NOTE: From first principles, and with the help of others, my work establishes the general validity and utility of (in my terms), Malus’ Law, Bayes’ Law and Born’s Law under the premiss of true local realism (TLR).

It thus opens the way to a "neo-classical" quantum theory (in the same way that special and general relativity are sometimes called 'classical' theories).

My essay is...

view entire post

NOTE: From first principles, and with the help of others, my work establishes the general validity and utility of (in my terms), Malus’ Law, Bayes’ Law and Born’s Law under the premiss of true local realism (TLR).

It thus opens the way to a "neo-classical" quantum theory (in the same way that special and general relativity are sometimes called 'classical' theories).

My essay is thus a work-in-progress and (with due acknowledgment) I expect that progress to continue via comments and critiques here.

That is, as at ¶12.3 of my essay: I'm seeking to harness the power of the FQXi essay contest and its comment system to advance collaborative partnering.

To that end, I am planning to regularly update my essay by including additional developments and explanatory material, together with a new section: "18 - Reply to criticisms, etc."

Readers interested in that progress may email eprb@me.com --- subject line: FQXi update --- and I will send a PDF of the then current version.

Thanks, and with best regards,

Gordon Watson eprb@me.com

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Mr. Watson,

I agree with you that true local realism is at the heart of physics. And the mathematical structure of quantum entanglement is incompatible with local realism.

This is particularly important now that quantum computing has become a fashionable field for R&D by governments and corporations, and billions of dollars are being invested. But the predicted power of...

view entire post

Dear Mr. Watson,

I agree with you that true local realism is at the heart of physics. And the mathematical structure of quantum entanglement is incompatible with local realism.

This is particularly important now that quantum computing has become a fashionable field for R&D by governments and corporations, and billions of dollars are being invested. But the predicted power of quantum computing (exponentially massive parallelism) comes directly from quantum entanglement. I predict that the entire quantum computing enterprise will fail within about 5 years. Only then will the mainstream start to question the foundations of quantum mechanics.

You might be interested in reading my essay, “Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics”. I argue that both GR and QM have been fundamentally misunderstood, and that something close to classical physics should be restored, reunifying physics that was split in the early 20th century. QM should not be a general theory of nature, but rather a mechanism for creating discrete soliton-like wavepackets from otherwise classical continuous fields. These same quantum wavepackets have a characteristic frequency and wavelength that define local time and space, enabling GR without invoking an abstract curved spacetime.

Best wishes,

Alan Kadin

view post as summary

Gordon,

Great essay! You identified the same most fundamental area as mine, and certainly found the end of the beginning of the end of what Bell called the "the action at a distance sillyness". I couldn't read all of it as I didn't recognise the symbols but that's probably only due to it not being my first language.

I hope you'll agree my own essay closely agrees with yours and...

view entire post

Gordon,

Great essay! You identified the same most fundamental area as mine, and certainly found the end of the beginning of the end of what Bell called the "the action at a distance sillyness". I couldn't read all of it as I didn't recognise the symbols but that's probably only due to it not being my first language.

I hope you'll agree my own essay closely agrees with yours and indeed sorts and finds the end of the middle. as I've specified before, the old & logically problematic 'excluded middle' is replaced the 'Law of the Reducing Middle' which is a Cos² curve peaking each side produced entirely classically as the Rev Bayes, John Bell and now yourself foretold.

Now to tackle the 'end'. I suspect this may the trickiest bit as, as Chandra Roychoudhuri describes in his essay, current "sillyness" (J Bell 19__) is so deeply entrenched not only can't the 'see' out but we have to winkle it all out and up against gravity. Might it be a better idea just to bury the lot? Bill McHarris's essay implies more rapid funerals are needed to move on (after Max P) so that may achieve the aim at a stroke. It may take many of us working in unison!

Very well done, and I look forward to your comments on mine, with particular regard to the maths!

