The Intelligent Bit by Peter Jackson

[deleted]

Than,

Excellent, yes. And the angels have dresses sewn by needles on which we can also dance with the angels with their white dresses...

I note I did't rate your essay with my first comment so have done so now. I still love your perceptive comments imagining QM without weirdness, and "Any slice through nature gives "answers that differ with the scales we probe and the premises we adopted. But Nature itself is quite agnostic and mum and plays no favorites"."

The screen tells me I'm logged in, but I suspect, like much of current physics, it is there only to fool, confound and confuse.

Best wishes

Peter

Paul Borrill

Peter - nice essay, although sometimes a bit hard to follow at times.

I enjoyed your inclusion of the law of the excluded middle, and after reading your essay wondered if this could also be interpreted as a reflection of superposition?

There was a nice focus in the essay on the difficulty of emitting creating single photon emitters, and detectors ! Your end notes was a treasure trove of interesting references and connections. Thank you.

Nice job. I plan to follow up on all these references as soon as the contest is over.

Kind regards, Paul

pjackson

Akinbo,

Plasma doesn't have to be hot. It's very poorly understood and has various similar descriptions. It's essentially electron rich (followed by protons, anti-particles and the ionised gasses) where not yet at the CO and molecular gas stage. It can be very diffuse in space, but as space is generally quite big it has the same effect as a short thick bit of medium. n=1. In fact astonishingly, experimentally it's found then n can equals fractionally under 1 at some frequencies (theoretically slightly superluminal!). It can be detected indirectly and kinetically (as well as gravitationally of course!) and more so directly with better fidelity, and with actual probes, as actually found in the recent AMS results.

It is found at great abundance at the bow shocks around moving objects (local fields/frames). Check out my 2011 essay, 2020 Vision 2011 FQXi Finalist. and Richard Nixey's 2012 essay analysis of Earth's Bow Shock, consistent with mine. Nixey; Bow Shock Plasma (see Fig.).

I condenses precisely as required due to dark energy compression at the discrete field domain boundaries, resolving a swatch of dozens of anomalies in one go.

We don't quite return to Galilean Relativity. The LT's Gamma curve is a real effect, but with a real PHYSICAL derivation I've described in another paper.

Yes, I'm really pleased to have help trying to falsify it. Try hitting it it with all you can find! I can no longer even scratch it! but it can't yet be anything like complete.

Best of luck in the final roller coaster/dash!

Peter

Marcoen Cabbolet

Dear Peter,

I have read your essay; I think it is quite original and I've rated it accordingly.

I have two comments about the formal aspects of your essay.

1) In the line of the comment of David Reid above, I cannot agree with you that the atomic formula A = A is false: not in mathematics and not in nature. The case in mathematics is discussed above. But also in nature a every individual is identical to itself. I may agree with you that no two separate individuals can be identical, as in this horse here and that horse there cannot be identical. But the identity relation is reflexive, so this horse here is always identical to this horse here. I think it's untouchable.

2) In the context of the law of the excluded middle, the values 0 and 1 are truth values at the metalevel (0 denoting false and 1 denoting true). Probability theory is merely an application of set theory: the values 0 and 1 in probability theory are constants at object level. A nonzero probability is a value in between these latter values 0 and 1: it has nothing to do with the truth values 0 and 1. If you define any event E, then a formula 'P(E) = ½' is still either true or false. The same goes for the probabilities in QM: these are real numbers in between the constants 0 and 1 at object level, they have nothing to do with the truth values at metalevel. So I do not understand your link with the law of the excluded middle. Of course there are other logical systems, such as that of Brouwer's intuitionism in which you cannot infer A from ¬¬A. Or am I missing something and do I have to see your theory in an entirely different logical framework?

Best regards,

Marcoen

pjackson

Marcoen,

Many thanks for your comments. I'll take the points in turn.

1. See David Reids final point above agreeing the model and comment on my precurser essays.

2. I agree self likeness, but that makes A=A only true metaphysically. As there are no two separate entities in nature we cannot claim commutativity, so we can then say there are two distinct cases, the physical one where A~A. This does indeed go right down as deep as possible to root out the original false assumption, common to both maths and most logical systems. There is a massive advantage in recognising the two 'classes'; We can decode the quantum 'noise' in recursive layers. Shocking I know, but only at first due to unfamiliarity.

