Hi Peter,

I have just read your nice Essay. Here are my comments and questions:

1) Why do you think our leap in our understanding of nature must be "quantum"? Cannot it be "classical"?

2) It is my personal opinion that Bell's theorem is not definitive (In fact, from 1) and 2) points you should understand that I am an endorser of Einstein's determinisms).

3) 'spin' within spin looks intriguing. Any idea in order to test the effect?

4) With your beautiful sentence "Yin taught him that knowledge was only half the battle, and Yang that only consistent application with no anomalies or apparent paradox completed the job" you connect Chinese Philosophy and Galilean Philosophy.

5) How do you conciliate your statement that "Local Reality DID exist down to a much smaller limit of resolution" with Uncertainty Principle?

6) In a certain sense, your conclusion is that Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation and Einstein's local reality are "entangled".

I had a lot of fun in reading your Essay. Thus, I am going to give you an high score.

I wish you good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

    The link above to 'A Cyclic Model of Galaxy Evolution, with Bars' may not work. Try instead: www.academia.edu/6655261/A_CYCLIC_MODEL_OF_GALAXY_EVOLUTION_WITH_BARS

    To download the .PDF, one needs to signin to academia.edu

    Cheers

    Dear Peter,

    On reading your essay when it came out, I was struck by your Fig(1) showing the wheel-within-a-wheel as it turned 720 degrees before coming to the initial configuration. Whatever spin is, it has that half-frequency characteristic. I should have mentioned in my last year's essay on quaternion spectra the significance of the zeroes being at f=0.25 as indicating something that takes two periods.

    Your diagrams are nice and I hope they are a help in delving into your Ref(17). I have been conceptualizing the multidimensional spectra of my old essay as having independent time dimensions already. It is nice to see that Chen has developed this idea.

    Thanks for an interesting and entertaining essay.

    Alice and Bob are busy people, but they always attend the Quantum Randi Challenge.

    Best Regards,

    Colin

    Leo,

    Certainly the former, but more as a precursor to all science education, as I'm sure anyone whose experienced it would agree. Perhaps all education per-se should include it. Schools don't teach kids how to best use the powerful quantum computers they're born with. Most never learn at all.

    Michael,

    Not superluminally, no. All effects can be reproduced classically down to a genuine quantum scale.

    I'm really glad you understood it. The elephant is about right, as this one may be too big to be recongnised at all! Your two blind men analogy is spot on, except in physics it seems there may be rather more than two, and all round it! We'll see how many there are among the judges this year!

    Christian,

    I'm very glad you enjoyed it. I hope the touch of humour doesn't detract or distract from the serious findings. To answer your questions.

    1) It is indeed classical physics which takes the 'quantum leap' forward, but quantum physics moves too.

    2) Bell is indeed circumvented. His tautology remains intact, but does not reflect how nature works nature. However QM AND SR have to change to converge. If your freind beside you in space accelerates towards a light source he will now NOT change the propagation speed of the approaching light, until it ARRIVES in his own domain, physically bounded by his surface free electrons. (The SR postulates do not change, just our incomplete interpretation, to be as AE's 1952 paper).

    3) Spin within spin has been confirmed in both quantum optics and astrophysics. Check out the two references I cite. It's even found in the suns surface radiation. Also the Feynman Weinberg QG found just that, and it has an analogy in string dimensions. It's everywhere if we look. At larger scales we can group the spin particles into a gyro, the axis of which which we can rotate on 3 axes while turning ourselves, while standing on a roundabout on a spinning planet orbiting a star in a spinning galaxy orbiting a cluster orbiting a filament. There are at least another 6 gauges going down, probably more. Google the 'Amplituhedron'.

    4) Yin and Yang can never be parted, like clockwise and anticlockwise spin, and wave/particle duality in decreasing steps. To ask if the universe is continuous or quantized is to both expose and maintain our poor understanding.

    5) The uncertainty Principle remains, but the greater the causal 'resolution' we have the smaller it's domain. That ultimately conserves free choice. The 'Yang' is that at present the 'stem cell' still represents uncertainty and 'new' things can evolve. One day a smaller entity will take on that role.

    6) Yes, I'd say Copenhagen and Local Reality are just different descriptions of the same thing. Neither of our current descriptions have been good enough to reveal that. Freeman was right good physics is about "finding unity in hidden likeness".

    Does that all make sense?

    If true, how can such new enlightenment ever be assimilated into physics when the old beliefs are so deeply entrenched? Were Bob and Alice too late?