Best

Peter

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (2 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (6 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (2 not shown)

hide replies

Hi Gordon Watson

Very nice discussion...."What is fundamental? ...... The truth of our premiss (its consequents agree with quantum theory and observation) advances modern science (and common sense) by exposing more realistic fundamentals....." Best wishes...

I hope you will not mind that I am not following main stream physics...

By the way…Here in my essay energy to mass...

view entire post

Hi Gordon Watson

Very nice discussion...."What is fundamental? ...... The truth of our premiss (its consequents agree with quantum theory and observation) advances modern science (and common sense) by exposing more realistic fundamentals....." Best wishes...

I hope you will not mind that I am not following main stream physics...

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

Dear Gordon,

This response is my reply to the comment you posted on my essay "A Fundamental Misunderstanding". I have also posted this response on my essay thread too.

In answer to your question "what happened to classical energy conservation in each and every interaction?":

Every particle detect or non-detect obeys normal, Classical Physics. Energy conservation is obeyed -...

view entire post

Dear Gordon,

This response is my reply to the comment you posted on my essay "A Fundamental Misunderstanding". I have also posted this response on my essay thread too.

In answer to your question "what happened to classical energy conservation in each and every interaction?":

Every particle detect or non-detect obeys normal, Classical Physics. Energy conservation is obeyed - why would it not be?

If a particle isn't detected is may be simply absorbed by a molecule in the apparatus or elsewhere.

(Questions: 1, 2, 2a) The reason for the Classical prediction being the blue line is this:

Classically each detector has a semicircle of directions where an incident photon will give a + result, and the other semi-circle (of the whole circle)

where an incident photon will give a - result.

When both detectors A and B point in the same direction (or exacly opposite), the semi-circles overlap perfectly giving a correlation of +1 or -1.

As detectors A and B are rotated, the semi-circles' overlap decreases linearly to a minimum (90 degrees between A and b, giving a 0 correlation) and then increases to a maximum again (i.e. now giving a correlation -1 or +1 respectively). So the amount of correlation expected is a straight line from +1, through 0 and then to -1.

(3) Yes of course different experiment have differing detection efficiency, and different papers have different correlation results too, but there are no experiments with 100% efficiency; indeed the best efficiencies are still quite low, allowing for a significant non-detect count.

(4) What is GHZ? are you referring to a particular experiment/paper?

A single particle event doesn't prove anything. The correlation is built up from numerous events. To discount non-detects one would have to have very good (approaching 100%) efficiency, which no experiment yet has come close to.



(5) I am aware that the detection loophole has been used to explain the BT result for a long time, and I used to talk to Caroline Thompson about Physics in the past.

My paper is mainly about showing that the detection loophole is still a viable explanation as the so called 'loophole free' experiments using a Steering Inequality do not close the detection loophole as claimed. My model shows a clear violation of the Steering Inequality using Classical Physics via the detection loophole.



The two computer challenge is exactly the same as my model. The two functions for determining the results from A and B could easily be run on different computers

in different rooms - or even different Galaxies if you like. It will still give the QM correlation using a Classical model based on non-detects.

I don't have time at the moment to analyse and undertand your paper fully, but I did pick up on this excerpt:

"For us, EPRB entanglements arise from the pairwise conservation of angular momentum; as in (3). (ii) A logical necessity therefore follows: if the a-component of λi is known (say, via Ai = 1), then (if tested), the a-component of μi will certainly deliver Bi = −1."

Essentially it seems to me that you are saying that the two photons in the experiment have opposite angular momenta, thus conserving angular momentum across the experiment.

Yes, there is no doubt of that - but this is not sufficient to assure that detectors A and B have correlated results at different angles, as each detector has a probability of detecting each photon as either + or -. What the EPR experiment reveals is that when the two detectors have nearly the same orientation they have a high degree of correlation despite not knowing

where the other detector is. So to build up a high correlation between A and B, each detector would have to register more + results (for photons incident on them from at the samse angle) when the other detector is in a certain location; then register more '-' results when the other detector is in a different location, despite not being able to know that other detector's location!

