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

            Dear Peter,

            In reference to Corpuscularianism, your statement "Many held firmly to SR or QM, or even both, convinced there was no conflict. But the gap remained. Even time itself is different, one absolute one relative", is true; whereas this duality of time is differently interpreted in ECSU paradigm. In this the time that emerges on eigen-rotation of string-segments is absolute, whereas the time for the displacement of isolated cluster or clusters of string-matter segments is the relative time.

            With best wishes,

            Jayakar

              Brent,

              Wow! Suggesting the essay says "scientists are wrong about global warming" is a worryingly opposite conclusion from; "Earth was in trouble on all fronts, humans had delayed the hard choices..".! 'Climategate' is about scientists disagreeing over the CAUSE of global warming (and the Essex evidence debacle). I'm sure you know very few actually 'deny' it completely. My point is that confidence wanes when half say one thing and half the other.

              'Predictions' are about ALL potential disasters (dozens are identified in the essays) and analysis shows ALL as inaccurate so far. My point was; "the problem was we really didn't understand enough about fundamentals to properly interpret the details." i.e. the 139 (and more) unsolved problems. I'm sorry if I didn't make that absolutely clear, but perhaps you 'skimmed' it a bit too quickly. Bob and Alice also at the end wonder if they've returned in time!

              'Quantum computation' is using quantum particles to store and compute, which is modelled on exactly what our brain does! Reminding those outside the field of that fact may be a shock but it's part of the 'finding new ways of looking at familiar things'. My last essay discussed that in more detail (well supported). I'm agreeing (with Einstein, Bragg etc) that sticking with familiar ways of seeing things is what prevents advancement. Belief and old myths may be fatal!

              I'm not sure which Academia paper you couldn't find. There are a dozen on that link. Could you download any? Try the previous essays here and this this PRJ preprint; http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7163.

              Experiments have BEEN DONE and reproduced (see end notes), and anomalous data from others predicted (Aspect and Weihs).

              'quark/gluon' oscillation within polarity' is (amplituhedral) gauged motion within motion, i.e. a spinning motion of something within a (polar) spinning body. The Planck Institute finding reference in the essay has an excellent diagram.

              I was disappointed and a bit shocked by your response, but it's consistent with my analysis of why we struggle to resolve those 139() problems. However self apparent the science I need to find a better way to overcome prior assumptions. All ideas are welcomed.

              Thanks for your interest. I hope you now better understand my points, and that I'm certainly not a denier!

              Best wishes

              Peter

              I'm afraid this one was a bit over my head, Peter.

              I look forward to revisiting it some time when I want to learn a lot more about quantum mechanics.

                Tom,

                "Only a mathematically complete theory can make true scientific predictions independent of the empirical result."

                You write that as if I hadn't presented the full independent mathematical derivation of the theory and result, which I did on "Classical sphere's.." and pointed to it. You didn't refute it. (It's so simple it's irrefutable).

                Your dedication the the current 'interpretation' of SR would be admirable if it weren't typical of the belief led science we need to escape from to advance. m My own description satisfies both Einstein's postulates AND Bohr's s description as well as reproducing the quantum correlations classically, which Bell says was impossible.

                If it waddles like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck... No matter how well and long you've been convinces it's camel I suggest the odds are it's a duck. Nature in not observer 'created' but observer 'modulated'. Copenhagen is then real, it's just the whole world.

                Peter

                Peter, I think I'm getting your basic point and just need to work out details.I am yet convinced. (These wrangles about QM often go on and on, with no clear resolution - note the back and forth bickering over whether and how Born probabilities can be derived out of continued evolution of superpositions in MWI. Personally, I don't think that will work, and am as appalled by many worlds as I suspect you are ...) Let me ask a preliminary question: does your argument work as easily for photon polarization as for "genuine vector spin" of say, electrons? Yes, both have two degrees of freedom in principle (Bloch sphere compared to literal expectation value of spin direction, at least when v much less than c) but I'm wondering if the point works out the same way.

                In any case my take is that your argument revolves around (I just can't resist those apt phrases) the Bell tests ultimately being about relative angles of spin detectors/polarizers, whereas the properties of the particles themselves are actual orientations (or at least, that not being accessible or definable in terms of relative angles, and hence not making the same point about local realism that the traditional view of the Bell argument implies)? - which I then found basically stated by you in a few sentences bottom of page 6. That could be fruitful. I'm sure you realize you're up against the claim that the Bell argument is "universal" and works no matter what realist features are claimed - however, if you can successfully revise the fundamental logical framing of the properties in question, that will be quite a feat.

                  Peter,

                  I apologize, I did not know 'climategate' meant this climate research controversy. That page says "Exoneration or withdrawal of all major or serious charges".

                  Scientific opinion on climate change is

                  that "the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it". Your essay is written from the perspective of 2120. I was trying to think of a situation in which confidence in scientists would wane over climate change then.

                  When you write the human brain is a quantum computer, do you mean it uses quantum entanglement for computation like described in quantum mind?

