting it.
A good one-slider is visually simple, with a small number of lines, not much text, and an absolute minimum of novel words, preferably none at all. The one and only thing that should be novel about it is the
collectively the content of that one slide should clearly capture some completely novel
concept that will make your audience go “say what??” and “I never thought of it that way!” Both your impedance idea and your geometry idea are examples of concepts that might work very well for such slides, and I do think you tried to do just that. But in what you have, there is just too much noise, by which I mean too many math or and visual terms that are not really needed to make your point.
A gorgeous example of what
not to do is Figure 4, with the only quickly comprehensible bit of text in the entire figure being the word “proton” in a box in the middle… and of course even that is baffling, because most readers (like me) came to the figure kind expecting it to be about
fundamental fermions, which of course the three-quark proton is not. You do not even define that the zoo of letters and subscripts means! Your explanation under the figure instead seems to toss in every concept you can think of, including the unexpected remark that the top row is the electron and the left column is the positron... which was not the kind of orthogonal geometry one would immediately expect for a particle and its antiparticle, unless I am missing something obvious about a flip on the main diagonal? Since this is… sort of?... a matrix? Argh!
Tossing that kind of confusion into a figure that is supposed to explain some critical concept is even more risky for you that for most paper writers, because you are explicitly attempting to introduce ideas for which most readers will
not have any prior familiarity.
Do you understand why that is risky?
As an editor, one of the biggest warning signs to me of an accidentally (or intentionally) bogus paper is that it always introduces a huge amount of impressive-looking noise—misuses or undefined terms and equations— that ultimately don’t fit together at all, but
do leave most readers so exhausted that they give up.
If the author is famous and the review gets too exhausting from trying to look up and make sense of all of the noise terms, most reviewers abandon giving it a careful review and just rubber-stamp “OK!” on the paper… which they should
not do, by the way!
If the author is
not famous, they conversely automatically stamp “FAILED!” on the paper and toss it into file 13, mostly because they have no reason to trust the author and no desire to get called out later for passing what could be total nonsense. But at least this is what they
should do in such cases, since if the authors have made the paper too difficult to comprehend, that’s on them, not the reviewer.
Now, since you tend to write dense papers full of undefined terms, you have to ask yourself: Which of those two I-give-up review categories to you think most or all of your papers will fall into? (Bummer about your name being so similar to a famous mathematician, Peter. That just makes matters worse, ouch.)
And that brings us to my assessment.
Peter, Michaele, even though I think your ideas and papers are some of the best developed and most conceptually intriguing ideas I’ve seen, and even though I am very familiar with some parts of your turf where my own research and idea overlap, I can’t tell based on your figures whether your really know what you are saying, or you are just blowing a lot of smoke our to make what you have look more impressive than it is. Figure 4 is a good example. That may be the most brilliant chart ever devised for explaining the Standard Model… but if it is, wow, you fulled me. I can’t even figure out how it relates to standard particles, even to the only comprehensible label, which is the word “proton” in the middle.
So I find myself in the ironic position that while I really do like the
descriptions you give of some of your ideas, such as in particular the impedance idea, your papers and this essay give me no
easily defensible reason for thinking that you have worked those ideas out in detail. And I just don’t have the time or inclination to spend hours or days trying to figure out the answer to that question on my own.
So, good luck in any case. I likely will come back for some more reading of your papers, if nothing else just to see if me initially positive impression was justified or a case of me fooling myself into believing there was more there than there really is.
And by the way, a secondary issue, one that is shared by I dunno, maybe over half of the essays this year?, is that you didn’t
really answer this year’s FQXi question, which was how to
tell if something is fundamental.
I realize by now (this is my first year, and despite many good interactions I am still ambivalent about having submitted my work here) that there exists at FQXi a lively history of the same people participating year after year just to share the latest iterations of their personal physics theories (or anti-theories in some case) via the FQXi community. So each year they (many of you who are reading this!) largely ignore the real question. They (you) instead write up a snippet of intro text that “explains” why the next iteration of their (your) idea falls under the new question, whether it dos or not. It’s a tradition, sure… but it also is not really what FQXi is asking for, either.
