Peter,

I noticed that your comment to Doug Singleton may be misconstrued as suggesting photons are spin 1/2, which I know from the blogs you well understand isn't the case. I know your solution also covers spin 1 but suspect Doug missed that and you may have missed that he did so.

Daniel Dewey's comment above is similar. Co-incidentally I've just commented on Dan's essay. It seems lack of familiarity with fundamental physics hides the great problem of Unification from more than we realise. I agree it seriously confuses all areas from cosmology to neurons and electrons, i.e. 'everything'.

However clear and important your case is there are many who haven't understood that so the argument needs repeating. I see it as the human brains weakness of often only seeing immediate not consequential effect. I still think your essay gives the most massive direction and advance of any here. Don't loose heart!

I'm still surprised that's missed by so many but I do now better understand your view that it may be 2020 before man has the vision. Do you think that acceptance of that might make you a little too laconic in presenting the case?

I really hope your essay finishes strongly, for our sake as much as yours!

Judy

    Hi Peter,

    I thank you for the high rate which gave me.

    I have gone over your essay and I am interested and impressed by your ideas and believe that it disserves a high rate. Unfortunately I will be quite busy these upcoming weeks and we will have to postpone our discussion. After the 12th of June I will give you a more detailed feedback regarding your essay.

    Best regards,

    Petio H

    Tom,

    "The '2' you are thinking of, is the CHSH classically local upper bound of quantum correlations" No, that's certainly not the 2 I was thinking of! The two I described is the result of 1+1. And you clearly didn't read my essay properly if you suggest I've "forgotten" +1 is the opposite direction to -1." It seems you're so determined not to 'see' what I've shown you'd insist black is white! The moment you come to my actual derivation of the quantum cosine distribution you ignore it and revert to avoidance with; "The issue has nothing to do with..."

    If you think nature prefers coins to sphere's then you'll never understand the model, or that BOTH have bot +1 and -1 spins; subject to orientation (north v south poles). How on Earth you think both heads and tails are measured 'heads' without the additional rotation I invoke is beyond me. I can take the horse to water Tom but I know well I can't make it drink if it's decided not to.

    I've done my best, and I'm pleased so many DO see and understand how the states and distributions emerge. A number of essays here identify the problem you're demonstrating. The determination to stick with prior beliefs come what may. From past experience it IS what I expected, though I'd hoped to find there was a limit when the solution was clear. But I don't think you should believe your befuddlement is shared by others Tom.

    If you'd like to try to prove how my cosine distribution is NOT the identical cosine distribution predicted by QM then I'd be interested because that's science. I believe only in the principles of Occam, I'm not interested in the belief based pseudo-science that holds back our progress.

    Peter

    Very interesting essay, Peter. You did a great job of mirroring the science with human themes. I particularly liked the way you parallel a pair of particles with a pair of people. You used macroscopic objects to illustrate QM ideas beautifully.

    The idea of spin within spin is fascinating and completely new to me, although I admit I'm not qualified to judge whether it gets around Bell's prohibition on local hidden variables. It wasn't quite clear to me what the implications for how we should steer the future would be, but resolving the conflict between QM and relativity would certainly be a huge breakthrough.

    I very much enjoyed your essay in any case. Good luck in the contest!

    Best,

    Robert

    Tom,

    Trying to make sense of your comments it occurred to me that you must have missed the recursive quantum gauges I invoked and referenced, which seem to be what you're talking about in terms of the 'higher dimensional measurement framework'. You should also recall I'd established the 'higher dimension spaces' in last years essay and the paper I posted on Classical Spheres thread which I assume you read.

    It rather threw me to find you suddenly assuming I hadn't done that and had for some reason dropped it. I haven't dropped it at all! Just follow my references to the Planck Institute paper and indeed the finding of gauged helicity in the sun.

    As always it's an erroneous assumption that you make which takes you off track. The model I present applies separately at ALL gauges, so it rather 'chases down' quantum uncertainty through all scales to the computational limit. What Joy refers to as some kind of 'inherent torsion' of space is simply that gauged fractal sequence of helical motions.

    The fact is that in any event the quantum correlations are perfectly reproduced with self apparent 3D+t geometry in the schema I describe. I appreciate your devotion to Joy's description but please don't make the mistake of assuming that means there's no other way of describing nature.

    Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #137

    "What Joy refers to as some kind of 'inherent torsion' of space is simply that gauged fractal sequence of helical motions."

