Do Bob and Alice have a future? by Peter Jackson

Peter Jackson

Essay Abstract

We have many effects on our planet but little idea how delicate or robust Earth really is or what might tip the balance of sustainability. The only sure way to find out and avoid disaster may be to make a quantum leap in our understanding of nature. But great leaps need great courage and inspiration. We must leave what feels like solid ground to find the "new ways to think" many great physicists have extolled. Different ways of thinking are employed as the real relationship of Alice and Bob (A,B) is exposed, the characters at the heart and head of theoretical analysis. The pair are separated when advances in space travel take them light years apart to finally test the completeness of QM and Relativity, still incompatible after 200 years. The trip unravels their entanglement and sheds light on their true identity and nature. Their discoveries suggest a long delayed marriage may finally happen, converging quantum and classical theory to secure a coherent future physics. As Earth's population has doubled since 2020 it may be just in time..

Author Bio

Environmental science and renewable energy consultant, Chartered Architect and Astronomer (RAS fellow). Student mentor at two UK universities. Born 1951. Have studied and researched physics and cosmology since childhood. Wide qualifications up to PhD level but not a professional academic.

Download Essay PDF File

Michael Allan

Hello Peter, May I offer a short, but sincere critique of your essay? I would ask you to return the favour. Here's my policy on that. - Mike

Peter Jackson

Nice policy Mike. I try to read most- and certainly of all those who read mine. Peter. ..p.s. If anyone would like the mathematical version of the geometry do just ask.

Michael Allan

Thanks Peter. It's a strange experience for someone who knows no quantum mechanics to read your text. But also strangely interesting. And although it doesn't appear to be completely on topic (your hypothesis not being about steering the future) nevertheless I did read it closely. I even flatter myself that I understood a little of the monopole illusion; it being like two blind men at either end of a dipole elephant. More worryingly, at one point I had the vague impression that Alice and Bob were about to use that apparatus of theirs to engage in superluminal communication, which would bode ill for my own thesis. They couldn't do that, could they? - Mike

Peter Jackson

Michael,

Not superluminally, no. All effects can be reproduced classically down to a genuine quantum scale.

I'm really glad you understood it. The elephant is about right, as this one may be too big to be recongnised at all! Your two blind men analogy is spot on, except in physics it seems there may be rather more than two, and all round it! We'll see how many there are among the judges this year!

Michael Allan

Thanks for answering, Peter. And thanks again for reviewing my own essay. I'll be rating yours (along with the others on my review list) some time between now and May 30. All the best, and bye for now, - Mike

Judy Nabb

WOW! That didn't disappoint! The best and most important essay so far by a few light years.

You'll know from Joy's Classical Sphere's blog that I repeated your 'classroom experiment' in a reduced way and it worked brilliantly. You've also brought in some new aspects I hadn't noticed before which disproves the only suggestions of argument I've heard.

Exceptional logic. Well done, and within a great story to boot. Alice clearly then isn't now younger than her twin, but it seems she and Bob should now have a great future, if the brains on those back on Earth have evolved!

I hope you'll read my own essay on that matter. Not a patch on yours, and I just didn't have time to pull it all together well enough in the end.

Congratulations. I'm sure you'll score even better than I see you did last year, and hope the judges also recognise it's value this time.

Judy

Peter Jackson

Thanks Judy,

I've now also explained the 'non-linear surface velocity distribution' of angular momentum transfer (electrons meeting) to Richard Gill in the April 18th simulation string in the 'Classical Spheres' blog. Also the link with 'relative angles' (forming the cones in the Bloch sphere are 'four-vectors' but I know few really understand such terms, including me!)

I ran out of time too. An important back up to my hypothesis is Renningers Proof that 'state collapse is nonsense beyond an 'accounting system' as the effects can be derived without observation! Short video here; Weak- Negative Result Experiment .

I really wanted to plot both Alice's results and the A,B relative angle results on the same graph. I have a hand plot so I may still do it. I too hope my derivation is now new and good enough for recognition by the judges this year. But departures from doctrine, however coherent, are never a safe bet.

Brave girl doing eugenics! But has importance and spot on topic. I know nothing about that so look forward to reading it. P.