Cheers,
Terry
Fundamental as Fewer Bits by Terry Bollinger (Essay 3099)Essayist’s Rating Pledge by Terry Bollinger
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author peter cameron wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 13:16 GMT
Dear Terry,
Pretty cool to start the day with comments such as yours. Thanks for screwing up my schedule.
you nailed it with the frustration thing. Quick summary
- arxiv won't let us post
- can't get past the editors at most journals
- those editors who do send papers out can't find referees
- in seven years since foundation of present work synthesized...
view entire post
Dear Terry,
Pretty cool to start the day with comments such as yours. Thanks for screwing up my schedule.
you nailed it with the frustration thing. Quick summary
- arxiv won't let us post
- can't get past the editors at most journals
- those editors who do send papers out can't find referees
- in seven years since foundation of present work synthesized itself, we've not been successful in securing even one opportunity to speak, to present our ideas in a logical coherent sequence.
so yes we are frustrated. and this drives the attempts to present enough information to make each paper a coherent whole, the information overload. Aware of it and hate it, Michaele and I have been arguing about it. She wants me to make the next little note two pages long, and I put my foot down at one. Posted on vixra now, perhaps you've seen it. We've focused on what is probably single largest problem with SM, the infinities and renormalization.
please, if you would, give us a critique? How can we improve it? Identify the tripping/tipping points? else?
taking a risk here, as a non-expert presuming to summarize a Buddhist perspective on the arising of consciousness, a five step model proposes:
0. form - internal or external, presents itself to
1. emotional tone - where it excites some pre-existing balance between sympathetic (fight or flight) and parasympathetic (relaxation) branches of autonomic nervous system
2. perception - preconscious perspective integrates and encounters
3. volitional formations - the residue of previous iterations of this feedback loop/network, most often deeply entrenched, which filters all but that which reaches
4. consciousness
Michaele and I have gone again and again thru this, where/why/how the tripping point emerge and the tipping points get lost.
obvious is that bringing those two lost threads of geometric wavefunction and impedance quantization to the surface gives a new perspective that appears to be well-integrated, and of course it is not the answer any of the searching communities are invested in. Those in privileged positions of comfort and esteem really don't want to see the Higgs as an incredibly short-lived magnetic resonance,...
lol re the 57 page 'one slide'. funny, i remember it as being longer, eighty something. Wonder what's missing from the one you see. gotta fix that.
re figure 4, well, yeah, i know. Point well taken. If i ever have to regurgitate this stuff again, now see a way to fix that. thank you for the attention to it.
again re fig 4, conceptually you seem to be following it pretty well. phases rotate in opposite directions for electron and positron shown at top and left. Or one could have them rotate in same direction if wanting to model that. For vacuum wavefunction i think they should rotate opposite.
presuming one knows how to do so, when one excites that vacuum wavefunction first things that appear are lightest rest mass particles, pair production. In approach we present, as a consequence of the dynamics that emerge if one increases excitation energy, higher order resonances appear. Muon is first, according to MacGregor is 'platform state' for all the rest. That seems to work for the proton spin structure paper we presented to SPIN16.
and that paper was based on the modes highlighted in green in fig 4. It seems to be all of one piece, surprisingly so, everywhere we look. So yes it is a matrix, apparently the long-sought particle physicist's S-matrix.
lol, scrolling down thru your comments to the only comprehensible word, 'proton' in the middle. indeed we are blowing a lot of smoke here, with great delight.
agree re we are all selling our schtick in the present forum. For those of us with no other access it is a precious resource.
view post as summary
Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 13:46 GMT
coming back again to fig. 4, your comment
"I can't even figure out how it relates to standard particles,..."
caption has the phrase
"Modes indicated by symbols (triangle, square, dot, diamond) have their impedances plotted in figure 8, opening new windows on the unstable particle spectrum."
Conclusion from figure 8 could be that production and decay of the remainder of massive particle spectrum is governed by the impedance structure of the most easily excited massive particle, by the excitation of the full eight-component geometric electromagnetic Pauli wavefunction of the particle we call the electron.
Figure 4 is impedance representation of the scattering matrix. Figure 8 shows how a portion of the resulting network is related to the unstable particle spectrum.
Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 14:02 GMT
pdf of early calculations is available on the cloud
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_pzihZZV6IfckpQTVFRQz
RtMm8/view?ts=5a182f53
Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 06:46 GMT
Dear Michaele and Peter,
I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand «andpresent details of the new perspective»
It is so close to me. «Of itself the geometry and its algebra are abstractions. It is only with the possibility of excitation by physical fields that the concept of geometric vacuum wavefunction becomes useful».