    Best wishes

    Peter

    Hi Peter,

    If I recall you had this problem solved earlier but your use of characters separated and then re-united with a little drama at the end was clever writing. I think you meant to leave us hanging about earth's response to a potential crisis. I was hoping that your travelers would come back in time to save us, re-unite and we would live happily ever after.

    Regarding unification of QM and GR....I think early writers and thinkers were a little too dramatic about the differences. I recently published a paper in Vol 5 No3 of the Prespacetime Journal entitled "On the Source of the Gravitational Constant at the Low Energy Scale" that proposed a way of treating gravity almost the same way other forces are treated. An earlier version was viXra:1307.0085.

      Gene,

      Thanks. Yes the cliffhanger was for various reasons, ostensibly the length limit, but all can then use imagination to create their own ending - the raison d'aitre of the essay subject.

      I tend to agree on GR. The model supports a wide range including the Feynman-Weinburg derivation which left open recursive gauges.FW QG Peper.

      But this is strictly about Special Relativity which is where the great divide with QM lies. Even Time itself being completely different in character. The two converge nicely. The free fermions and protons can also then do a pretty good job of emulating dark matter.

      I know that wouldn't have been you who just trolled mine with an ultra low score without the courtesy of a post! They should be traced and barred! I hope you now keep rising. I'll try to take a look at your paper when I recover from reading essays!

      Very best wishes

      Peter

      Hi Peter,

      I am curious to see what you have cooked up this year, but I have not read your paper yet. From past experience, I find it's essential to give your work my undivided attention for the duration, and uninterrupted time is hard to come by. Still, in deference to your subject; I wonder why nobody thinks of asking Ted or Carol what Bob and Alice are up to, considering their past history...

      I'm assuming you don't go into that level of lurid detail, but that I'll be expected to check my baggage pre-flight. I'll be looking forward to reading and commenting, once I get the chance to give it a go. It is always an interesting excursion, to read your essays, but I am very different. I have tried to prove one facet of my program each time out, while you have tried to explain your central thesis each time, drawing on different facets of your explanation each go around.

      Perhaps it is time for you to write a book.

      All the Best,

      Jonathan

        Jonathen,

        You're right. It's half written. I keep getting distracted. The problem seems to be that once the logjam breached the flow of joined up physics is overwhelming. Nature is a bit like charades; I'll be dead long before I get through one facet at a time so I have to do the 'whole thing'. It's all coherently connected anyway, not much like "physics" at all. So there's the problem.

        Ted and Carol do get walk on roles, along with Yin and Yang. But it's a bit like 'Friends', the full cast is 6.

        Thank you for spending the time.

        Peter

        Hi Peter,

        I tried to read your essay last night but, as usual, I struggled with it. Its good that you listed the findings, that helps. Alice and Bob annoy me because they always seem to be doing confusing things and here they are again. I think this is the essay you would have written whatever the essay question because it is what you are currently working on and it excites you.I can understand why. You've had some marvelous reviews so presumably other people found it easier to follow and relevant to the contest. Hope you get many more. Good luck, Georgina

        Georgina,

        Unfortunately unravelling entangled nonsense to find the clarity first needs the nonsense to be understood. That's very difficult for anyone rational!

        I think our poor understanding of nature is the greatest bar to an idyllic future, and filling the chasm between the two 'great pillars' of physics the greatest quantum leap we can make, affecting all areas of science from cosmology to sub atomic particles. That's why I'm tackling it in the first place. I see most other approaches shallower, so more like treating symptoms than fundamental cause.

        I'm sorry you struggled. I have the likes of Tom on one side insisting on non-intuitive technical 'geek' descriptions, and the needs of average readers on the other, struggling with the ontology. Too far one way completely looses connection with the other. I tried to strike a good balance. I'm sorry if you struggled but do understand. Like the Eiffel tower, there are a number of different 'components' without which the hypothesis couldn't be constructed. It's difficult to build, but too important not to try.

        Thanks for trying.

        Peter

        Dear Dr. Jackson,

        Your abstractions filled essay is superbly written and I do hope that it does well in the competition. Please forgive me. Reality is unique, once.

        INERT LIGHT THEORY

        Based on my observation, I have concluded that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real things have one and only one thing in common. Each real thing has a material surface and an attached material sub-surface. A surface can be interior or exterior. All material surfaces must travel at a constant speed. All material sub-surfaces must travel at an inconsistent speed that has to be less than the constant speed the surface travels at. While a surface can travel in any direction, a sub-surface can only travel either inwardly or outwardly. A sub-surface can expand or contract. Surfaces and sub-surfaces can be exchanged by the application of natural or fabricated force. The surfaces of the sub-sub-microscopic can never be altered. This is why matter cannot be destroyed. This is why anti-matter can never be created. It would be physically impossible for light to move as it does not have a surface or a sub-surface. Although scientists insist that light can be absorbed, or reflected, or refracted, this is additional proof that light cannot have a surface. It would be physically impossible for a surface to absorb another surface, or reflect another surface , or refract another surface.

