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

      Edwin,

      Thanks. Spot on as usual. I noted the 720^o spin diagram as 'one of' the ways 'she drew' as I had to find some intuitive visual proof it was possible that people would remember. I agree it only 'represents' the result. I'm really glad if you've a fully derived answer as that's a bit technical for me! Is it in writing yet?

      You're right, I escaped indoctrination and went to re-learn how to think. As a pure maths student I saw the conveyor belt was headed for Dodgson's wonderland so jumped just in time! I'm glad Gordon's still on the case as he my kind of mathematician.

      "I'm not sure other physicists will be able to see it."

      I'm absolutely sure the majority won't. At first. I've been blogging on this in a number of places for some time, testing different ways to describe it. At best I a stony silence comes down when the kicking and screaming abates as they get a glimpse. A typical one is Richard Gill (see 'Classical spheres..') so focussed inside their own specialist box they won't even believe there IS a universe beyond! Only about 1 in 6 seem to have the vision. How do we teach it?

      It's the same with the underlying discrete field dynamics model (DFM) which getting QM in line is only a part of, or a 'falsification test' of predictions The outcome is full unification of classical and Quantum physics.

      As well as the Galaxy Evolution Sequence paper just accepted by the HJ I have a paper drafted with John Minkowski on this matter in Nature Physics format, (needs a redraft) plus the main DFM tome with John which is turning into a book!

      The biggest problem I see in physics is that it's full of primadonna's, all wanting individual glory (and a Nobel). I hold no truck with that. I'd still like a collaboration. Mega kudos for many is better than none for any one, which is the real alternative. I'd be happy if you and Gordon are up for it.

      I did an alternative sketch for Zeilingers non-cummutative 3 filter diagram. It wasn't simple enough to use, or probably much closer to reality. Attached below. Do comment. (Also a simple version showing recursive OAM helicity).

      Best wishes

      PeterAttachment #1: 3_Filters.jpgAttachment #2: Recursive_OAM.jpg

      Peter Jackson,

      Maybe you steered your own future well as a possible winner of the contest when you prolonged the classical spheres thread. I understood the word humanity differently.

      I would rather appreciate "new ways to think" instead of being reminded of endless futile quarrel about "the real relationship of Alice and Bob (A,B) the characters at the heart and head of theoretical analysis".

      Currently essays are on top which claim serving the world. I wonder if you don't agree with them and will vote accordingly ;). I was not heard when I objected that common sense tends to use the expression "save the world" with an ironic undertone. The question is: save from what?

      Is mankind and its basis the Earth really endangered by economic bubbles and social inequality?

      Or should we follow Shirazi and fight against political ponerology?

      Or will loving-kindness save us from all evil?

      Or should we accept our fate?

      I think the name FQXi reminds us to strive for revealing more foundational questions. What might be wrong in our ideals of humanity and responsibility?

      Some essays are dealing with growth of population as "alarming". Kadin's good essay didn't get much support because it collides with old doctrines. I agree with him: The logical contradiction between continuing forever growth and limited basics suggest a taboo question: how many people does humanity need?

      My essay tries to reveal a related necessity: We all must outlaw nationalism and aggressive religions in order to save global peace.

      Regards,

      Eckard

        Eckard,

        "save from what" Our own ignorance. We all have different views of our greatest problems. I agree yours have value, as do most. However I feel we need to identify what we can actually ACHIEVE! Fundamental to all the ides you listed is our understanding of how nature works. We'll then know how WE work. We'll also then know WHAT might put the planet at risk. Until then we can only guess.

        You dismiss the unification of physics as if it's an irrelevance. I suggest it'd be the greatest leap forward in understanding in mankind's history. I'm getting old so need to get on with it. With age can come inflexibility, intolerance, intransigence and narrower vision. That seems to be how nature works. Human nature.

