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

        Hi Peter,

        Nice essay both stylistically and the topic although Bell's theorem type discussions can be a bit tricky.

        First you seem to want to have some "classical" picture of spin. This swims against Pauli's dictum that to consider spin as "an essentially quantum mechanical property,... a classically non-describable two-valuedness". In fact Pauli may have oversold this point of view since in fact there is a way to view spin (to some extent) as an "orbital angular momentum. There is a great article by Hans Ohanian in the American Journal of Physics entitled "What Is Spin?" (Vol. 54, page 500 (1986)). What Ohanian shows is that if you look at the energy momentum tensor that results from the Dirac equation there is a rotating energy density of the Dirac field which gives one an angular momentum of hbar/2. One can run similar arguments (and Ohanian does) for Maxwell's equations and photons and in this case the rotating energy momentum density gives an angular momentum of hbar instead of hbar/2 -- different equation different magnitude for the internal field angular momentum, but the point Ohanian makes is that spin really is very similar to classical angular momentum. Thus trying to give a "classical" picture of spin works.

        Next I like your "classical" example of the spin 1/2 property that you need a 720^o rotation to return to the original state. I hadn't seen this before. If you have access to Kerason Huang's book "Quarks, Leptons and Gauge Fields" he offers up another "classical" example of this. If you can find the book he gives pictures of this (which are much better) but I'll try to describe what he does -- take a rectangular piece of cardboard and use a marker to draw an arrow on it along the long axis of the rectangle. Next attach four strings to each corner of the rectangle and then tape/attached the other ends of the strings to some surface/table. Twist the rectangle around 720^o (so there are 2 twists in the strings). Then by passing the rectangle under/over/above the lower/upper strings you can undo the 2 twists! The last part of the description is bad which is why it is good to have Huang's book since he shows the step-by-step moves you need to make. However there are only a limited number of moves one can do so by playing around with it you can quickly figure out what moves are required to undo the 2 twists.

        Finally you might find of interest the recent EPR=ER paper by Susskind and Maldacena (ER here means Einstein-Rosen bridge). "Cool horizons for entangled black holes", Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind e-Print: arXiv:1306.0533 [hep-th]. They are looking at the firewall puzzle and are proposing that there is some connection/entanglement between particles via an ER bridge connecting the two. This was sort of a "classical" entanglement flavor with classical in scare quotes since wormholes/ER bridges are not exactly classical.

        Anyway nice contribution to this topic.

        Best,

        Doug

          Dear Peter,

          Revolutionary ideas will tend to be at first obscure.

          But here is the perhaps non-technical form in which I have encountered your argument as the essential assumption required for quantum gravity:

          Classical dynamics will reproduce QM and vice versa strictly by the extent we assume that the term "observer" (reference frame) means pure and simply "phase space" (the fundamental), this is such that its "observables" are by definition its phase modulations (the harmonics).

          This means that any observer cannot be OWN observable, just because a phase space cannot be a modulation TO ITSELF. Put in other words, every given observer is its own "quantum" of observables.

          Do you see this as a correct generalization of your argument in this essay?

          Best,

          Chidi

            Ross,

            Thank you. It seems not 'everyone' here sees the significance, and it seems 'exciting ideas' and 'prominent places' are a bit of a contradiction of terms, but I do hope so too, Thanks.

            Peter

            Thank you kindly Gbenga, I'll certainly read and rate yours.

            The end note table showed actual results of a subjective 'classroom experiment' where students simply gave opinions on whether the random colour shown was 'closer' to red or green. It showed the highly non linear quantum correspondence, closely modelling the energy distribution change as a line moves across a circle, or rotational speed with increasing latitude on a sphere surface.

            It was impossible to work into the narrative, but the real classical particle interaction result is anyway far more important and a more perfect cosine curve.

            But it seems the quantum description of singlet states has now acquired the 'real' quality of embedded doctrine, and that physics is largely about beliefs and status not the scientific method. See the torturous discussions on the 'Classical spheres' blog if you're in any doubts. The likes of Richard Gill seem willing to ignore all logic and evidence and argue that black is white to maintain their beliefs and block advancement.

            I wonder if it may not be for the best until we're a better intellectually evolved species.

            Very best wishes

            Peter

            Lest I be misconstrued,

            I don't mean that I have encountered your argument any where else. I mean to say, my statement is the form in which I myself have come to realize your technically more specific argument is a valid one.

            Now, really, I don't think quantum gravity can ever happen until we come to this specific assumption. Therefore, I (little I) thinks your essay does indeed push the boundaries of physics.

            Thanks, Peter, for daring.