3. Put the way you describe the included middle I can then agree the 'metalevel' is correct at that level, as is the next level down at that level, and so on through many levels right down to gamma, where the background 'noise' will be reduced to a 'whimper'

4. Brower was better than Russels predicate logic and maths in some ways but was similarly incomplete. But it does go deeper! we can't even say in nature A=B! All equals signs should be squiggly if we wish to accurately describe the real evolution of the universe including it's quantum uncertainty. We may then assign a 'sigma' level to maths to define it's precision as a descriptor (i.e. how many places of decimals of Pi)

5. As we know in physics there really is then no absolute 'true' or 'false', only a spot for each case on a Bayesian distribution. The philosophical problem of defining a 'pile' is also simply resolved. It is an 'uncountable' n-value.

6. Yes. I suppose it really does need Wittgenstein's philosophy. Also Bragg's, a whole new way at looking at the familiar. It and seems to unify all things and withstand all falsification. hit it hard with anything and see. But it is far more beautiful, I promise, like finally escaping the cold dark catacombs into a sunny garden. The shock soon goes.

Best wishes for the final placings.

Peter

Michael Popov

Peter,

My later reading of your essay showed an importance of following passages :

> " Binary based mathematics relies on the Law of the Excluded Middle between assigned symbols 0,1, A,B, or yes/no for waves".

> refinement. May be philosophically in the terms of analytical tradition, it is correct, however, mathematically speaking, it is a kind of Wheeler's simplification. Indeed, we cannot say that Weirstrass theorem relies on the Law of the Excluded Middle. Technically, in alternative proof of Weirstrass theorem, we divide some interval into two equal parts, when one at least contain infinitely many points. Proceeding in this way we can define a sequence of intervals each of which is a half of its predecessor, and each of which contains infinitely many points...Hence, ideas of points of accumulations, Dedekind theorem, sections of the real numbers into left-hand class / right-hand class, etc. Thus, Wheeler's yes/no logic must have limited sense and actual binary mathematics is more complicated.

> "Time itself is a special case. The concept time is a human invention to describe change, often confused with the physical evidence of emissions from 'clocks'".

> refinement. When Albert Einstein extended physically accepted list of arithmetical operations so as to include the extraction of the square root of minus 1 in his theory of imaginary time (SR), he admitted the complex numbers and new theory of time. Thus, if we find that some equations of higher degree used in physics are insoluble by aid of complex numbers now, we can go further and admit new math. Hence, new time theory can be connected with new mathematics of non-integer dimensionality spacetime. In 1986 quantum theorists Karl Svozil and Anton Zeilinger proposed that the notion of the dimension of spacetime could be based on"philosophical" measure-theoretic concepts ( admitting the possibility of noninteger dimensions , like 4 - έ ). They introduced in fact an operational dimension which is smaller than the idealized Housdorff dimension. However, they intuitively extended their list of accepted arithmetical operations so as to include the solution of higher equations.Thus,we might to be led to the consideration of numbers of another types in order to introduce complex dimensionality and new time theory, taking technically.

http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217751X86000368

pjackson

Michael,

Many thanks for your comments. I agree both your refinements. These are also consistent with a number of other essays here. There seem to be many valid recursive gauge theories.

There is however another level to the time question. When considering dilation it need only be Doppler shift of the artefacts of a sequence of emissions due to the physical speed change between real spatially bounded inertial systems (frames).

You may need to read the above again and imagine a balloon moving along a corridor. Light is from ahead scattered to c in the balloon frame by it's skin on entry, propagates at c in the balloon frame while IN the balloon system, (Contraction) then back to c in the corridor rest frame. Moving the other way it is dilated in the balloon from when propagating through the balloon.

You may find you need to read the ALL again! Or see my previous years papers. Does that make any sense to you?

