Dear HCH,
Most kind. Thank you. But I fear logic remains unfashionable.
I'll certainly read your own contribution. P
Do Bob and Alice have a future? by Peter Jackson
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
Georgina,
Unfortunately unravelling entangled nonsense to find the clarity first needs the nonsense to be understood. That's very difficult for anyone rational!
I think our poor understanding of nature is the greatest bar to an idyllic future, and filling the chasm between the two 'great pillars' of physics the greatest quantum leap we can make, affecting all areas of science from cosmology to sub atomic particles. That's why I'm tackling it in the first place. I see most other approaches shallower, so more like treating symptoms than fundamental cause.
I'm sorry you struggled. I have the likes of Tom on one side insisting on non-intuitive technical 'geek' descriptions, and the needs of average readers on the other, struggling with the ontology. Too far one way completely looses connection with the other. I tried to strike a good balance. I'm sorry if you struggled but do understand. Like the Eiffel tower, there are a number of different 'components' without which the hypothesis couldn't be constructed. It's difficult to build, but too important not to try.
Thanks for trying.
Peter
Dear Dr. Jackson,
Your abstractions filled essay is superbly written and I do hope that it does well in the competition. Please forgive me. Reality is unique, once.
INERT LIGHT THEORY
Based on my observation, I have concluded that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real things have one and only one thing in common. Each real thing has a material surface and an attached material sub-surface. A surface can be interior or exterior. All material surfaces must travel at a constant speed. All material sub-surfaces must travel at an inconsistent speed that has to be less than the constant speed the surface travels at. While a surface can travel in any direction, a sub-surface can only travel either inwardly or outwardly. A sub-surface can expand or contract. Surfaces and sub-surfaces can be exchanged by the application of natural or fabricated force. The surfaces of the sub-sub-microscopic can never be altered. This is why matter cannot be destroyed. This is why anti-matter can never be created. It would be physically impossible for light to move as it does not have a surface or a sub-surface. Although scientists insist that light can be absorbed, or reflected, or refracted, this is additional proof that light cannot have a surface. It would be physically impossible for a surface to absorb another surface, or reflect another surface , or refract another surface.
Abstract theory cannot ever have unification because it is perfect.. Only reality is unified because there is only one unique reality.
Light is the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The proof of this is easy to establish. When one looks at an active electrical light, one must notice that all of the light remains inside of the bulb. What does move from the bulb is some form of radiant. The radiant must move at a rate of speed that is less than the "speed" of light, however, when the radiant strikes a surface it achieves the "speed" of light because all surfaces can only travel at the constant "speed" of light. When a light radiant strikes a surface, the radiant resumes being a light, albeit of a lesser magnitude. While it is true that searchlights, spotlights and car headlights seem to cast a beam of light, this might be because the beams strike naturally formed mingled sub-sub and sub-atomic particles prevalent in the atmosphere that collectively, actually form a surface.
In the Thomas Young Double Slit Experiment, it was not direct sunlight that passed through the slits. Light from the sun is stationary and it cannot move because light does not have a surface. Radiants emitted from the sun went through the slits and behaved like wave radiants.
Einstein was completely wrong. His abstract theory about how abstract observers "see" abstract events differently is wrong. This is what every real observer sees when they look at a real light. They see that all of the light remains near the source. The reason for that is because light does not have a surface, therefore it cannot move. This happens to real observers whether they are looking at real fabricated lights such as neon, incandescent or LED. This also happens when real observers observe real natural light such as from the real sun or reflected from the real moon, or from a real lightning bolt, or from a real fire, a real candle, or light from out of a real lightning bug's bottom.
With the highest of regards,
Joe Fisher
Peter,
Indeed I also think that learning to think into 3D imaging activates your quantum brain in a different way than learning formulasor law etc.
Peter,
A truly masterful essay. A few small problems but you got the major points correct, especially your key points on page 8. As far as I can tell you've worked this out from geometry. I've worked out the same results from the physics of Stern-Gerlach and Gordon Watson has recently worked out the same result from Bell's formulation. We have thus converged to the same point from three different approaches. I think it will be seen to be the correct point.
Of your 10 points, the first two are obvious, and the third needs further interpretation. But points 4,5,6,7,9, and 10 are major, and of course go against the grain of orthodoxy. (Although I believe your approach to point number six is incorrect, your result is correct.) I believe your model of spin one half (720° rotation) is not the correct model, but I don't see that this is any effects on the outcome of the measurements.
The quantum formulation of the singlet state is legitimate. What is not correct is believing the mathematical superposition is physical.
I do agree with Christian Corda's remark above that our understanding of nature is classical, not quantum. Also Steven Tuck, Gene Barbee, and Vladimir Tamari seem to believe (as I do) that classical underlies quantum, opposite to the orthodox view. And I think you have nailed entanglement. It used to be known as conservation of momentum before Bell confused everyone with his naïve formulation.
I put off reading your essay because, knowing that Gordon and I had worked out the Bell problem, I just assumed your treatment would be wrong, and did not relish challenging you. What a pleasant surprise to find you right on target.
And what is most impressive is that you are an architect, not a physicist. Just not brainwashed enough I guess.
Because I've come to the same results by a different path, I can see that you are correct. But I'm not sure other physicists will be able to see it.
My guess is that the 'unorthodox' nature of your essay (meaning, not as a physicist would do it!) will work against acceptance of your results, plus the fact that most quantum physicists are in love with the "weirdness" of quantum mechanics. But you have seen through to the essence of the problem. Congratulations.
Worth a 25, but you will have to settle for a 10.
My very best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman