Thanks Judy,

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

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

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

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

Raymond

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

Stuart,

Great questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Peter,

I enjoyed your insightful and eye-opening essay.

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

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

best regards

Wilhelmus

    Dear Peter,

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

    Sincerely,

    Stephen Tuck

      Dear Uncle Peter Jackson

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

      10 points for the passion and enthusiasm of Uncle.

      Hải.CaoHoàng

        Wilhelmus,

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

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

        Best wishes

        Peter

        Stephen,

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

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

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

        Best wishes

        Peter

        Dear HCH,

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

        I'll certainly read your own contribution. P

        Hi Peter,

        you wrote:

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

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

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

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

        With best wishes

        Vladimir

        Dear Peter,

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

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

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

        I wish you good luck!

        All the Best,

        Vladimir

        Stuart,

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

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

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

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

        P

        Hi Peter,

        I have just read your nice Essay. Here are my comments and questions:

        1) Why do you think our leap in our understanding of nature must be "quantum"? Cannot it be "classical"?

        2) It is my personal opinion that Bell's theorem is not definitive (In fact, from 1) and 2) points you should understand that I am an endorser of Einstein's determinisms).

        3) 'spin' within spin looks intriguing. Any idea in order to test the effect?

        4) With your beautiful sentence "Yin taught him that knowledge was only half the battle, and Yang that only consistent application with no anomalies or apparent paradox completed the job" you connect Chinese Philosophy and Galilean Philosophy.

        5) How do you conciliate your statement that "Local Reality DID exist down to a much smaller limit of resolution" with Uncertainty Principle?

        6) In a certain sense, your conclusion is that Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation and Einstein's local reality are "entangled".

        I had a lot of fun in reading your Essay. Thus, I am going to give you an high score.

        I wish you good luck in the Contest.

        Cheers, Ch.

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

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

          Cheers

          Dear Peter,

          On reading your essay when it came out, I was struck by your Fig(1) showing the wheel-within-a-wheel as it turned 720 degrees before coming to the initial configuration. Whatever spin is, it has that half-frequency characteristic. I should have mentioned in my last year's essay on quaternion spectra the significance of the zeroes being at f=0.25 as indicating something that takes two periods.

          Your diagrams are nice and I hope they are a help in delving into your Ref(17). I have been conceptualizing the multidimensional spectra of my old essay as having independent time dimensions already. It is nice to see that Chen has developed this idea.

          Thanks for an interesting and entertaining essay.

          Alice and Bob are busy people, but they always attend the Quantum Randi Challenge.

          Best Regards,

          Colin

          Leo,

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

          Michael,

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

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

          Christian,

          I'm very glad you enjoyed it. I hope the touch of humour doesn't detract or distract from the serious findings. To answer your questions.

          1) It is indeed classical physics which takes the 'quantum leap' forward, but quantum physics moves too.

          2) Bell is indeed circumvented. His tautology remains intact, but does not reflect how nature works nature. However QM AND SR have to change to converge. If your freind beside you in space accelerates towards a light source he will now NOT change the propagation speed of the approaching light, until it ARRIVES in his own domain, physically bounded by his surface free electrons. (The SR postulates do not change, just our incomplete interpretation, to be as AE's 1952 paper).

          3) Spin within spin has been confirmed in both quantum optics and astrophysics. Check out the two references I cite. It's even found in the suns surface radiation. Also the Feynman Weinberg QG found just that, and it has an analogy in string dimensions. It's everywhere if we look. At larger scales we can group the spin particles into a gyro, the axis of which which we can rotate on 3 axes while turning ourselves, while standing on a roundabout on a spinning planet orbiting a star in a spinning galaxy orbiting a cluster orbiting a filament. There are at least another 6 gauges going down, probably more. Google the 'Amplituhedron'.

          4) Yin and Yang can never be parted, like clockwise and anticlockwise spin, and wave/particle duality in decreasing steps. To ask if the universe is continuous or quantized is to both expose and maintain our poor understanding.

          5) The uncertainty Principle remains, but the greater the causal 'resolution' we have the smaller it's domain. That ultimately conserves free choice. The 'Yang' is that at present the 'stem cell' still represents uncertainty and 'new' things can evolve. One day a smaller entity will take on that role.

          6) Yes, I'd say Copenhagen and Local Reality are just different descriptions of the same thing. Neither of our current descriptions have been good enough to reveal that. Freeman was right good physics is about "finding unity in hidden likeness".

          Does that all make sense?

          If true, how can such new enlightenment ever be assimilated into physics when the old beliefs are so deeply entrenched? Were Bob and Alice too late?

          Best wishes

          Peter