Peter

Akinbo Ojo

Peter,

As to Plasma playing a very significant roll in the Earth's Bow Shock I am ready to concede but will still have to check your references later. I am conceding because electromagnetism features prominently in the phenomenon and as you rightly said Plasma is rich in electrons and ionized material, etc.

What is your explanation in case you are disagreeing with Newtonian, v^2 = GM/r, when analysing the speed of outlying stars? The v is so high, making a higher M inevitable to preserve galactic structure unless you want to change Newton's theory.

I didnt get what you meant by the LT's Gamma curve

Then, concerning whether Plasma can exist and remain plasma at room temperature will need the reference. My thinking is that electron and particle motions are so high in the Plasma state.

Regards,

Akinbo

pjackson

Conversation continued on David's blog, finishing with these comments;

Aug 2nd;

Hi, again, Peter, I had a bit more time than anticipated today, and so was able to read your two papers that you sent me the links to. Superb! Too bad I cannot time-travel back to those years to give you tens.

My surmise (made before reading the papers) that your differentiation in speeds followed the same basis as the different between t and tau, turned out to be correct, it seems. One confusion is that there is no corresponding notation to make this differentiation for light speed. Of course, every secondary school physics curriculum in the world contains Snell's Law, so there is some idea about the difference in the speed of light in a vacuum as opposed to the speed of light in a physical medium. However, the key lies in the article "a" rather than "the" in front of the word "vacuum", and although there are many vacuums, we use the same symbol c for all of them. As you point out, epsilon_0 (the value of electric permittivity) and mu_0 (the value of magnetic permittivity) of vacuum could indeed vary in different places (which can be seen in considering false vacuums). Despite this, c is considered a global property despite the lack of a global measuring tool, as all measuring tools are perforce local.

My exposition is a bit clumsy in such a short space. Of course I do not pretend to express this as well as your articles do; I just wished to say that your papers put forward your arguments very well. Thank you for sharing them with me.

David

Aug 5th;

David,

Many thanks. It's very gratifying that there really are people out there who can understand and retain what I'm saying and what the discrete field model (DFM) is! A credit to your intellect I should say!

I've found the implications fundamental and massive. Certainly time for a new paradigm, except I think we've missed the boat as they're out of production. Do you think we could cobble one together by sprinkling a bit more mathematics on top of the papers to make them look more appetising?

I hope we can stay in touch on this.

Best wishes

Peter

pjackson

Akinbo,

Newtons seems a pretty good approximation, but the discrepancies further out can be better modelled by the Yukawa (or 'screened Coulomb') potential which has a slightly sharper cut off and doesn't theoretically go on 'forever'. Insofar as the dark matter halo distribution has been 'mapped' it corresponds excellently. The peak potential at the shock then 'transforms' to the 'next frame out' (i.e. ECI to Barycentric inertial system).

The LT is the Lorentz Transformation, which is the main difference given in Special Relativity. It describes the 'hockey stick' curve, insignificant at low speeds then exponentially increasing as the 'relativistic' effect approaching c. The curve then goes 'ballistic' to infinity at 0.9999999% of c (known as 'gamma', denoted 'y'). In SR it's interpreted as implemented by smoke, mirrors, partial time derivatives, virtual particles, geometry and magic. In the Discrete Field Model a combination of two well known 'plasma' effect provide an underlying mechanism. Essentially the same mechanism recovers (at last!) Snell's Law at Maxwell's near/far field transition zone.

Plasma's normal state is at rest, like any other particle, and at normal energies except when moving relatively, as the Nixey essay shows, described there as 'temperature' but noted as not understood. The DFM resolves this by the normal old fashioned Raman atomic scattering by condensed conjugate pairs. There's confision as particles are "ionised" when very hot, 'making' plasma (as at the shuttles nose on re-entry). I'll talk you through 'OB mode' later.

I'm in the APS Plasma Physics Group. It took me many years to get up with and ahead of the game with plasma. Once Hannes Alfven won his Nobel prize (1970) all headed elsewhere trying to win their own so it was ignored. Don't try learning from Wikitrashaganda. Just a few of hundreds of relevant links I have; The first and second are very important, about the 'two-fluid' plasma structure valid at shocks and the TZ, and ISRS.

http://www.aa.washington.edu/research/cfdlab/docs/shumlak_apsccp2004.pdf

http://pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v86/i6/e062307

Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 118; doi: 10.1029/2012JA018351.