            Chidi

            Douglas,

            Thank you. You didn't comment on the central point, the classical derivation of QM's predictions circumventing Bell's (tautological) theorem. My suggestion was that all will avoid even addressing this, because, despite your good words, current physics is based more more in belief that the SM so they remain only words. Is that not a fair assessment? Just the predicted solution to the major anomalies found by Aspect and Weihs (first announced in last years essay discussing gauged helices) should make major lights flash and draw attention to the hypothesis. Do you think it did so?

            On specifics, I agree 'spin' has move a long way since Pauli. I referenced the recent Planck institute and other work showing the recursive quantum helicity and spin/orbit gauges revealing the solution. I've seen Huang's and other derivations, but more important are the implications of invoking OAM. I also read last years Maldecina Suskind paper but find no evidence that wormholes are more than fantasy distracting from reality. (I have a paper on AGN's and galaxy evolution accepted and in print using the same discrete field dynamic foundations).

            The classical derivation of entanglement (beyond local harmonic resonance) leaves no requirement for spooky solutions. The simple mechanism of electron signal modulation, to the electron spin and rest frame (local) c, when consistently applied to both Relativity and QM removes the main barriers to convergence. The SR postulates are conserved in absolute time, and uncertainty retreats to the next quantum gauge down (see previous 3 essays, all top 10 finishers but all ignored in the judging). The galaxy paper will also be ignored as it shows that modifications to the SM are required to produce the far more coherent model.

            All the hypotheses are logical, predictive, empirically supported and falsifiable and no part has been falsified. Is there anybody in academia perceptive or courageous enough to suggest actual evaluation!? Even just collaboration to develop the theories with more precision would be adequate. All I'm interested in is seeing understanding advance. However I suspect your own hypothesis may be pie in the sky and physics simply isn't done that way. Can you demonstrate that analysis is flawed?

            Peter

            Chidi,

            I'm surprised you're not familiar with my hypothesis. I'd expect advanced alien cultures to be well ahead! It seems slightly similar to Joy Christians, but not inflicted with his complex pararellelised 7-spheres, whatever they are, and exploding coloured balls. Where I have simple gauged OAM giving helical dipole charge paths Joy has rather impenetrable mathematics and 'torsion as a quality of space', but they may well prove very similar.

            I actually do agree your description looks like a valid generalized viewpoint. I think there may be a more understandable way of expressing it, but yes, all 'detections' are interactions, all physics is 'detections', and all detection interactions modulate what is 'found'. I've never quite fully understood the physical meaning of 'phase space'. I'm a great believer that we should be able to explain physics to a barmaid. I do it often and find it works (the usual one has an advantage of having no PhD).

            If you think mankind is really ready for pushed boundaries could you let the guy in charge of physics know for me, thanks. Do you think HE dares? I'm not sure who that is at it looks to me as if nobodies been in charge for a while.

            I popped over and delivered your new shoes earlier. Many thanks for the kind comments and support. We mustn't loose touch.

            Best wishes

            Peter

            Hi Peter,

            Congratulations on yet another new way of looking at things. Particularly impressive is that you did not need a super expensive detector and associated recording devices to do the experiment! And so no need for superstring along theory! Maybe that is why those in charge of physics don't want to pay any attention. No pay - no play!

            DrJohn

              Dear Peter

              You have a bold idea to explain Bell experiment differenty. But, I did not understand everything. I suggest that you try with a simpler explanations, maybe also with animation. How it is related with hidden varibles?

              Otherwise, it seems to me, that your explanation is not simpler and better than the orthodox explanation. I like the orthodox idea that something does not exist if there is not an observer. But, I claim that orthodox explanation of quantum mechanics is not complete. (One argument is that consciousness should also be explained by QM.) Unorthodox theories are useful also as a better visualiziation of an ortodox explanation.

              One example, what I think as a better visualisiation, is my explanation of special theory of relativity:

              Better visualization of special theory of relativity, PDF, viXra page.

              Better visualization of special theory of relativity, viXra page.

              But the basic intention of this contest is that we read and comment essays of each other. We do this job for our essays.

              Best regards

              JK FQXi pdf file

              JK FQXi web site

                Hi Peter,

                I just rated your essay. It is entertaining and relevant to the future. Fix physics and one changes the future of humanity. You approach physics very differently than do I. What is not different is that I agree that physics needs fixing. As usual, you showed up well prepared to argue your case. The '1's appear to be in large supply this year. You are weathering that storm very ably. Perhaps it feels something like your yachting story? Congratulations on getting your viewpoint heard. Your hard work and perseverance are admired and respected. If you are correct, I wish you quick success.

