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

          Dear Peter,

          i read your essay and the previous comments.

          There you make a strong claim against Bell's theorem (Bell-type theorems).

          You claim your model reproduces all quantum correlations:

          "Now applying that simple and self apparent dynamic geometry reproduces ALL the so called spooky quantum correlations, circumventing Bell's theorem."

          I have a question:

          How can your model reproduce these experiments with double-apertures:

          http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.64.2495

          http://www.univie.ac.at/qfp/publications3/pdffiles/1985-03.pdf

          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1986.tb12449.x/abstract;jsessionid=CDA764C3755620AD75B273323974B124.d03t01

          Looking forward to read from you.

          Stefan Weckbach

            Peter,

            Thanks for your comments on my essay. Some people seem to be putting up a good argument for dealing with intellectual shortcomings by having a cull, including by their actions! (I'm sure you know to whom I refer). Rather like quantum theory; the most effective solution is the least acceptable and vice versa.

            I've been somewhat shocked by the state of intellectual application and ethics but some shine out like beacons, including yourself. Congratulations at your 3rd position. Perhaps more understand that you feared. A ray of light through the murk to help steer the way?

            Judy

            Georgio,

            Thank you. They would be more rounded I suspect, but entangled on multiple levels. Perhaps the important question is; Could they help steer mankind when the very concept seems like herding cats.

            P

            • [deleted]

            • Post #72

            Stefan,

            I show circumvention rather than disproof. The difference is that his logic stands as a sound tautology for the scenario he set out. He recognised a number of ways around it (5?), including the 'so what' option which I invoke. To do so I use a different (hidden) starting assumption; that rather than QAM being "reducible" to a singlet state it retains BOTH states but we can only 'measure' one at a time.

            For this to work requires a few more effects, principally

            a) Propagation on spin axis (implicit as a 'particle' may also be an analogy of gauged wavefront helical fluctuations) so each 'half' is led by a different 'pole'. (I don't get too technical about wave interferance in the essay).

            b) Electron spin flip. Taken direct from the QO shelf to fit a big gap in QM - i.e. the detector field/electron spin flips with magnetic field direction.

            c) Measurement as exchange of OAM. Again 'off the shelf' with Malus' Law.

            d) Non mirror symmetry of spin, ditto. (opposite and not 'monople' rotation).

            Simply; Angular momentum as orbital speed at different latitudes then precisely reproduces the cosine curves (Inequality violations), including each with multiple spheres and with all degrees of freedom of axial rotation (cos^2). (Nearby harmonic resonance at

            Dear Peter

            I enjoyed reading your A&B adventure. As you might know, your clear and visual description is not very likely to be considered by a system feeding on a conjecture without, not only visual, mathematical or logical, but without any interpretation :) The fearless truth wants to be asked anything, because the fearless truth wants to draw everything. On the other hand, the Standard model is all about how to avoid being questioned. Einstein's definition of insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again and expecting different results... Although invented by thinkers, nowadays Standard model turned into repetition of a repetition, falling into a loop of being purpose of itself struggling for its own existence... Anyone who can visualise does not except explanations which cannot be visualized. Anyone who is sane, and who has the slightest idea about fractals, concludes that the Big Show of searching for the smallest division in nature is flourishing of non-alive technology but degeneration of living thought. It is the expensive game of big toys for little boys, sending as a very special message...

            As written by the Nobel Prize winner, Leon Lederman, the age of reaching for the truth purely by thinking of the phenomenon, drawing geometry on sand, the time of Tales, Pythagoras or Archimedes is an issue of some distant and in scientific terms more primitive past... Nowadays, says Lederman the truth is revealed by machines... In other words, exclude the creative thinking and switch on the accelerator... and if you cannot afford it, tuff luck, you are too primitive to be a scientist :)

            Regards

            andrej

              Andrej,

              A very perceptive analysis. I couldn't draw my geometry on the sand anyway as there are now too many heads in it. I did ask them last year, while they were there, to see if they could find two identical grains, they couldn't. Now I fear they fear what they may see by looking elsewhere.

              I still pin my hopes on an inlet by 2020 (as my 2011 essay). I feel we must retain some optimism. In the meantime I'll go sailing.

              Thank you and best wishes

              Peter