        I know I won't change your mind, you've shown that. As your post arrived so did an exceptionally low score. Was that you? Is that your view of how freedom of beliefs and non aggression should be implemented? It isn't mine. I believe and have found that peace and honesty will emerge from better understanding.

        I've not scored any below 5. Objectively all I've read deserve more so it'd be dishonest to do so. I shall consider yours the same. That's the peace and goodwill that comes from the understanding which my essay is my best effort to share. Nationalism and fervour are awful symptoms. I suggest if all our efforts continue to address only symptoms then no disease can be cured.

        I wish you luck in the contest.

        Best wishes

        Peter

        Peter,

        The quantum and the macro world join metaphorically through Bob and Alice. That part is easier to follow for a non-scientist like me. I think of "quantum made flesh," reminiscent of the Bible and the "word made flesh" reference.

        Complex ideas are given a corporal reach in your essay with an "Alice in Wonderland" quality, fetching attention while depicting paradoxical quantum relationships.

        I'm impressed.

        Jim

          Peter,

          This is an interesting and well-written attempt to explain a complex topic in the form of a story.

          The winning essay will be about how self-driving electric cars and the internet will reduce greenhouse gasses and save the planet. I did not write about greenhouse gasses or the internet and I have no chance at winning. I do feel your essay is off the topic, but it is an interesting and a better read than some "electric car" essay that will win.

          I wish you and your essay all the best,

          Jeff

            Hi Peter,

            Thanks for your kind words. I'm glad you like the ideas I've been developing for the last few years--as far as I know, you are the first person who I did not know before writing about this topic to "get" what I've been creating.

            Your essay was one of the main ones that caught my eye earlier this week, but I haven't had an opportunity to get more than the gist of it yet. I will make reading it one of my priorities this weekend, as well as posting a substantive comment and rating it.

            As for rating my essay with the high score you suggested, I thank you and I say go for it. We'll see what happens; in any case, the result is bound to be interesting.

            (Too bad there's no foreknowledge machine handy.)

            Aaron

            Jim,

            Many thanks. I took on a big task trying to both make QM comprehensible AND show how it's nonsensical interpretations can be removed to allow unification; the biggest scientific leap mankind can make. It also has d to be fun to read! It can be depressing when some see no value, don't understand it or think it's off topic.

            That all means your comprehension and comments are very highly valued, Thank you.

            Best wishes

            Peter

            Jeff,

            I'm sure you're probably right.

            I new mine may be seen as off topic but I disagree, it's just far less superficial and gives more fundamental advancement that electric cars etc. I see very many essays here as addressing symptoms or just airy fairy pie in the sky 'theories' an bout what we might do, but nothing real or implementable.

            I'm an implementer, and I also skipper sailing yachts at representative level, normally helm and often tactician. We're used to winning. But if I ask the navigator or tactician a question I want a specific answer or directions where to steer, not some waffle and concepts, I'm better at those myself! What I show is a real way to unify science, in the short term. Academia then almost certainly won't give it a second look I predict. Is the old adage right?; (If you can't 'do' then teach). It's possible to do both as I've done it!

            Best wishes

            Peter

            Classical way is the way to go. I have my own twists with it, but more on it later on. I might write a paper in near future and submit it to viXra.org. So, big hand from me! We are on the right track definitely :-)

            After my antimatter experiments, the word classical will be on everybody's lips. Good for us!

            I'm sure it would be good to advance the state of theoretical physics, but a proposal for doing so just doesn't seem to me very responsive to the question of how to steer humanity.

              Robin,

              I'm an enabler. I 'implement' near impossible projects, in energy, defence etc. See my post on Sabine's essay. I've learned that most of what mankind does, if not just theorising, is to treat symptoms. Unintended and reverse outcomes are common because we don't think deep enough or think through implications.

              Many of the essays here either consider symptoms, or don't actually propose how to move ahead at all. Just saying; 'we must do this or that' is useless. That's why we stumble from crisis to crisis, one of which may be our end.