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
Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 07:13 GMT
Dear Michaele, Peter
If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to...
view entire post
Dear Michaele, Peter
If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.
Beyond my essay’s introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity’s effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?
My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a “narrow range of sensitivity” that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn’t then gas accumulation wouldn’t be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.
Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn’t we consider this possibility?
For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we “life” are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.
My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.
By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.
To steal a phrase from my essay “A world product of evolved optimization”.
Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest
Kind regards
Steven Andresen
Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 19:53 GMT
Peter & Michaele,
You have mentioned bi-vectors and tri-vectors. Can you elaborate on this please. If a bi-vector is the product of two vectors, how is that different from a vector that is perpendicular to both? If a tri-vector is the product of three vectors, how is that different from a scalar?
Thanks,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 20:41 GMT
Gary,
i'm no expert, but my understanding is that bivector is 'dual' of the conventional orthogonal vector of the Gibbs vector cross product. Thing with geometric algebra is that the product changes dimensionality in such a way that scalar/vector/bivector/... formalism works in any dimension, but dual Gibbs representation works only in 3D space and 4D flat Minkowski spacetime. This seems to me to be a rather profound sort of 'symmetry breaking', wondering how it might be related to the topological symmetry breaking that results from great strength of magnetic charge. Brings to mind Veneziano's dual resonance model, as shown in fig. 7 of our essay. It was one of the big steps on the way to string theory.
in 3D Pauli algebra
scalar is scalar - one singularity, electric charge
vector is vector - two singularities, edm and magnetic flux quantum
bivector is pseudovector - Bohr magneton and electric flux quantum
trivector is pseudoscalar - no singularity, magnetic charge
a caution there is a topological inversion buried in that little list, due to strength of magnetic charge. Position of Bohr magneton and magnetic flux quantum are swapped relative to what one might intuitively expect.
figure 4 of the essay shows that in a little more detail for electron and positron wavefunctions at top and left, but one has to go to the references to get the details. We didn't delve into the topological stuff for the essay. Information overload already, we are too different enough.
if you look at the thread on Terry Bollinger's essay you'll see about 80% way to the end he and i have a subthread. He seems to know quite a bit about this, please if you quiz him do so in that thread so i can learn as well.
Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 21:03 GMT
bivector pseudovector has no singularity, like trivector pseudoscalar.
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 14:04 GMT
Peter,
You need to follow my essay ontology before analysing Declan's code & plot built from it. I note you haven't commented there yet (Little time left). See also Watson's.
The 1's continue to annoy. A simple added rule I've proposed would solve it! (no post and the 1 may get put back on theirs!) As, though different, we seem to appreciate each others I'm sure we'll both be gentlemen and rate them appropriately highly? I hope to see your comment on mine. To help I posted the below on my page.;
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
report post as inappropriate
Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 18:40 GMT
Peter,
Looked again a couple times at Traill's essay. Perhaps starting to get the connection Terry Bollinger was trying to point out.
From perspective of the geometric wavefunction interaction (GWI) model Michaele and I are working with two essential points relevant to Declan's essay seem to stand out.
1. There exist two different varieties of quantized impedances - scale invariant and scale dependent. Forces associated with invariant impedances can do no work, cannot share energy/information. Resulting motion is perpendicular to direction of applied force. These are the conduits of non-locality. They communicate only the quantum phase of entanglement, not a single measurement observable. Here the GWI approach appears to be in harmony with what Declan shows.
2. What distinguishes quantum from classical is quantum phase. Once one accounts for the fact that phase is not a single measurement observable, from the perspective of our synthesis of geometric wavefunction interactions with quantized impedance networks QM appears 'classical', again in agreement with Declan's conclusion.
Having arrived at this, now feel ready to take a look at Watson, and then yours again. Tho we're not math folks here, Poincare sphere is only slightly familiar to me from Penrose's road to reality.
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 19:44 GMT
Peter,
No maths in mine to worry about, just needs a little brain power to follow the ontological construction. Declan's is essentially just the matching code & Plot. Haven't seen a comment yet, (on the above or my essay) hope you get to it. The 2 pairs of momenta are simply linear, max at the equator, and polar curl' which is orthogonal. Both go to zero at 90 degrees, and both change non linearly over 90o by Cos latitude (known in geophysics).
