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!

        Jakakar,

        As I answered on your blog I agree that's possible s there are both real ('Proper')and 'apparent' rates of time, the latter if the distance between emitter and observer is changing, which it will with displacement. It's simple Doppler shift which we confounded by calling contraction and dilation before we learned there IS an ISM (you may recall my last 3 essays).

        Bets wishes

        Peter

        Seb,

        No worries, current QM is over EVERYONE'S head! It's just that not all admit it. You really don't want to 'learn' too much about that as if you ever get past the confusion it's because you're 'indoctrinated'.

        You just needs to find it's predictions (spooky apparent action at a distance and a cosine curve distribution of supposed 'random' results) and Bells proof that according to QM no deterministic logic can produce it, than look at my proof from using a different 'starting assumption' (that spinning bodies all have TWO polar spin directions!) Do you know any that don't.

        Unfortunately QM confounds so badly that even the simple solution seems to be invisible!

        Perhaps mankind is now too deep in the theoretical rut to escape, do you think?

        Best wishes

        Peter

        • [deleted]

        • Post #163

        Neil,

        Sorry I've been away. Richard Gill didn't wave back from his Baltic Isle. Judy's about right (thanks Judy). Yes, I'm showing that electrons and photons may be treated the same. Photons may even be considered in wavefront terms to the same effect as they meet tangentially to the detector electron 'sphere' at some latitude (angle from the equatorial plane).

        Your 2nd para doesn't quite capture the whole quintessence. Try this; Bell inherited Bohr's limited description (singles state) but gave it a 'physical reality'. I say it didn't need THAT reality. Bohr is satisfied with a reality that we can only interact with ('measure') one hemisphere at a time of our spinning globe, so that Bob COULD find clockwise OR anticlockwise subject to HIS field orientation no matter which Alice has found!! THAT is what circumvents Bells theorem.

        I agree, it would be 'quite a feat', but only to get any attention for the finding or recognition of it's validity. It was simple to 'find', just taking a different way of thinking to track down and challenge assumptions. A bit like your teaching 'mistake avoidance' which earned top score. I hope you agree mine may be worth the same. With all the positive comments it keeps slipping down from contention!

        Best of luck in the final run in.

        Peter

        Hi Anon,

        Unification allows a physical understanding of 'measurement' as an interaction between particles transferring oscillation patterns, but as the eye and brain are separated, (by a Shannon 'channel' optic nerve) and only the brain applies 'time' (='frequency') then the first (eye) modulation is to 'wavelength' NOT frequency. That then allows us to logically rationalise how our neural networks physically work, so why our 'minds' have been unable to unravel the process.

        I agree (and it was an excellent question) that at present the human mind is a poor tool for addressing fundamental problems, partly as we're too 'belief' based but we just don't think through consequences well. An AI shouldn't be so hampered. However! AI's designed by humans may still inherit some human limitations. I suggest the better understanding we have and use we make of our on-board quantum computers the better AI we'll develop. Also perhaps the safer AI we'll develop!

        I hope you agree and thanks for prompting me to think about that. Top marks for the question. (Confess who you are and I'll check I've read/scored your essay).

        Best wishes

        Peter

        Tom,

        You forget the first thing we learn in science; believing B doesn't falsify A, however many believe B, and for how long. 'Mathematically complete' has also meant little since Copernicus. We now also need 'physical models' as 2 'mathematically complete' models may still conflict. Why not approach this with an open mind for once?

        "The fact is, that in order for your model to be right, special relativity has to be wrong." Perhaps YOUR 'SR' has to be wrong Tom, Einstein's doesn't as he never claimed it was complete; remember "The entire (theory of SR) is contained within the postulates." If a more consistent physical mechanism reproduces the postulates with complete maths then the fact that 10^6 Toms believe version 'A' does NOT falsify version B, You must show it's inconsistent in itself NOT with 'A'. OK?

        Now you suggest you refuted the independent maths I gave. You didn't even respond,- even when I flagged them up. Check back on 'spheres' and find fault now if you can. You won't. My post today to Anon explains why. The usual shortcut to 'frequency' cutting out delta lambda hides the real mechanism. All astrophysicists know that produces nonsense; i.e. only redshift as lambda/lambda makes sense.

        Let me try explaining the unification in a different way Tom as your issue seems largely semantic.; SR is NOT 'wrong'. It's QM that bears the brunt of changed understanding. However the 'apparent' inconsistencies that dog SR (recognised by the majority if not by you!), even with the 'fields' of GR, can also be finally ironed out. Yes, for the dozenth time I know the original description well thanks, the problem is that YOU won't even look at any other. Well consider this alternative, and with an open mind please!; so falsify with logic and science not beliefs.

