FQXi Community

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Guidelines

FAQ

Essays: read and discuss

Latest FQXi news

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discuss • winners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discuss • winners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Peter Jackson: on 9/23/20 at 16:06pm UTC, wrote Joe, I very much doubt I'll be considered credentialed, particularly now...

Jonathan Dickau: on 5/20/20 at 13:48pm UTC, wrote Hi Peter, I thought you might like to see this image, after the comment...

Peter Jackson: on 5/20/20 at 10:29am UTC, wrote Probably impossible if you're not a member. It may have been in John...

Peter Jackson: on 5/20/20 at 10:23am UTC, wrote James, Sorry I didn't comment on your v2. No time! Glad my comments helped...

Peter Jackson: on 5/20/20 at 10:17am UTC, wrote Thanks for your kind words James. Nice to find someone left with vision.

Peter Jackson: on 5/20/20 at 10:15am UTC, wrote Thanks Vladimir. I appreciate such discussions over the shocking poor...

Peter Jackson: on 5/20/20 at 10:13am UTC, wrote Jonathen, Thank you kindly. Yes, a universe where all entities differ is...

Peter Jackson: on 5/19/20 at 10:19am UTC, wrote Kevin, Thanks, but it clearly DOES "apply to objects"! Galaxies...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Marcel-Marie LeBel: "Georgina, There is no instantaneity along the rod or within the coffee. It..." in The Nature of Time

Stefan Weckbach: "Hi Lorraine, thanks for your explanations. I think I now better..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "Consider ice cream in hot coffee. They stay together, 'in time', as..." in The Nature of Time

Mykel Waggoner: "This is a link to a paper I wrote, as it explains how Quantum Entanglement..." in Alternative Models of...

Lorraine Ford: "Hi Stefan, Replying to your last couple of posts, this is the way I would..." in The Present State of...

Robert McEachern: ""There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in..." in Undecidability,...

Georgina Woodward: "Max? Why?" in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Steve Agnew: "Mueller opens his essay with... "As the argument goes, there are truths..." in Undecidability,...

RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

Can Choices Curve Spacetime?
Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools
Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

The Quantum Refrigerator
A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

read & discuss all articles

FQXi FORUM

September 21, 2021

CATEGORY: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020) [back]
TOPIC: Blondes, Brunettes & the Flaw of the Excluded Middle by Peter Jackson [refresh]

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 18, 2020 @ 22:20 GMT

Essay Abstract

The deepest foundations of Philosophy, Logic, Maths & Physics, the 3 'Laws of Thought', are flawed. Updated laws can aid decidability, computability, and predictability, also help rationalise much of physics, and inform the paradox problems of Logic & Philosophy. The Greeks A=A is wrong in two ways. Aristotle = Aristotle is false because there is only ONE unique entity; 'Aristotle'. Also that 'prediction' needs 'time', so at higher orders Aristotle isn't even identical to himself a moment later. Similarly flawed are Logics 'excluded middle', and binary maths. Divisible Atoms also need new foundations, which we offer and test. Chaos theory & Godels 'Fuzzy' Sets help suggest coherent answers in; Relativity, QM & Cosmology. The 'Action at a distance' of EM and Gravity emerge from setting Diracs maths 'cut-off' between lowest EM 'coupling' scale; fermion pairs and a 'Higgs Condensate' scale. Dirac was also correct that answers can't emerge in "mathematical terms" but need "physical entities", We should now act on that.

Author Bio

Studied widely, at UKC, UCA & Westminster over 11yrs in the Sciences, Architecture, Engineering and Philosophy. RIBA, APS, AAS, RI and Fellow of the RAS. Visiting mentor at two universities. Lead Consultant on UK defense, petrochemical & renewable energy projects. Semi-retired to research in Physics & Cosmology. RNLI Governor, ex UK rep. yachtsman, Flag Officer, Rugby club chairman.

Download Essay PDF File

Jack James wrote on Feb. 19, 2020 @ 04:22 GMT

Dear Peter,

Really enjoyed this essay, thank you.

It seems to me to show how far the human mind is from knowing reality "clearly", and indeed just how much further our evolved perception is from the task.

Fig 3 is very informing, thank you.

Best,

Jack

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 26, 2020 @ 19:59 GMT

Thanks Jack. I hope it also shows a way to get to that clear reality, but it seems doctrine based on old predicates is a poor place to start, thus all the problems!

I've downloaded yours to read.

Peter

H.H.J. Luediger wrote on Feb. 19, 2020 @ 10:50 GMT

Der Peter,

any invariants in your theory?

best,

Heinz

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 19, 2020 @ 11:59 GMT

Hi Heinz.

Good question. First I hesitate to call it a 'theory'. It's more a new overview 'road map' or 'model' showing how the big picture fits together so much better starting with better assumptions. Invariants are then valid for whatever order of accuracy we want. Much more research work is than needed in all detailed areas.

The main one is all EM propagation at LOCAL c.Including on re-emission in EACH 'electron' rest frame. That allows light to change speed BETWEEN moving systems, thus the wavelength change.

In 'QM' our invariant is the relation between rotational and linear momentum at changing latitudes on a sphere surface, at any rad. so representing exchange of momentum. That's Cos theta, and inverse. Exactly as found at Earth's surface.

I think each invariant/constant will need testing and evaluating for the range of 'fuzzy set' orders. Uncertainty CAN then become insignificant, by choice.

Bala R Subramanian replied on Apr. 10, 2020 @ 19:22 GMT

My thoughts are that eventually we might conclude that everything and everyone is a parallel universe and the mathematics that might connect all these multiverses probability might be quantum mechanical. Our sociology, biology and many such endeavors might benefit if the society transitions to these higher dimensional information processes. With digitalization these transitioned cultures might successfully eliminate frictions in interactions to make humanity closer to divinity than ever in the past.

report post as inappropriate

Gilbert Leon Beaudry replied on May. 3, 2020 @ 17:12 GMT

Hi Peter,

Are you stating that the wavelengths of light are determined by speed? I often suspected that was the case and that Maxwell's equations are flawed because they are based on a constant speed. The variable speed is statistically low so as to make Maxwell's equation acceptable within reason for calculations. The variance is not noticeable over short distances but is overall as one measures light arrivals from the Observable Universe.

P.S. Thank you for the favourable rating on my essay.

Gilbert

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

John R. Cox wrote on Feb. 19, 2020 @ 16:30 GMT

Hello again, Pete!

I enjoyed a first read of your essay, there is a LOT to chew on. Just one observation off the cuff; on p.8 you point out a coincidence with Maxwell's 'curl' and thus a squaring of cosine THETA, in consequence of rotation translated at the poles. This is similar in reasoning *physically*, that BOTH permeability and permitivity co-exist in the electrostatic (or magnetic) field, but are mathematically treated separately under opposite signs limiting to a 'c' proportional difference. Hence; (-c)(+c)= (-c^2)! and that is simply ignored in theorizing, and remains unjustified mathematically! It requires being squared to be consistent quadratically with mass:energy equivalence; e=mc^2. Therefore;

(-c^2)^2=c^4!, m(c^4)= e(c^2)! and that argues for a physical universal proportion of total rest energy in a closed system, as the upper density bound at which some (even minute) portion of the total energy must exist to exhibit inertia. And physically translate inertia across a continuum of density variation to an empirical, hypothetical, minimum density bound and thus sequestering a finite quantity of energy in a self-gravitational material particle.

I'll no doubt drop back in later. I have always enjoyed dialogue with you. But right now I need to go outside and do some errands, and talk with with real people I'll meet and keep in touch with my own reality. Absolutely, no two particles are identical! best wishes and hope you have good sailing weather this coming season - jrc

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 26, 2020 @ 20:14 GMT

Hi JC. You almost go it, or likely did but the description is incomplete. Curl is jut ONE of the inverse momentum pair on each particle, giving a cos theta output amplitude. What SQUARES that value, to give QM's data set, is the 2ND interaction & Cos theta, at the analyzer channels, giving the *click* rates. Difficult to visualise & remember! but them Feynman didn't manage it, contributing to all our issues.

I look forward to reading yours.

Peter

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 19, 2020 @ 21:56 GMT

Hi Peter,

One of your best essays. You think big!

You note that "maths is proving unable to model and predict the complex physical universe." I fully agree with this but I don't know that it is math, per se, that is the problem. I believe it is projection of inappropriate mathematical structure onto the physical universe that is the problem. This is true in almost...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 26, 2020 @ 20:28 GMT

Thanks Ed, Yes, I've compressed a lot in again, but much is evidence of the veracity of the hypotheses; 'resolving power'.

I find the problem with thinking outside the box is continually finding the bigger boxes (when we actually look) rather like Russian dolls, which is pretty well the 'endlessly many spaces within spaces' Einstein finally got right, except the boundary division is 'different motions' k,k'. Thus the shear planes, which hold the key.

I find the Dirac equation actually correct. What it lacked is the physical mechanistic sequence I identify. But will those with 'wierdness' embedded in their indoctrinated brains see with that clarity? Hmm. I look forward to reading yours, particularly your take on 'entanglement' nonsense, which you may recall I derived last year simply via the 2nd 'momentum' and vector addition, so Alice and Bob can reverse THEIR OWN findings, NOT each others!

Seems much of the interest has gone flat with removal of peer scoring. What do you think.

Very best

John C Hodge wrote on Feb. 20, 2020 @ 14:55 GMT

To me, your point seems to be that nature/physics is analog and QM, logic(math) is digital. Therefore, QM and logic do not apply to physics.