With that starting assumption replacing 'superposed singlet' states the classical derivation becomes possible (with a few similar more careful analyses including of WHAT we actually 'measure!).
Final reading now & scoring shortly - hope to do most but clearly those who read/understand/like mine obviously get priority!
Best of luck in the run-in & judging
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 15:09 GMT
Peter,
Thanks for your post on mine. Reply (2nd try!) below;
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
report post as inappropriate
Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 19:34 GMT
Peter - My habit is to rate essays immediately after commenting, in the hope that the author will pleasantly associate the rating with my comment. Rated yours yesterday. Brought you up 5 or 6 places, to the top of 7.2 bracket. Glad to see you are now in 7.3. For the most part i prefer to only rate essays i like, essays i can boost.
hide replies
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 21:16 GMT
Dear Peter Cameron,
In a response I had overlooked on my page you asked about my view of quantum gravity. My view of this topic is here: The Nature of Quantum Gravity.
You also mention that Hawking suggests that a 'Planck particle' would have a Compton wavelength thousands of times the observable universe. For me, that's a proof of no Planck particles.
In my quantum gravity...
view entire post
Dear Peter Cameron,
In a response I had overlooked on my page you asked about my view of quantum gravity. My view of this topic is here:
The Nature of Quantum Gravity.
You also mention that Hawking suggests that a 'Planck particle' would have a Compton wavelength thousands of times the observable universe. For me, that's a proof of no Planck particles.
In my quantum gravity theory (post-big bang) events which occasion extreme energy density (such as LHC collisions: Au-Au, Pb-Pb) are "off-center", i.e., "off axis" and
hence also occasion high angular momentum in the resulting perfect fluid. The dynamics of turbulent vortices spit out particles along the gravito-magnetic axis (of angular momentum) and these particles have bounded energy. That is, no matter how much energy you bring to a small region, it does not create a Planck particle, but a cascade of real particles. These are the particles (and resonances) of the standard model. Post-big bang there is nothing beyond them! Just as SUSY has never shown up, nothing beyond additional resonances will ever show up. The particle zoo we have is it. We need a theory that calculates the masses and I believe that my quantum gravity can do so. [I am working on it.]
The effective field theories are 'bookkeeping schema'. They ignore the perfect fluid particle dynamics leading to toroidal particles and jump straight to the end result, "creating" and "annihilating" particles from 'quantum fields' in a way that conserves appropriate aspects of the particle. From this perspective, there is no limit on the particle zoo, hence wavelengths 1000 times longer than the observable universe arise. This does not occur in a more fundamental particle dynamics. Quantum theory is statistics. The particle and the wave properties arise from quantum gravity.
I very much enjoyed our exchanges, and I'm always excited to see geometric algebra-ists at work.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Gordon Watson wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 01:20 GMT
Dear Michaele and Peter,
I've just discovered that a 2-hr blackout has wiped a long enthusiastic WIP response to your essay -- probably via a valid log-out at FQXi -- and I'm not good at rewritings! So this is short-&-sweet as I look forward to many more ongoing discussions! Thanking you for a (for me) beautifully presented and breath-taking essay, I regret (just a little; as...
view entire post
Dear Michaele and Peter,
I've just discovered that a 2-hr blackout has wiped a long enthusiastic WIP response to your essay -- probably via a valid log-out at FQXi -- and I'm not good at rewritings! So this is short-&-sweet as I look forward to many more ongoing discussions! Thanking you for a (for me) beautifully presented and breath-taking essay, I regret (just a little; as you'll see) that it follows the mould of Philip Gibbs' lovely essay on "a universe of stories" as against my fondness for "a universe of dialogue" based on stories, poems, observations, dreams, etc. + MATHEMATICS -- such dialogue itself based on a universe of spacetime (a beable), full of beables and interactions -- the more especially when I see our shared fondness for GA, wavefunctions, interactions, observables (7x on p.1), ++++; plus a healthy avoidance of matrices, etc; ps, though I find avoidance of Bell's lovely term "beables"
(nb: in spacetime) not good for digestion; neither of food nor ideas;
nb: I also like inferables. [Breathing has now forcibly resumed; and with it the truth that much of your essay is currently beyond me.]