              Uniting classical and quantum physics is now almost 100 years overdue. It will have the most fundamental effects on all scientific understanding, so also technology of any other discovery or advancement; certainly QG, and I'm afraid also AI, because it will enable major leaps in both. We will then understand exactly which of ALL the u isseus facing us must be addressed AND how to address them.

              Also our most fundamental understanding is advanced. The same model informs cosmology at the widest level. Have read of this papers, just accepted (but not in a major journal), if you're interested in the first evolutionary sequence of galaxy types ever produced, and a credible re-interpretation of the so called 'big bang' with pre-'BB' condition logically implicit. The whole construct in empirical and coherent, resolving dozens of anomalies. Preprint; HJ Vol.6 2014.

              Now this can all be 'action today!' But none of the 'discrete field dynamics' model will be accepted by mainstream science in the near future because physicists neural networks are imprinted with the present paradigm so reject alternatives despite evidence and logic. Of course that's no evidence that it's wrong. It is in fact self evident. So I (we) must find a clear cut 'way in' to get people used to the different concepts. Success would give a clear direction, impetus and certain advancement. Now how many other essays can do that? Despite many good ones, very very few. (please point any out I've missed so far.)

              Best wishes

              Peter

              Hi Peter,

              I enjoyed your essay, and its innovations. Conceiving of EPR experiments in space, where no direction is "up," does add a whole new spin to the issue (pun intended). I agree with you, also, that a successful marriage of relativity and QM is indeed one of the master keys to humanity's future. While I do not comprehend all of the details, I sense that you have made a valuable contribution toward that important goal. I wish you all the best!

              Aaron

              Peter,

              To respond to some of your comments on my thread, if you don't mind, I thought I'd post the following as how my point about time fits into a broader physical description of the human condition, if not the more elemental physical issues. The nature of FQXI tends toward conceptual physics and this can be a narrow subject in its own right, so I do tend to seem obsessed with the point about time, yet as my entry shows, I am trying to construct a more wholistic vision that is necessarily centered on the current human condition, so speculation which projects a little too far in any one direction, from physical abstractions, to futuristic projections, tends to raise too many issues and questions for me and so I seem to follow them less and less, as the current world situation becomes more and more precarious.

              I wrote it last night on Michael Allen's thread and slightly edited it;

              "That is a very interesting and well thought out plan. I think though that you really need to step back even further to get a more complete picture and some of these issues might fall into place of their own accord.

              For one thing, humanity shouldn't be an end in itself, but one more tool, one more bridge between what came before and what will come after.

              One of the essential fallacies running through western thought is that the ideal constitutes an absolute, but in fact it is a simple collection of preferred characteristics. The absolute is a ground state. The universal state of oneness is not a singular entity, one, but the median in which all positive and negative cancel out. The flat line on the heart monitor. As such, it is the essence from which we rise, not an ideal from which we fell. In order to project ourselves upward, we necessarily have to push downward. And we do that as best as possible and it is a process of expansion and contraction. This dichotomy manifests both aspects of how we progress, as expansion is forward, but unfocused, while the contraction stage draws inward and back, but consolidates down to that which is most stable and focused. This is the political dichotomy of liberal and conservative, in that liberalization is an encompassing expansion of energy outward, while conservatism is a distillation of the lessons learned and the rewards gained. In nature it's the dichotomy of spring and fall. Since this manifests on the personal level as birth and death, we need to put it in a broader context of the full cycle. We exist as manifestations of the energy propelling us forward and the structural integrity holding us together. As the energy continues to push and thus stress the form, eventually it breaks down and is replaced by a newer form that often grew up as a patch over the weaknesses of the prior form, since that is where the energy was most expansive. So it is not a straight line, but a lot of bouncing around on the level of the particulars, with the larger manifestations best expressed thermodynamically, like waves across a medium of parts jostling each other.