I agree.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 26, 2020 @ 20:31 GMT

Thanks John. Nice to get so much agreement on quite radical hypotheses, but then they are rather self apparent. The REAL problem is how does anyone get physics to actually ADVANCE!?

I've had a first read of yours and will comment there soon.

Peter

John C Hodge replied on Feb. 27, 2020 @ 23:11 GMT

That is the prime problem. I suggest to first consider all the experiments, those that support current models and those that are problems for current models. Note "experiments" not models. This is rather difficult because many papers on models have an ingrained model in the data. An example is the galaxy redshift observations. They are called "Doppler shift" which assumes the Doppler effect is the cause. Then note the actual data is different than the papers suggest (one example is they plot the redshift as going through the center of the galaxy - they data does not.) Then you see the periodic redshift which has been noted but is really outside the standard model.

Because your talking with Joh-Erik, the MMX is another example. Just looking at the data analysis (NOT any model) shows something was detected a an experimental significance. Further, that something was not in the equipment because it was independent of the rotation of the apparatus in any one reading sequence. But the modle MM used expected to find an ether wind and the measurement was well below their expectation,they concluded no effect. But they did detect something from a direction they didn't expect. Therefore, science suffers.

Second step, form a model that explains all and that reduces to accepted models. This last is because this incorporates all the experiments that the accepted models explain. This reduces the number of problem data to a relative few. I've addressed most of them in papers of the STOE over the last decade+.

Then address experiments that fall between current models and the new one. This is the nature of light and EM. Repeating Biot-Savert experiment found flaws in the reporting and theory of Ampere's law and the meaning of magnetic field (2 types) which addresses many problems resulting from theories using Maxwell's Equation. I've addressed the light issue with a photon model that simulated several experiment (including Afshar's experiment) that reject wave models of light and the earlier "helical" models. I don't know of your model.

Well, anuway that was my approach which yielded a totally different set of initial postulates and a universe more like QSSC than Big Bang.

Hodge

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

John C Hodge replied on Feb. 27, 2020 @ 23:22 GMT

The last problem is how to get anybody to accept, 1 other will do.

It took over 50 years to accept continental drift. I'll be long dead by then and probably forgotten. Evan if my STOE is somewhat better, someone else will get the credit.

Any chance your light model can explain some of the experiments (such as the transparent mask experiment) and the Young's, photoelectric, and Afshar experiments?

If so, I'll change. If not perhaps we radical thinkers can merge.

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Branko L Zivlak wrote on Feb. 21, 2020 @ 23:44 GMT

Dear Peter

I agree with the following your views:

Only '"A is not B" is true.

Studying physical entities afresh it becomes apparent.. that for sizes at observable scalesno two physical entities are identical. ..no two galaxies, planets, trees, people, snowflakes or grains of sand will be found absolutely identical ...at a molecular level.

Now we must think more broadly and ask "Is anything in the universe precisely identical?! Clearly no Cluster, Galaxy, Solar System, Planet, Creature, Snowflake, or particle of anything physical we can observe with our best instruments are absolutely identical!

But should that discourage us from seeking the truth. If you look at Boskovic's force curves that forces are there and therefore energy and masses are scattered between two points, ie they are never above one point, which would result in identical masses. But there are cases in nature where these two points are so close that we can speak of equality, that is, of the constancy of some physical parameter. Thus, for example, two protons by mass differ somewhere at 10 ^ N decimals, where N is a large number. But there are parameters such as Planck values that are limits or mean values but do not exist in nature anywhere. Not even a single photon travels at the same speed as light, but the difference is immeasurably small. There are articles on this. Previously, it did not discourage me, but rather led me to find another such important parameter that I called the fundamental particle. Of course, such a particle does not exist, but all other particles are in relation to it. We cannot say: proton A is identical to proton B, but we can say Planck's mass is identical anywhere in the universe. The same goes for the fundamental particle. In my essay, some predictive formulas obtained using a fundamental particle are shown in relation to Planck's values.

Regards Branko

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 1, 2020 @ 18:44 GMT

Hi Branko,

Glad you agree. No of COURSE it shouldn't "discourage us from seeking the truth", indeed I hope I show it can represent a REVOLUTION and finally help REVEAL the truth in wide previously poorly related areas! You don't comment on any of those key consequences. Did you read it all? It seems perhaps not.

I get the impression you 'fundamental particle' is a metaphysical concept so I'll be interested to see how it related back the the physical universe.

I will read it all.

Best,

Peter

John-Erik Persson wrote on Feb. 24, 2020 @ 13:17 GMT

Peter

Thank you for this contribution. It was very interesting to read. It demonstrates the distance between our symbolic language and reality. Our binary thinking in the western world creates polarization as demonstrated in politics in US.

I had much fun reading your article, and hope you will take a look at mine.

With best regards from _____________________ John-Erik

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 28, 2020 @ 22:01 GMT

Thanks JE.

We'll continue the discussions elsewhere, though it does seem you may need another, slower, read to remember the important key points. They are packed in rather tightly!

Best

Peter

John-Erik Persson replied on Mar. 1, 2020 @ 21:39 GMT

Peter

You are right. Your article is long and I have read it just once.

Regards from _________________ John-Erik

report post as inappropriate

John-Erik Persson replied on Mar. 3, 2020 @ 11:55 GMT

Peter

I have had a second look at your long paper. I notice that we agree on an important question that we must regard natural laws as absolute consistent internally, but nevertheless approximations in relation to nature.

I will read your article again, but I am not qualified in philosophy although I regard the subject very important for physics.

I am an engineer, and not a scientist. So, I have deep knowledge only in very small region around SRT. Science is more like a hobby to me. So this time you cannot expect much respons on your article although I regard your article as very important.

With best regards from _______________________ John-Erik

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (4 not shown)

John-Erik Persson replied on Mar. 16, 2020 @ 19:21 GMT

Do you think that it was OK when Euclid defined parallelism by a point that does not exist?

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 17, 2020 @ 10:38 GMT

The word 'point' here is interchangeable with 'position' which (like 'speed') is an entirely relative concept, so in the context of 2D geometry is valid. Of course nature is NOT 2D! so geometry is already only an abstracted and incomplete 'representation' of reality, so steps into the 'metaphysics' bracket with Boolean (binary) logic to create the 'mathematical approximations of nature' they spawn there.

Here the 'position' can be defined and may be in many possible places. The concept of a 'point' 'not existing' is similar to a 'line' having no thickness, so more about zero dimensions having NO PHYSICAL existence. Again emphasizing the important physical / METAphysical divide I identify.

Does that make sense, and is that the point' you meant (lol).

p

John-Erik Persson replied on Mar. 17, 2020 @ 14:16 GMT

Peter

Changing to position means an infinite distance. So, is it possible to use infinite concepts in a definition?

John-Erik

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 17, 2020 @ 15:16 GMT

JE

I'm not sure what "Changing to position means an infinite distance." means, but yes, I think we should loose our hatred and fear of infinities and accept them as inevitable but at ever less consequential higher orders, or "turtles all the way down".

I wrote that we should face them and simply always define what order of accuracy we're discussing. At the 'tiny' end the fractals can go well below the Planck scale valid for 'matter'. Wheels within wheels within wheels...

At the BIG end our universe will be cyclic and growing each time, as galaxies do, so we can trace it back to 'something moved'. But it still may be just one of countless similar bodies in a greater cosmos, itself cyclic! We can't know, but don't need to to far better understand our own universe.

Is that reasonable?

P

hide replies

James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 26, 2020 @ 19:27 GMT

Peter,

Good to see you back. Your title is catchy and appropriately identifies your thinking on the topic. You aptly describe the ambiguous state of science and math and solutions. Even your identification of the fundamental problem, that Greek laws are valid for metaphysics but are only approximations for nature invites questions re realism and idealism in philosophy. I like your conclusion which made me realize how we are still impacted by a non-GR frame of reference clouding our thinking and affecting our assessment of a new physics. I had to re-imagine how I say some of the same things in my essay. Your arguments help to reset one's thinking away from the foundational, embracing new discoveries in the quantum and gravitational.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 28, 2020 @ 22:09 GMT

Thanks Jim,

Nice to hear from those who haven't just skimmed over it and can see it's import. I'll get to yours before long.

Best

Peter

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 27, 2020 @ 14:49 GMT

There are identical particles in QM.

LC

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 28, 2020 @ 22:07 GMT

Yes, but each one of conjugate pair is assumed OPPOSITE! And there's the error. They just have opposite orientation. (= 'Entanglement'!) If Alice Flips her DETECTOR angle (electrons) her OUTCOME reverses.

THEN QM BECOMES SENSIBLE AND CLASSICAL, AS JOHN BELL PREDICTED!

Or is physics buried to deep in the mire of nonsense it can never escape?

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Mar. 1, 2020 @ 10:13 GMT

Hi Peter, good to meet again in this contest.

Congratulations with your qubit approach of expressions that were only validated with yes or no. Indeed there is as I said before in one of my writings an infinity of colours between black and white.

The comment of Edwin Klingman covers most of my remarks on your essay.

I hope you will also find some time to read and comment on my essay.

Of course again the best of luck in this contest, you were able to receive the highest score several times so it must be no problem (but still no member of FQXi, maybe this time...)

best regards

Wilhelmus de Wilde

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3411

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 14, 2020 @ 13:18 GMT

Thanks Wilhelmus, I'm glad we agree on some clear & critical truths. But top scoring among free thinkers seems quite different to ANY recognition by narrow thinking doctrinal physics. Now not even admitting peer scores reveals the poor attitude causing the standstill in theoretical advancement!

