Peter,

I would also argue the proper measurement function of that collective fuzziness is thermal.

Regards,

John

Hello Peter:

Thank you for logging onto my essay discussion. I'm afraid I'm swamped and won't be able to getting round to reading & rating your essay until next week.

best regards

Kevin O'Malley

Dear Peter,

However Aerts paper helps to understand, why the Bell inequalities do not hold. Abramsky and Hardy show that all the possible inequalities can be derived from the really simple what they call Logical Bell inequality. As in Aerts and your model because of the disturbance, the Kolmogorov probability axiom do not hold anymore (as Aerts shows) also the Logical Bell inequalities do not hold for these models and so the ordinary Bell and CHSH inequalties.

Luca

John,

"Moving people is as much art as science." Amen to that, but the real point is that "Nature" is also as much art science! or at least what we call "science". I'm discussing Nature. Frankly, once the truth is out, much of "physics" will be consigned to the tip anyway! If it DOES get out that is, so only if our understanding ever DOES reach that plane. That must be the target.

You'll remember from my last years essay that I propose it's ALL about fuzzyness. Call it 'thermal' if you like (what is heat but RATE of oscillation) but all current descriptions are incomplete and inadequate alone. You may also recall few know better than me where the tiller is and how to reach objectives with it (also with radio controls I won the Carolinas RC Soling event at Charleston last year!). But its strategy not tactics that counts.

You talk about advances not changing the rate of burning through resources. You didn't at all understand my point or visualise the impact. The advances I discuss REPLACE 'burning through of resources'. ALL of it! (except perhaps your log fire if you wish). So power generation will make current methods look like coal fired spaceships. That's the problem we have at present, that lack of vision, BECAUSE we so poorly understand how nature works, and the at includes our brains!

I include semi-subliminal messages about the way we think, belief led science, the limitation of Earth centred viewpoints and mathematical approximations, and even how important personal relationships are. But the real meaningful step is a massive leap, clearing the apparent bars to unification of physics to reach a whole new universe of possibilities. OK that IS beyond most, but like a horse in a corral, not indoctrinated with current beliefs you have every chance of seeing over those fences to the plains beyond John!

I'm sending the paper. I compressed the greater cosmological implications to a section near the end so as not to shock too much. Te ontology had many component parts to describe anyway, and the evidence was vast. The references are comprehensive.

Best wishes

Peter

(was that really a '!' ?, I'll try it.)

Hi Peter,

Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to offer you much helpful feedback on the physics of your essay. To be constructive, though, I will mention that I found it hard to understand how your theory relates to the theme of the contest. I would have been helped by a more explicit statement of how you're recommending humanity should steer the future, and more direct arguments for why the way you propose is a good one.

Best of luck!

Daniel

    Daniel,

    Thanks. I'm a practical guy and recognise that all significant advancement is led by advances in science and technology. See my post to John above. I consider most essays here are either stating the obvious, give some ideal, or discuss a specialisation. Few actually point and steer a negotiable path with real chance of big progress. The 'quantum leap' I cite.

    Have you noticed the propensity for unintended and even 'reverse' outcomes? That's because people take the obvious view and don't think through cause and effect. As an 'enabler' that's my job. I see most wandering around lost with no tangible way of making real progress or understanding of where to start. Clearly no one thing can improve our understanding better and more widely than unification of physics and removal of confused nonsense.

    I'd thought your essay showed you understood the importance of identifying and focussing on the right and key things in science. Was I wrong? I'll re-read it before I score it.

    Best wishes

    Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #118

    Peter,

    No! It's an i.

    I have to say I think I offer a pretty foundational observation, that the vector of time, on which our cognitive processes and civilization is based, as in narrative, sequence, causality, history, etc. is actually an effect, not foundational. Yet even you are unwilling to see it as anything more than a pet obsession of mine.

    In case you haven't noticed, I do express a lot of ideas and interests and the reason I keep coming back to this one, is because I do see it as fundamental to many of our misconceptions about reality. Not just the modern epicycles of spacetime, but our inability to see beyond our own particular perceptions, based on that singular narrative of our lives, to appreciating the essential fuzziness of our mutual connectivity.