                  Do you have a journal paper version of this essay? It appears you are working on it here. I misinterpreted "Bob, Alice and the project leader prepared a paper including the results and submitted to a peer reviewed journal" as you had submitted this subject to a peer reviewed journal. Some people will need to see math and more about experimental results.

                  I'm glad your essay does not deny climate change. I will vote to send your essay to the next round. Hopefully you will get productive comments.

                  Thanks,

                  Brent

                  Neil,

                  I'm familiar with Peters new approach from the 'Sphere's' blog. It's actually the detector electrons that flip with the field angle setting reversal, which is well known physics. What he then also points out is that the relative direction "finding" from that interaction must be reversed!

                  I think that's simply brilliant thinking, but 'too' brilliant it seems for those steeped in the old assumptions. Most others are so confused by the nonsense arguments surrounding QM (who wouldn't be!) that they're completely befuddled. It needs clarity of thinking to cut through all the nonsense.

                  Bell himself agreed such a circumvention was possible and even 'must' come! (Someone quoted the Bell interview from 'Ghost in the Atom'). Peter just used a different starting assumption to Bell. The big implication is that it removes the block to unification with SR.

                  My own essay points to the need for the better thinking approach that Peter, Bob and Alice use to escape doctrine and analyse afresh.

                  Peter

                  Sorry to butt in. I hope that's right. I came along to congratulate, commiserate with the modest support and wish you well as I'm off at a conference for a few days. I think it's the only one that really steers us noticeably in the right direction.

                  There's little to do with fundamental physics or even real hope of progress in many others. I hope the judges see the massive value, but that you continue the work in any event.

                  Judy

                  • [deleted]

                  • Post #159

                  Peter,

                  I was hoping that you wouldn't force me into this position. I did refute your model on Joy's blog; you just ignored the refutation and went on to claim that you hadn't been refuted.

                  The fact is, that in order for your model to be right, special relativity has to be wrong. For special relativity to be wrong, the mathematical theory that supports the experimental physical facts has to be wrong. You can convince Pentcho Valev, not me.

                  Special relativity was the greatest triumph of 20th century physics, because it is mathematically complete, like Newton's theory which it extended. Three hundred years between 'hypotheses non fingo' type theories is a long stretch. The rarity and strength of these bedrock theories is worth the wait.

                  Your own efforts on the other hand, do 'fingo' hypotheses. The main fingoing is in (29 April@15:29 GMT) " ... relativity needs to bend a little too to fully converge Tom."

                  Special relativity only 'bends' when it becomes general relativity; i.e., when acceleration replaces uniform motion. It does not 'converge' on anything in a quantum framework, for whatever you mean by that.

                  "The electron interaction forms the domain limit of a physically real local inertial system."

                  No it doesn't. The electromagnetic field influence is infinite, just like the gravitational field.

                  "If an observer moves; the light propagating at c 100 miles away does not physically change speed wrt anything but him, it only changes speed wrt everything else when it meets the boundary electrons of his OWN LOCAL inertial system. Infinities are removed. (and helices are 4D not 2D)."

                  Light doesn't change speed, period. What you propose in effect, is that the observation of distant events that appear to happen at different times for observers in different states of motion (reconciled by the Lorentz transformation to a common spacetime) has a quantum analog. This is demonstrably wrong, since the relative speed of electrons is not affected by an observer's state of motion. That is why relativistic quantum mechanics sets c = 1 in all its formulas; in other words, time drops out of the equations entirely.

                  "I don't doubt you're still too indoctrinated to see it, but it's true none the less that that strengthens SR, not weakens it. QM's 'uncertainty' then retreats to the next gauge down when converging with SR. If you think you have any credible 'real' falsification of that model it's now time to wheel it out for testing in the harsh light of truth!"

                  Over and over, Peter -- I hear that I am 'indoctrinated' and you have the 'truth' (accompanied by the usual exclamation points). I wonder where I've heard that before; pretty sure it wasn't in a scientific context.

                  At any rate, special relativity cannot be 'strengthened'. It is mathematically complete, something that one has to understand in order to understand relativity. You can't 'fingo' anything into it, without giving up the theory entirely. Unlike the relation between Newton and Einstein's theories, you don't do anything to extend relativity.

                  All you get empirically, by depending on subjective judgements and detector settings, is exactly what Bell-Aspect got. Which is understandable, because that program, like yours, only applies an interpretation of results a posteriori and absent a mathematically complete theory.

                  Best,

                  Tom

                  • [deleted]

                  • Post #160

                  Hello Peter,

                  I found your essay an interesting read from a non-physicist perspective. I've read through some of the comments and they echo my concerns about the application of your conclusions to steering our species' future. I've read some of your responses, and I agree with your sentiment that we should not address the symptoms of our problems and should instead address root causes.

                  I'm intrigued as to how such a unification as you propose would affect our understanding of the mind and the development of artificial intelligence. One of the root causes of our species' problems I identify in my essay is that the human mind is not the best instrument for addressing problems that could be existential for our species. I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on this specific topic.

                  Thank you!