I've now read & commented on yours.

Very best

Peter

Joseph Maria Hoebe wrote on Mar. 11, 2020 @ 21:01 GMT

Hi Peter,

Nice essay. Thanks.

Revised laws can release a flood of new coherent & unified physical interpretations across all Physics and Cosmology and inform Logic & Philosophy.

A new understanding will be about the limit of limits, and our own, and thus how fine we can understand something. First we have a gross view and more and more details come next. It takes a long time for general understanding to come from strict matter to ?????? an ever increasing unknown map of details and so also of possible interpretations and possibilities for application. And with it will come more and more the question: ‘What do I understand anyway and how?’

The included middle gives way to crossing borders and the joy of connection but also to infinite tiny islands of specific viewpoints each with an own interpretation. And all will be true.

We´re on the brink of a new time. AI and biotech will shovel all old paradigms into the waste bin.

We will make some leaps. In quantum and quality.

Exciting

Bests,

Jos

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 14, 2020 @ 13:31 GMT

Thanks for your appreciation and good understanding Jos.

I hope you're right about the 'leaps ahead'. They're long overdue, but the problems in Academia I've seen from both sides are difficult and I fear may become insurmountable if attitudes don't change soon.

10 years ago I wrote it may take 10 years to change old flawed paradigms ("2020 Vision") as our intellectual evolution continues. Unfortunately it seems in much of academia that evolution may have ground to a near halt! We can only keep trying, and essays and comments here may be telling.

Top physics such as Freeman Dyson say; "Our job is to show where old doctrine is wrong and advance it", but it seems all the 'rump' of lesser physicists see their job as the exact opposite!!

I look forward to reading yours.

Very Best

Peter

Lachlan Cresswell replied on May. 1, 2020 @ 04:22 GMT

Regarding paradigm changes, I decided to ignore maths, philosophy and the current thinking in physics and start off my thinking back in classical physics, which I saw back then as 'pure'.

I was lucky enough to stumble onto particle physics via a SciAm special book printed in the 1980's which took my interest in a topic that I totally ignored in 3rd year Uni physics. But thanks to a typo in a Paul Davies book called "Superforce", I had a reverie - out of which I discerned a fundamental difference between protons and neutrons that had been previously overlooked. I used my new found discovery to find flaws in some particle interactions on a Fermilab webpage eighteen years ago, and they replied back to me thanking me for correcting the errors. I have had the luxury of the last 18 years to hone the theory and work towards a TOE.

For the first decade I did no reading in physics other than immediately what I was working on, for fear of tainting my theory with other ideas that were most likely red herrings. This approach paid off, and it is only in the last 7 years that I have started to read widely. What I have achieved is a working Preon theory, a theory of time and a theory of aether, which together appear to dovetail nicely (With minimal maths and philosophy). But this TOE can answer the big questions, make predictions, that you would expect a well developed theory to do. It is firmly based on classical physics and does not rely on any quantum field theories, yet can do what they do with both explanation and understanding.

When Feynman said that the most important single piece of information he would pass to the future was the idea of the existence of atoms, I would modify this to include fields as well, such that fields and atoms cannot be seperated in reality. It is only in the insufficient models we use to describe the framework of physics, that we tend to view them individually.

I say all of this in respoonse to what was quoted of Freeman Dyson. Some of us don't bother with challenging or supporting the current paradigm. We just push on in our own bubble, being creative. Some of this is Art, some science or science fiction, but at least we are creating!

Cheers

Lockie Cresswell

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 13, 2020 @ 21:11 GMT

Hi Peter,

A very interesting essay with a lot of things discussed and extrapolated. I d like to have some explainations how you see really these foundamental objects first of all ? and why in deeper explainations you consider superluminal velocities ? and about this quantum gravitation, could you develop a Little bit please ?

I d like to know also if you can your general philosophy correlated with these foundamental objects, why they are and why they create our physicality.What is the source, the main field or the main cause. And also do you consider that we are an accident due to probabilities and maths or that we come from a kind of infinite eternal consciousness beyond this physicality transforming this energy with codes, informations or fields , this eternal infinite consciousness for me is a thing that we cannot define. What are also your ideas about this DM and DE, I am curious lol , regards

ps like I liked your essay, I have shared it on facebook

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 15, 2020 @ 13:25 GMT

Thanks Steve.

They're actually spherical rotations!, at all scales, but also as 'twin vortices' (embedded) so with similarities to Earth's 'toroidal' magnetosphere.

There's no superluminal PROPAGATION! but all physics is LOCAL, so a charge doing c in a passing train CAN be seen at APPARENT C+V as nothing propagates at over c.

Consider Bernoulli, or just a low pressure weather system. As we 'stir up' the medium to a vortex ("Matter") it forms a pressure gradient around it all the time it's there. Any matter placed IN that zone has it's own surrounding gradient and gravitates towards the centre, or both gravitate towards EACH OTHER.

Yes philosophy looses it's paradoxes. The atom IS 'divisible', recursive and fractal like a Mandelbrot Set, so we have an INCLUDED but 'REDUCING' MIDDLE between 0 and 1. If you touch a spinning sphere near the equator do you experience clockwise or anti-clockwise rotation? You can't tell of course ('uncertainty') but CAN tell 100% at the poles! The distribution between is non-linear by CosLatitude.

We are then more an 'accident' than anything undefinable, but more a consequence of the process, likely unique but perhaps much similar life has evolved within the many iterations of a cyclic universe, growing with each cycle (so matching the evidence, unlike the BB cosmology!).

DM&DE seem totally misunderstood. The free Majorana fermions (electrons etc) do a perfectly good job as so called dark matter (n=1), and the 'sub-matter' scale rotation which forms the 'HIGGS' CONDENSATE does a very good job as 'dark energy'. (just a smaller rotation, NOT coupling with but FORMING the EM 'waves' that couple with electrons.

Changing the foundations is rather like being shown the picture on that giant jigsaw puzzle - throw away old beliefs and suddenly it all fits together coherently! Of course there will always be things unanswered.

Very best

peter

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 16, 2020 @ 08:50 GMT

Hi Peter, thanks for developping your ideas, I thought about this generally , I have posted and answered on the essay of Philip Gibbs, I like his reasoning,

Here is the answer about a general point of vue on these informations.

Hello Ulla, happy to see you here, hello Professor Gibbs, here is general thought about these informations.

Entropical spherical informations and general universal communications , the sortings, superimposings, synchronisations and the link with quantum 3D spheres and the general spherisation of the universe .Why and how ? sources, signals and encodings …..

The complexity appears with the quantities of informations and can be ranked between the minimal and maximal of informations . For this let s consider a main universal emission from the central cosmological sphere, it is there that this infinite energy codes and transform thsi energy in matters, 3D finite series of spheres for me in a gravitational coded aether where this space disappears playing between the cold and heat generally.The source is from there and the aether is the source but it encodes also and recepts in function of evolutive codes and properties disered to create the diversity and communications of evolution in logic.

The works of Shannon can converge and the uncertainty can be better understood at my humble opinion seeing the complexity and number of these finite series having probably the same number than our cosmological finite series of spheres, there is like an universal link between this finite number,

the redondance and the equiprobability can be better understood if we know the real universal meaning of this general thought

The thermodynamics can converge considering two main constants for this gravitational aether, like codes playing between this zero absolute and this planck temperature, it is an assumption but when we consider all the properties of these series, we can understand better the synchronisations, the sortings, the superimposings with all the motions, rotations , oscillations of these 3D spheres.

The second principle in thermodynamics become relevant , Q/T correlated with this entropy and we can converge with the entropy of Shannon and the topological entropy in considering several mathematical Tools of ranking, like the lie derivatives, the topological and euclidian spaces, the Ricci flow and an assymetric Ricci flow, the poincare conjecture , the lie groups and others mathematical Tools. See that the motions, rotations , oscillations, volumes, densities, mass, angles, senses of rotations, moments, and other physical properties can help for the rankings and for a better understanding of communications ,uncertainties and probabilities.

The potential of these series so become the key and the distribution also of informations in function of codes of evolution and properties of matters. It is a question of internal energy and distribution of this energy in function of internal codes and informations. The relevance becomes the infinity of combinations.

Regards

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 13, 2020 @ 22:27 GMT

Dear Professor Peter Jackson,

thanks for remembering me once again.

you nicely described about equality in your essay.....A 'Heap' is a vague predicate, yet we can have 2 or more separable heaps. One grain of sand is not a 'heap', but adding one at a time makes it so. But when?! Taking grains away does the inverse. For maths we assume 2 heaps of sand can be equal, which is our first approximation.But can't we weigh them? or even count the grains to be sure? Of course, but just more approximations. It would take an infinite supply of 'final grain' sizes to ensure weight equality. The irony then is that of course each grain is different, so abstraction to equalnumbers also won't give us equal heaps!........ Mathematically and philosophically correct.

When we weigh in grams or measure in liters.... they are not equal....

None of my papers are TALL claims, all are correct, you can see all these individual papers from my blog. we can discuss.......

They were nice interactions in earlier contests, please check mail

Best wishes for your paper

=snp.gupta

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 23, 2020 @ 20:37 GMT

Many thanks, always nice to find agreement, also noted on your own string.