    As it is, I like things simple, so hopefully you have distilled your premise down to the clear points and applications.

    No, heat is mostly amplitude of oscillation. Even rapid oscillation only projects as heat to the extent it ramps up the amplitude of reception. Lots of little waves quickly creating one large wave.

    The measure of time is frequency and that is much more like temperature, than space!!!!!

    Regards,

    John

    • [deleted]

    • Post #119

    Hi Peter,

    I wanted to add one more comment in regard to a technical part of your essay that is interesting. You're proposal (or at least Alice and Bob of the essay) do this EPR/Bohm experiment with electron spins rather than photon spins. As far as I know the actual experiments have only ever been done with photons. You have looked in the experimental status of this to a greater degree so if there was an EPR experiment done with electrons I would be interested in the reference. Anyway electrons carry a gauge charge (i.e. electric charge) in addition to spin. Interactions between charges, unlike spin, is mediated by a gauge boson (i.e. the photon). Thus doing a Bohm type EPR experiment with electrons would be of intrinsic interest since this would take the quantum weirdness to the next level -- since electric charge is associated with a gauge boson which when real (as opposed to virtual) is restricted to interactions within the light cone (i.e. no causality violation). In any case aside from other issues doing the Bohm version of EPR with electrons rather than photons would be interesting.

    Now to the point you mention above -- that you have had trouble getting any interest (or even a response) from experimentalist about doing this experiment -- this is not unusual. Now my understanding is that you don't have an academic affiliation. This shouldn't matter, but it does. And in fact even if you have an academic affiliation but if it is at a more teaching oriented place (e.g. my university) vs. an R1, research university, then as well it is hard to get people to notice. And even if you are at an R1 but you want to move into some area that is not "your area" you'll have a hard time. For example, a colleague of mine at UC Davis has worked in soft condensed matter physics for most of his career and is a Fellow of the APS, has published in Nature, etc. Anyway a well established person in his field. A few years ago he started working on protein folding with some connection to various brain diseases like Mad Cow, Alzheimer's, etc. These diseases are somehow connected with protein folding. Now when he first moved from condensed matter to this more biological area he had papers rejected without any good reason. He eventually figured out that biologists didn't know him, recognize his name and thus simply rejected the papers out of hand. The reports didn't even give any specific criticism to his concrete and falsifiable (or verifiable as it turned out) predictions. Basically he kept submitting papers to various biological journals (some in the 2nd or 3rd or 4th tier -- in journals his "own" field he usually breezed through the review process even at the 1st tier journals) until he had built some recognition. Is this good? Of course not, but there is nothing to do but keep submitting to journals. If the work is good it will eventually get noticed. Also going to conferences to give talks helps since then people are forced to listen to your ideas :-). Again not a fair system, but almost nothing in life is fair.

    Also you might try to submit things to mathematical journals if you can write things in their style (and Bell's thm. stuff is can be related to math/math physics). I was talking to a colleague in the math department here at CSU Fresno and he mentioned that he was waiting for 5-6 months to get the first reviews back on a paper he submitted and that probably he would go several rounds with the referee so that the paper would probably be published 2-3 years hence. My original idea was that math referees where much lazier than those in physics (usually you'll get a review back in 1 maybe 2 months and maybe have to go one extra round with the referee unless they simply reject the paper from the outset). My colleague said it was not that math reviewers were lazier but exactly the opposite -- they go over in painful detail every equation, every statement, every comma in the paper. This takes time, but if the paper is mathematically correct it has a better chance of getting accepted, just it will take more time. Anyway this is one suggestion.

    Again the system is not the best or even fair but then again almost nothing in life is, and the only thing to do is keep working. Also do pay attention to the referee reports. Even if the referees are wrong they are often wrong because they had a misunderstanding based on how you presented the argument; by re-wording things, adding extra background it might help them understand better. Anyway unless the referee report is a flat rejection without any reasons there is always something one can take away from the reports. That being said I have seen some reports that are pretty "content free". BUt if the report is fairly substantial so that it looks like the referee put some time in they are worth thinking about.

