"I suspect you'll convert nobody Tom."

Not interested. I'm just trying to prevent the spread of misinformation by applying an old, if not always effective, remedy.

Facts.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

That's your error. There are no such thing as 'facts' in science. Belief that they exist invalidates the scientific method. That belief is a common error invalidating amateurs comments, i.e. Peter Gluck's point. Comparing new theory with old can't falsify the new theory.

Now if you'd like to discuss 'science' instead, then I'm very happy to. Otherwise please don't bother to post. Cold war propaganda and disinformation is over!

Best wishes

Peter

"That's your error. There are no such thing as 'facts' in science. Belief that they exist invalidates the scientific method. That belief is a common error invalidating amateurs comments, i.e. Peter Gluck's point. Comparing new theory with old can't falsify the new theory."

Priceless. I suppose you also believe that there's no gambling at Rick's cafe and no crying in baseball. Good luck in your professional career as a physicist.

Tom,

I do suggest Rick no longer has a cafe. It was replaced long ago, as it should.

Dear Peter,

Congratulations! Being finalist might be still usual for you but wish you good luck continuously :)

By the way, I just found an interesting paper at arxiv.org as you suggested at my essay site. I don't know why I could not find this till now but simply searched with keywords "graphene" and "fusion". it actually did experiment described in my essay. And result shows fusion can be generated in the graphene sheet as they observed two energy excitations (cold and hot pulasma). It is just several page paper so hope you check once!

http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3130

Regards

Ryoji

Ryoji,

Many thanks. Being a finalist is one thing, penetrating the judges entrenchment in old physics is another. Bracketing (playing safe) is de rigeur but I think Sci-Am is often far more leading edge than the essay judging.

There does seem to be interesting new physics in the graphene fusion work you cite, but remember that was only a simulation. I've noticed a dangerous but increasing tendency for simulations to be treated as real experiments!

Keep up the research. I read 20 papers etc. a week, many 'cross discipline'. Many professors read zero, relying only on the odd conference! (It shows). But always focus on methods and findings not interpretations, which result from assumptions, mostly hidden.

Best wishes

Peter

    Dear Peter,

    Yes, it is just a simulation as you pointed out. But i guess it is very plane simulation and not sure how much quantum effect will mess its purely excitation in actual experiment. What made me surprised was that it tells what we only need to maintain is just the reactor's temperature in certain range and this would keep ideal fusion excitation in graphenes.

    thank you,

    Ryoji

    Hi Peter,

    I just saw this two papers from Soiguine. On a first fast read they reminded me Bob. In the older paper he used the tossed coin with its different rotation axes. I think you can translate it one to one to your experiment.

    The new paper is about the reality of the state function. But I think merrely a repetition of the older paper.

    Regards

    Luca

      Luca,

      Brilliant! Dr Soguine's maths perfectly describes my 3D state transformation. He's a genius, thank you. I knew the geometry worked and that the current maths was inadequate to describe it but couldn't picture the extended use of quaternions.

      I couldn't quite seem to make sense of Joy's maths in that task. I can see Dr Sequine's describes the transform, and my discrete field Bloch sphere geometry takes it from there with the physical analogue. (I'm sure Tom will describe how Joy Cristian meant the same thing anyway, and I still suspect Joy was about right). The helical paths and hopf fibration as the descriptor of the Born rule (squaring the wavefunction) discussed in my previous essay forms the rest of the link. As the Galileo quote says;

      He who undertakes to deal with questions of natural sciences without the help of geometry is attempting the infeasible.

      Have you checked out Bells 'beables'. The 'reality' before the interaction? I simply derive that there is both that reality and the 'transformed' reality, which are equivalent but simply different in certain properties. I don't agree with the interpretation of reality being what is 'unchanged.' Bell was convinced there WAS a real analogue to QM and said professional physicists "should be able to do better" than the vague nonsense of a description we still suffer today.

      This is solid and revolutionary stuff. Shame that seems to mean it'll probably never be allowed past the 'sanitization' barriers protecting old myth and legend. Does it?

      Best wishes

      Peter

      13 days later

      (As also mostly posted on the Quantum blog);

      New Physics! And strong support for the causal QM of my essay, well timed!

      Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?

      The only thing that doesn't really do, and the key to everything, is show how 'non locality' can be produced classically. I recently lodged a short (2 page) 'summary' resume of the fuller derivation in my essay, consistent with the above, here;

      Classical reproduction of quantum correlations.

      Paradigm changes can't be instant but my original 2020 estimate now looks more realistic; 2020 Vision. A model of Discretion in Space' http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803

      The same electron (Compton/Raman) scattering mechanism at c in the electron C of M rest frame ('discrete field dynamics' or DFM) appears able to coherently rationalise both SR and QM without paradox to allow convergence (see the other 3 essays). If anybody can spot any apparent flaws do please flag them up. Thanks.

      Could this be a red letter day for fqxi? Hmmm.

      A quote; "..blames the "preposterous" neglect of the theory on "decades of indoctrination." At this stage, Goldstein and several others noted, researchers risk their careers by questioning quantum orthodoxy."

      Peter

      7 days later

      Update Summary Version; B

      Identifying that Bell validated this model all but for one different assumption he used (spin axes random on ALL planes, not our 'propagation on spin axis' with random polarity) which gave rise to the problems and limits he described.

      We also show how the intermediate OAM values are produced; which is from distribution of AOM with latitude' so 'entangling' the relative setting angles along with the spin axis.

      Classical reproduction of quantum correlations. Summary; B.

      Please do comment or question. Or see the "Why Quantum..." blog.

      Peter

      Write a Reply...