Peter

John David Crowell wrote on Mar. 14, 2020 @ 20:55 GMT

Peter I enjoyed your essay and I agree that there are flaws in the currently accepted foundations of physics. I set aside the current assumptions, proposed impossibles and limitations of physics and was able to go to a more fundamental level and develop a different mathematical model that includes the creation of “our” multiverse that includes the visible universe. The model has a new beginning, a different process and predicts a different ending. I would appreciate your comments on my essay. John D Crowell

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 24, 2020 @ 17:10 GMT

John,

I try to read all who read and comment on mine, (though mainly ABOUT the subject essay is always better!)

Peter

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Mar. 15, 2020 @ 10:54 GMT

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your comments on my essay, a copy from the answer hereby.

Dear Peter,

I am NOT AT ALL a fan of Everetts MWI, on the contrary, I introduce a NEW Interpretation, the Total Simultaneity Interpretation (TSI).

In TSI there are no more split-ups. ONE line is proceeding and te other from the split is turning back into Total Simultaneity.

Perhaps it was a mistake to say that ALL future and past split-ups are ONE entity TS. It was just comparing Now we don't have any more split-up material realities to explain quantum physics...

I hope you can understand it better now because this is really the essence of my thinking.

There are more authors who don't understand this subject, so I think I will prepare an addendum and sent it to the participants of the contest. On the other side I don't know if they see it as "publicity" for my essay, so...

Thanks for your attention

Wilhelmus.

report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher wrote on Mar. 23, 2020 @ 19:45 GMT

Dear Peter Jackson

FQXi.org has allowed me to upload an updated version of my essay Why Can’t Y’all See The ONE Thing I See? because of the change in the competition submission date. I would appreciate it if you could find the time to read my updated version and perhaps leave a comment about it.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 24, 2020 @ 17:07 GMT

Joe,

I responded on your string, I read and commented once, if you make a similar effort I'll be happy to do so a 2nd time.

Best

Peter

Christian Corda wrote on Mar. 24, 2020 @ 11:04 GMT

Dear Peter,

As usual, you wrote a provocative but nice Essay. Again, your interpretation of John Bell's ideas is opposite to the standard thinking. At the quantum level, your statement that "The Greeks A=A is wrong" seems consistent with Pauli's Principle for Fermions, but, what about Bosons? In any case, your Essay enjoyed me. Thus, I will give you a high score. Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 24, 2020 @ 12:55 GMT

Christian.

Thank you kindly, Yes, common views on Bell are quite different, but I'm careful to actually quote him accurately not 'interpret', which shows familiar interpretation quite wrong.

And Pauli/Boscovich 'exclusion' is indeed extended here, as 'relative motion' implies each party has one definable kinetic state only at any gauge (but a translating body MAY also rotate).

It seems Bosons may be essentially mathematical descriptions of helical motions of smaller change 'states', and photons only quantized on absorption & re-emission (including 'measurement'). Can you think why not?

The revised foundations proposed seem to allow far more consistent physics!

Very best.

Peter

Joe William Fisher wrote on Mar. 25, 2020 @ 16:01 GMT

Dear Peter Jackson,

Thank you for your reply. In the 2018 competition, I was so excited when I discovered a sensible alternative explanation for a Natural Universe that did not include finite spatial dimensions, I tried to inform my fellow essayists only to find out just how hostile and unresponsive they were. This year, I swore that I would not post any comments at all on my rival essayists’ essays. The new version of my essay gives a more definitive explanation of Natural Visible Reality. You had already favorably commented on my essay and I am thankful that you did so. Your essay is of course extremely well written, except you are trying to give an explanation of finite flaws supposedly in finite physical laws. Natural Visible Reality has no flaws or laws because it is infinite.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 25, 2020 @ 16:33 GMT

Thanks Joe,

Actually infinity is exactly what I'm arguing, which is the opposite of Boolean logic. And not just 'spatial dimension' (and also smaller as well as larger), but temporally, 'Cycles' are eternal.

But what you really needed to swear was just that you wouldn't talk all about YOUR essay on other essay strings, just explain it better on your own. That's fine, and wouldn't generate hostility.

Very Best

Peter

Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Mar. 27, 2020 @ 12:06 GMT

Dear Peter,

Very strong and deep ideas aimed at overcoming the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of fundamental science. Our views on the basics of knowledge are very close. But the dialectics and ontology of the “Beginning”, I believe, must be deepened and presented in a symbol that will be understood not only by scientists and reflect the ontological, epistemological, gnoseological, axiological simplicity of Complexity. We must proceed from the fact that quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity are parametric (phenomenological, operationalist) theories without an ontological basification. When searching for truth, it is always good for physicists and mathematicians to remember the philosophical covenant of John Archibald Wheeler: "To my mind there must be, at the bottom of it all, not an equation, but an utterly simple idea. And to me that idea, when we discover it, will be so compelling, so inevitable, that we will say to one another, 'Oh, how beautiful. How could it have been otherwise?'

With best regards, Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 27, 2020 @ 14:51 GMT

Thanks Vladimir,

It's nice to agree on so much patently true. I do love that Wheeler quote so right, but maybe also so wrong as it's patently now identified but nobody's saying; "Oh, how beautiful, (which it is) ..How could it have been otherwise?'. It seems beliefs rule over ontologyy, and few even genuinely understand the problem!! But see my conversation with Ronald Radicot on his string.(1st March on).

It may be summed up as dialectic OAM momenta, with trialectic axes (x,y,z).

I see my score's had a boost after the 1.0 hit earlier! Thank you.

Very best.

Peter

James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 27, 2020 @ 17:57 GMT

Thanks, Peter, for reading my essay. For the first time, I'm updating my essay, considering the virus events and the extension of the deadline. Hope you will read my update. I rated yours nicely on the 20th of March soon after they extended the deadline and I was able to see the rating carnage.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 27, 2020 @ 18:04 GMT

Thanks Jim,

I've made a note to go back to it, after the pile I still have! And will certainly rate it. (well.. as my initial comments)

Best Peter

James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 28, 2020 @ 22:33 GMT

Peter,

I found your comments very helpful and incorporated same of your suggestions in my update. Wanted to let you know that I updated my essay and uploaded it a few minutes ago. Personally I feel that it is greatly improved. I appreciate your candor and would like to see any additional comments you might have.

Please check mine out if you have time. Such honest, No BS, reviews are needed by all of us.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 20, 2020 @ 10:23 GMT

James,

Sorry I didn't comment on your v2. No time! Glad my comments helped it. I did score it (an 8). Well done.

Very best.

Peter

Alireza Jamali wrote on Apr. 1, 2020 @ 19:05 GMT

Dear Peter,

Thanks for your kind comments and high rating of my essay. I apologise for this a little belated answer; I have been heavily involved in another project and could not follow FQXi entirely; I am sure I must have missed many exciting essays alas.

I will do my best to follow your interesting works and see whether I can help/critise/... .

Meanwhile feel free to contact my email if you like to discuss something. I would be more than happy to discuss exciting ideas!

Keep motivation and following your nice thoughts,

Alireza

report post as inappropriate

Manfred U.E. Pohl wrote on Apr. 2, 2020 @ 21:57 GMT

Dear Peter,

i promised to read carfully and comment and rate.

I rated a 10.0, because your essay "content" is extraordinary. We all use different languages to model reality, so not everyone can understand everything as it is written. Nevertheless you ring the bells quite well with your Conclusions. We have Flaws in our deepest foundations. I agree so much.

I discussed with a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Manfred U.E. Pohl wrote on Apr. 2, 2020 @ 22:23 GMT

PS.. i tried to explain with simple pictures on my website the idea of sun and earth and the universe as a threesome. Funny is, yes sun is center of solar system somehow, as if we look at sun, we see the surface of earth from the other side.. so if you look in the sky, this is a "mirror" and if earth is destroyed, not only sun will be destroyed with it, but all Galaxies you see in sky. Galaxys are only a "mirror" of planet earth.

attachments: excluded_middle.jpg, pythagorean.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 4, 2020 @ 18:19 GMT

Manfred,

Thanks, but as an astronomer whose long studied and built up an intimate familiarity with our solar system, galaxy and the universe I struggle to fine any data consistent with that hypothesis. Do you have any access to the AJ or MNRAS? If not the arXiv is a rich source, if rather tied to old doctrine. None the less I'm always open minded so will have a look and study your evidence and logic.

I'll also ensure I score your essay.

Very best

Peter

Manfred U.E. Pohl replied on Apr. 4, 2020 @ 19:32 GMT

You don't need evidence or arxiv. You must just build upon your logic. You have earth and sun. No one can be sure if earth is encirceling sun or sun encirceling earth. Therefore you take center of earth (dot) and center of sun (dot) Then you draw a line between those points and make 55/50 = 1/1 = pi

Then you have three dots. To materialize them now you need to make "volumes". for that you use a sphere Volume. Three times : pi / pi = pi is the setup for sun, earth and center of universe. Center of universe is then surface of earth (3-dim surface c^2 : m c^2)

Then universe (earth system) has a fixed center and can drift through space and time.

You don't need to "observe" this, this is logic also a blind use to navigate on earth. Solar system is the only calculated with Electromagnetic force.

You can't find that on arxiv or anywhere else.

It is the pythagorean advanced universe. Takes us back 2000 years into future.

Very best

Manfred

report post as inappropriate

Manfred U.E. Pohl replied on Apr. 4, 2020 @ 19:33 GMT

meant 50%/50% = 1/1 = pi

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (2 not shown)

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 5, 2020 @ 09:30 GMT

Manfred,

Thanks. Yes, I agree logic is also important, as my essay suggests. I understand your logic (though there are many different 'logics'!) I'm also always interested in fresh ideas and approaches.