    Best,

    Doug

    Hi Peter,

    I'll answer the questions you raised in my forum, here, as the most appropriate venue.

    Repeatedly, I have offered my solicited opinion that your program is too ambitious, and repeatedly you've rebuffed that opinion as close-minded and dishonest. Dishonest would be telling you that I think you've made a breakthrough in quantum physics.

    Fundamentally, Bell's theorem -- and despite Gill's charge, I am not a "Bell denier" -- is a mathematically true statement (hence, 'theorem') about the size of space. That is why Richard is now on a campaign to eliminate 'inequality' from the vocabulary that explains Bell's theorem, because there would then be no basis for an analytical framework. Richard is saying, in effect, that the world is foundationally probabilistic even though there is no theory or evidence for this assumption. The evidence for a classical world, as Bell pointed out in deference to EPR, is in the difference between quantum configuration space and physical space (hence, 'inequality'). If any of the probabilistic interpretations of conventional quantum theory are foundationally true, general relativity is false.

    If the inequality is not violated -- contrary to Bell-Aspect experimental results -- there has to exist a theory of hidden variables that bridges the gap between what general relativity experimental results show in the classical domain, and what Bell-Aspect does not show in the quantum domain: that there exists some definite point where quantum reality smooths out into the classical world. Joy Christian's program specifically and rigorously identifies that point as the non-zero torsion of the parallelized 3-sphere. In other words, he removes domain dependence from Bell's inequality, such that the space is now big enough for analytical continuation. Local quantum correlations without entanglement and nonlocality show that the physical space is equal to quantum configuration space, so Bell's inequality cannot be violated in principle. Then the experimental challenge is to demonstrate that strong quantum correlations exist without entanglement, because that mystical assumption is all that supports a probabilistic schema (there would be no starting basis, no initial condition, for probability calculations).

    Therefore, this statement of yours, among others ...

    "Entanglement is simply the fact that the equatorial planes are common, because they're orthogonal to the spin axis which is the propagation axis."

    ... is contrary to a complete space of measurement functions. The simple geometry isn't big enough. You need a topological model of global characteristics that compels the local result.

    I know that you would like me to tell you that I agree with your program. I can only hope you understand why I don't. I would actually just decline comment -- but you persistently solicit my review.

    All best,

    Tom

    Doug,

    Thanks. Your findings closely fit mine. I have two '4th tier' acceptances from a score of submissions. I estimated penetration by ~2020 so I am an optimist - but tenacious. One referee rejected a paper as it identified 'quasar era' peaks from data. Within 3 months others noticed. Now they're ubiquitous, but still not coherently interpreted! 'Unfair' is certainly one of many valid descriptions! I burnt my bridges with maths last years essay, generalizing Godel to show maths as just 'good approximation'!

    Back to physics (or rather 'nature', which is a bit different!) My model does cover 'photons' and all spin ½ cases, indeed even just a wavefront! The electrons and 'flip' discussed are the detector (polariser/filter) EM field electrons. The setting rotates and flips their orientation, so the interaction 'finding' is then reversed. There are then 2 ways of looking at it subject to the experiment; The electron reverses the photon spin. Or we could just consider the photomultipliers. If one is set clockwise, one anti, and both are reversed, then the OTHER one will click! But we still get random 50:50 up/down.

    In Bohm's terms; The fact that a spinning body (i.e. Earth) has TWO hemispheres still means that total spin (between two opposite planets) = 0. Linear momentum conservation ensures they're found opposite if not rotated, but we CAN rotate Earth's poles on the y or z axis while CONSERVING it's spin angular momentum!! that is a MASSIVELY important new realisation (think of a gyroscope - we can rotate it's axis as it spins). So what was found clockwise from point A is now found anticlockwise. Anybody can repeat that experiment for twopence! Bell made the same error; excluding that valid physical description of "collapse to a singlet state on measurement".

    Not only is classical QM really that simple, but the same interaction process with c being measured in the centre of mass frame of each electron, then constrains our common interpretation of SR's postulates to make them genuinely local and consistent with the QM description = Unification. That may be considered 'ambitious' but it simply is what it is. I can't help it. You may have thought a result like that would turn anybodies head! Apparently it does. It makes the indoctrinated and narrow visioned turn and look away!