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=51315

doi:10.1088/0741-3335/34/13/030

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.0856.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.0457v2.pdf

http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0874

http://sci.esa.int/cluster/51988-cluster-discovers-steady-leak-in-earth-plasmasphere/

http://www.ann-geophys.net/31/1143/2013/angeo-31-1143-2013.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.3633

JOSEPH BRENNER

Dear Peter,

I have not replied to your notes, for which thanks, as I have just returned home from a short trip to Germany. I have looked for a first time at your essay and decided that there is a possibility for us to "join forces" against the "guardians of doctrine". The difference is that you explicate (very clearly) your theory whereas, following what I thought was the assignment, talked only tangentially about mine. Hence, I will ask you if you will agree to read a paper of mine which should interest you. For example, the core of my logic, grounded in physics, is the Law of the Included Middle. Real processes follow a spiral path moving from partial actuality to partical virtuality and vice versa in a way that may be described by your "hidden higher-order variables". The first axiom of my logic, exactly as you put it, is that there is no real A that is identical to any other real A, and so on. Naturally, the first thing I would like is that you acknowledge, if you would, the belated receipt of these intitial comments.

Best wishes,

Joseph

pjackson

Joseph,

Thank you. I agree you adhered well to the brief. Interestingly I also really only used this essay as an opportunity to falsify the more comprehensive discrete field model (DFM) on QM, an area I've previously largely avoided. I was astonished at it's apparent resolving power even in a cobbled together state.

I'd be absolutely delighted to read your paper and look at joining forces with you. I've suggested collaborations with many, but most in physics seem to either think it's all sorted or jealously guard their own 'precious' ideas. For me the secrets of nature belong to nature and mankind not to any man. I have collaborated with some, including with John Minkowski on a 'quantum optics' paper in the Hadronic Journal and fresh up on arXiv. Resolution of Kantor and Babcock-Bergman Emission Theory Anomalies.

I hope you may first read my previous essays here, the last two finishing 7th but both passed over! They are precursors outlining the dyno/kinetics and some major implications which stretch across all physics, cosmology and much other science. The less abridged versions are here; 2011 ; '2020 Vision' A model of discretion... and 2012; 'Much Ado about Nothing'. (Not!)

There are a whole sequence of other papers plus many drafted and in the pipeline, as well as a draft 'master tome' which need major updates. Of course despite Professional Quals, 40 years of research, RAS Fellow etc., as I have no specific science PhD my work is usually just ignored or dismissed. Having the odd PhD on board may then help. There are a number of other very like minded thinkers here who may be interested in a consortium if you think that a good plan?

I did rate your own excellent essay, and good to now see it in the top 20. Do post a link to your paper, or a pdf to peter.jackson53@ymail.com. I greatly look forward to further discussions.

Best wishes

Peter

eAmazigh HANNOU

Dear Peter,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

pjackson

Amazigh,

Thank you. I agree a new coherent paradigm should emerge. Unfortunately they don't seem to produce them any more.

I tried London's west end, where apparently you can buy anything, but few seem to know what I'm talking about and most believe it can't happen!

I wonder if that means we're stuck forever with the ones we have?

(I have most of the components if anyone has the rest and knows how to create on please help!)

Thanks for rating my essay and the invite to read yours, I was pleased to read and rate it in July.

I'll listen out for the 'good news'.!

Very best wishes

Peter

Stephen Anastasi

Hello Peter

A good effort, I thought.

I have a bother with one of your axioms. If in an infinite universe all probabilities are non-zero, then the sum of these probabilities is infinite. Is this what you meant to say? The sum of an infinite number of finite values is infinite, so how does this affect your probability? I think it implies that the chance of anything happening is greater than 1, which would make for a challenging sample space, and sets that contain more than they contain. I think my [link:website address] General Principle of Equivalence [/http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1904] would have a bother with this.

If I have it wrong, my apologies. If I am right, I recognize that it will take a deal of work to heal.