Judy Nabb

Peter,

Thanks for your comments on my essay. Some people seem to be putting up a good argument for dealing with intellectual shortcomings by having a cull, including by their actions! (I'm sure you know to whom I refer). Rather like quantum theory; the most effective solution is the least acceptable and vice versa.

I've been somewhat shocked by the state of intellectual application and ethics but some shine out like beacons, including yourself. Congratulations at your 3rd position. Perhaps more understand that you feared. A ray of light through the murk to help steer the way?

Judy

Raymond Law

Hello Peter,

Your essay is really worth the waiting and making the old saying true that the main attraction always comes in last !

The contents, style and format of your ' story ' has really enabled an untrained amateur like yours truly hooked on reading all the way to the end.

Jolly good job, Peter --- now we can call you ' the Great ' !

Raymond Law

Peter Jackson

Raymond

I'm really pleased you followed it. I don't think even the most important findings need be written in indecipherable 'technocode'. Thank you. P

Stuart Marongwe

Hello Peter

I find your arguments on quantum entanglement interesting from a physicist point of view and herein lies my question. If I was a policy maker and a non-physicist how would you answer me these questions:

1) How does a better understanding of Quantum entanglement steer humanity towards a better future so that the public funds on fundamental research are well spent. In other words what is the ROI?

2)How can the ordinary citizen (remember these are voters and tax payers) participate in your project so that he/she feels that she played a part in shaping the future of humanity? In other words , where is the citizen science?

These questions are important in the sense that of late there is a serious decline in funding to fundamental research by governments because scientist fail to include answers to these important questions in their research proposals.

Kind regards

Stuart

Peter Jackson

Stuart,

Great questions.

1) The work goes well beyond just resolving quantum weirdness. (see prev Discrete Field Model essays etc. and; A Cyclic model of Galaxy Evolution, with Bars. HJ 2014.)

There's a great 'logjam' in science due to lack of reform in thinking and theory. Physics is riddled with rot, anomalies and paradoxes. I've identified the log that will release the whole lot, unifying all physics and allowing untold advancement to causal understanding in all areas. The adjustments to present theory are quite small, but to massive effect, including rendering certain QG theories consistent with the paradigm, removing paradoxes from SR, pre-Big Blast conditions, etc etc.

2) QM is rendered logically understandable by all. (see Rays post above) and each citizen can participate in the 'classroom experiment' to prove it (some already have!). Every school in the country can have the spectral disc and A4 kit (see end notes) and classically reproduce the so called 'quantum correlations' themselves. It'd be a real science revolution!

If any of that sounds as if it may be the slightest bit overhyped I'll explain further. I've understated it on purpose!

I greatly look forward to reading your essay too. P.

Peter Jackson

Stuart,

Apparently the Academia preprint link above isn't accepted in this system, not the 'Linked in' topic link. Just paste into Google; Academia A Cyclic model of Galaxy Evolution, with Bars

Please also give me your views on the Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity which I thought was a sound basis and not pursued for the wrong reason, it's reliance on multiple higher orders, which now clearly seems the right answer.

F. J. Tipler. Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model.

The links here seem to be failing, but just paste this into google search; http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.3276v1.pdf

John Minkowski

The link above to 'A Cyclic Model of Galaxy Evolution, with Bars' may not work. Try instead: www.academia.edu/6655261/A_CYCLIC_MODEL_OF_GALAXY_EVOLUTION_WITH_BARS

To download the .PDF, one needs to signin to academia.edu

Cheers

Wilhelmus de Wilde

Dear Peter,

I enjoyed your insightful and eye-opening essay.

I follow you also on APS-Linkedin and observed that not only your knowledge but also your wisdom has grown a lot since our first encounter here on FQXi on 2011 wher you were the first to post on my thread by then.

I thank you also for the encouraging words after having read my contribution this year.

best regards

Wilhelmus

Peter Jackson

Wilhelmus,

Thank you. Perhaps it's increased wisdom that's revealed the scale of the task to help physics escape it's divisive ruts. I innocently believed that a logically coherent description of nature removing paradox and anomalies would do the job. The true problem is now clearer, and less easy to solve.

