show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

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

show all replies (4 not shown)

hide replies

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

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 replied

Best

=snp

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

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

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

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

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

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

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

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

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