        Abstract theory cannot ever have unification because it is perfect.. Only reality is unified because there is only one unique reality.

        Light is the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The proof of this is easy to establish. When one looks at an active electrical light, one must notice that all of the light remains inside of the bulb. What does move from the bulb is some form of radiant. The radiant must move at a rate of speed that is less than the "speed" of light, however, when the radiant strikes a surface it achieves the "speed" of light because all surfaces can only travel at the constant "speed" of light. When a light radiant strikes a surface, the radiant resumes being a light, albeit of a lesser magnitude. While it is true that searchlights, spotlights and car headlights seem to cast a beam of light, this might be because the beams strike naturally formed mingled sub-sub and sub-atomic particles prevalent in the atmosphere that collectively, actually form a surface.

        In the Thomas Young Double Slit Experiment, it was not direct sunlight that passed through the slits. Light from the sun is stationary and it cannot move because light does not have a surface. Radiants emitted from the sun went through the slits and behaved like wave radiants.

        Einstein was completely wrong. His abstract theory about how abstract observers "see" abstract events differently is wrong. This is what every real observer sees when they look at a real light. They see that all of the light remains near the source. The reason for that is because light does not have a surface, therefore it cannot move. This happens to real observers whether they are looking at real fabricated lights such as neon, incandescent or LED. This also happens when real observers observe real natural light such as from the real sun or reflected from the real moon, or from a real lightning bolt, or from a real fire, a real candle, or light from out of a real lightning bug's bottom.

        With the highest of regards,

        Joe Fisher

          Peter,

          Indeed I also think that learning to think into 3D imaging activates your quantum brain in a different way than learning formulasor law etc.

          Peter,

          A truly masterful essay. A few small problems but you got the major points correct, especially your key points on page 8. As far as I can tell you've worked this out from geometry. I've worked out the same results from the physics of Stern-Gerlach and Gordon Watson has recently worked out the same result from Bell's formulation. We have thus converged to the same point from three different approaches. I think it will be seen to be the correct point.

          Of your 10 points, the first two are obvious, and the third needs further interpretation. But points 4,5,6,7,9, and 10 are major, and of course go against the grain of orthodoxy. (Although I believe your approach to point number six is incorrect, your result is correct.) I believe your model of spin one half (720° rotation) is not the correct model, but I don't see that this is any effects on the outcome of the measurements.

          The quantum formulation of the singlet state is legitimate. What is not correct is believing the mathematical superposition is physical.

          I do agree with Christian Corda's remark above that our understanding of nature is classical, not quantum. Also Steven Tuck, Gene Barbee, and Vladimir Tamari seem to believe (as I do) that classical underlies quantum, opposite to the orthodox view. And I think you have nailed entanglement. It used to be known as conservation of momentum before Bell confused everyone with his naïve formulation.

          I put off reading your essay because, knowing that Gordon and I had worked out the Bell problem, I just assumed your treatment would be wrong, and did not relish challenging you. What a pleasant surprise to find you right on target.

          And what is most impressive is that you are an architect, not a physicist. Just not brainwashed enough I guess.

          Because I've come to the same results by a different path, I can see that you are correct. But I'm not sure other physicists will be able to see it.

          My guess is that the 'unorthodox' nature of your essay (meaning, not as a physicist would do it!) will work against acceptance of your results, plus the fact that most quantum physicists are in love with the "weirdness" of quantum mechanics. But you have seen through to the essence of the problem. Congratulations.

          Worth a 25, but you will have to settle for a 10.

          My very best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Edwin,

            Thanks. Spot on as usual. I noted the 720^o spin diagram as 'one of' the ways 'she drew' as I had to find some intuitive visual proof it was possible that people would remember. I agree it only 'represents' the result. I'm really glad if you've a fully derived answer as that's a bit technical for me! Is it in writing yet?

            You're right, I escaped indoctrination and went to re-learn how to think. As a pure maths student I saw the conveyor belt was headed for Dodgson's wonderland so jumped just in time! I'm glad Gordon's still on the case as he my kind of mathematician.

            "I'm not sure other physicists will be able to see it."