Re wavefunctions [WFs] -- and reminding you that (imho, if you like) math is the best logic -- please see Fröhner (1988:639), hyperlinked at Reference [12] in my essay; or via direct link to the PDF
Missing link between probability theory and quantum mechanics: the Riesz-Fejér theorem.Fröhner's work is part of my theory [see essay at ¶11]; so re WFs, see particularly in the vicinity of this on his p.639: " ... Historically, the superposition principle had been established first as a puzzling empirical feature of the quantum world, before M. Born recognised that the absolute square of the wave function can be interpreted as a probability density. ..."
Re this from you: "The resulting geometric wavefunction model permits one to examine the interface between fundamental and emergent." I see that
"emergentia" is a favourite theme (at least on p.1): me being here forced -- similar to my distinctive use of "premiss" -- to return to the much more sensible Latin [subject to latin-experts] since the right word here --
emergency -- is misleading in plain English.
Though (please NB) maybe it does apply as a primary-concept that we should first sort out: me trusting that we agree with that fundamental and elementary premiss: TLR (true local realism)?PS: Regretting, with apologies, many other wiped comments (though they can be reconstructed in ongoing dialogues), I'll drop a copy of this onto my essay-thread; hoping you'll do likewise if/when you respond.
With my thanks again, and with best regards; Gordon
Gordon Watson
More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 03:22 GMT
Peter, to be clearer re my last above: "[nb: the temptation to re-edit resisted]" should more clearly say: [nb: the temptation to NOW read AND THEN re-edit BEFORE SENDING HAS BEEN resisted]. This next is quick and dirty to get things moving: I'm time-poor on many fronts at the moment.
Now, having begun to read [but needing much more time]: please [in future] number your paragraphs and sub-points as I do in my essay. For there are many points that we hold in common but a few that raise questions.
Re this from you above, with -- [CAPS] -- by me: "I like your logic approach to the problem, in principle should be clear of inadequacies of particle theory models (renormalization comes to mind) -- [YES + AAD, NL AND WFC (WF-COLLAPSE); SO FAR SO GOOD] --, but lacks the intuitive advantage of simple geometric electromagnetic wavefunction model in 3D space -- [GEWM-3D: THIS I MUST SEE] --" for
I'm seeking intuitive advances at every step. So please see Fröhner re WFs and superpositions: and tell me about [point me to] the GEWM-3D!
PS: We build a bridge via dialogue! I need to learn about your use of "mechanical-impedance" -- in baby steps please + references to the related online literature (if any): hoping to see the end of "the impedance matrix". TKS; G -- I've brung this from my essay-thread.
report post as inappropriate
Gary Valentine Hansen wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 20:48 GMT
Hello Michaele and Peter,
I am happy to be able to stretch my time on the last day of the FQXi essay contest to include a reading of your essay.
In the universe of all-there-is - (known and unknown), distinguished from the universe of all-that-is-known, that physicists understandably prefer to embrace for no better reason than ‘it marks the boundary [of] interactions that cannot be...
view entire post
Hello Michaele and Peter,
I am happy to be able to stretch my time on the last day of the FQXi essay contest to include a reading of your essay.
In the universe of all-there-is - (known and unknown), distinguished from the universe of all-that-is-known, that physicists understandably prefer to embrace for no better reason than ‘it marks the boundary [of] interactions that cannot be observed’, notwithstanding physicists’ reluctance to acknowledge that there must be a ‘beyond’ – spacetime is simply the correlation of space and time, each of which extends to infinitely in all directions, and always have..
Focusing upon your discussion of ‘emergence’, and recognizing that the FQXi essay theme is focusing on the identification of a singular “Fundamental” (otherwise the theme would be ‘What ARE “Fundamental?’’); it is not difficult to trace causes, events and effects backwards in time to the point where there are no more ‘causes’.
Time and space are neutral with respect to making any contributions to ‘causes’. They simply punctuate events by according each a ‘when’ and a ‘where’.
That leaves our old friends ‘energy’ and ‘matter’ as the sole causes of all events and effects leading to subsequent causes.
The question then arises what are the origins of energy and matter? In the universe of all-there-is, (distinguished from the universe of all-we-know, a definition popular to physicists);
if we can accept the possibility that ‘energy’ and ‘matter’ exist in the universe in unknown and unknowable quantities, and always have, then we have arrived at the conclusion that all that is required for this to be so – our singular “Fundamental” – is Existence.
