Gordon - truly outstanding work. It is rare to find someone so young who is so adept at Latex, the mathematical formalisms, and current issues in physics. Well done.

You might find your missing link here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

Good luck in the contest.

Kind regards, Paul

    Dear Paul,

    Appreciating your comments, I've just read the corrected version of your essay.

    Your proposals are very different to my own, but I will study them further.

    PS: It's good to know that others are thinking deeply about the current foundational issues in physics

    With best regards; Gordon

    Dear Amazigh,

    I read your essay with interest and I'm sympathetic with your emphasis on Duality: in its simplest form (plus/minus), we find it everywhere.

    My own interest in the nature of reality boils down to a passion for sorting and eliminating right from wrong in my own world-view.

    Wishing you every success with your work, and with my best regards; Gordon

    Dear Héctor,

    Thank you for bringing your essay to my attention. You have certainly picked an interesting topic to work on.

    Given that my own focus is on simpler issues at the moment, I hope you will make contact with many of the other essayists that are grappling with TIME and its consequences.

    PS: I found no real problems with your English.

    With best regards; Gordon

    Dear George,

    Thank you for the good rating. That will nicely help to offset some low scores that I've received without one word of helpful criticism.

    Your message is not very clear to me but my voting has been to encourage those that are putting maths to new and promising ideas.

    I hope we will keep in touch as our theories are developed, corrected or abandoned.

    PS: It's good to see you moving along nicely. Good luck in the final.

    With best regards; Gordon

    Dear Gordon,

    I was praying for your survival as there was a last minute shark attack on your ratings. Hope you survive. But if you didnt please dont be discouraged until your proposal is faulted. I came across this on Peter Jackson's blog and has some resemblance with your views. When you check it out let me know your take. Also Mr Jackson says he has yet to receive a reply from Alain Aspect for his views.

    Best regards and all the best,

    Akinbo

    *By the way since I think you are more expert in Quantum theory, what will be the effect of a space that is discrete and can also participate in motion on things like the two-split experiment and the EPR paradox?

      Dear Akinbo,

      Many thanks for your encouraging words, and especially your prayers: which are surely improving with age, for you've undoubtedly played an important part in a significant miracle here!

      Personally, I was happy to have my ideas published for critical comment: hoping that I'd learn of errors, even improvements. The big bonus (I must say) is that I made many new "scientific" friends, you foremost among them.

      However, from my essay, you will know that I'm no expert when it comes to QM. Nevertheless there's an interesting error in Feynman's presentation of the two-slit experiment: his probabilistic analysis is flawed.

      As for EPR, that supposed "paradox" is (I trust) corrected at Page 4 (Section 7) of my essay. Distinguishing that problem from EPRB-Bell (Bell's theorem), see my proposal at Page 7 (Section 11).

      So, based on such considerations, I would say that "the effect of a space that is discrete and can also participate in motion on things" has no bearing on our understanding of the established experimental results.

      Now, with regard to experiments, your LINK does not work for me. But I'm surmising that it relates to the work of the late Caroline Thompson (for I saw "ch.thompson" in the coding). Unfortunately, but like many other opponents of Bell's theorem, Caroline believed that Bell's theorem was not breached experimentally.

      So, to be very clear about my position: I believe that Bell's theorem is triply refuted: by experiment's like Aspect's and by a sound local-realistic theory that reproduces BOTH the quantum-mechanical and the experimental results (as in my essay).

      Hoping that may help somewhat, with my thanks again, and best regards; Gordon

      Gordon,

      Did you know; you're IN the final group!!??

      All those with 4.3 are INCLUDED! So that includes all down to Deepack Vaid, including you.

      Congratulations. Fantastic. And well deserved I might add. ...but in any event;

      Now my head has been a bit befuddled by numbers, symbols and mathematical approaches I need to cojoin with best and simplest way of describing the relationship that I can only derive geodynametrically. Ohh, I seem to have just invented a new science called geodynametrics. Astonishing how these new sciences appear isn't it!

      I think I've now resolved it right down to a line and a circle; Uncertainty theorem; Cross the centre of the circle with the line; One axis is certain, the other unknown. Now move it to touch tangentially; The other axis value is certain but the first is unknown. But also; Move the line slowly from one to the other and check the rate of change of values. It is non linear. in fact I predict it will describe a cosine curve.

      My DFM ontology then describes how a simple rotating dipole (IQbit) can produce those results at Bob and Alice's detectors in such a way that 'correlation' only asks 'yes'/no' questions so only gets those ('up,/down') answers, but with a cosine curve distribution, BUT, Each detector finding also has cosine curve distributions, which inversely correspond because the spin axis is the same but handed.

      I'll demonstrate the interaction later, but if your formula can describe that then we're in business.

      BUT; Two questions; Recursive layers. I think there are arithmetic and other descriptions around, but we do need relativistic gamma (which I've derive a geodynametric mechanism for separately) which is where reducing 'chaos' slots in.

      ALSO; The 'bottom limit' (relates to the above). Have you read the bottom essay? Could you do so if you have time and discuss?

      Project snake masterplan on track I think, possibly with more back-up.

      Peter

        Hi Peter, and thanks for the congratulations; with even more due to you! Well done!

        1. As to the essay that you mention: I suggest that you write to the author directly. It's an interesting essay but far from my field of study.

        2. As to your geodynametrics -- gulp - soon to appear at geodynametrics.com (?) -- I suggest that it's essential that we quickly pack some maths around your novel ideas.

        But you first need to identify/define (and give symbols for) what you see as the relevant device and particle parameter(s). Then you might offer a series of sketches which show the dynamics of each paired device-particle interaction proceeding from start to a conclusion. Some guidance by way of analogies might help; together with the means by which the particles are correlated; etc.

        In that you refer to lines, circles, tangents, axes, cosines (and presumably cosine-squared), then the dynamics that you associate with these elements should be clear from the sketches: so the related maths should (then) not be too difficult.

        3. As for my formula: In my essay, you'll see that I do what I've suggested above for you. (The Figures for my essay are located at my blog-entry dated July. 21.) The analogies that I use derive from the dynamics of macroscopic wire-grid microwave polarisers and good old-fashioned spin-torque-precession.

        Then your equations (like mine) need to produce the quantum-mechanical results (if you accept that Bell-inequalites are experimentally refuted).

        PS: And, in my opinion, they should also include the intrinsic particle spin "s" to be clear that the same mechanism is at work with photons and spin-half particles.

        Hoping this helps, with best regards; Gordon