Regards,

Declan Traill

view post as summary

Dear Gordon

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 Gordon

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 (3 not shown)

hide replies

Hello Gordon,

Welcome urging of Jackson/Bollinger/Traill has inspired a read of your essay. I've left comments on their threads.

We share a background in mechanical engineering.

First thought on looking at your abstract is the use of the word 'true' to describe your understanding. Has me laughing a little. Dangerous dance, that one. Good luck with it, hope to find it so at the...

view entire post

Hello Gordon,

Welcome urging of Jackson/Bollinger/Traill has inspired a read of your essay. I've left comments on their threads.

We share a background in mechanical engineering.

First thought on looking at your abstract is the use of the word 'true' to describe your understanding. Has me laughing a little. Dangerous dance, that one. Good luck with it, hope to find it so at the end of this read.

Hadn't seen 'premiss' used before, was familiar with premise. Googled a little, tried to sort out finer shade of meaning, but i'm not particularly adept at that sort of thing and settled for liking your version, as it gives one the permission to be right or wrong, is in accord with much remaining to be done. And agree we are surely at the beginning. Feeling of sorta arrogant presumption in premise vs premiss. Tho premiss is almost too negative imo.

Regarding your TOC, i looked in some detail at first 3 sections, browsed 4-9, and looked at 10-17 in some depth at several places. Took a break, fed the woodstove, coming back to it with some vague idea of where it's going, tho short term memory is not adequate for complexity you present in a single pass.

1.1. thanks for the numbering. excellent practice. saw this also with Bollinger. very helpful for commenting.

1.2 agree. gotta do the math. that's what keeps one on the path, the reality check.

1.3.i what you describe here i would call the geometric wavefunction.

1.3.ii and here you describe geometric wavefunction interactions, as modeled for instance by the geometric product of geometric Clifford algebra. Please notice the emphasis on geometry (need fields as well).

1.3.iii yes. at the most fundamental wavefunction level reality can be described by interactions of the fundamental geometric objects (point, line, plane, and volume elements) of 3D Clifford algebra, endowed with topologically appropriate quantized electric and magnetic fields. Any brand of realism that negates/neglects this can be rejected as naive.

1.3.iv hmmmm. this is where it gets interesting. It seems to me that at this point one has to clearly define 'real'. Wish you woulda done that for us. Or perhaps you do in what follows. Nice short clear definition here would be welcome.

1.4 simplest thing for me seems to be to equate beable with wavefunction. How does that sit with you? And here would like more precise definition of cause and effect.

2. appears to be mostly a lead-in to EPR

3-9 the details.

10. imo to define and understand entanglement one has to understand the wavefunction and its interactions. This line of inquiry has been frustrated foreffingever by point particle quark and lepton models, with all those unintuitive 'internal' attributes tied up in symmetry groups and higher dimensions, giggle dizzy daffy stuff imo.

I like your logic approach to the problem, in principle should be clear of inadequacies of particle theory models (renormalization comes to mind), but lacks the intuitive advantage of simple geometric electromagnetic wavefunction model in 3D space.

Conventional Hamiltonian and Lagrangian approaches look at conservation of energy and its flow between kinetic and potential, but they don't look at what governs that flow, the impedances.

Trumpet player needs that horn to mechanically impedance match his lips to the room, to let us feel the force of his emotion and intellect. Computer at which i sit is electrically impedance matched at almost gazillion nodes. Otherwise it could not do what it does. Impdances govern amplitude and phase of the flow of energy.

In the world of the quantum impedances have been overlooked for an odd mix of reasons. The possibility that our web of Indra is woven together via the natural quantized impedance matches of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and photons? That this is what permits the entanglement that defines a quantum system and permits higher levels of emergence?

What governs the flow of energy in such systems are quantized impedances.

What set Michaele and i upon this path is mechanical impedances. When one does an arguably logically rigorous analysis of the two body problem, what emerges is a version of Mach's principle that yields a number for mechanical impedance. All massive particles have mechanical impedances, quantized by their mass, their Compton wavelengths.

