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

    Peter,

    Certainly one of the more serious entries this year. Even if the establishment wants to find fault, the ideas surely deserve a fair hearing with all the hard work that has gone into this. Its something to read again and again although my interest in this area is currently not high. I posted on the 'Ripping Einstein Apart' blog about what you wrote on the Michelson-Gale experiment. I think you should do a short and focused critique of that MGP experiment and post somewhere on the web for posterity. When I say focused and short, not with a view to sell your pet DFM, of which understandably you are the No.1 salesman! :)

    All the best

    Akinbo

    Dear Peter,

    thank you for your comments.

    Another question:

    Is the total angular momentum of your twin-particle-system conserved (means momentum conservation)?

    Stefan

      Stefan,

      The total momentum is conserved but I'm not sure about the total 'angular' momentum as some may be converted and also there are too many gauges. We may need to know how far away infinity is. The model (as last years 'IQbit' proof) anyway says we can only ever 'approximate' anything (as Godel, Chaos, Fractals etc).

      To visualise; take two spinning gyro's/spheres (donuts will do) and keep touching them against each other while turning each axis through both (360^o) 'degrees of rotational freedom'. Whatever the relative orientations the change in OAM transfer should be by the cosine^2 of the rotation angle, an extraordinary finding I suspect. Of course it's still only a model of a more complex resonance process.

      Of course the photomultiplyers may also be sinks, and some of the energy is converted into sound ('click!').

      Have you ever considered how to account for the energy of dark energy when it condenses fermion pairs through the Higgs process (not to mention the photoelectric effect/ photoionization, Unruh effect etc.) and then annihilates (over the Debye length). I'm not at all sure we could keep up!

      Does any of that sound the slightest bit sensible? Or similar to doctrine? If we could make it look a bit more like doctrine do you think we might slip it in unnoticed for a health check while their guard's down?

      Best wishes

      Peter

      Peter,

      I finally have got around to reading your essay. I rsoon ealized that I do indeed need to brush up on my physics. Too may years spent explaining to the big world in what feels like, a totally different language.

      Your "new ways to think" comment perked me up. But is your message simply that nothing can be done till humanity understands nature better? or till Bob and Alice do finally get 'entangled'.

      But, maybe, all you are really saying is that humanity has the time before it must do something to get the future it desires: estimated 200 years from the 1850s i.e. 2050 or so. If so, I'm taking a long overdue vacation.

      Thanks for the humor to lighten up the physics.

      Looking forward to your comments on my comments and my essay here

      - Ajay

      Ajay,

      Message 1) is that understanding must be improved to progress. Message 2) is that a new 'non Earth-centric' way to think is needed to achieve that progress, and it's possible now. I tried to show 2 in a more subliminal way, showing the hidden importance of there being "no UP in space" and the power of that next 'Copernican' step away from how we use our on-board quantum computers.

      The demonstration of that is the entirely classical reproduction of 'QM correlations', circumventing Bell's theorem. It uses 'joined-up-physics' by applying various important elements (i.e. electron 'spin flip') to expose a coherent geometrical solution to the EPR paradox. No spookyness or FTL nonsense required.

      It's a fundamental breakthrough because the same mechanism also applies to SR (light speed changes to local c on arrival and interaction not before!) which allows complete harmonious unification of SR and QM, in 'absolute' time, but with Doppler shiftable 'signals' once emitted (see my prev essays from '2020 Vision in 2011). For that reason it'll probably never be countenanced by any who can't think beyond current doctrine. Unfortunately that seems to be very few so far. I think you caught a first glimpse, far clearer than the established language? A 2nd read often seems necessary.

      I'll read you essay asap.

      Thanks for the comments.

      Peter

        Hi Peter

        I just read your work, which I found very creative, imaginative and well organized. I had to read it twice to grasp the details. I was about to ask you the connection with the main topic of this contest because you slightly touch it in your essay, but I realized that Ajay had a similar doubt. So, just by reading your reply to him I understand better the philosophy behind your work.

        There is a widespread belief, perhaps promoted by popular science books, that there is a conflict between SR and QM, in particular with the case of entanglement. In a recent article published by Susskind and Maldacena (arxiv: 1306.0533v2) they discuss that neither wormholes nor entanglement can be used to send signals faster than light, meaning that there is no violation of causality (no spooky action at a distance).