            I'm absolutely sure the majority won't. At first. I've been blogging on this in a number of places for some time, testing different ways to describe it. At best I a stony silence comes down when the kicking and screaming abates as they get a glimpse. A typical one is Richard Gill (see 'Classical spheres..') so focussed inside their own specialist box they won't even believe there IS a universe beyond! Only about 1 in 6 seem to have the vision. How do we teach it?

            It's the same with the underlying discrete field dynamics model (DFM) which getting QM in line is only a part of, or a 'falsification test' of predictions The outcome is full unification of classical and Quantum physics.

            As well as the Galaxy Evolution Sequence paper just accepted by the HJ I have a paper drafted with John Minkowski on this matter in Nature Physics format, (needs a redraft) plus the main DFM tome with John which is turning into a book!

            The biggest problem I see in physics is that it's full of primadonna's, all wanting individual glory (and a Nobel). I hold no truck with that. I'd still like a collaboration. Mega kudos for many is better than none for any one, which is the real alternative. I'd be happy if you and Gordon are up for it.

            I did an alternative sketch for Zeilingers non-cummutative 3 filter diagram. It wasn't simple enough to use, or probably much closer to reality. Attached below. Do comment. (Also a simple version showing recursive OAM helicity).

            Best wishes

            PeterAttachment #1: 3_Filters.jpgAttachment #2: Recursive_OAM.jpg

            Peter Jackson,

            Maybe you steered your own future well as a possible winner of the contest when you prolonged the classical spheres thread. I understood the word humanity differently.

            I would rather appreciate "new ways to think" instead of being reminded of endless futile quarrel about "the real relationship of Alice and Bob (A,B) the characters at the heart and head of theoretical analysis".

            Currently essays are on top which claim serving the world. I wonder if you don't agree with them and will vote accordingly ;). I was not heard when I objected that common sense tends to use the expression "save the world" with an ironic undertone. The question is: save from what?

            Is mankind and its basis the Earth really endangered by economic bubbles and social inequality?

            Or should we follow Shirazi and fight against political ponerology?

            Or will loving-kindness save us from all evil?

            Or should we accept our fate?

            I think the name FQXi reminds us to strive for revealing more foundational questions. What might be wrong in our ideals of humanity and responsibility?

            Some essays are dealing with growth of population as "alarming". Kadin's good essay didn't get much support because it collides with old doctrines. I agree with him: The logical contradiction between continuing forever growth and limited basics suggest a taboo question: how many people does humanity need?

            My essay tries to reveal a related necessity: We all must outlaw nationalism and aggressive religions in order to save global peace.

            Regards,

            Eckard

              Eckard,

              "save from what" Our own ignorance. We all have different views of our greatest problems. I agree yours have value, as do most. However I feel we need to identify what we can actually ACHIEVE! Fundamental to all the ides you listed is our understanding of how nature works. We'll then know how WE work. We'll also then know WHAT might put the planet at risk. Until then we can only guess.

              You dismiss the unification of physics as if it's an irrelevance. I suggest it'd be the greatest leap forward in understanding in mankind's history. I'm getting old so need to get on with it. With age can come inflexibility, intolerance, intransigence and narrower vision. That seems to be how nature works. Human nature.

              I know I won't change your mind, you've shown that. As your post arrived so did an exceptionally low score. Was that you? Is that your view of how freedom of beliefs and non aggression should be implemented? It isn't mine. I believe and have found that peace and honesty will emerge from better understanding.

              I've not scored any below 5. Objectively all I've read deserve more so it'd be dishonest to do so. I shall consider yours the same. That's the peace and goodwill that comes from the understanding which my essay is my best effort to share. Nationalism and fervour are awful symptoms. I suggest if all our efforts continue to address only symptoms then no disease can be cured.

              I wish you luck in the contest.

              Best wishes

              Peter

              Peter,

              The quantum and the macro world join metaphorically through Bob and Alice. That part is easier to follow for a non-scientist like me. I think of "quantum made flesh," reminiscent of the Bible and the "word made flesh" reference.

              Complex ideas are given a corporal reach in your essay with an "Alice in Wonderland" quality, fetching attention while depicting paradoxical quantum relationships.

              I'm impressed.

              Jim

                Peter,

                This is an interesting and well-written attempt to explain a complex topic in the form of a story.

                The winning essay will be about how self-driving electric cars and the internet will reduce greenhouse gasses and save the planet. I did not write about greenhouse gasses or the internet and I have no chance at winning. I do feel your essay is off the topic, but it is an interesting and a better read than some "electric car" essay that will win.