But scientific modelling is principally about correspondence with Nature and observations, so, in terms of Academia or most anybody, nothing that doesn't do that will be taken at all seriously. It's quite difficult enough to get a theory noticed that DOES do so!

We have many billions of pounds worth of probes out there feeding us data. To just dismiss all that won't make a theory popular or likely to be correct! But of course I'm sure you know that, and all should be set out and argued, however strange sounding!

Very Best

Peter

Manfred U.E. Pohl replied on Apr. 5, 2020 @ 17:24 GMT

Peter,

you did not take into account the most important finding in my work. It is quite easy. E=hf is wrong and to correct that the definition of time must be changed to

1 meter = distance a photon travels in x seconds

1 second = duration a photon need to travel 1/x meter

With this, 100% (all = every single bit of "Data" you are talking about is wrong.

Every of your observation then is wrong.

I am explaining that sincs a year and i am sure some people in the world did understand that.

There is no stange thing about that, because the definition of time with a caesium atom is strange. Well they do it since 2000 years now, as no one listened to Jesus and they nailed him on a cross because they don't wanted to see reality. But someday realitiy will come to catch us (actually reality now arrived)

Take care

Manfred

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

Jochen Szangolies wrote on Apr. 4, 2020 @ 10:00 GMT

Dear Peter,

there is a venerable tradition of trying to cook up new logics to better describe the world. Dialetheism has a rich history, and there are of course the attempts by Reichenbach and von Neumann/Birkhoff to capture quantum weirdness with modifications to the propositional structure of logic---Reichenbach with introducing a many-valued approach, von Neumann/Birkhoff through...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 4, 2020 @ 10:52 GMT

Jochen, Thanks, My mentor Freeman Dyson agreed, ANY advancement means all OTHERS will "feel sort of lost", also Lorentz, Feynman etc. And yes I also studied logic & philosophy, both in crisis! Yes I pack a lot in, testing conventional thinkers, but all refs are given.

You wrongly infer I suggest loosing "the absolute identity of quantum particles.", I just suggest they can have different polar axis angles, except when 'paired', but I DO challenge that only a "statistical approach to QM", can work, & show how we can "do better" as Bell suggested! Shocking? Tes. But seems also true (I cited the verification plot). That's what I'd like you to test.

I hope you get a mo as it may be rather important to advancement.

Very Best

Peter

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 5, 2020 @ 16:55 GMT

Dear Peter Jackson, I read your informative essay and I completely agree with you that rotational movement, i.e. vortices play a major role in the appearance of mass in corpuscles. To the question, what moves? I answer - space moves relative to itself. Copernicus, when he noticed that the Earth revolves around the Sun, lost sight of the fact that with it all the solar space revolves around it.

I invite you to discuss my essay, in which I show the successes of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics, based on the identity of Descartes’ space and matter: “The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics. by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich ". At the very beginning of the essay, I repeat twice the idea that rectilinear motion, in essence, is a motion around a circle of infinitely large radius and, if this radius is reduced, then in infinitesimal laws of motion according to the theory of relativity will go over to the laws of quantum mechanics.

Next come mathematical formulas that only spoil my essay, but without them in any way. I will be pleased if you catch their main meaning and bless me for the further generalization of modern physics. I give high ratings to those who visit my page and leave her comment on it regarding the neo-Cartesian generalization of modern physics, even if they did not agree.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

report post as inappropriate

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Apr. 6, 2020 @ 06:14 GMT

Dear Peter Jackson, with your comment you have lifted my mood. I had a hope that our path in science would leave at least some trace and that scientists would pay attention to the fact that space is matter, and matter is space that moves, since it is matter. It is motion that turns space into observable matter - substance. The rotational motion of space is the most energetically favorable motion in comparison with a rectilinear motion. In order to force a space, for example, a body, to move rectilinearly, it is necessary to expend infinitely large energy, i.e. inertial systems do not exist. Their existence can only be talked about in infinitesimal dimensions, which are realized in quantum mechanics.

Peter, I wish you success in your scientific research and become one of the winners of this competition.

Regards, Boris Dzhechko

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 11, 2020 @ 19:44 GMT

Thanks Boris, but the judges have long made it clear John Templeton's aims are forgotten and nothing advancing doctrinal paradigms or our understanding of nature will be entertained! Peer pressure I suppose.

Yes, I agree there is no entirely rectilinear motion in the universe. Light has a notionally linear 'optical axis', but only within moving systems, so not 'real' and also non-linear with respect to all other systems.

Very best of luck to yours.

Peter

Israel Perez wrote on Apr. 11, 2020 @ 18:01 GMT

Dear Peter

Nice essay you have written, quite illuminating. I must confess that I have never entertained the idea that statements are provisional and metaphysical. I think you are right about this. We put these idealizations on a top level, in a level of perfection and take them as reference. We talk about the infinite but in reality we do not measure infinities, similarly, we talk about identity although things are not identical. So, the logical laws are mere metaphysical statements living in the realm of perfection. To be more realistic, it would be more correct to say that something is similar or approximately equal to something else. I am still digesting all of this. Good contribution to the contest!

Good luck!

Israel

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 11, 2020 @ 19:51 GMT

Thanks Israel,

I was confident you'd comprehend what so many don't and dismiss due to cognitive dissonance (or 'beliefs'). Lawrence's responses for instance typify that. But it's the implications of those new foundations that most important for understanding. Following those is indeed hard.

Well done for yours to.

Peter

Gene H Barbee wrote on Apr. 15, 2020 @ 19:26 GMT

Hi Peter,

Thank you are reading my essay. I appreciate your comments.

It took me a while to read yours. There is a lot there. Clearly you are challenged by uniting QM and classical physics. This is a very worthwhile endeavor and at the heart of the un-decidability essay. I didn’t know there was a logic discussion connected to the excluded middle. As you point out things are not black and white. Probabilities and distributions are important in any system that interacts and shares properties. Thermodynamics and fluid dynamics are examples you use. QM has been different especially when it comes to electromagnetic states that occur in jumps. If, as you do, believe that there is a ubiquitous Higgs Condensate consisting of virtual particles, it seems logical that there would be distributions across all classical and QM states. I was a little skeptical about how this fluid would produce the gravitational potential. Gravity is known to be very long range. I could understand how it might surround bodies, perhaps similar to SR curved space, but the LIGO results show that the pulse travels at C. This might challenge a theory based on fluids (my thought here is that fluids interact locally at the speed of sound). Overall a well thought out on point essay.

I noted that many essays are saying that no Unified Theory is possible. But yours, mine, Dr. Kadin’s and a couple of others haven’t given up. After reading several essays I was concerned that we are working on different problems. Do we really agree on what the requirements are? I spent a couple of days proposing a set of requirements. It is posted under my essay and I reviewed some my own work. If you have time, I would appreciate your thoughts.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 16, 2020 @ 00:24 GMT

Thanks Gene,

All fluctuations in the condensate (only a 'fluid' to the extent that air is) will indeed propagate at c. The 'range' of the condensate density gradient is also proportionally the same as a low pressure weather system, so near infinite. But these (dark energy) 'particles' aren't 'virtual', just small so below the scale that 'couples with' it's EM waves (the fermion pair).

Yes, most seem to have 'given up' on improving our understanding of nature. We're a small minority! But indeed we are approaching from different directions. That may be a good thing as we might surround the mountain of truth so it can't escape! But yes we should check we're surrounding the same mountain and our approaches are compatible, even co-ordinated.

I'v found getting dissidents to agree on anything is like herding cats, but again that can be an advantage as we all have different strengths. Perhaps even the magnificent 7! I'll take a look over on your string. I still have to apply your (top!) score anyway, which we all seem to need after being hit by the 1.0 trolling more than once!

Peter

PS; I look at it not so much as 'uniting' QM...etc, more identifying the errors or omissions in EACH theory that keep them from coherently DESCRIBING the true simple beauty of nature.

Sue Lingo wrote on Apr. 18, 2020 @ 00:10 GMT

Hi Peter...

I have read your paper, and the comments to it.

Perhaps the turning of the tide can be attributed to NASA's posting photos of Black Holes emitting "stuff"... REF: https://gadgets.ndtv.com/science/news/nasa-ophiuchus-superma
ssive-black-hole-explosion-spotted-chandra-2187385 ... but I like to think FQXi as an open channel for thoughtful critical analysis, by you and a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 18, 2020 @ 10:10 GMT

Thanks Sue,

Perceptive as usual. Good to see you back. My score just dropped 4 points! I expect yet another trolls 1.0 score. Did you score it yet?

Answers;

1. PHYSICAL entities defined in terms of what?... spatial occupancy?? That sounds ok, or it's as I define of condensed matter. A "rotation" big enough to 'couple with' EM fluctuations, so using non-zero space.

2. "Aether". The entities coupling with EM are Majorana free fermion +/- 'pair' dark matter.('space plasma). It's THAT which modulates c LOCALLY on re-emissions, but only at BOUNDARIES to areas of; The "CONDENSATE" which is 'dark energy' but does NOT do the assumed job of the old 'aether' it just the 'stuff of' the fluctuations.

3. "Is motion a Meta-PHYSICAL concept?. Good question. Arguable. It's a (local, relative) "concept" but requires PHYSICAL entities, to exist so is a measurable property of them. It's more fundamental so transcends the definitions because nothing would be measurable or even exist AT ALL without it! (no rotation = no matter).