        I have studied the case of entanglement, spin and other quantum mechanical phenomena. You may know that there are many versions of QM. At least I'm aware of 5 of them. Among this I found Bohmian mechanics the most consistent, although due to the additional pilot-equation is not well accepted by the physics community. You may wish to take a look at the advantages over conventional QM in wikipedia. Some authors have suggested that there is a 4 dimension to explain the 720 degrees rotation. In the four dimension this is seen as a regular rotation. Unfortunately, at this moment I don't remember the reference, but it is not difficult to find it in the web.

        I see that you are getting good rating and I think your works deserves it. I wish you good luck in the contest!

        Best Regards

        Israel

          Peter,

          Given you had the chance to delete, correct, or at least better explain what you wrote on May 13 and 14 in reply to Ajay Bhatly and Stefan Weckbach.

          Did you maintain utterances like these?

          1 We may need to know how far away infinity is.

          2 the energy of dark energy

          3 the cosine^2 of the rotation angle, an extraordinary finding I suspect. Of course it's still only a model of a more complex resonance process.

          4 the hidden importance of there being "no UP in space" and the power of that next 'Copernican' step away from how we use our on-board quantum computers.

          5 a new 'non Earth-centric' way to think is needed to achieve that progress, and it's possible now.

          6 It's a fundamental breakthrough. it'll probably never be countenanced by any who can't think beyond current doctrine. Unfortunately that seems to be very few so far.

          7 'joined-up-physics'

          You know, I am still trying to discover something that is convincing to me in your "scientific work". Nonetheless, I acknowledge that you made me aware of viXra.

          Eckard

            Israel,

            Thank you. Yes, at least 5 interpretations. The mechanism I describe 'depends' on none but starts from first principles. It agrees with that conclusion of Susskind and Maldacena, and largely with DeBroglie and Bohm but absolutely no current theoretical interpretation matches the mechanism without some degree of re- interpretation. The Copenhagen Interpretation (still leading with 50% of the vote at the last count) comes out fundamentally closest along with Bohmian mechanics.

            The "detector modulation" proposed is what I recall you agreed with 2 essays ago. Electrons refract, as we well know. Detector field electrons then influence the 'observed' signal characteristics, which has 3 effects;

            1. They re-emit at c in their spin centric frame so CHANGE relative light speed to c.

            2. They refract individually (rotate optical axis) so 'curve' apparent light 'paths'.

            3. They revere spin direction subject the their own (field) orientation.

            Now if we consider those effects carefully we find we have entirely unified interpretations of SR (1.) GR (2.) and QM (3.) Each is derived in detail in my last 3 essays, the whole ontology in the 2011 essay, requesting testing and logical falsification of the hypothesis. None has yet come but it's still invited (some of course object or go silent on the basis that it's unfamiliar, though I do point out a coherent solution will be by definition).

            I can't think of anything tangible that will allow man to steer his future to better effect tan to better understand nature, our planet and the universe. Thanks for your kind comments.

            Peter

            • [deleted]

            • Post #83

            Eckard,

            Thank you for persisting. I expand on my brief answers as follows;

            1) The question was about conservation of OAM. My reply meant that we can't know precisely unless we can mathematically 'fix' infinity. i.e. so can't know.

            2) Dark energy is a foundation of the standard model of cosmology and also the only possible source of the energy of condensed matter (fermion pairs). We should perhaps be more familiar with it as it constitutes ~73% of the total matter energy of the universe! It's ill considered outwith astrophysics because we still don't tend to use 'joined-up-science' (cross discipline consistency).

            3) QM's prediction plots as Cos^2. Bell showed that it can't be reproduced classically. I show it can by using a different starting assumption; that any particle with Q/OAM has both clockwise AND anticlockwise spin, but we can only MEASURE one hemisphere at a time. That is extraordinary (so resisted by any steeped in QM). However; spherical particles are only simplifications, or 'models' of what a 'quanta' of OAM really is, perhaps more like an oscillating smoke ring than a planet. Do you know? I certainly don't. So we test models.