                James Putnam

                  John,

                  Thank you kindly. Your own insights into quantum optics and the real coherent meaning of Minkowski Space-Time are invaluable sections of the foundations of the simple model of 'scattering at c' underlying the discrete field dynamics leading to this discovery.

                  Perhaps even one day the Johns Hopkins University Minkowski memorial lecture in honour of your forebear might even be on the subject of this 'discrete field' model (DFM) of 'joined-up-physics'.

                  Now if only somebody was 'in charge of' physics it might have some direction. But then it seems that's as likely to be the wrong direction. The current patched up and disjointed 'camel' of a racehorse design which present theory represents surely can't be clung onto by it's riders for much further! It seems weighed down by too many Arabic symbols. Is it a sandstorm or blinkers that stops them seeing the thoroughbred stallion waiting patiently? Was 2020 optimistic?

                  Best wishes

                  Peter

                  • [deleted]

                  • Post #64

                  Janko,

                  Animation would be brilliant. I haven't yet found anyone with the skills who doesn't want a heap of money. The explanation is not just simpler and better but it's the ONLY classical option (including Joy Christians mathematical model which he admits isn't a 'theory').

                  Consider this 'in a nutshell' explanation; Surface 'orbital velocity' of a sphere (say Earth) varies with latitude by the cosine of the angle from the equatorial plane. 'Measurement' is transfer of that orbital angular momentum on meeting another body, and 'direction' depends on which hemisphere (the axis can be rotated by rotating the magnetic field to present either north or south hemisphere).

                  Now applying that simple and self apparent dynamic geometry reproduces ALL the so called spooky quantum correlations, circumventing Bell's theorem. Of course there is more but that is the core. Is that simpler?

                  I think the terms; 'non-/ orthodox' are often a misnomer. Theories may be better termed more or less consistent (or inconsistent - as current) or 'old' or 'doctrinal' and 'hypothesised'. Because most physicist will automatically reject all with the label 'unorthodox'.

                  Your SR link sounds on the right track, with 'time dilation', simply Doppler shift, but I'll get logged out if I read it now! It may have to be after reading essays. I started from a more coherent SR, so if you have more time do see my prev essays starting from;

                  http://www.academia.edu/3715718/2020_Vision._The_Discrete_Field_Model._ 2011_FQXi_Competition finalist

                  I suspect there's much in common. The postulates survive in the DFM, showing most have been looking in the wrong place. Light changes speed to the local c on arrival in the detector system domain, not before.

                  Best of luck in the competition.

                  Very best wishes.

                  Peter

                  Damn! it got me anyway. Why does the 'logged in' note at the foot of the page tell mistruths?! - perhaps as it's based on 'orthodox' assumptions?

                  Peter

                  James,

                  Thanks. 'Heard' is one thing. 'Remembered', 'applied' or 'assimilated' are in quite another category. In fact after posting in the arXiv web archive it seems somebody has 'had a word' and now they behave the same as journal editors and academia; put up the shutters.

                  It's clear something is VERY seriously wrong in the state of physics if a more coherent falsifiable hypothesis than a present ruling paradigms is entirely excluded and subjugated without study just because it's slightly at variance.

                  Doug Singleton is certainly correct, but his words seem no more than that, just words as when tested he appears to step straight back into line and look away (see above and his blog).

                  But you know my strategy and time-scale. 2020 may not be entirely realistic but it's a target at least. I always was an optimist! Shame about the billions wasted in the interim when it could be better employed for advancement, and the esteem of science ever slipping, but I'm not sure what else I can do alone.

                  I'm very grateful for your support, and that of everybody able to rationalise the logic.

                  I didn't get a response from Margaret. I'm resistant to scoring those who don't bother to engage or show respect of those who comment by answering or reading other essays. Particularly for those scoring well it gives the impression of arrogance, which is a big part of the problem. I'll check again.

                  Best of luck in the coming stormy run for home!

                  Peter

                  Peter,

                  Please find at my discussion thread what I can say about the cosine transformation. In your essay, I didn't find the word cosine in combination with cosine transformation.

                  It is not my style to be excited about vaguely alluded or claimed things that could possibly fit to my own premature ideas. That's why in particular the too many details in your Figs. 2 and 3 are difficult to read for me.

                  I wonder why you didn't at all mention what I consider crucial to Einstein's relativity: his synchronization. Weren't my Figs. 1 and 2 easily readable?

                  Eckard

                  peter

                  I appreciate your essay , very philodophical but also with a specific techological demonstartion.

                  Only question what type of humans would Bob and Alice be in their future timeline.

                  Best

                  Giorgio