I'll look forward to your essay.

Very best

Peter

Sue Lingo replied on Apr. 19, 2020 @ 03:08 GMT

Hi Peter...

Just scored you a 10.

Want to read and comment on as many essays as I have time.. will get back to this discussion after the poll closes.

sl

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 19, 2020 @ 13:13 GMT

Hi Sue, Thanks. I'll get to yours soon. I see it's also bee trolled!

P

show all replies (2 not shown)

Sue Lingo replied on Apr. 21, 2020 @ 23:07 GMT

Thanks Peter...

In that my essay explicitly request my readers' assessment of my application of Absolute Intelligence, as modeled therein, as the only logic evaluation criteria for my essay, and your assessment of my essay as "lovely", "original", and topical, does not concisely infer your assessment of my logic evaluation criteria, I will interpret a 10 score as encouragement for my obsession to verify a connection with the Cosmic Consciousness Computer (CCC://)... i.e. I am notoriously incorrigible, and yes, a flip of a coin was utilized as the only logic evaluation criteria for the content herein.

In that your essay establishes concepts that can alleviates constrained perception, may FQXi's next essay contest topic, facilitate opportunity for application of those concepts.

sl

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 22, 2020 @ 12:43 GMT

Sue,

Not a scoring criteria, but as nature is 3D not 2D I am concerned about Boolean coin flips as the most revealing model. viz; Lets say you take a 3D form instead; a spinning sphere to closely model nature. Now flip its axis randomly in ANY direction and record if you get the Clockwise (South/+) or ANTI clockwise (North/-) facing you.

The results should still be ~50:50. Yes?

Except it's also No! Every so often you'll find the equator facing you! Not only does certainty reduce, but precisely at the equator the decision becomes impossible, so your answers may HAVE to be 50:50.However closely you zero in the 'change point' disappears to infinity!

There's no agents stress involved as it's valid for all 'exchanges of momentum' in measurement interactions.

I've shown it's actually the same result if you answer the questions, it the surface momentum 'Left or Right', or 'Up or Down' when it lands at one of the poles.

I agree ALL nature has this uncertainty, so the coin toss can model it, but in a way that's been rather 'hiding' the solution to the measurement problem from us. It also means the assumptions used for quantum computing are flawed and may continue stopping them emerge, as I suggested in my "IQbit" 'It from Bit' essay a few years ago.

So I agree but also disagree with your proposition! Does that make sense?

Very best

Peter

hide replies

John David Crowell wrote on Apr. 20, 2020 @ 21:47 GMT

Dear Peter. Thanks for your comment on my comment on your essay. It made me think a lot and change my response “style”. Before I was just offering my work as something people should look at to see if it could help them in their work. Now my approach it is to go into their work more deeply and see how I can help them in their work. Thanks! In my essay I say “The SSC model can be useful to scientists in their work”. So I reread your essay in more detail to see where I might be able to help. In your essay you question the “fundamentals of logic that is the fundamentals of math”. - As well as the fundamentals of physics and thought. My “revised essay” on April 6th emphasizes a new fundamental C*s to SSCU transformation - discussed in the essay appendix -. The transformation converts chaos to order and that order scales up to become “all ordered existence”. All ordered existence includes all intelligence - logic, reason, human thought, math, - all physicality, chemistry, etc.. So this one fundamental transformation (foundation) can be the solution to many of the foundational problems that the mathematicians, philosophers, physicists, theologians are having. One solution to many problems would be nice. I believe this transformation is the “hidden middle” that disputes the first law of logic in your essay. It is the cardinality between the integers in the mathematical self replicating/self organizing scale up that becomes the visible universe and its contents. It is the “grade of membership between 0 and 1 in your “space of objects”. It also puts “ substance” into all ordered existence -including intelligence and consciousness-. It agrees with your end note in your endnotes - “Yet we agree with Minowski; “everywhere there is substance”. As you also mentioned a new model has to be “startling at first sight...a radical conceptual renewal...look wrong before becoming simpler... Those comments describe the SSC model. A lot of our two essays are in agreement if one can translate what the other is saying into our different “ languages”. I will discuss what I see as the major agreements, differences and conceivable resolutions in the next posting on this thread. Talk to you soon thanks again John

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

John David Crowell replied on Apr. 22, 2020 @ 18:41 GMT

Dear Peter. As I mentioned I am posting to discuss the similarities and differences in our essays. First the similarities: 1.Same goals (for this essay). 2. concurrence about the laws of thought 3. Both obey conservation law 4. Both eliminate singularities 5. Matter comes from motion 6. Both have dynamic motion, vortices, “condensate to condensed matter” 7. Both have action at a distance—8.circular gradients 9. Boundary transition zones 10. Constant c in transition zones ( with a twist) 11. ”Everywhere is substance” 12. Need physical entities 12. Can physics be this easy? 13. A new theory needs to be: “... startling at first sight...first look wrong before turning out simpler...radical conceptual renewal... an imaginative leap that will astonish us”. 14. Recommend a new field of study. Next posting on this thread will introduce the differences. John

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 22, 2020 @ 20:50 GMT

Hi John,

Thanks. I've read yours now. Yes I see the fundamental commonalities, and also differences. I'll respond on yours.

Best

Peter

John David Crowell replied on Apr. 23, 2020 @ 17:56 GMT

Hello Peter. In our postings we agree our theories have commonalities and differences. I do not believe our differences on the science are necessarily opposing views. I think they are representing different aspects of the processing. In fact I believe the theories could work in tandem - both supporting the other to provide a complete(more complete) theory. The SSC theory provides an “overall framework” of the entire processing. It provides a specific beginning, ending and a mathematical description of the overall processing. The overall description consists of two sets of equivalent and opposite processes. One set is the self creating progression and it’s equivalent and opposite self dissipating progression. The other set is two equivalent and opposite process transformations. These transformations are separate in space, synchronized in time and maintain the speed of SSC (equivalent to the speed of light). These transformations connect the beginnings and endings of the self creation- self dissipating processes. The result is a repeating, circulating self creating- self dissipating processing that circulates back through a repeating beginning. This is the process that overcomes entropy, survives and self replicates. The process contains two countercurrent sc/sd processes with TZs in every pulsing activity of its circulating journey. I believe your axial/helictity Quasar like TZ zones in combination with my central core pulsing (Pulsar like) TZ zones could be combined to show how the SSC system propagates through the counter current flows of the universe and creates H atoms, solar systems, galaxies and universes as it progresses. It is an idea that interests me. More work needs to be done but it could be an interesting study. What do you think? One more question before I go. How could I interest FQXi with its foundational basis to investigate a fundamental process that could be the solution to a variety of fundamental problems in different disciplines? Thanks again. John

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Michael Smith wrote on Apr. 21, 2020 @ 21:06 GMT

Peter,

Thank you for your kind comments. Yes, duality and its cyclic nature is a fundamental property which I feel yields a much simpler, more tangible and geometric picture of reality. Although I am not at all qualified to weigh in on the increasingly complex physics theories I see today, their very mathematical complexity seems to obscure what they are trying to describe. My perhaps idealized view is that Nature should be inherently simple and efficient in principle and in form.

I did explore octonians but find that quaternions are sufficient to fully describe the double-helix dynamic as 3D rotations in 4D space. Again, less is more!

I just read and rated your excellent article and found much to ponder. Your distinction between physics and metaphysics is a thought provoking one, particularly the idea that numbers and math fall under the latter category as abstractions which are only approximations for nature. My take is that the fundamental laws from which physical phenomena manifest can still serve as a valid and computable "ancient Greek" blueprint for the identical shared properties of all galaxies, suns or grains of sand, even though chaos/complexity/etc. effects distort the ideal and create uniqueness upon physical emergence.

Your concept of a 180-degree physical analogue for entanglement I found consistent with my thinking too, only I represent it as a 180-degree rotation of the complex plane such that particle/anti-particle pairs occur at geometrically identical though polarized positions within the double-helix probability waveform. Other ideas we seem to share include electron spin and galactic discs as toroidal rotation, matter arising from motion relative to the Higgs ground state, and all contributing to cyclic spiral fractals of form.

Thanks again and all the best!

Michael

report post as inappropriate

John David Crowell wrote on Apr. 23, 2020 @ 17:59 GMT

Peter I added a comment on our thread in your postings. John Crowell

report post as inappropriate

John David Crowell replied on Apr. 24, 2020 @ 21:46 GMT

Peter I also added a separate reply on our thread in my posting. How can I have it automatically go to our thread in your postings and have you automatically know it has been posted? So it would then be in both of our postings. John

report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher wrote on Apr. 27, 2020 @ 15:41 GMT

Dear Peter Jackson,

I replied on March 25, 2020, at 16:01 GMT. Obviously, you did not get the email notification. I only got four email notifications despite the fact that eight visitors had left comments on my essay. You need not read the updated version of my essay.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

Michael muteru wrote on Apr. 30, 2020 @ 13:23 GMT

determinancy is in direct proportionality to uncertainty. But eventually we must come out of this blonde-brunette paradox. A "Gray region".which we in part or wholly try to dodge. very well illustrated supporting documentation.You have my votes. I have done something simple on how the Human reason in an attempt to avoid "fence-sitting " comes up with logic in such instances. I have proposed.Here-https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525 .kindly take your time to review /rate. All the best in the contest

report post as inappropriate

Lachlan Cresswell wrote on May. 1, 2020 @ 03:47 GMT

Dear Peter,

I found your essay quite challenging, but that’s good! I had to read it twice as it is densely packed with information and ideas, that I am still contemplating.