Physics and mathematics can then be understood to be the means by which mankind attempts to organize complexity into comprehensible order and to sweep unwanted ‘stuff’ into the waste basket with a stroke of Occam’s razor.
History is a worthy foundation to build a future upon, but it is not fundamental to progress. Imagination and risk are more likely to serve our best interests in expanding our knowledge bases in the interest of improving the human condition.
I shall look forward to learning that you have received your just rewards shortly.
Thank you both, go well, and keep going.
Gary.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
richard kingsley nixey wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 21:19 GMT
Peter,
Sigh, in a universe where supposed intelligent people throw 1 bombs about it seems us decent folk are destined to do the opposite! But at least we can live with ourselves. Excellent if rather off the thoroughfare essay.
Peter Jackson pointed me your way and it seems he was right, though less familiar to me than QM. He was good enough to score mine up over his, but his is far better so I did the same to his. Now with you one below me I must do the same to yours! All quite bizarre, but at least QM doesn't have to be any more, at last! Yes I spent time checking out his mechanism and it works brilliantly.
I trust you've supported it. Of course all will squeal or ignore it, as with any advance. I think your insights stand even less chance of penetrating mainstream but my score should help infinitessimally. (if you get a chance to read my short offering, like it and can spare the odd bit of change above it's rating I'd be delighted.
Very best of luck in the judging, but don't hold your breath - from past evidence the playing field is clearly as level as the 'big air' olympic snowboard ramp!
Best of luck anyway. Hold tight for a sec..
Rich
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 15:58 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
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 distances.
2. "'Of What' - relative motion of what?" Vortices all the way down (as up!)
3. "Most Profound" SR. & has to properly account for.. nonlocality..." SR itself isn't profound, it's unifying it with QM with CSL that is. Seems you missed that non-locality has gone! Think harder; Alice & Bob can each get reverse results by rotating their dial!
4. Motion - the notion that a particle requires 'spin' to exist is new to me. I should hope so! No such real thing as a 'function' just use a vector algorithm. spherical rotations on x,y,z, can produce any and ALL 'spins' inc non-integers. See the video and my recent post on Bolliger.
5. OAM. Yes, Background independence not needed as c is localised by constant requantization. Forget all but AE (later) & Minkowski's 'spaces in motion within spaces'.
6. Transition Zone. Great. Solves all the above and far more.
7. QM. Simple; Use Earth; At any point on the surface there's 0-1 LINEAR rotational 'speed' but ALSO 1-0 ROTATIONAL rate (+1 -1 at poles). They change inversely by Cos Latitude (& 'through coloured', so at all radii). All interactions are at some Tan point, which dictates momentum exchange. See my last yrs essay figs.
Helicity, Go back a few essays to; It from Bit; 'The Intelligent Bit'. Notional 'charges' on spinning sphere describe a helix when also translating, which will have some degree of helicity, which gives 2 inverse axis values when 'measured' by orthogonal polarizer channels. Occams razor rules! just needs familiarity.
Give it a try; About 2/3rd-3/5ths of present theoretical assumptions are shown to include nonsense and just about all paradoxes and anomalies resolve. It's far to much for me to handle alone so pick any bit you like to collaborate on. As soon as we've had enough funerals we may even get advancement started again!
Very Best
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 16:01 GMT
That was me. It lied. It told me I was logged in!
Do mail me direct;
pj.ukc.edu@physics.org Peter
report post as inappropriate
Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Mar. 3, 2018 @ 19:37 GMT
Figure 1: There is nothing fundamental on fields, Dirac algebra, or S-matrix... They are all derivable.
There is nothing fundamental about wavefunctions. They can be derived.
"Spinors of the Dirac equation wavefunction". As has been known for last 50 years, the Dirac equation is not a valid wavefunction equation. It is reinterpreted as an identity for fermion operators in QFT.
"The photon-electron interaction is the keystone of QED". Only in the field-based formulation. There is no photons in the action-at-a-distance formulation of QED. Real interactions in the universe are only charge-charge.
"We presented a model in which the fundamental is that which cannot be observed, the wavefunction." Not only wavefuctions are't observable, but as mentioned above they aren't fundamental. The quantum state of a cat is not given by any wavefunction because the cat is an open system.
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.