              Our awareness is like that energy constantly pushing forward, while the thoughts it generates are the forms which coalesce and then recede in its wake. Memory is our ability to be able to construct coherent streams of these thoughts, collectively known as history and as you point out, myths.

              One of the themes I keep pushing, to the frustration of some, is that we look at time backwards. As one of those individual points of reference, we experience change as a sequence of encounters and events and so we model time as the point of the present moving along a vector from past to future, which physics further distills intellectually as measures of particular durations to use in its math models. The basic larger reality is that it's the changing configuration of what is, that turns future into past. Probability into actuality. Tomorrow into yesterday. This makes it much more like temperature than space.

              Time is to temperature what frequency is to amplitude. With temperature we think of the collective effect, yet it consists of a multitude of individual velocities/amplitudes, but with time we think of those individual changes and measure their frequency, but cannot decern the measure of the universal rate of change. That is because, just like with temperature, it is a cumulative effect of those many actions.

              Now our minds are composed of two sides, with the left described as a linear processor, responsible for rational, linear, causal logic, while the right is considered a parallel processor, responsible for emotion and intuition. Essentially they function as a clock and a thermostat. Like time, the serial function takes one step at a time and derives a causal route. The right side functions much more as a scalar process, with all the information available pushed into it and the response as what rises to the surface, like that wave through the medium, or the whistle of a boiling pot. Sometimes it results in insights and connections and other times it will boil over with frustration and anger as a response to too much input, or boredom from too little. More complex emotions, such as attraction can be thought of as magnetic and radiant and various such elements.

              Now this relation is fundamental to our existence as mobile organisms, since we must first process a larger context and then proceed to navigate a path through it. Plants, on the other hand, don't move, so they function primarily as thermostats, with a very residual need for any serial processing.

              This then goes back to that relation between expansion and contraction, as the expansion is much more a thermodynamic, non-linear process, while the contraction, on the intellectual level, is to consolidate that narrative sequence of connections necessary to derive a sense of order for our linear selves and thus project a subsequent course. Awareness coalescing as thought.

              The problem is that sequence is not necessarily causal. Each event is composed of input coming from all directions, while we only approach it from one direction. One rung on a ladder isn't the cause of the next, nor, in a wholistic sense, is one footstep on the ladder cause of the next. Causality is energy transfer. So one day doesn't cause the next, rather the sun shining on a rotating planet causes this sequence of events called days. Which come into being and dissolve, ie. go future to past. Yet because our rational function is necessarily linear, we try to impose this sequencing onto the larger reality and so our sense of order grows from prior, less informed states, as the basis for future input and observations and so we keep imposing models onto reality which she only partially considers. Then to compensate, we make them more complex, because one doesn't question the myth.

              Eventually though, the pot boils over and all our stories melt into on big origin myth for the next leg of the big expansion cycle. So it ultimately is only the energy which is conserved and yet it must continually manifest form, but keep changing it, so energy goes past to future forms, as these forms go from being in the future to being in the past.

              Without action, nothing exists, but with action, nothing exists forever."

              Peter,

              I'm not trying to question your model, but it doesn't ring my bells sufficiently and I realize mine don't much interest you, but I do feel the situation on this planet is heading in a dangerous direction and so I like to think I will promote any ideas that might help and even work to quell those which don't. To find the needle in the haystack we have to sort through a lot of otherwise perfectly good hay. It just seems to me that you have not addressed the question very effectively and while you might see resolving the current conflicts in physics as fundamentally important, their solution will do little to cure humanity's rapacious treatment of its only viable habitat. If anything, the technologies arising from some such a discovery would likely be used to further the process. As people have understood from the time of Adam and Eve, knowledge is a double edged sword.

              Regards,

              John

              Peter,

              You commented on my essay: "Your most important and valid point I think (in the science part) is that the; "Cosine transformation of measured data yields the same essential result as does the seemingly more general complex Fourier transformation." Which is precisely what I invoke to remove the 'weirdness' from QM. That import has not yet been assimilated into present paradigms. I've steered my yacht across the Baltic at night in a storm doing intuitive complex Fourier transforms in my head to anticipate the larger waves from the darkness. I find superposed cosine iPAD's more intuitive and predictable."

