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.

      Dear Peter,

      thank you for your comments.

      You wrote

      "A timed pair experiment with rotating analysers will falsify the hypothesis."

      Just to make it clear for myself - of what hypothesis do you speak here? I ask you for explaining the hypothesis to understand what you mean in this context. Please also explain how that hypothesis is falsified.

      You wrote

      "The classical experiment in the end notes has been reproduced and can be again, by anybody."

      What does the mentioned experiment say about the ontological status of your main theme, namely entanglement in QM? How is this saying then justified in physical terms?

      Best wishes,

      Stefan

      Hi Peter

      Thanks for your reply. For a theoretical physicists this is the most difficult part: ...requesting testing and logical falsification of the hypothesis.

      As for the purpose of your essay I understand that discovering the secrets of nature affects somehow the course of humanity, but in my opinion not merely steers humanity, because "steers" implies a plan or intention; this is why I define science just as the generation of knowledge and technology as the application of this knowledge for the convenience of humankind.

      Good luck in the contest

      Regards

      Israel

      • [deleted]

      • Post #95

      Hi Peter,

      I did think some more about your essay, but am not sure I fully got the point. This is not the fault of the essay but as I said I find Bell's theorem discussions very subtle and for me it takes time to digest. I had the same reaction the first time we covered Bell's theorem in grad school (we were using Sakaurai's non-relativistic QM text which has a good description of Bell's theorem). It took some late night discussions with some friends to get to the point where I *thought* I understood what was going on in Bell's original arguments.

      Anyway let me ask some questions to see what I did and did not get from the essay. First it seems you are saying that there is a way for classical mechanics to give the same violations of Bell's inequalities as predicted by QM. I got this from the statement "Classical dynamics appeared to reproduce QM quantum correlations, which was not possible with the singlet

      spin assumption John Bell inherited." Also you have some kit where one can verify this for oneself (this is the point of the technical end notes right?). There is a disk in figure 4 which then can be used to give reproduce the same (or similar?) correlations as in QM. Actually looking at the table it appears that the correlations you get are close but distinguishable (in principle) from QM. From table 1 I take the cloumn that says "Green Bias ^2" as your prediction while QM Cos^2 (theta)" is the standard QM prediction. They are close to one another but not exactly identical. For example for 45^o you have a Green Bias ^2 value of 0.54 versus the QM value of 0.5 (one technical question at this point -- it appears Green Bias ^2 column is gotten by squaring the "Green Bias column". If this is correct then I get 0.55 (after rounding) for the "Green Bias ^2" column for 45^o. All the other values seem to be rounded correctly. Anyway in principle there is a way to distinguish your model from teh QM case (I think if I have understood things correctly up to this point). If this is the case then it certainly would be very useful to do a refined version of the Aspect et al. experiments to see which is correct -- your model or QM. If I misunderstood some point let me know.

      However, even if everyone in this forum agreed (and they probably would) that it would be good to re-run the Aspect experiment to to check this in some sense there is the problem that this is the wrong forum. You need to try and convince an experimentalist to do this and most of the audience here are theorists. And convincing experimentalists to invest time in doing any experiment is hard since they usually have their own ideas of what is interesting. For example, when I was in grad school and did figure out to some degree (at least this is what I told myself) that I knew what Bell's theorem was about I talked to some of the older grad students who were already doing their research in one of the many good atomic/molecular groups for which UVA is known. I asked them why they didn't work on this type of experiment (i.e. an experiment similar to Aspects) since this seemed very coll and foundational. The answer was "Well we don't set the research agenda for the group. We're grad students! And even if we did set the agenda we probably wouldn't switch from our present projects to Bell's theorem stuff. these are complex and messy experiments. The stuff we are working on (Rydberg-like atoms with super high n-quantum numbers so that the orbitals were really classical) is also very cool and the results are much cleaner and this is what our NSF grant says we are working on." The lesson I took away form this is that what and theorist thinks of as a good project and what an experimentalist views as a good project are often different things.

