Do Bob and Alice have a future? by Peter Jackson

Tom,

I first learned is as you believe, beset by paradoxes and anomalies. The alternative has none. You haven't once yet addressed the alternatives on a scientific comparison basis. You're still then doing 'religion' not science.

In the DFM the LT describes the physical process AT the inertial system boundaries. The speed of the light HAS to change to become c in the NEW inertial system rest frame on each transition. That part is exactly like sound, which does the speed of sound ('s') wrt the rest frame of ALL co-moving media.

Both do c (s) wrt the rest state of the system they are propagating within, NOT any other, as found. All the time your understanding cannot explain superluminal jets and all the other anomalous phenomena it will remain seriously inferior to the one that does so. It's as John quoted Huxley "..intelligent, but not intelligent enough". (i.e. m=E/c^2 and E=mc^2 use inertial and relativistic mass, a 'slight of hand' those intelligent enough can spot!).

It was the army in the cold war era doing the 'joint' Venus work with the USSR who propagated Shapiro's distorted data 'proving' SR. An allowance for 'atmopheric delay' was guessed at over 90% of the delay, leaving the "SR prediction" (100% wrong but adjusted later) Venus Express has found a dense atmosphere and 400kph winds! The Russians weren't fooled and the disinformation backfired. Were you just taken in? or one of those culpable and still trying?

I now have nearly 200 posts. I suggest cold war propaganda is out of date Tom. It'll get mankind nowhere.

Tom,

Your 'logic' defies rationality. I put the 200 posts down solely to your persistence at the pulpit. I suspect you'll convert nobody Tom.

We all have things to learn. If you think you don't and won't even 'look' then it's just preaching. Perhaps you'd have better luck elsewhere.

Best wishes

Peter

Tom,

That's your error. There are no such thing as 'facts' in science. Belief that they exist invalidates the scientific method. That belief is a common error invalidating amateurs comments, i.e. Peter Gluck's point. Comparing new theory with old can't falsify the new theory.

Now if you'd like to discuss 'science' instead, then I'm very happy to. Otherwise please don't bother to post. Cold war propaganda and disinformation is over!

Best wishes

Peter

Tom,

I do suggest Rick no longer has a cafe. It was replaced long ago, as it should.

Ryoji,

Many thanks. Being a finalist is one thing, penetrating the judges entrenchment in old physics is another. Bracketing (playing safe) is de rigeur but I think Sci-Am is often far more leading edge than the essay judging.

There does seem to be interesting new physics in the graphene fusion work you cite, but remember that was only a simulation. I've noticed a dangerous but increasing tendency for simulations to be treated as real experiments!

Keep up the research. I read 20 papers etc. a week, many 'cross discipline'. Many professors read zero, relying only on the odd conference! (It shows). But always focus on methods and findings not interpretations, which result from assumptions, mostly hidden.

Best wishes

Peter

Luca,

Brilliant! Dr Soguine's maths perfectly describes my 3D state transformation. He's a genius, thank you. I knew the geometry worked and that the current maths was inadequate to describe it but couldn't picture the extended use of quaternions.

I couldn't quite seem to make sense of Joy's maths in that task. I can see Dr Sequine's describes the transform, and my discrete field Bloch sphere geometry takes it from there with the physical analogue. (I'm sure Tom will describe how Joy Cristian meant the same thing anyway, and I still suspect Joy was about right). The helical paths and hopf fibration as the descriptor of the Born rule (squaring the wavefunction) discussed in my previous essay forms the rest of the link. As the Galileo quote says;

He who undertakes to deal with questions of natural sciences without the help of geometry is attempting the infeasible.

Have you checked out Bells 'beables'. The 'reality' before the interaction? I simply derive that there is both that reality and the 'transformed' reality, which are equivalent but simply different in certain properties. I don't agree with the interpretation of reality being what is 'unchanged.' Bell was convinced there WAS a real analogue to QM and said professional physicists "should be able to do better" than the vague nonsense of a description we still suffer today.

This is solid and revolutionary stuff. Shame that seems to mean it'll probably never be allowed past the 'sanitization' barriers protecting old myth and legend. Does it?

Best wishes

Peter

(As also mostly posted on the Quantum blog);

New Physics! And strong support for the causal QM of my essay, well timed!

Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?

The only thing that doesn't really do, and the key to everything, is show how 'non locality' can be produced classically. I recently lodged a short (2 page) 'summary' resume of the fuller derivation in my essay, consistent with the above, here;

Classical reproduction of quantum correlations.

Paradigm changes can't be instant but my original 2020 estimate now looks more realistic; 2020 Vision. A model of Discretion in Space' http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803

The same electron (Compton/Raman) scattering mechanism at c in the electron C of M rest frame ('discrete field dynamics' or DFM) appears able to coherently rationalise both SR and QM without paradox to allow convergence (see the other 3 essays). If anybody can spot any apparent flaws do please flag them up. Thanks.

Could this be a red letter day for fqxi? Hmmm.

A quote; "..blames the "preposterous" neglect of the theory on "decades of indoctrination." At this stage, Goldstein and several others noted, researchers risk their careers by questioning quantum orthodoxy."

Peter

Update Summary Version; B

Identifying that Bell validated this model all but for one different assumption he used (spin axes random on ALL planes, not our 'propagation on spin axis' with random polarity) which gave rise to the problems and limits he described.

We also show how the intermediate OAM values are produced; which is from distribution of AOM with latitude' so 'entangling' the relative setting angles along with the spin axis.

Classical reproduction of quantum correlations. Summary; B.

Please do comment or question. Or see the "Why Quantum..." blog.

Peter