    I suspect what it needs is a 'list' of authors, mostly with 'credentials' and with various specialisms to overcome editor/reviewer fear. That or a 'superstar' sponsor. What thinks thee?

    Best wishes

    Peter

    Returning to log in and post this (a new habit!) I've just seen Tom's post above, but not yet read it. Lets see if it confirms my point. P.

    Tom,

    Yes you do prove my point to Doug above, but I can see why. First; I've made it clear a dozen times I agree Bells maths is a tautology. Missing that explains why you miss the other key points below;

    1. Spin considered in a centre of mass rest frame has a flat equatorial plane disc. That's the case of detector field electrons (Polariser/analyser/photomultiplyer).

    2. Spin as conserved Angular Momentum when also considered with conserved LINEAR momentum describes a helical path, as I described in detail last year. Except that I now also describe the transfer of OAM as 'measurement' on interaction of the stationary and 'arriving' case, in 'time' (Hopf) and with TWO 'global' sets of y,z axis rotational freedoms.

    Those geometries are now at least the same 'size' as Joy's who seems to describe a very similar thing as 'tortion', which I'm sure may be just as valid. But then our descriptions seem to further diverge; I show how a real classical and causal physical model (the rotational speed distribution with latitude) COMPELS the Cos^2 "prediction of QM" which Bell said is impossible, and Feynman said;

    "We choose to examine a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery. We cannot make the mystery go away by "explaining" how it works. We will just tell you how it works. In telling you how it works we will have told you about the basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics." (Lectures Vol 111, 1-1).

    Now ignoring my essay and re-stating Joy's description reduces to; "I don't believe that as I believe something else", If your disagreement with my derivation is to have any validity at all you must show why. i.e. specifically WHERE it's wrong, or that it doesn't produce the Cos^2 relation with 'angle change' which I show it does (not to mention the 'reversal' at 90 degrees, and the uncertainty of direction at the equator).

    To find a point of agreement, most will of course see it as 'ambitions' because it allows convergence of QM and SR. What it seems you refuse to countenance, apparently always jaundicing your view is the possibility that the 'common interpretation' of SR is constrained (given spatial limits below infinity) to allow QM to be consistent with the postulates. In physics NO possibility should be 'ruled out' or theory re-tested at all opportunity for a better interpretation, even SR. What doesn't kill it makes it stronger!

    If you read my post to Doug above then more carefully read the essay, with those blinkers off and mind wide open, you should pick up the bit's you've missed. I promise it won't hurt! (I do admit if it were a paper some bits would be more clinically explained).

    Best wishes

    Peter

    John,

    I not only agree evidence of time is all derivative of sequences so it's not fundamental, but also that the realisation that it's only a distraction from understanding is also very important. I'm not sure that makes it 'fundamental' in the same way that things are fundamental in nature, and my point is that assuming it is can make it just as much of a distraction! That's not to say it's "nothing more than a the pet obsession", as it certainly IS more! However I point out that it's the implications on other science that matter.

    I know you take interest in other areas, but I point our your expressed disinterest in the unification potential of making QM classically comprehensibly may be more to do with it's current INcomprehensibiliy than the role of it's solution as the key to THE BIG solution (actually along WITH 'time' as just an 'absolute' rate).

    The trouble with distilling to solutions is that people also demand to see the workings! So I've done both, but with geometry not maths. You should certainly understand that as the Earth spins the rotational velocity of Miami as greater than that of NY (as the circumference at Miami's latitude is longer). What I show is that taking the angle from the centre of Earth equatorial plane to each point on the surface, the change in speed VARIES BY THE COSINE OF THE ANGLE!

    (the speed represents the angular momentum 'energy' found at each point from the non rotating rest frame). That is a massive new realisation that should unite classical and quantum physics (along with the workings I show). That is described as the 'Holy Grail' of physics because it fundamentally explains the great anomalies and paradoxes in just about EVERY field of science. The leap ahead in understanding of nature, and with technology, is inestimable.

    But everyone is too distracted by relative minutii!! The paper you should now have is just one glimpse into one small aspect. I hope you enjoy it and see it's consequences.