      But I do agree (assuming I understood the general outline of you proposal) one should do such an experiment to distinguish your model from the QM model (again from the table it appears the results are close but not exactly the same).

      I have some more comments that are not related to the main point of the essay which I will add later.

      Best,

      Doug

        Hi again. The above was me. I guess you get logged out if the post is too long.

        Best,

        Doug

        Hi Peter,

        You take us, the readers, on a journey. We see reality from the point of view of characters (Alice and Bob) that seem to have real lives. I'm always amazed by the imaginative scenarios you use to frame your discussion of the physics!

        Your main hypothesis, that "quantum spin includes OAM" and so "'non-local state reduction' is not required", seems feasible enough to me, but it would be great to get some experimental results to confirm it.

        On the other hand, I wouldn't agree that all aspects of nature are necessarily entirely "logical". I would think that, in a non-platonic universe, logic is not the standard to measure nature - it's more a case that nature is the standard to measure logic. I think that logic (i.e. that which seems to us to be consistent and make sense) is the product of nature, not the other way round.

        A very readable and interesting essay.

        Cheers,

        Lorraine

          Hi Peter,

          You write beautifully and the content is even better. The essay is packed with so much information. I read it once but I have to read carefully it again. I just give you my encouragement now because it is one of the best essay here. I will comment and rate it soon.

          Best wishes,

          Leo KoGuan

            Lorraine,

            I like; "nature is the standard to measure logic" because as I highlighted in my 2012 essay, famously; "all logical systems are ultimately beset by paradox". With the exception of only one (which also proves Occam's razor);

            That one is the simple 'TRUTH FUNCTION LOGIC" (TFL) which I described in that essay and which is the logic I invoke. In a nutshell, It proves there's a 'hierarchy' of propositions and compound propositions in which a part of any compound proposition can ONLY be resolved with respect to THAT proposition, NOT ANY other. The rules of brackets in arithmetic follow that logic. Part of a function in brackets can ONLY be related to another part within those particular brackets.

            Current science does not respect that universal logic, which dictates for instance, that, very simply, light passing the rough our galaxy propagates at c with respect to (the centre of mass rest frame of) the galaxy. Which is exactly what we find. We then loose natures logic and expect light in Andromeda to propagate there at c WRT OUR galaxy! What Earth centred, even arrogant thinking!

            TFL says that light undergoes a transform on entering and exiting a galaxy (local 'brackets') so it's speed and the Laws of Physics are consistent. The SR postulates re-emerge better interpreted. Once we get our heads round the concept all the anomalies in physics fall into place. But that 'discrete field' dynamic mechanism; simple re-scattering at local c, is so 'different' to embedded beliefs that most minds are unable to see and rationalise it. I estimated ~2020. This essay is the one of the coherent set and shows how nature's logic simply unravels QM's apparent entanglement.

            Can you perceive that logic yet? (The paper explaining the TFL scattering mechanism between discrete inertial systems/ frames/ domains/ fields including the LT 'power curve' approaching 'OB' mode density/min wavelength is below).

            Thanks for the comment. Best wishes

            Peter

            Optical Breakdown limit as a Mechanism for the Lorentz Transformation.

            Mike, Isreal,

            Thanks for the points. Reading the early essays I was disappointed that mostly only obvious ideals were discussed, with no implementation. I believe we fail to recognise how the whole course of humanity had been led and steered by advances in understanding of nature, our planet and the universe.

            That is from the invention of the first tools through everything including food production, information technology, and soon AI and space travel. Yes of course we should have less war, more altruism etc, I've practised the latter more than almost any as an implementer or 'enabler'. To me an iota of action is worth a thousand words.

            So I suggest nothing genuinely and effectively steers our path more than understanding, but that is not yet recognised. As Judith Nabb points out, it's our way of thinking that really needs improving, to better understand who and what we are. It's our poor understanding that propagates our poor understanding. Perhaps we're not quite ready yet, even by 2020, but I am an optimist.