I’ll start off with a single question: With respect to the cosmic microwave background, where you comment “Two main underlying mysteries are an 'axial flow' and helicity,” might not this be explained if we have a finite rotating universe?

I hope we will have further discussions,

Regards

Lockie Cresswell

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 1, 2020 @ 09:01 GMT

Lockie,

Yes, that's absolutely correct, indeed that model then solves a wide tranche of other 'anomalies' and theoretical fallacies. Even a coherent evolutionary sequence of galaxies emerges! I think I referenced my published consortium paper on that in my essay.

I picked up your subsequent post under another string further above so I'll reproduce it below and comment there;

Peter

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 1, 2020 @ 09:05 GMT

LACHLAN CRESSWELL SUBSEQUENT POST PREV LOST IN SPACE ABOVE;

Regarding paradigm changes, I decided to ignore maths, philosophy and the current thinking in physics and start off my thinking back in classical physics, which I saw back then as 'pure'.

I was lucky enough to stumble onto particle physics via a SciAm special book printed in the 1980's which took my interest in a topic that I totally ignored in 3rd year Uni physics. But thanks to a typo in a Paul Davies book called "Superforce", I had a reverie - out of which I discerned a fundamental difference between protons and neutrons that had been previously overlooked. I used my new found discovery to find flaws in some particle interactions on a Fermilab webpage eighteen years ago, and they replied back to me thanking me for correcting the errors. I have had the luxury of the last 18 years to hone the theory and work towards a TOE.

For the first decade I did no reading in physics other than immediately what I was working on, for fear of tainting my theory with other ideas that were most likely red herrings. This approach paid off, and it is only in the last 7 years that I have started to read widely. What I have achieved is a working Preon theory, a theory of time and a theory of aether, which together appear to dovetail nicely (With minimal maths and philosophy). But this TOE can answer the big questions, make predictions, that you would expect a well developed theory to do. It is firmly based on classical physics and does not rely on any quantum field theories, yet can do what they do with both explanation and understanding.

When Feynman said that the most important single piece of information he would pass to the future was the idea of the existence of atoms, I would modify this to include fields as well, such that fields and atoms cannot be seperated in reality. It is only in the insufficient models we use to describe the framework of physics, that we tend to view them individually.

I say all of this in respoonse to what was quoted of Freeman Dyson. Some of us don't bother with challenging or supporting the current paradigm. We just push on in our own bubble, being creative. Some of this is Art, some science or science fiction, but at least we are creating!

Cheers

Lockie Cresswell

view post as summary

Harrison Crecraft wrote on May. 2, 2020 @ 12:53 GMT

Hi Peter,

Very interesting essay. A lot of bold ideas but not so easy to connect or find a unifying theme. Fundamental randomness? I concur. Probabilities rule. We cannot definitively say either “A” or “Not A.” “A” at one instant is not the same as “A” at the next. “A” might or might not equal “B.”

Randomness is in transitions from one metastable state to new state of higher stability. Such as, but by no means exclusively, during irreversible measurements. Between transitions, states are continuously and reversibly measurable by a perfect observer. This restores a key element of classicality to quantum states between irreversible transitions. States are definite and they evolve reversibly and deterministically—until they spontaneously transition to a new more-stable state.

I am not familiar enough with the problems you address to know--does this make any sense?

Best,

Harrison

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on May. 3, 2020 @ 17:54 GMT

POST BY; Gilbert Leon Beaudry, THIS DATE (but from above);

Hi Peter,

Are you stating that the wavelengths of light are determined by speed? I often suspected that was the case and that Maxwell's equations are flawed because they are based on a constant speed. The variable speed is statistically low so as to make Maxwell's equation acceptable within reason for calculations. The variance is not noticeable over short distances but is overall as one measures light arrivals from the Observable Universe.

P.S. Thank you for the favourable rating on my essay.

Gilbert

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 3, 2020 @ 18:11 GMT

Hi Gilbert,

Yes, and NO! A CHANGE in inertial system (so speed of medium of propagation) will change wavelength, as in a change on medium refractive index n. Which can give two independent Doppler shift factors, one rather 'hidden' from theory so far!

BUT; Maxwell was not 'wrong', because he, quite brilliantly, gave us the Near/Far field transition and transition zone (TZ), which is at all such speed changes! Speed is of course constant WITHIN each inertial system, so all physics remains LOCAL! 'Proper speed' c or c/n is only then valid measured in the local frame. If you're on a passing bus you can see a light pulse OUTSIDE the bus doing apparent c+v, a 'co-ordinate' speed as nothing nowhere violates c!

It does take a little thought (still too much for many!) but then it's an epiphany! (see my prev) finalist essays).

That leads to all the rationalisations in my essay and more. (which I hope you may also agree worthy of a top score as it's just been hit by yet another 1!

Very best.

Peter

Lachlan Cresswell replied on May. 4, 2020 @ 08:33 GMT

Hi Peter,

An interesting answer, which is covered by Marts Liena's essay on the aether (re refractive index).

As for Maxwell's near/far field transition zone, I am with you on that! An interesting program to run is called radiation2D from Prof. Shintake T.

Shintake’s Radiation 2D which shows how the transitions occur for a variety of oscillators. (I found this link on the Brookhaven Accelerator Site or Google Shintake Radiation2d - I also have an .exe that I have been using for over a decade)

I too was trolled with a 1. But never mind as I have yet to score the essays I am reading. I hope you found mine entertaining.

Regards

Lockie

report post as inappropriate

Lachlan Cresswell replied on May. 4, 2020 @ 08:39 GMT

That Brookhaven link is broken. Try Fermilab's link instead.

Cheers

Lockie

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (4 not shown)

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 4, 2020 @ 10:26 GMT

Lachlan,

I just get a 'not private' message from the Fermilab link. Any others? I'd like to find something as most don't seem able or willing to comprehend it!.

I did a very simple video years ago. See if you can make sense of this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9KIzLuJlR0

Thanks

Peter

Lachlan Cresswell replied on May. 6, 2020 @ 13:13 GMT

Hi Peter,

That Fermilab link is still working for me in Oz. Try another Fermilab link, this time for a zip download of https://www.uspas.fnal.gov/tutorials/Radiation2D . I hope that works for you.

Lockie

report post as inappropriate

Lachlan Cresswell replied on May. 6, 2020 @ 13:21 GMT

Sorry Peter,

I mucked that link up. I forgot to add .zip at the end. Grab the link and add .zip and put it in Google. It will then give you a zip download of the program. It will be worth getting. Or you can just Google Radiation2D and then use the Fermilab page.

I will watch your tube video now.

Cheers

Lockie

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 6, 2020 @ 14:24 GMT

the .zip failed. I got onto the site and found the 2 link, but that also failed!! I sometimes suspect the aliens are anxious we don't get to close to the truth!!! lol.

P

hide replies

John-Erik Persson wrote on May. 4, 2020 @ 17:36 GMT

Peter

Since you liked this article you perhaps also is interested in this later one.

Regards _________________ John-Erik

attachments: 1_The_Michelson_Question_in_PDF.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on May. 4, 2020 @ 20:30 GMT

Peter,

Thank you for a wonderful essay. You covered many topics.

What is remarkable is that our current system of mathematic often works for real systems. The idea that our incomplete understanding of the Universe is not just due to an incomplete knowledge base, but also an incomplete knowledge structure is not surprising.

None of this should work; there are more transcendental numbers than well-behaved numbers. Since algebra cannot work with transcendental numbers there is a good chance that all our airplanes have transcendental number measurements and should be falling out of the sky.

One is reminded of Ogden Nash’s “Very like a Whale”. Metaphor and simile are bad, but they are all we got. A first step would be to try to solve some classical Physics problem with fuzzy logic.

Sincerely,

Jeff Schmitz

report post as inappropriate

Manfred U.E. Pohl wrote on May. 4, 2020 @ 21:36 GMT

Dear Peter,

to pick up and adress the Blond, Brunette and the middle of your perfect essay i suggest finally a one - line - equation pi/pi=pi

How to hack Bitcoin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhYwa0iM8uw

Take care.

Best

Manfred

report post as inappropriate

Marts Liena wrote on May. 15, 2020 @ 04:55 GMT

Dear Peter,

Thanks ever so much for your comments on my essay. I searched out the missing link by looking you up on arxiv and found "Resolution of Kantor and Babcock-Bergman Emission Theory Anomalies". Wow, had I known about your work I would have surely referenced you, as I should also do with Israel Perez's Aether work.

It seems as though we are on the same page, but I defer to your much deeper probings. And I feel more confident now that the matter will be decided in the hopefully near future.

I am currently reading your iqbit essay from a few years ago. I admire your ground breaking work!

I am not sure I am qualified enough to comment sensibly on your latest offering, except to say LEM has been on the nose for some time, and maybe some ternary bit computing will drive that home.

Best wishes,

Marts Liena

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 15, 2020 @ 16:37 GMT

Thanks Marts Very kind. I've replied on your string with another goof link.

Peter

Pavel Vadimovich Poluian wrote on May. 16, 2020 @ 17:08 GMT

Dear Peter Jackson!