Best wishes

Stephen Anastasi

PS. I have rated your essay and would appreciate a rating on [link:website address]mine[/http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1904]. It provides First Cause from Cartesian Doubt, and from that, studies the first structure of the universe, which turns out to be mathematical. This is not supposed to be possible, apparently.

pjackson

Stephen,

You say; " If in an infinite universe all probabilities are non-zero, then the sum of these probabilities is infinite. Is this what you meant to say?"

No. Though I agree from the old viewpoint that may appear logical.

However I have removed 'sums' from the equations of nature as they lead to mathematical infinities and there are no infinities in the DFM. The way it works we can't and don't need to 'add' 'probabilities'. They are not additive qualities but simply 'different outcomes', with a distribution which may better be described as likelihoods of occurring. (Maths of course can keep it's infinities).

I know this may be hard to first accept as it takes about 17 steps backwards to disengage with all assumptions and gain the overview. The recursive spaces are also not quite completely 'fractal' as each slightly evolves (see the McHarris essay on chaos theory). There is however a bottom end stop, at the Planck quality relating to gamma, where the model has derived the LT from a quantum mechanism. I'll send you a link to the paper if you wish.

I'm pleased to say I read and gave your essay a well deserved high rating quite recently. Please do ask about the above if you don't think it works. The reply was rather off the cuff.

Best of luck for getting in the final group.

Peter

Angel Doz

Dear Peter,having scored his essay, many days ago, with high punctuation, I'll give my opinion on your essay.

First: his essay is superbly structured. Second is an ambitious essay, as discussed numerous topics in quantum theory, which are of primary importance, including: Bell's theorem, the fuzzy logic, the EPR paradox, among others. He even admits the possibility of the existence of extra dimensions.

In regard to your comment, made in a post of my essay, I can tell you, that indeed the expansion of the sphere 3d; has its role. The proof is this beautiful formula:

Kissing number in 24d = 196560

1) EXP( 4Pi/3 2^3 )-(4Pi/3 2^3)-1= 196560 = K(24d)

3 dimensions space ==> 3 Qbits = 8 bits ==> octonions and 8d extradimension; 8 3= 11d

(K(24d)x 4Pi)/10 ~( Higgs boson mass/electron mass)

24d = 4d permutations ( dimension space-time not warped in circles or spheres 1 dimension)

In short, I am sure you will be, as a minimum, the finalists of this contest. Oh, and do not worry too much about the math, because I am sure you have ample knowledge on them. Greetings. Angel Garces Doz

pjackson

Thanks Angel,

I did study maths but found fundamental assumptions I wasn't entirely happy to follow the crowd on so tested othe paths. I find geometry and dynamic visualisation very rewarding and a bit more 'real'. Si I find my thoughts on current maths reflect Dodgeson's Einstein's and Wheelers ("never do a calculation till you know the answer").

Statistics seems simply self deception, analysing the 'map' not the territory.

Stay in touch.

Peter

Karl Coryat

Hi Peter, thanks for your comment. Quite frankly I've lost interest in this particular contest (I had much more time to obsess about physics last time), but congratulations on your essay doing so well. -KC

Jin He

Dear Peter,

According to my galaxy study, the universe is alive at whatever scales!

Therefore, the argument of bit and it is meaningless.

So I can not rate your essay against my own belief.

pjackson

Jin,

I term it a semantic question. If we don't know what 'it' is, and can't define 'information' apart from 'change' then I agree the question is meaningless. But if we then test what form 'it' may take up, we may perhaps be able to "say" more than Niels Bohr could 90 yeas ago. I think Niels may have hoped we could!

I'm not convinced there is room for 'beliefs' in proper science. But there seems far too much. With religion moving away from it science and it's doctrines may well take the lead anytime soon!

I've tried not to rate essays here in terms of how closely they may happen to correspond with my own findings. That is 'science by votes!' This is an essay competition. I've rated some essays with a very different approach very highly if they're well presented and argued, interesting, original or a pleasure to read. Those should surely be our criteria.

None the less we are all humans and all part of nature, so must all do what we feel is correct. That is our strength.

Best wishes.

Peter

« Previous Page Next Page »