            4)-5) Our brains work Earth-centrically. Think of it as sun-centric against the previous Earth centred universe. We can't possibly imagine the next step until we've visualised, tested and become accustomed to it. Close your eyes and take Bob's place in another galaxy. Now tell me in which direction is Earth? How could you possibly know? It may be directly above or beneath you, or moving wrt the stars spinning around you. Now imagine holding two spinning spheres by the 'poles'. You can rotate both 360^o on both the y and z axis. You can touch them together at any latitude and spin direction, and do so while also rotating YOURSELF and the 'system' on all 3 AXIS wrt the local star system, which itself is spinning!! Our brains aren't trained to rationalise that or it's implications. Bob did, and found new truths - reducable to multiple Bloch sphere 4 vectors.

            6) I'll correct the double negative. Very few CAN think beyond current doctrine so (I've found) few will countenance any fundamental change in understanding See my post to Israel above. They ignore K E Drexler quoted by Mohammed Khalil; "Predicting the content of new scientific knowledge is logically impossible because it makes no sense to claim to know already the facts you will learn in the future."

            7. Mohammed well describes the problem as reduced by interdisciplinary research, following my cross discipline modus operandi. I've researched invoke and derive harmonious; Astrophysics, SR, QM, Optics, Cosmology, QED, QCD, Particle, Atomic, Plasma, HE and other physics, Classical dynamics, Electro and Hydrodynamics, Geometry etc. At present many of them simply don't fit coherently together and all have their own anomalies. Discrete field dynamics draws on them all to find a consistent (and rather simpler!) description of nature needing the minimum of re-interpretation of each 'false division'.

            Honest objective testing confirms veracity. Yet the human animal is not naturally objective. Most turn away or run away screaming when beliefs are challenged.

            I hope that clarifies my points, but if not please do ask.

            Best wishes

            Peter

            PS; For clarity; In the DFM, The only 'Entanglement' required is conservation of spin axis, so also of equatorial plane, between the particle pairs. i/ i.e' In space spin behaves as it does in gyroscopes.

            Peter,

            At least you got aware of the wrong negation in 7. Didn't you realize what I meant?

            1) The good old meaning of infinite is the quality of being endless, the opposite of finite.

            2) I criticize the formulation energy of energy.

            3) 2cos^2(2pi)=1-cos(4pi). This is nothing extraordinary. Your vague guesses don't clarify.

            4) Of course, there is no UP in space. We are living downunder if seen from Australia. Invoking Copernik is perhaps inappropriate. You seem to consider the brain a quantum computer without any evidence that supports such guess.

            5) While I never had problems to imagine relative positions, directions, and velocities in 3D space it remains unclear to me what you mean by "new 'non Earth-centric' way to think." Is it meant in 4D?#

            Sounds as if you meant with "it's possible now": you made something possible that was not possible so far.

            6) I understand that you are convinced having solved all problems.

            7) I just don't know such word. At first glance I tend to share some of your ideas. Nonetheless I would never trust in mere guesswork.

            I would appreciate any tangible criticism of a serious essay, e.g. 2021. Don't you have anything to say concerning synchronization? Who is correct?

            Eckard

            Hi Peter , i found the essay interesting and an extension of previous research completing a scenario even more clear.

            In fact , I do not think such a distraction, if the double cone in the sphere ( Figure 3) can easily correspond to the Minkowski space-time.

            Then, space-time together with entangled photons, it looks like the Bloch Sphere is a very useful threedimensional object.

            But, even proper revolving a straight rod, it is possible to obtain a Minkowski space-time, i mean the double cone.

            The same rod, if properly bond and revolved in the middle, can give a double cone for the Minkowski space-time.

            I want to believe the straight and the bond rod , can be some kind of inner element of reality, also connected to entanglement.

            At last the entanglement is much more an emergent property of space - time itself?

            If my research on the meaning of bit of information, somehow, is also inside this last job , is what gave me the chance to understand Your ideas.

            My Best Wishes for the contest.

              Dear Peter Jackson,

              I fully support your idea - "The only sure way to find out and avoid disaster may be to make a quantum leap in our understanding of nature". Therefore highly appreciated your article.

              Regards,

              Murat Asgatovich Gaisin

              Giacomo,

              Many thanks for your appreciation. The twin cones in the sphere is a simplified representation of OAM magnitude transferred ('measured') on interaction, producing the cos^2 curve classically (se leading to unity of QM and SR).