Your essay made us very happy. We agree with many of your theses. We also believe that understanding the objective world depends on our subjective logic. Logic is a theoretical device. This device can be improved. Therefore, we propose introducing some new principles for understanding time, which will allow us to understand in a new way both classical logic and set theory.The following definitions are given: 1) there is a set that we call "Time"; 2) this set consists of an infinite number of individual elements, which we call "Moments"; 3) all elements of a given set have a peculiarity: if one element is REAL, all other elements of the set are UNREAL; 4) we will call sets of this type – "AREAL SETS". It was found that the elementary areal relation is a logical law of contradiction: statements A and NOT-A together form an areal set of two elements. Formulating the law of contradiction, Aristotle and all the logicians after him constantly emphasized: there cannot be A and NOT-A in the same respect at the same TIME. We propose to rearrange the emphasis: in our formulation, AREALITY is a special logical relation that can simulate natural Time. The new model defines the time order in the form of definite characters’ sequence.

The proposed ontology is related to the definition and introduction of the digital physics paradigm.

We hope that our approach will be useful to you.

Truly yours,

Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

Siberian Federal University.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 17, 2020 @ 15:57 GMT

Thanks Guys,

Very interesting I've responded to yours on your topic.

Peter

James Arnold wrote on May. 17, 2020 @ 15:04 GMT

Peter,

Thank you for alerting me to your essay. I got in at the last minute and have had the time to look at only a few essays up to now.

Yours was so unusual and refreshing! Free-thinking, physical physics! What a concept, what concepts!

I love your compilation:

“H.A. Lorentz said in 1906 “we can make no progress without some hypothesis that looks somewhat...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 20, 2020 @ 10:17 GMT

Thanks for your kind words James. Nice to find someone left with vision.

Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on May. 17, 2020 @ 22:44 GMT

Peter,

I promised a reply to your thoughtful paper. You alread read my essay.

You mentioned a deep problem: does nature follow our logic? In the last century we learned that there are more logic systems, among them intuitistic logic with an excluding middle. We (my co-author Jerzy and I) found also interesting relations between this kind of logic and QM (but also 4-manifold topology).

You also wrote about matter (as a kind of vortex). Maybe you will find my paper about the relation between braids and particles interesting

paper

Finally I vote for your nice essay

Best wishes

Torsten

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on May. 18, 2020 @ 06:04 GMT

Dear Peter,

Glad to read your work again.

Thank you for evaluating my work: "I found your essay well written and informative, adding to my perception and understanding of how De Broglie Pilot waves can work".

I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: “Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus”, due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 “Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability”.

I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

Warm Regards, `

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 20, 2020 @ 10:15 GMT

Thanks Vladimir. I appreciate such discussions over the shocking poor attitude and apparent arrogance of some entrants.

Best

Peter

Irek Defee wrote on May. 18, 2020 @ 11:57 GMT

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your valuable comments on my essay. I read your essay and I am greatly impressed by the depth and width of your knowledge and thoughts. The title of your essay is most attractive and eye catching of all. Questioning binary logic is very promising, there is stuff called quantum logic. Noticing that laws of ancient Greeks are valid for metaphysical but not for nature is brilliant. You correctly see that applying fuzzy logic is the way and that should be standard for the future. I wish you very fruitful research along these lines.

Best regards,

Irek

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 18, 2020 @ 13:29 GMT

Irek,

Thanks for you appreciation, it's multidisciplinary scope does stretch the expertise of most but I suspected you'd see it's value. Yes, I discussed 'modal' quantum logic in an earlier essay (the one peer scored top in 2015 I think) and the consistent 'brackets rule' I apply for logic AND inertial systems is it's uniquely consistent epitome.

Many thanks

Peter

Lorraine Ford wrote on May. 18, 2020 @ 12:50 GMT

Dear Peter,

Your essay presents an interesting way of looking at things, but I can’t really evaluate if there are any “holes” in it. You seem to be saying that if we first assume that a 3D Higgs condensate/ ether underlies everything, then a lot of physics including gravity could be explained via the vortices and pressure densities etc caused by movements in the ether, if something first moves to start the system moving. Does this movement in the ether dampen and dissipate, continually requiring new movements, e.g. new flappings of butterfly wings, to “top-up” the system?

Re “The critical first step is to rigorously distinguish strictly PHYSICAL entities from the META-PHYSIAL; concepts, abstractions, attributes & thoughts, which INCLUDES symbols and numbers”:

What about law of nature relationships? They are not exactly physical (measurable) entities; they represent the behaviour of the physical entities, and they can only be represented via symbols and numbers. For that matter, people can never avoid using symbols if they want to communicate with other people: written and spoken words are symbols; also you need to use symbols and numbers to represent vortices and pressure densities.

Re “The law of the excluded middle”:

“Hair”, as opposed to "a flower", is true or false; “blonde” or “brunette” is not so much true or false; but if you somehow measure the colour and assign a number to it, then the colour equating to that number is true or false.

Regards,

Lorraine

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 18, 2020 @ 14:02 GMT

Lorraine,

Thanks. It's range leaves many 'holes' but filled by the references, and all should see there are no holes in the logic and rationale.

"Does this movement in the ether dampen and dissipate, continually requiring new movements..?"

It doesn't 'require' more motions as much as 'provide' them! The original "instability" gives the first vortex pair....

view entire post

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on May. 19, 2020 @ 02:23 GMT

Howdy Peter,

I've come to pay my respects. I enjoyed the essay and I may come back for a longer review later. First off; I agree with your opening statements about logic, and some of the same items have peeved me. I think the middle is often falsely excluded, when it should be fleshed out in shades of gray. Or a false dilemma is invoked because of an incorrect and improper use of the excluded middle law. My Physics mentor chided me for not recognizing and properly treating either/or questions, but I think he missed the point sometimes, though he was both smarter and wiser than I.

My Logic professor in College was a Harvard PhD who recruited me for that school, but I failed to complete the application process on a technicality (unpaid library fine). Later he became an outcast or victim of conscience. Search the term "Les Sachs American in exile" to learn more. But it was an honors level course and I learned a few things. The Higgs condensate idea sounds interesting. I downloaded the paper. I'm familiar with Chapline and Laughlin's emergent Relativity and also bosonic condensation. A 0-mode massive graviton can be Higgs-like and form a condensate, in some theories.

More reading now, more comments later.

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 20, 2020 @ 10:13 GMT

Jonathen,

Thank you kindly. Yes, a universe where all entities differ is 'shades of grey' down to maybe Woolframs 10[sup-93! But either/or answers can still be given as all things are conditional. Let me know your thoughts on the gravitational Higgs Condensate paper. Tejinder has just now written something consistent with it.

Member Kevin H Knuth wrote on May. 19, 2020 @ 03:54 GMT

Dear Peter,

Thank you for the very interesting essay.

I have given it a single read, but it will take more because it rapidly ramps-up with ideas coming at the reader at a fast and furious pace.

I have some concerns that have me thinking (always a good thing, so thank you!).

The three laws you look at are laws that apply to logical propositions, not objects. And I...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 19, 2020 @ 10:19 GMT

Kevin,

Thanks, but it clearly DOES "apply to objects"! Galaxies down to snowflakes, grains of sand & atoms, so not so easily dismissed! You must keep Booleing at higher orders! I also agree the 2nd 'Born rule' case, and please now sit down and prepare to be shocked; describe a physical interaction sequence that produces BOTH complex amplitudes!!. You can't dismiss that either...

view entire post

Lachlan Cresswell wrote on May. 19, 2020 @ 06:51 GMT

Peter,

Thanks for your last post on my page. I would like to share my particle theory with you sometime, if and when you have recovered from all the essay readings. I think we have a lot of ideas in common, and mine haven't been put to the test of any real review (except once 15 years ago). Where can I find your email address? Mine is lcress#rfprobes.com.au

On another topic I have noticed a lot of troll voting (1's, 2's, and 3's) after the supposed deadline. I took a snapshot at midnight (GMT) on the 18th, and then again now. Lots of changes! I think it's only proper to offer support or criticism via the posts, not by voting 1 without explaining why. I think the voting is counterproductive in many ways.

This is my first foray into FQXI and it has taught me a lot. What a fabulous resource to have available to the world, whith so many excellent ideas. I'm certain future breakthroughs in physics will have been discussed at some level in these essays. I am excited because my other special topic is time, and there is a whole comp of essays to read!!

Best wishes

Lockie Cresswell

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on May. 19, 2020 @ 09:19 GMT

Lockie,

I agree. The cut off was ET (USA) not GMT, and 1 scores go right to the end. I've suggested a clause saying clear tactical voting such as multiple very low scores with no posts, and on 'neighbouring' essays, will be monitored and may be removed and applied on the scorers essay! That should cut it down! This IS a good resource but well short of what it could be.

My Email is pj.ukc.edu@physics.org. Send it through. Also check out my work on; https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Jackson22/researc
h to identify commonality.

very best

Peter

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on May. 20, 2020 @ 13:48 GMT

Hi Peter,

I thought you might like to see this image, after the comment you left on the page about dark flow. Now appears closed to comments. But if you look at the half outline of the Mandelbrot Set facing the other way from how it is seen normally; it shows a clear resemblance to the outline seen in some bounce cosmologies. It most resembles the graph I saw from Ram Gopal Vishwakarma who was a student of Narlikar. Very nice man. Anyhow; we are in the round section, about 1/4 of the way around - if I have bracketed my timeline correctly.

Enjoy,

Joanthan

attachments: HalfMandelRotaBW.png

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 23, 2020 @ 16:06 GMT

Joe,

I very much doubt I'll be considered credentialed, particularly now officially retired so with no accreditation. Sorry.

Peter