    Best wishes

    Peter

    " ... I agree Bells maths is a tautology. Missing that explains ..."

    Dude, Bell's theorem is a theorem, a mathematically true statement. That it can't be proven by any but a nonconstructive method does not make it a logical tautology. All theorems are tautologies in the strict sense of being mathematically true, i.e., recursively self-referential and consistent with a given system of axioms.

    Until you understand the mathematics that supports Bell's work, I'm afraid you are getting nowhere toward explaining quantum correlations by your non-mathematical method.

    I support Joy's research not because I am a troglodyte, blindered, backward, 'missing something' or any of the other many insults you have unleashed on me these past few years. I support it because it gives a complete explanation of strong quantum correlations without ad hoc assumptions. It is in exactly the same tradition as motivated Einstein's general relativity. A reporter once asked Einstein how he arrived at GR; he answered, "by challenging an axiom." What he meant by that, is that by accepting Riemann's application of non-Euclidean geometry -- which replaces the fifth postulate of Euclid -- one gets a 4-dimensional Pythagoras theorem that increases the range of coordinate transformations in 3-dimensional space (spacetime). This applies only up to diffeomorphism, however; Joy's framework makes it possible to extend the theory to active diffeomorphism, which makes the measure space complete and therefore potentially completes Einstein's program of classical physics at the foundational level.

    If you don't want to know what I think, don't ask. I don't think you're an idiot. I just disagree with you. And I know I'm not an idiot -- so knock it off.

    Peter,

    Trying to peel some of the layers of that paper, but to do it properly would take weeks, if not months. A lot of interesting and seemingly fairly solid detail.

    I would argue with continuing to assume redshift is evidence of the universe having been 'born' and expanded out, rather than an effect of the expansion of light across intergalactic distances and thus balancing the equivalent infall of mass into those galaxies, creating a total recycling effect. Resulting in overall flat space.

    As I also keep pointing out and if you accept time is essentially an aspect of action/frequency and not part of that 'four dimensional fabric of spacetime,' then the presumed mechanism of that universal expansion doesn't even exist, anymore than the giant cosmic gearwheels of epicycles exist!

    Space is left alone as that universal, infinite equilibrium state, which needs no further explanation, because it has no physical attributes to explain. Nothing to bend, bind, dissolve, create, etc. Simply zero as the empty state, not a point on a three dimensional graph. The blank sheet of paper, not a point at the center.

    As I also keep pointing out, they still assume a stable speed of light across those expanding distances, since those distant galaxies will presumably disappear. So what is the basis of that stable dimension defining C, if the very fabric of space is expanding? If they are going to denominate space in lightyears, that would make expansion a numerator and thus only increasing distance, not expanding space. That would then mean we would have to be at the exact center of the universe, with everything expanding directly away.

    So I do take the implications on the other sciences into account, but since few people are will to consider the initial premise, the conversation doesn't always get that far.

    Regards,

    John

    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

    Peter,

    I think your essay is outstanding and very creative. I like it very much. We don't agree on everything. At least I agree that "there was no boundary between the classical and quantum worlds". If I may explain that KQID theory is monism. Therefore there is only one physics and one entangled hologram Existence. KQID Five Ones: one source Qbit( 00, +, -), one principle of "Giving first Taking later", one theory of "bit is it, and it is bit", one formula Ee^iτ = A + S ⊆ T that iteratively produce unitary one (1), that creates and distributes one entangled hologram Existence. We are all connected.

    Your essay is a masterpiece, it is unique and it is creative. I rated your essay the highest score ten (10). I noted from your comment that many trolls in this contest thus I noted that before I voted you got 5.9 average score voted by 42, now it is 6.0 voted by 43.

    I wish you the best and hope we can become friends,

    Leo KoGuan

    Tom,

    My full reply seems to have gone!

    Again Tom you've missed that I've AGREED Bell is mathematically correct. i.e. he says that classically; "0 + 1 = 1" whereas QM proves the answer is '2'. However he's also saying that applies to 'sides of a spinning coin". What I show is that there are 2 sides to each coin, each spinning the 'opposite' direction. So I classically reproduce 2 with 1+1.

