Dear Gordon,

Following additional insights gained from interacting with FQXi community members, including your respected self, perhaps you will like to view the judgement in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT. Thanks.

Indeed I have recommended Armin Shirazi (background), Don Limuti (uncertainty principle) and yourself (Bell's theorem) to help out with a quantum version of the judgement. I still don't think my math is strong enough to join in that task.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Thanks Antony,

It is nice to 'meet' this way; and I wish you every success here and with your future research.

Re Tejinder's Essay: I didn't find EPR addressed there; but I did find it to be an excellent article.

With best regards; Gordon

Dear Sreenath,

Thanks for your kind words and thoughts.

To comment briefly on the "quantum weirdness" that you mention: Not many physicists seem to recognise that part of the mystery of the double-slit experiment arises from erroneous probabilistic analysis (Feynman's included).

As for QE, well I trust that my Essay goes some way to removing much mystery there. The correlations associated with the conservation of angular momentum (for example) are robust and tight.

Thus my inclination to repeatedly say: Much weirdness disappears from most "strange situations" when we get the maths and facts correct.

Indeed: Most magic/mystery is akin to that associated with crop-circles.

As for introducing maths to your analysis, I highly recommend such: Simply start with precise definitions of the entities that you seek to study or invoke. Personally, as an engineer, I tend to discount theories that are presented via words alone.

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

Hi Than,

and thanks for your comments; with my appreciation too for your interesting Essay.

However, as you will have seen from my Essay, I hold some very different views to those that you express in yours: especially re EPR and Bell's theorem. I trust that you understand our fundamental disagreement re the following (from your Essay):

"Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen had devised a thought-experiment to show that quantum entanglement is inconsistent with his Special Theory of Relativity.

If wave-particle duality is the heart of quantum mechanics as Richard Feynman famously said, entanglement is its soul. But for Einstein, the soul of physics is objective reality, the very antithesis of what entanglement is all about.

Experimental validations of Bell's Theorem concerning the nature of quantum and local realistic theories has however shown that quantum particles have an extraordinary ability to communicate and affect each other in a manner contrary to dictates of Einstein's Relativity theory, which famously forbids that nothing travels faster than light."

As for Planck's constant, I take its positive value to indicate that particles are "extended objects" and not "mathematical points." A 'point' that Akinbo develops nicely in his 'extended' Essay.

But it is also my hope that you'll see that my ideas do support your own basic premise, tending to confirm the essential simplicity of nature.

Nevertheless, in the spirit of your Essay, your study of Duality has me thinking of further sub-texts. Mind-body versus: the mind, conscious and subconscious; the body, alive xor dead.

With thanks again, and best regards; Gordon

Dear Akinbo,

Good to see you continuing in your wonderful way with words and logic.

However, I trust that you have, by now, received the JUDGEMENT in the case of: The WORLD versus Dr. Akinbo OJO, 26 July 2013?

My copy arrived today. The critical part reads thus:

!! The COURT, having regard to Dr. OJO's skill with LOGIC, orders that he submit immediately to rehabilitative counselling. The COURT finds NO grounds for his continuing distorted thinking (quoting his repeated refrain, with added emphasis), "My math is NOT strong enough to join in the task of advancing our understanding of REALITY."

Beginning with arithmetic revision, proceeding through geometry to trigonometry, the COURT looks forward to the day when Dr. OJO recognises that much reality is revealed to the world via the simplicity inherent in the sines and cosines of angles!

For REALITY is based on mathematical principles AND maths is the best LOGIC:

Always forward, Dr. OJO! !!

Happy to help, and believing that the COURT judged correctly, I look forward to further developments.

With best regards; Gordon

Hi Gordon,

Now I have reread your essay (see our's early dialogue) and have concluded that we really have many of common views (particularly, on Einstein's drama, that I see very interconnected with the drama of physics!)I have rated your work on high core, as one serious individual position. I just friendly asking you try to read the mentioned references (on my works)in your free time. Hope you will find some interesting for you.

Best wishes,

George

    Dear Jeff,

    In so far as our understanding of reality is concerned, I had not considered that "vectors" could be be part of the problem.

    I'm also a fan of GA (geometric-algebra) with its area-related functions.

    So, overall (vectors being such fundamental and handy things), I'm confident that our problems lie elsewhere.

    Regarding your own essay, I'm concerned by statements like this: "... tangents are a direct consequence of a change in area."

    As time and priorities permit, I'm looking forward to following your "area calculus" and will send you some private comments if I find anything that might be helpful.

    In the meantime, I wish you all the best with your research; pleased to see you "having a go" in the search for where we err.

    With best regards; Gordon

    Hi George,

    Many thanks for your new comments. I am pleased to again agree that we have much in common, especially around those key points mentioned earlier (above): cause-effect, maths, facts; etc.

    Even before your friendly asking, I've looked at several of your other works (from your references). In that they run far beyond my own theoretical interests, I'm not really qualified to comment without much deeper study of your details. But I certainly want to encourage you in such endeavours, particularly when it comes to putting your ideas "out there" for critical comment.

    I can see the real need for both of us is to receive critical comments on our maths, ideas, etc. However, I'm also sure that, like me, you find there is often little time left for such activities when our daily/engineering priorities are taken care of.

    Nevertheless, in the spirit of critical discussion, let me here remark (by way of example):

    In http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1208.0213v2.pdf, at equation (22), you ask why (phi)* appears.

    In my view, (phi)*(phi) is simply a faithful representation of the following mathematical fact: ANY non-negative distribution can be represented by the absolute-square of a complex Fourier polynomial.

    Whilst I agree that QM seems unable to answer the challenge that you put, the simplest test of the above is this:

    Write out a general complex Fourier polynomial; generate its absolute square; see if the result is anything other than a non-negative distribution.