Modeling a particle as an electromechanical oscillator then yields the conversion to electrial impedances. This approach can be applied to geometric wavefunction interactions.

So now we come to EPR. Quantized impedances are either scale dependent or scale invariant. The one exception (afaik) is the photon, which has both scale invariant far field and scale dependent near field.

Invariant impedances are inverse square. Associated forces can do no work, resultant motion is orthogonal to direction of applied force. All they can do is communicate quantum phase, not a single measurement observable. They maintain the phase coherent entanglement of the photon pair emerging from electron-positron annihilation, a coherence pre-existing in the eplus-eminus pair, phase rotating clockwise in the one and ccw in the other.

Each carries phase information from the annihilation in the form of their superposition, energy passing back and forth between the phases via Maxwell. Talk by Vaidman at 2013 Rochester quantum optics/information conference described in detail an experiment their group did proving existence of Wheeler and Feynman's backward travelling phase via 'weak measurement'.

In any case to understand wavefunction coherence, how this defines boundary of a quantum system, the role of quantum phase (tagging it as 'gauge' out of respect for Weyl's earlier mistake was a horrible pitfall for all that followed, made the obvious obscure) in entanglement both local and non-local,...

To have the geometric wavefunction interaction model that Michaele and i present subject to the intense logical scrutiny shown in your essay would be a most welcome opportunity. How do we build that bridge? Your formalism looks pretty formidable to me? Do you have any sense of where our gwi model is coming from? Wondering how much interest the Bollinger/Jackson/Traill/Simpson/... cabal might show in such an approach.

Agree at some not very complete comprehension level with most of what you present up to section 17.

regarding that section, imo such a discussion requires more precise treatment of reality/causality/observables/emergence/... in the context of the wavefunction and wavefunction interactions.

would like to understand more of what you're doing. Is it possible to continue these threads after the 26th? Only the possibility of rating expires at that time? Read somewhere in a comment that a few days ago someone commented on an essay from 2013, that commenting was still open there with his contributor code. Bug or feature of fqxi interface?

view post as summary

This thought-provoking essay -- Brian Josephson's essay: On the fundamentality of meaning -- provoked the following favourable reponse from me:

Dear Brian,

Many thanks for your thought-provoking essay and my introduction to biosemiotics.* In return, there follows one of the just-mentioned thoughts: offered at the risk of my being scheduled as biosemiidiotic (if not wholly...

view entire post

This thought-provoking essay -- Brian Josephson's essay: On the fundamentality of meaning -- provoked the following favourable reponse from me:

Dear Brian,

Many thanks for your thought-provoking essay and my introduction to biosemiotics.* In return, there follows one of the just-mentioned thoughts: offered at the risk of my being scheduled as biosemiidiotic (if not wholly so).

Seeking to understand (and give meaning to) your symbols, it seemed that you were in fact talking (somewhat in code) about me [well, certainly about some of my friends; but they can speak for themselves]. For, like them, I believe myself to be an element of the set X = {biological | spacetime}: renown for my agency, as in my doings, performances, actions; AKA getting things done.

Further, in accord with your thesis, I like to think that I do now take (from p.1) "proper account of the phenomenon of meaning." For example: Having learnt to read at early age, I could give meaning to the symbols at the local bus-stop. It read: "BUS STOP. SIGNAL DRIVER." And though I only ever saw one driver per bus, yet I knew it was not a typo. For I also knew that "signal" had two meanings: and it could not be the common one, for it already said bus STOP. Thus did I see that they were reassuringly advertising the outstanding safety of each driver. [Only later did I learn, standing there, that the driver did not stop unless you waved (action); accompanied by great future insecurity (he might miss your action): whereas the one consistent message -- to my small mind -- lead to inaction by me, certain stopping by the bus, and an assured long-term security.]

All of which brings me to this next (p.1): "Meaning fails to show up in the world of physics simply because the kind of situations that physicists prefer to investigate are ones where meaning has no significant influence on the outcome." Yes, indeed! Consider the famous case of Bell's theorem: the meaning one attaches to REALISM significantly influences ones' understanding of REALITY. For me, "true realism" proves to be consistent with locality; for others, "naive realism" leads to dilemmas about AAD and nonlocality.