              SPACE-TIME

              The space-time curvature is more simply represented geometrically by a rotation of the axis of charge ('optical axis' or observed position) such as precession, and when the electron has any lateral vector component when interacting with the wavefront. You can create this energy distribution orientation rotation physically by pushing a ball across the surface of water. The water pressure and level increases at the front and reduces at the rear. The 'JM Rotation' of charge that results directly produces the 'kinetic reverse refraction' well known but not understood, as recently found by the VLBA from a moving plasma cloud. The effects precisely reproduce 'refraction', 'stellar aberration' and 'space time curvature'. See my 2012 essay here for the full derivation.

              ENTANGLEMENT

              The physical cause of 'entanglement' is simply the maintained relationship between equatorial planes (orthogonal to axis of propagation) of the two 'halves' sent to A and B. No other relationship is required. The two 4-vectors in the Bloch sphere would more accurately be shown as single vectors in two spheres; A and B, but both relating to a common plane and thus have RELATIVE latitudes. It is then the detector electrons which rotate to give the varying energy levels transferred (and hemispherical 'directions'). It may be termed an 'emergent property of...etc.' but I describe a far more meaningful classical physical mechanism. Most aren't trained to think like that. See the excellent Khalil essay.

              Best wishes

              Peter

              • [deleted]

              • Post #88

              Eckard,

              1) Infinite is endless. Precisely my point and Godel's. We can't mathematically prove anything with finite precision when reality is infinite. Ergo; To prove anything absolutely we'd; "need to know how far infinity is!" which is impossible. The expression simply promotes a; "new way of looking at familiar things", (Wm Bragg).

              2) Same thing as above; But 'Energy' also has a dual usage, as a 'degree' (E = quantity A or B) and as part of a noun "Nuclear Energy", "Solar Energy. "Dark Energy" is well established as a noun in astrophysics. Your own unfamiliarity demonstrated my point that it's poorly assimilated into other areas to give 'joined-up' physical descriptions (compatible cross discipline).

              3) There is no 'vague guess'. Axiomatic theories must have axioms! I axiomise a particle as a spherical 'body', for simplicity, to test. As you say; 2cos^2(2pi)=1-cos(4pi) is not a guess, or extraordinary. What IS extraordinary is the way it's invoked along with other elements from various areas of physics and applied to simply do what Bell showed is impossible; REPRODUCE THE QUANTUM CORRELATIONS ('PREDICTIONS') WITH AN ENTIRELY CLASSICAL MECHANISM. Did you understand the AOM transfer distribution geometry/E change with latitude?

              4-5). Most believe they already DO think outside all boxes. It was the same before Copernicus and Galileo, which was POSSIBLE before then but done only by an obscure few. That the point behind Drexler's;

              "Predicting the content of new scientific knowledge is logically impossible because it makes no sense to claim to know already the facts you will learn in the future."

              It's not as easy as Australia. Think back to Bob in deep space. He may set himself at rest wrt the "fixed stars" (AE), yet the galaxy they're in is spinning, and may have any orientation wrt Earth. At any moment Earth may then be at ANY position on the surface of a Bloch sphere surrounding him. The arriving photon may then come from anywhere. His detector orientation is entirely arbitrary. Now the big realisation (for the few that can do this) the relative positions vectors and speeds form a (an 'infinite!') HIERARCHY where only the IMMEDIATE background has ANY validity as a reference frame; including for 'c'. Speed 'c' is then only ever a LOCAL relative speed, so it 'changes' (and Doppler shifts) at domain boundary electrons. It's all about changing datums, ALL datums. When tested it's found that all anomalies are resolved. Most brains reject such wholly new concepts untested. THAT is the 'new way of thinking' required; beyond our familiar local datums.

              6) I'm not 'convinced', but have logically 'shown' the implications of the axioms tested. I've asked for 3 years for scientific falsifications but not one has come. 'Dismissal' is only on 'beliefs', on 'lack of familiarity', or as due to other theories they can't think beyond. The dynamics may not be correct but it's falsifiable and so far entirely unfalsified. I've often asked you for falsification!

              7) Do you mean; "interdisciplinary"? Mohammeds excellent essay explains well. Nature is not "DIVIDED" into disciplines ("areas" of science). Nature is ONE, only man divides it. Science has divided into specialisms, each of which has different s descriptions, often conflicting. It is then essential do study ALL disciplines and find the key; "unity in hidden likeness" (Freeman) which will unite physics and advance understanding. That was my methodology.