    Thus my cautionary tale, from one engineer to another: We need to proceed with great care whenever we depart from, challenge, or seek to reinterpret, experimentally supported facts.

    Happy to correspond with you at any time, I'm hoping to put more time (soon) into joining in, and submitting essays to, vixra.org.

    With best regards, and hoping to advance the cause of "cause-and-effect;" Gordon

    Dear Michel,

    Many thanks for continuing the discussion. I hope we will get to do more of it in the future.

    As for my acceptance (or otherwise) of COUNTERFACTUAL REASONING, let me offer the following proposition:

    Perhaps the related problems are due to COUNTERFACTUAL TESTING!?

    For example: in my essay, referring to the CHSH Inequality -- page 7, equations (21)-(22) -- you will see that the inequality is based on a TRUISM (21). But we do NOT test the truism; rather, we test the best approximation that we can (22).

    So, by this view, it is not counterfactual reasoning that's at fault. It's the failure, even the impossibility, of testing it.

    Hence the question: Why should that be regarded as a valid strike against a rational local-realism? Especially when QM fails to deliver in the same impossible context?

    WHILE both theories deliver the same experimental outcomes!

    Thus the need for further discussions continues.

    With best regards; Gordon

    Dear Gordon,

    Thank you for your continuing interest. I really appreciate your feedback at this time of the competition. We can certainly learn more from each other after the end of the contest. I will rate your essay highly, as it deserves, I would like to see you in the finalists, hopefully I will be too.

    Concerning counterfactuality, as soon as a good theory of quantum observability is written, one will be able to check it as others assumpions in science. I claim that Grothendieck's approach with dessins d'enfants is an excellent starting point because it has all attributes of an archetype (read Dickau's essay) or a monad (read Ojo's essay) and other good ontological properties which I don't list here. Topos theory is not too far.

    There are important essays here that pushed me to see the dessins d'enfants as "explicate imprints" of a more general (possibly spatio-temporal) algebraic geometry. I have in mind the Hopf fibrations as an excellent tool. For example you can lift S2 (the Riemann sphere) to S3 (the 3-sphere, i.e. the space of a single qubit (Jackson's intelligent qubit?), also the conformally compactified Minkowski space (see Matlock' essay and in relation to Bell's theorem Joy Christian 'realistic' approach).

    Local/nonlocal arguments are insufficient, I think, mathematics should help in revealing the hidden machinary of the physical and ontological universe. May be this is Einstein's dream, not contradicting Wheeler, at the end of the day because we are, more or less, their children in knowledge.

    Yes our discussion should live.

    All the best,

    Michel

      Thank you Gordon,

      Now I can say this only.

      My position looks not so bad thanks of mutual support

      some of adherents to ours line.

      Regards,

      George

      Gordon,

      Sorry I already rated (highly) your essay on July 23.

      Good luck.

      Michel

      Dear Gordon Watson:

      I am an old physician and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. Nature your fathers, give you and splendid brain that deserve to be highly rated.

      But maybe you, as a young man would like to see how an old man can see an old problem from a new point of view and maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called "time".

      I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".

      I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).

      Hawking in "A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

      I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

      With my best whishes

      Héctor

        Thank you Gordon,

        I have rated your essay as ,,high,, because I see there right points (in my view.)

        You also have find some communications between our approaches, but not rated my work - as per as ,,my score already is good,,! My dear, if follow your logic is need send to me one nice ,,unit,, also, to be somewhat balanced score of broders/adherents! And we want push ahead ,,our right science,, in such way?

        Sorry, if I am wrong in my judgements.

        George

        Sorry Gordon - I must have Tejinder's mixed up - reading so many! Glad you enjoyed it though!

        Thanks for writing a nice essay! I think more and more people are questioning It from Bit and looking at the reverse argument.

        Best wishes,

        Antony

        Dear Gordon,

        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.

          Hi Gordon,

          This is a copy of my post on Don Limuti's blog.

          Hello Don,

          You have stimulated my interest in the Uncertainty principle, which I wish you luck in its modification or overthrow. I am not really keen in joining that desirable task but I may chip in my thoughts. The following are excerpts on the subject from Wikipedia:

          "the uncertainty principle actually states a FUNDAMENTAL property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the OBSERVATIONAL success of current technology. It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer"

          "A nonzero function and its Fourier transform cannot both be SHARPLY LOCALIZED"

          "For any two conjugate variables like position and momentum--the more precisely one is known, the less precisely the other can be known"

          Heisenberg wrote: It can be expressed in its simplest form as follows: One can never know with perfect accuracy BOTH of those two important factors which determine the movement of one of the smallest particles--its position and its velocity. It is impossible to determine accurately BOTH the position and the direction and speed of a particle at the same instant. Heisenberg imagines an experimenter trying to measure the position and momentum of an electron by shooting a photon at it. If the photon has a short wavelength, and therefore, a large momentum, the position can be measured accurately.

          MY QUESTION: How accurately can ONE, not both ever be measured? In particular, how *sharply localized* can position be determined? Can position be accurately measured beyond the Planck dimension, 10^-35m which has no further part? If position cannot be localized beyond this, does the uncertainty relation not then imply that the imprecision or uncertainty is actually limited by this Planck limit and not necessarily because of any relationship between conjugate variables? Note the Planck value as well in the uncertainty equation seems to indicate this limit.

          Take note that I am not expert in these matters

          Pls. I am copying Gordon Watson whose turf is on Bell's inequalities proposition and whose judgement one can possibly trust. A proposition which I now see from Wikipedia arose from trying to resolve difficulties brought about by what to make of the Uncertainty relation and the initial EPR Paradox attempts to modify it.

          Regards,

          Akinbo

          *I will be searching your essay more leisurely for answer to MY QUESTION above.

          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