        You and I are on different planets (lol) orbiting the sun. Voyager2 in the bow shock equidistant away sends a signal but I'm approaching V2 and you're receding. The parts of the signal heading for you and I take the SAME time to reach our equidistant atmospheres! - as they propagate at c in the frame they're in, that of the SUN! (the 'Barycentric' frame, which NASA well knows).

        Now when the signals reach each of our ionospheres/atmospheres they are, as again NASA well knows (conclusive papers available), progressively re-scattered to the local c of the electrons and atoms at rest wrt each planet. Subject to altitude some birefringence is found (see J.D Jackson electrodynamics for extinction distances) which reduces to almost zero at the surface, because on EACH planet the speed of light is c wrt THAT planets' rest frame. i.e 'c' is LOCAL to each inertial system, as specified by AE.

        There IS then a speed change, to the LOCAL c, PRECISELY measurable by the Doppler shift of wavelength. All we've done is re-interpreted entirely in line with Einstein's 1954 (not exactly 1905) paper, which removes ALL the apparent paradoxes. Now if you test that SCIENTIFICALLY you'll find it works perfectly, far more consistently than the 1905 '1st stab'. It's also infinitely hierarchical as truth function logic and the rules of brackets in mathematics.

        If the 'signal' was a supernova it would be propagating at c wrt the ISM (Galaxy rest frame) until it reached our heliosphere and was scattered to our sun's local c. Astronomy again proves that beyond any doubt. Each inertial system in SR is then LOCALLY REAL as AE always wanted. The LT well describes the physical mechanism at the change-over at the domain limits, with plasma optical breakdown mode (density increases with relative speed) describing the exact gamma curve.

        QM is then consigned to recursive stochastic quantum gauges. Uncertainty is (currently) incomputable complexity. Now my point is that Einstein himself may well have shouted 'Eureka!' on seeing this, but he thought, as all did then, that space was empty of particles to affect the changes. If the facts change then the theory can becomes clearer. Except for the few who'll always cling on to ancient myths, ignore proper science and avoid new facts! I think you really know better.

        So please review. And honest scientific argument only please. Best wishes

        Peter

        "You forget the first thing we learn in science; believing B doesn't falsify A, however many believe B, and for how long. 'Mathematically complete' has also meant little since Copernicus."

        Maybe to you. The first thing I learned in science is that only mathematics is axiomatically (i.e., formal logic) based. Hilbert's program (6th problem), to axiomatize physics, failed. That's why J. Bronowski's statement is the truest and strongest: "All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses." This is supported in Popper's rehabilitation for science of Tarski's correspondence theory of truth; i.e., scientific facts become facts only in the correspondence between abstract theory and physical observation. If we follow the rules of objective science, we don't have to worry about how open our minds are; we have enough to do to keep the subjective judgement of our minds out of it.

        "Tom, Einstein's doesn't as he never claimed it was complete; remember 'The entire (theory of SR) is contained within the postulates."

        D'oh. That's what mathematically complete means. To Einstein, to Newton, to Copernicus, to Euclid, to Pythagoras. Oh, and to us.

        It's general relativity that Einstein knew to be incomplete, because he only intended it to be an intermediate step toward a complete theory of gravity that subsumes quantum mechanics in a continuous field theory.

        Best,

        Tom

        Tom,

        Avoidance of the questions wasn't and isn't a 'scientific' option. So enough subjective opinions on relative irrelevancies and semantics and on to the actual points and questions...?...

        Peter

        Peter, it is good to relate the essay topic to physics in the way you have. My views on quantum and relativity are somewhat mainstream but I still think there is much to be gained from exploring alternative views. Good luck

          Phil,

          Thanks. That's an unexpected view. How do you reconcile the time issue between QM's 'absolute' and SR's 'relative' versions. I assume you disagree that unification is the 'holy grail'. How do you overcome the (Penrose etc) analysis of the 'chasm' between them preventing compatible mainstream views of both?

          Or do I assume yours is a passive acquiescence 'don't know' approach? (probably the most honest though looks the opposite).

          Best wishes

          Peter

          Peter, since you believe I have only "irrelevancies and semantics" in my argument while you of course have "actual points and questions," avoiding your 'points and questions' is really my only option, isn't it?

          What you find 'scientific' about that, I don't know.

          Tom,

          There's nothing scientific in avoiding a scientific point. I set out both the mathematics (as requested) and an alternative scenario for you to analyse and falsify. Refusing to do so will be fine but will reveal your true motivation, i.e. not scientific.

          Please also in that case refrain from falsely claiming you've 'refuted' propositions you've avoided even addressing. That's dishonest. Giving personal opinions based on beliefs is not 'addressing'. The honest proposition and questions remain there to be addressed. Writing nonsense instead won't wash.

          Peter

          What mathematics? And all the refutations are a matter of public record here.