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

        Hi Peter,

        If I recall you had this problem solved earlier but your use of characters separated and then re-united with a little drama at the end was clever writing. I think you meant to leave us hanging about earth's response to a potential crisis. I was hoping that your travelers would come back in time to save us, re-unite and we would live happily ever after.

        Regarding unification of QM and GR....I think early writers and thinkers were a little too dramatic about the differences. I recently published a paper in Vol 5 No3 of the Prespacetime Journal entitled "On the Source of the Gravitational Constant at the Low Energy Scale" that proposed a way of treating gravity almost the same way other forces are treated. An earlier version was viXra:1307.0085.

          Gene,

          Thanks. Yes the cliffhanger was for various reasons, ostensibly the length limit, but all can then use imagination to create their own ending - the raison d'aitre of the essay subject.

          I tend to agree on GR. The model supports a wide range including the Feynman-Weinburg derivation which left open recursive gauges.FW QG Peper.

          But this is strictly about Special Relativity which is where the great divide with QM lies. Even Time itself being completely different in character. The two converge nicely. The free fermions and protons can also then do a pretty good job of emulating dark matter.

          I know that wouldn't have been you who just trolled mine with an ultra low score without the courtesy of a post! They should be traced and barred! I hope you now keep rising. I'll try to take a look at your paper when I recover from reading essays!

          Very best wishes

          Peter

          Hi Peter,

          I am curious to see what you have cooked up this year, but I have not read your paper yet. From past experience, I find it's essential to give your work my undivided attention for the duration, and uninterrupted time is hard to come by. Still, in deference to your subject; I wonder why nobody thinks of asking Ted or Carol what Bob and Alice are up to, considering their past history...

          I'm assuming you don't go into that level of lurid detail, but that I'll be expected to check my baggage pre-flight. I'll be looking forward to reading and commenting, once I get the chance to give it a go. It is always an interesting excursion, to read your essays, but I am very different. I have tried to prove one facet of my program each time out, while you have tried to explain your central thesis each time, drawing on different facets of your explanation each go around.

          Perhaps it is time for you to write a book.

          All the Best,

          Jonathan

            Jonathen,

            You're right. It's half written. I keep getting distracted. The problem seems to be that once the logjam breached the flow of joined up physics is overwhelming. Nature is a bit like charades; I'll be dead long before I get through one facet at a time so I have to do the 'whole thing'. It's all coherently connected anyway, not much like "physics" at all. So there's the problem.

            Ted and Carol do get walk on roles, along with Yin and Yang. But it's a bit like 'Friends', the full cast is 6.

            Thank you for spending the time.

            Peter

            Hi Peter,

            I tried to read your essay last night but, as usual, I struggled with it. Its good that you listed the findings, that helps. Alice and Bob annoy me because they always seem to be doing confusing things and here they are again. I think this is the essay you would have written whatever the essay question because it is what you are currently working on and it excites you.I can understand why. You've had some marvelous reviews so presumably other people found it easier to follow and relevant to the contest. Hope you get many more. Good luck, Georgina