              If you meant something different beyond that and the 'double negative' please do explain.

              I'm not clear what 2021 is. Are you suggesting my essay isn't serious? I've discussed short range harmonic resonance effects, what precisely do you refer to about synchronization? I certainly find that all clocks can be synchronized, but no relatively moving clocks or clocks different distances away can ever 'appear' so.

              Best wishes

              Peter

              Allow me, Peter - Other contenders are an understanding of man (the understander), of man's relation to nature, and of steering itself. - Mike

              Dear Peter,

              i have another question:

              you claim your dynamics is falsifiable. On which considerations does this claim rest?

              Best wishes,

              Stefan

              Stefan,

              Good question. Thanks. There's little 'new' in the ontology, I just invoke a heap of 'jigsaw puzzle pieces' and put them together in a coherent way. i.e.

              We know electrons (+positrons and protons) have high coupling with EM waves.

              In Raman/Compton scattering, for 100 years, we've know electrons scatter at c, which is always be found at c in the electron rest frame (without orbital speed if a 'valence electron'); Raman 1930 Nobel.

              We know that electron spin follows magnetic field lines, and flips when reversed.

              We have never found a magnetic monopole or actual 'singlet' spin particle. We only know we can only find one direction (clockwise/anti-cwise) at a time, which is equivalent to measuring a hemisphere of a planet.

              We know of kinetic reverse refraction experimentally. Only the mechanism producing it has previously not been found.

              Non-mirror symmetry of OAM is again well known, but again not well applied.

              Helical gauges spin-orbit paths are ubiquitous experimentally (see references).

              There are a dozen more effects invoked, but let's consider experimental falsifications; The classical experiment in the end notes has been reproduced and can be again, by anybody.

              The model predicts quasar jets should be found at apparent speeds many times higher than c r trigonometrically (yet no local propagation above c). Quasar jets are commonly found up to tens of times higher than c (record so far = 46c).

              A timed pair experiment with rotating analysers will falsify the hypothesis. A novel prediction was made that previous time-pair experiments (Aspect and Weihs) should have found significant anomalous data indicating 'rotation' subject to field orientation.

              They both did. The data was discarded and ignored as no theory was available to explain it (99.999% of the data in aspects case).

              If you'd like to identify any consideration which you feel should be falsified or falsifiable I should be able to pull out multiple citations. I have rather a heap!

              Best wishes

              Peter

              Dear Peter,

              Well, you certainly got the physics part!

              The idea of electrons actually having two components is interesting. My own thought is we're looking at a non-oriented manifold. For instance, a vector orthogonal to the surface of an ideal Mobius strip, takes twice around the strip (720 )to return to the same direction. And because of the twist, it actually takes up space, ah, is a Fermion. Can a classical mechanics be developed from this? If you take two Mobius strips, and attach their edges, and inflate it, you have a torus. And?

              Is space really symmetric? In the large, yes. But if up and down were really the same, wouldn't they be indistinguishable? If indistinguishable, wouldn't they be identical. ie only one. Same for left and right? Front and back? Thus each direction must distinguishable from each other. This on the micro-level, but statistically mixed in the macro, so in the large the space dimensions are indistinguishable. The idea is that space has a 'Fermionic' structure, otherwise it would all be in the same place. (So the universe is seriously twisted, which explains a lot!) On the other hand, to say that 'space' has a micro structure seems perilously close to suggesting the existence of an ether. Argh!

              Are QM and SR marriageable? This may be impossible to determine, like the Turing halting problem, or the "word problem for groups," (See Wikipedia) although it seems likely to show that one (SR) is an approximation in some limit of the other (QM), just as Galilean dynamics is shown to be an approximation of SR, in the limit of low velocity. I just don't know. It's starting to take on the dimensions of famous philosophical problems, like free will and determinism.

              I had difficulty following your argument, but my physics is so rusty, (despite my being able to drop a few ideas,) I can only blame myself. I will not vote down anyone's essay based on my ignorance, but I'm afraid I must abstain on my vote here. (That may be a good thing for you, if others in my situation take the same action.)

              I do believe society's problems are stopping us from solving real world problems. And I think it's getting kind of urgent.

              I wish you the best of luck in the competition. And I thank you for your kind words and, I believe, strong vote.

              Charles

              PS I'm commenting on your comment at my essay, too.