I could go on about theorising and scaffolding; to the edge of chaos; confusing readers; your [BJ] personal benefits (p.5). But I want to focus on this: "Historians will marvel at the way insistence by the mainstream that at a fundamental level particles are the only things that matter, banishing to the fringe those scientists who think otherwise, will be seen to have drastically interfered with the progress of science" (p.6).

I AGREE: For while I take "existence" to be fundamental, it is "interference; AKA interaction" that provides the doings, performances, actions of our dynamic universe: and particles. Thus do I believe that introductions to biosemiotics should focus on personal/human analogies from set X re scaffolding to the edge of chaos; etc.

* My only acquaintance with C. S. Peirce is that I called upon him to prove a point re the last word in my title: More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

With my thanks again, and with my best regards; Gordon

view post as summary

My voting suggestions/comments from Terry Bollinger's thread:

Fundamental as Fewer Bits. Please, at minimum, add your own comments there re Terry's voting ideas! His essay is pretty good and worthy of comment too. GW.

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

Terry, some quick short notes as I work my way to your essay:

1. FQXi Essay Contestant Pledge = Suggested FQXi Voting...

view entire post

My voting suggestions/comments from Terry Bollinger's thread:

Fundamental as Fewer Bits. Please, at minimum, add your own comments there re Terry's voting ideas! His essay is pretty good and worthy of comment too. GW.

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

Terry, some quick short notes as I work my way to your essay:

1. FQXi Essay Contestant Pledge = Suggested FQXi Voting Pledge

Your Pledge is so refreshing that I've hot-linked it above. LHS wording of the title is yours; to me, it reads "official" and is thus too hopeful (for now). RHS is my suggested edit as we work with FQXi to improve things!

2. Under current circumstances, my own position is clear:

(i) As an independent researcher, I'm here to discuss, learn, teach, debate, respond to every question, critique others, etc. Result = Fail; eg, next to no questions, few responses.

(ii) I'm not here for the votes: Result = Just-as-well; eg, given a 0 without explanation: how can I learn, respond, correct, defend, revise, acknowledge, etc?

3. While we await (with many others) for FQXi improvements, why don't we develop an OPEN voting system? Add to your Pledge a (say, for argument's sake) 5-category [each numbered; #1-5] scoring sheet [maximum vote per category = 2] with space for explanations, plus identifier (say, for you, hot-linked Terry Bollinger [or with hot-linked email-addresses also allowed] so that we ALWAYS get an alert with easy-return access. [You get the idea.]

Recipient can respond to Terry Bollinger#2, for all to see: thus promoting open learning, debate, progress, support for one view or the other, or a middle view, etc. Given the teaching/learning, who then here, as a serious researcher, would focus on "fake-scores"?

The advantage of this OPEN proposal is that you, with your background, could lead us to something truly useful, actionable, within the current rules, a worthwhile experiment, ready for the next "contest" (surely the wrong word here) -- which FQXi can monitor before refining (if need be), and accepting as the new gold-standard in OPEN teaching/learning/essay-exchange; etc: ready for the next + 1 "contest"!

4. To your (for me) excellent essay:

(i) I counted 8 important fundamental symbols in Challenge #1.

(ii) Re Challenge #2: in my [hurried] essay, see hot-linked Reference [12], p.639! It's part of my theory.

(iii) NB: Your editorial red-pen will be very welcome there at any time; hopefully after you've read [in the first thread], the Background to my theory (which dates from 1989).

(iv) Maybe, with hard work and insight, you might just become the person who finds a hidden gemstone of simplicity by unravelling the threads of misunderstanding that for decades have kept it hidden.

PS: Terry, if/when you reply to my post (at any time), please copy it to my essay-thread so that I'm alerted to it. I will do likewise.

Enough (for now): With many thanks and much appreciation for your lovely work;

Gordon Watson More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

view post as summary