              May I ask you for guiding me? Where do you most understandably explain how cosine transformation instead of complex Fourier transformation is what you "invoke to remove the weirdness from QM"?

              I guess, there is no necessity for me to try and understand what you meant with your yacht etc.

              Eckard

                Hi Peter,

                What a great paper! I'm not sure if I can cast more light on it than others already have, but I think everyone here can appreciate the significance of bringing classical and QM together. Of course some of the detailed scrutiny that your fellow experts in the field might provide is well beyond me, but I'll be looking out hopefully to see your exciting ideas in some prominent places soon!

                Thanks for your great comments in my own essay and good luck with your fine paper!

                Ross

                  Eckard,

                  The sea's surface has many 'superposed' wavelengths. They vary from mm to km scales but to the helmsman sailing a 13m yacht to windward the important ones are between ~1m and 10m. They're formed by changing winds, depth, tidal flow etc and propagate at different speeds. Commonly there are 2 - 5 prominent wavelengths combining to form the actual wave pattern met. These change constantly constructively or destructively interfere at any point and time. A very experienced racing helmsman can anticipate the resultant wave size and steepness about to impact the bow ~5-10 seconds in advance. That is required because the boat requires a different 'attitude' in each case. For a flat spot; Close to the wind and upright, or for a big wave; Powered up and 'driving off' with sheets eased. Boats take time to respond.

                  At night it becomes very difficult. After some years it becomes intuitive, but helped by scientific understanding. Mathematically the complex Fourier transform can well approximate it. However, in intuitive terms I find the simple 'superposed' cosine transform easier. Neither are 'required' as our on-board quantum computer (brain) is faster, however, when sailing for 100 miles to Rostock at night, testing the theory with nature can stop you falling asleep at the helm! I don't use Apple iPADS at sea but the cosine inverse probability amplitude distributions of my last essay.

                  COSINES. If you analyse my spherical figures you'll see a Bloch sphere with two 4-vectors (Alice and Bob's settings relative to the equatorial plane). Where these hit the 'surface' define 'points of latitude' which are the cosines of the angles. The circumference of the sphere at each latitude is different by the cosine ^2, which gives us Malus' Law and the energy of OAM transferrable to another body ('detector') contacting the sphere at that latitude. That body has it's own attitude and tangential speed distribution. The relationship of the two cosines is a cosine curve itself, which then precisely reproduces the predictions of quantum mechanics in the EFP case, but CLASSICALLY.

                  That is the whole substance of the essay, so perhaps you'd skipped over it and missed the meaning. It seems n many have. The final figure gives the whole EPR case set up, showing that all particles have BOTH spin states (clockwise and anticlockwise). The detector electrons (so 'finding' on interaction) reverse with reversed detector magnetic field angle (invoking joined-up-science).

                  You may need to read the whole thing again for all the components to come together, but I hope that's an understandable 'nutshell' version.

                  Best wishes

                  Peter

                  (P.S. I have raced yachts for 50 years and represented the UK at world championship yachting events).

                  I found your essay highly philosophical. Your story of Do Bob and Alice is intuitively logical. Relating the story with the subject on ground with your diagrams is quite unique. I normally appreciate every original article and this is one! It held my interest throughout. The only observation is on the table which you put at the end-note. I wish to relate those figures with your main article but found it a little tasking. May be you can make it a little clearer. Although this does not interfere in any way with your essay since is not a main focus!

                  I will also like you to read my article STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND ECOSYSTEM. For easy access considering the enormous entries it is here http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2020

                  After reading I will expect your comments and rating as well.

                  Wishing you the very best in this competition and future endeavors.

                  Regards

                  Gbenga