    No, Peter, that isn't it at all. The space of Joy's measurement framework is a simply connected topology. The nonvanishing torsion of a parallelized 3-sphere is analogous to what happens with a Mobius strip; what we see as a 1-sided manifold in 3 dimensions is 2-sided in 4 (quaternionic) dimensions, which is limited by 8 (octonionic) dimensions. This limit of factorizability in the division algebras is what permits the locally real result - a.b that guarantees sign reversibility in the dot product, something Bell-Aspect finds impossible to reproduce in the measure space of a multiply connected probabilistic framework. It takes an analytical framework of complete measurement functions continuous from the initial condition, in a coordinate-free and scale independent geometry, to have perfectly anticorrelated results independent of where and when an observer makes a measurement.

    "The fact is that in any event the quantum correlations are perfectly reproduced with self apparent 3D+t geometry in the schema I describe."

    I stayed out of it -- but as Richard Gill told you, there are many arbitrary ways of getting the cosine distribution. What Bell's theorem tells us, is that it is impossible to have non-arbitrary correlations of quantum values without assuming that 1/2 of the pair are nonlocal; i.e., not measured. In other words, the observer plays a role in the measurement, just as in your schema. In a space of complete measurement functions, the observer is independent of the initial condition (detector settings). All correlations are objective and local. In Bell-Aspect as well as in your method, the measure space is oriented by the observer; the orientation of Joy's framework is determined by the topology.

    "I appreciate your devotion to Joy's description but please don't make the mistake of assuming that means there's no other way of describing nature."

    That misses the meaning of 'foundational.' If quantum mechanics could be shown to be a complete theory (it can't be), nature is observer created, not objective and not locally real. There are many, many ways of showing this empirically, including your method. Only a mathematically complete theory can make true scientific predictions independent of the empirical result.

    Best,

    Tom

    Dear Peter

    Always I suspect that entanglementhas kas classic basis. In any case classical theories are those with infinite velocity of informstion propagation. I put 10 scores for your essay

    My best regards

    Miroslaw

    Judy,

    Thanks. I've clarified to Doug that QM is logical for both photons and electrons. Sorry if I'm laconic. It's a massive advancement, but I'll only get upset if I expect it to be seen by all.

    I feel as I do helming a yacht when the race crew are distracted. I've worked on strategy and tactics and have a direct route to success, but when it comes to the last manoeuvre no matter what I say they're all looking in different directions, chatting or wandering around aimlessly, so we fail.

    Preparation is everything, but they say the most important bit of kit on the boat is the nut on the end of the tiller extension (the helmsman). Unfortunately he can be a genius to no avail if he can't get the message to the crew. But it does no good ranting. A good skipper must be patient, but must also inspire.

    Thanks for your support. I hope you finish strongly.

    Best wishes

    Peter

    Dear Peter,

    I enjoy reading your essay especially your discussion on quantum entanglement.

    It turns out that my theory Model Mechanics has a physical explanation for quantum entanglement as follows: A photon is a wave-packet in neighboring E-Strings in the E-Matrix. When a photon is chopped into two pieces these pieces become mirror images of each other and thus they become entangled as they travel in the opposite directions in these neighboring E-Strings.

    I tried to give your essay a high rating but I was enable to do so. In fact I was not able to give anybody a rating at all. I will contact the administrator to correct the problem.

    Regards,

    Ken

      Peter,

      Thanks for your generous comments over at my essay. I have read, greatly enjoyed and scored your piece. Alas, it seems difficult to move someone's aggregate score I was hoping to get you the attention of proper physicists, unlike myself, you deserve.

      If I understand your project, you are trying to find a way to return physics to the way it was understood before quantum weirdness appeared Einstein's "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." Am I properly comprehending, if vastly oversimplifying, your project.

      If my understanding is correct I would align that with my own essay in this way: human beings desire not only that the world be physically comprehensible but that it be morally comprehensible as well. We used to articulate this desire for comprehensibility through Utopian thought, that is, we used Utopia to both imagine what features a

      morally comprehensible world would have or as a kind of contrast to the ways our own society failed to match our desire for comprehensibility. I'd like to see a revival of the tradition minus its former hubris and other flaws.

      I wish you best of luck here and in getting your ideas across to the rest of the physics community. If you have not already done so your grading of my essay would be greatly appreciated.

      Rick Searle

        Ken,

        I hope you regain your powers.

        I agree your fundamentals are consistent with the DFM and discuss the rest of the classical QM derivation on your blog. I think we may term entanglement as consistency of nature and the laws of physics as little more is required. Certainly no FTL. I have scored yours and was pleased to have raised it.

        Best wishes

        Peter

        Thanks for the vote.

        Thanks for the reference to Hodge .

        My reference to EPR was to suggest it is founded on an assumption about the distinction between local and non-local. Suppose the plenum (space of general relativity) wave traveled at 10^7 time the speed of light. Well, at least fast enough so your characters were in local space. Matter still travels at less than $c$, a distinction is the Lorentz version of $c$ (the fastest MATTER can travel). Space (plenum in STOE) directs matter so it can do the entanglement thing.

        Perhaps we should continue on the academia.edu link. Perhaps you would comment on my model as well.

        Hodge

          Acedemia link https://independent.academia.edu/HodgeJohn.

          Dear Peter,

          Interesting essay with the story a couple rethink about their relation once ;) and thank you for your comments at my thread.

          When reading your essay and seeing the picture of 1/2 spin, I had an idea about 1d string which consists with 4d curled up space time. We usually imagine 2d space sheet is curled up as 1d string. Have you heard this approach to extra dimension in string theory? I think this can contain more information on 1d string.

          thank you,

          ryoji

            Dear Peter,

            As I had noted on my page, I very much enjoyed reading your essay, especially the style and imaginative presentation.

            I must honestly confess I need more time and thought to understand the physics, and make an opinion about it. I am on the whole of course extremely sympathetic to the idea that we need a better understanding of quantum theory. Bohmian mechanism is a strong candidate, but how to be sure that it is right? And we still need a relativistic version of Bohmian mechanics. I am also very sympathetic to the idea of modifying quantum theory to explain the quantum measurement problem and the classical nature of macroscopic objects. Some of my own recent work has been concerned with developing a common interpretation for Einstein gravity and the Dirac equation. So I am very much with you with regard to seeking a better understanding of spin, but I am going to need more time to digest your work. I apologize that I am slow.

            Kind regards,

            Tejinder

              Ruoji,

              If you follow the reference to the recent Plank institute electron finding the Amplituhedral interpretation of 'curled up' dimensions clarifies as recursive quantum gauges. A host of other physics logically connects, including from Godel to Chaos theory.

              Peter

              Tejinder,

              Thank you. The model provides a rational geometrical derivation of Bohmian mechanics, but with a twist (invoking electron spin flip). Rather than just; "the wave function collapsing to a singlet state on measurement" I employ the 'exchange of angular momentum' (measurement) with the detector field and point out that reversing the electron spin direction reverses the direction than "found".

              Then I show that the angular momentum at any point on a sphere surface changes with the latitude by the squared cosine of the angle from the equatorial plane (a revelation). 'Entanglement' then only needs to be the common propagation axis and particle 'equatorial' plane (or Schrodinger sphere surface plane). The nature of randomness does the rest. NO other model can explain the experimental anomalies, and the cosine curve plot produced is self apparent.

              There's confusion due to with the different strictly 'local' case of emission 'phase lock' (tomography etc.) causing other interactions, but only at c.

              For QM the Copenhagen interpretation is adjusted very slightly to be REAL detector influence, and for SR the postulates are conserved but a new constraint in the DISTANCE AWAY that arriving light speed is modulated to c in the observer frame (you may recall agreeing my entirely logical derivation over the last 3 years). There is then NOTHING preventing a unified description of QM and SR, allowing them to converge.

              Of course what there IS is theoretical inertia. The idea of testing the results of new ways of thinking seems abhorrent and unacceptable to those steeped in current doctrine. How is that overcome? I hope you saw the end note experimental results. Do also see my conversations with Doug Singleton on both our blogs.

              Best wishes

              Peter

              Peter,

              I do not know enough to decide if your theory might be correct. But your essay says scientists are wrong about global warming, a very controversial statement for which you give no evidence. It says "QM and Relativity, still incompatible after 200 years" and "Humans had delayed the hard choices needed to secure their future for a century. But impending disasters couldn't be proved. Confidence in scientists had waned since 'climategate.'" That implies by 2120, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will rise far above 550 PPM and there will be no global warming. Also saying brains use quantum computation is controversial. A new theory is controversial enough.

              I could not find the journal paper on academia.edu

              It is good you listed experiments that could be performed in the comments above.

              What does this mean: "even if just 'quark/gluon' oscillation within polarity"?

              I abstained from voting, but you have so many votes it would not matter. Good luck in the next round!

              Brent

                Peter,

                I have decided to rate these essays as as written works and not how well they match the theme. The person who wrote the topic is the person to decide if the goal was reached. I do think they are looking for Al Gore with some Physics about IR absorption of CO2 (God help us all).

                All the best,

                Jeff