Perhaps extending Architects foundation year re-learning how to think as a compulsory school subject may be a start do you think?

Best wishes

Peter

Leo Vuyk

Hi Peter,

you wrote:

Perhaps extending Architects foundation year re-learning how to think as a compulsory school subject may be a start do you think?"

Do you mean the physics education should be extended with architect knowledge, or the other way around?

Peter Jackson

Leo,

Certainly the former, but more as a precursor to all science education, as I'm sure anyone whose experienced it would agree. Perhaps all education per-se should include it. Schools don't teach kids how to best use the powerful quantum computers they're born with. Most never learn at all.

Leo Vuyk

Peter,

Indeed I also think that learning to think into 3D imaging activates your quantum brain in a different way than learning formulasor law etc.

Stephen Tuck

Dear Peter,

I appreciate your awesome review of my paper. I applaud your belief in Classical Mechanics being consistent with Quantum Mechanics, which is also my view. I enjoyed your paper because it shows a possible rotational analogy that could allow for consistent Classical Mechanics that I had not contemplated. My own analogy was that interference between 2 Fermion systems (with Spin-1/2) would result in 1-full 360-degree rotation only yielding a 180-degree turn, thus requiring a 720-degree rotation between them to return an electron to its initial orientation. It would be interesting to further examine both these theories. However, I certainly believe that your paper presents a brilliant theory. In either scenario, a hidden variable affecting rotation causes the observed difference. There are some differences of opinion I see in terms of Special Relativity, but I see that we both agree in the fact that Classical Mechanics must be coherent with Relativity. Thank you for your commentary since it is certainly nice to hear such rare uplifting praise!

Sincerely,

Stephen Tuck

Peter Jackson

Stephen,

Thanks for the praise. The 720^o rotation certainly has no shortage of classical candidates and I agree has more important implications than most realise. Allowing escape from the 'singlet state' assumption would lead to a consistent description of relativity and QM. Yet so few seem able to rationalise logically.

It seems I've also now been hit by the trolls with a series of 1 scores, probably without even reading the essay (certainly without comment). Is that typical of the level honesty in science? If so then we need that new direction even more than I thought! Your own scoring will be valued, thank you.

We must stay in touch, on the spin derivation and on critical consequences.

Best wishes

Peter

Hoang Hai

Dear Uncle Peter Jackson

An interesting integration, I also love "Nature is logical" like you.

10 points for the passion and enthusiasm of Uncle.

Hải.CaoHoàng

Peter Jackson

Dear HCH,

Most kind. Thank you. But I fear logic remains unfashionable.

I'll certainly read your own contribution. P

Vladimir Tamari

Wow Peter you have really focussed here and your early speculations on helical screws now take off logically and beautifully in a world of angular momentum. Bloch be praised! I really must reread your essay because I have always held that Bell was bunkum and the whole thing explainable by classical causality, as I mentioned in my 2005 Beautiful Universe theory. In BU information, light and matter itself 'move' by local transmissions of rotational kinetic energy in a universal network of spherical gear- like nodes. I like your cycloid- like explanation of the 720 degree quantum spin that occur in matter or in light- matter interactions. In 'pure' radiation, the 'spherical gears' mesh directly, as in my BU illustration of e/m transmission and there is no need for the nested rotations. Have a look at Kenneth Snelson's wonderful work with magnetic tops to explain electron spin that had inspired some of my ideas.

I shall certainly return to your inspiring essay later, if I and the rest of humanity survive the very near future :)

With best wishes

Vladimir

Vladimir Rogozhin

Dear Peter,

Very deep and original essays and original ideas! You're absolutely right: «The only sure way to find out and avoid disaster may be to make a quantum leap in our understanding of nature. But great leaps need great courage and inspiration. »

Overcoming the «crisis of representation and interpretation", "crisis understanding" in basic science requires new original ideas. You are there and it's gorgeous. Humanity needs a new picture of the Universe, a new understanding of the Nature for more reliable governance Future.

Thank FQXi that brings together people for "brainstorming" on very important topics of modern Humanity!

I wish you good luck!

All the Best,

Vladimir