            Thank you kindly for your comments.

            Peter

            Joe,

            Thanks for your description. I'll try to read all descriptions. I must confess I really can't rationalise much of yours, though certainly agree the speed of light interacting with any surface is modulated to the speed of light wrt that surface. There's no reason it should do so earlier and no evidence that it does.

            I'm not a Dr by the way. While educated for well over 10 years in a range of disciplines including to and beyond PhD level in Architecture, the UCAS system was resisted by the RIBA until the year after I completed the course. The concern was the pressure to adopt a doctrinal teaching basis. The RIBA stood their ground, which was massively important.

            It seems perhaps only Architecture now re-teaches student how to think holistically and challenge everything properly as well as rigorous complex analysis etc. I was horrified how little of that there was in science teaching compared to maths and ramming the so called 'facts' in. My children have just gone through the process. I still am.

            Best of luck in the contest.

            Peter

            Thanks Charles,

            I think you've highlighted the problem with mainstream theory. Though clearly very inconsistent and incomplete it's embedded, so recognising more consistent alternatives which are 'different' (be definition) is impossible.

            All are trying to get their heads and maths around reality in terms of twisted mobius strips and 7-spheres, but when shown that the simple relationship between orbital speeds at different latitudes on a sphere can reproduce everything needed to explain "QM predictions", it's so unbelievably simple that it's simply not believed so not even analysed!

            I stress I'm not shocked or upset Charles. I estimated in 2010 that mankind was unlikely to have the vision to perceive the truth of any such 'different' solution until 2020 (see my 2011 Essay). The subsequent essays have shown the proofs, being exceptionally well supported, (2nd Community last year) but translating that to a paradigm shift is a long way off it seems.

            I do hope you might look back to better understand to logic and quite solid evidence (see also me recent comments here) which will help you better understand my classical solution here, also how QM and SR are indeed marriageable once the interpretations of both are just slightly modified by the same mechanism; electron/plasma re-scattering at the electrons own 'c'. I call it 'joined-up-science', a bit like learning 'joined-up-writing as it invokes well known effects from disparate 'disciplines'.

            I'll also check back on your essay. Thanks for your comments.

            Best wishes.

            Peter

            Hi Peter,

            Good to see you in another contest. Finally got to your essay, which I always look forward to.

            One thing I found of interest is the idea of electrons actually having two components. And these components are what creates the spin of the electron.

            Please allow me to offer a somewhat similar idea that may integrate with yours. The two components of the electron are two wavelengths, a deBroglie wavelength and a Compton wavelength. The sequence of these wavelengths form what we call spin. See:

            1. http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/33_A_Tale_of_Two_Wavelengths.html

            2. http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/37_Visualizing_Spin.html

            3. http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/41_Neutrinos_and_Light.html

            4. http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/36_Derivation_of_the_Compton_Wavelength.html

            To date, Bell's theorem is generally regarded as supported by a substantial body of evidence and there are few supporters of local hidden variables, though the theorem is continually subject of study, criticism, and refinement.

            Please also allow me to put in my two cents, and argue that Bell's theorem is founded on a fundamental misconception. Bell assumed that local hidden variables were a possibility. He then showed that this is impossible. The logic is good so long as a local hidden variable is as conceived by Einstein. Both Bell and Einstein demanded that particles be "continuous in space-time". If particles are not continuous in space-time (Heisenberg's concept in matrix mechanics), the Bell theorem produces confusion because garbage in produces garbage out. We do not see the garbage in and try to find meaning in the garbage out. The fundamental reality of QM is discontinuous, it can be observed in experiments (Alain Aspect) but never proved, it is just a fact of nature (IMHO).

            I believe you are pushing the boundaries of our concepts of reality.... a very practical way to steer the future.

            Don Limuti