    I then also reproduce the cosine curve distribution by using a sphere not a coin, because rotational speed varies with latitude by the cosine of the angle from the equatorial plane to any point on that circumference. Now that's a fact which you can't "disagree" with (or if you do please correct my geometry and dynamics). I don't think it appropriate to call people 'idiots', indeed I've even said I don't 'expect' most to grasp the complex implications before 2020. In most cases it's blind faith that old doctrines can't be challenged in the slightest. That's human nature, however I'd point out 'scientific advancement' is all about 'change'.

    Peter

    John,

    Another comprehensive post vanished it seems. How easy is it to loose the will to live?! I've just responded to you on the competition blog which I hope may answer most of your points. I still point out you're making the same fundamental error about 'space' as Einstein. it's no 'matter' but matter condenses from it IN SOME REST FRAME to then act as the reference datum for local propagation speed of EM fluctuations. So space in not 'matter' but it has a definite non zero role. Do you also deny the Higgs mechanism that relies on it? if so where does condensed matter come from in your alternative schema?!

    My 2012 essay shows that to be the case conclusively. The saddest thing is we've known this since 1921 but still fear to admit if due to a flawed interpretation of the beautifully sound SR postulates. If only we re-interpreted it as Einstein suggested in 1952 the anomalies and paradoxes evaporate.

    Best wishes

    Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #130

    Peter,

    No matter how elaborate one's way of getting something wrong and calling it right, understanding the mathematical model makes the error objectively apparent.

    "Again Tom you've missed that I've AGREED Bell is mathematically correct. i.e. he says that classically; "0 + 1 = 1" whereas QM proves the answer is '2'."

    Bell's instrument is an inequality of relations in a quantum mechanical system, an analytical tool. The '2' you are thinking of, is the CHSH classically local upper bound of quantum correlations. Refining that for a quantum upper bound, Tsirelson derived 2\/2 (which was independently derived by Joy Christian). This bound is shown trivially true in a measurement of correlations in a simple 2-state quantum mechanical system (qubit) which is equivalent to the discrete observed states of a fair coin. The Tsirelson bound for a Bell inequality is a harder case: Bell's inequality is explicitly classical (it assumes the continuum), while CHSH is explicitly quantum (all outcomes are + 1, - 1, never 0).

    "However he's also saying that applies to 'sides of a spinning coin". What I show is that there are 2 sides to each coin, each spinning the 'opposite' direction. So I classically reproduce 2 with 1+1."

    Which doesn't mean anything, because you've forgotten that - 1 is the outcome of the opposite vector for a measured result of + 1. Your description only works with a two-headed coin.

    Yes, I know from experience that you will think up some yet more elaborate way to obscure your error. You can't obscure it out of existence, however.

    "I then also reproduce the cosine curve distribution by using a sphere not a coin, because rotational speed varies with latitude by the cosine of the angle from the equatorial plane to any point on that circumference. Now that's a fact which you can't 'disagree' with (or if you do please correct my geometry and dynamics)."

    The issue has nothing to do with the continuous rotational speed of a 3 dimension sphere; it has to do with the discrete measured state of a 2-dimension coin (+ 1 or - 1). What your conclusion says is that observing a point on a sphere moving in one direction implies that it is moving at the same speed in the opposite direction at the antipodal point. This is trivially true in 3 dimensions (by Brouwer's fixed point theorem). However, observers at antipodal points cannot communicate with one another instantaneously; they will only ever measure their discrete states as "heads" by your program.

    Only a higher dimension measurement framework allows the classical probability of a two-sided fair coin as a hidden variable solution to Bell's inequality. Joy's framework explains it as the nonzero torque of the parallelized 3-sphere, which is the analog of a 3-dimension sphere in 4 dimension space. The bottom line is, Bell's theorem already proves that the limit of classical measurement values in 3 dimension space begs the assumption of nonlocality which in turn begs linear superposition, quantum entanglement and a probabilistic measure space. One cannot derive a classical, i.e. continuous field, framework from a 3 dimension measurement framework -- and demonstrably, you don't.

    Best,

    Tom