                I wish you and your essay all the best,

                Jeff

                  Hi Peter,

                  Thanks for your kind words. I'm glad you like the ideas I've been developing for the last few years--as far as I know, you are the first person who I did not know before writing about this topic to "get" what I've been creating.

                  Your essay was one of the main ones that caught my eye earlier this week, but I haven't had an opportunity to get more than the gist of it yet. I will make reading it one of my priorities this weekend, as well as posting a substantive comment and rating it.

                  As for rating my essay with the high score you suggested, I thank you and I say go for it. We'll see what happens; in any case, the result is bound to be interesting.

                  (Too bad there's no foreknowledge machine handy.)

                  Aaron

                  Jim,

                  Many thanks. I took on a big task trying to both make QM comprehensible AND show how it's nonsensical interpretations can be removed to allow unification; the biggest scientific leap mankind can make. It also has d to be fun to read! It can be depressing when some see no value, don't understand it or think it's off topic.

                  That all means your comprehension and comments are very highly valued, Thank you.

                  Best wishes

                  Peter

                  Jeff,

                  I'm sure you're probably right.

                  I new mine may be seen as off topic but I disagree, it's just far less superficial and gives more fundamental advancement that electric cars etc. I see very many essays here as addressing symptoms or just airy fairy pie in the sky 'theories' an bout what we might do, but nothing real or implementable.

                  I'm an implementer, and I also skipper sailing yachts at representative level, normally helm and often tactician. We're used to winning. But if I ask the navigator or tactician a question I want a specific answer or directions where to steer, not some waffle and concepts, I'm better at those myself! What I show is a real way to unify science, in the short term. Academia then almost certainly won't give it a second look I predict. Is the old adage right?; (If you can't 'do' then teach). It's possible to do both as I've done it!

                  Best wishes

                  Peter

                  Classical way is the way to go. I have my own twists with it, but more on it later on. I might write a paper in near future and submit it to viXra.org. So, big hand from me! We are on the right track definitely :-)

                  After my antimatter experiments, the word classical will be on everybody's lips. Good for us!

                  I'm sure it would be good to advance the state of theoretical physics, but a proposal for doing so just doesn't seem to me very responsive to the question of how to steer humanity.

                    Robin,

                    I'm an enabler. I 'implement' near impossible projects, in energy, defence etc. See my post on Sabine's essay. I've learned that most of what mankind does, if not just theorising, is to treat symptoms. Unintended and reverse outcomes are common because we don't think deep enough or think through implications.

                    Many of the essays here either consider symptoms, or don't actually propose how to move ahead at all. Just saying; 'we must do this or that' is useless. That's why we stumble from crisis to crisis, one of which may be our end.

                    Uniting classical and quantum physics is now almost 100 years overdue. It will have the most fundamental effects on all scientific understanding, so also technology of any other discovery or advancement; certainly QG, and I'm afraid also AI, because it will enable major leaps in both. We will then understand exactly which of ALL the u isseus facing us must be addressed AND how to address them.

                    Also our most fundamental understanding is advanced. The same model informs cosmology at the widest level. Have read of this papers, just accepted (but not in a major journal), if you're interested in the first evolutionary sequence of galaxy types ever produced, and a credible re-interpretation of the so called 'big bang' with pre-'BB' condition logically implicit. The whole construct in empirical and coherent, resolving dozens of anomalies. Preprint; HJ Vol.6 2014.

                    Now this can all be 'action today!' But none of the 'discrete field dynamics' model will be accepted by mainstream science in the near future because physicists neural networks are imprinted with the present paradigm so reject alternatives despite evidence and logic. Of course that's no evidence that it's wrong. It is in fact self evident. So I (we) must find a clear cut 'way in' to get people used to the different concepts. Success would give a clear direction, impetus and certain advancement. Now how many other essays can do that? Despite many good ones, very very few. (please point any out I've missed so far.)

                    Best wishes

                    Peter

                    Hi Peter,

                    I enjoyed your essay, and its innovations. Conceiving of EPR experiments in space, where no direction is "up," does add a whole new spin to the issue (pun intended). I agree with you, also, that a successful marriage of relativity and QM is indeed one of the master keys to humanity's future. While I do not comprehend all of the details, I sense that you have made a valuable contribution toward that important goal. I wish you all the best!

                    Aaron

                    Peter,

                    To respond to some of your comments on my thread, if you don't mind, I thought I'd post the following as how my point about time fits into a broader physical description of the human condition, if not the more elemental physical issues. The nature of FQXI tends toward conceptual physics and this can be a narrow subject in its own right, so I do tend to seem obsessed with the point about time, yet as my entry shows, I am trying to construct a more wholistic vision that is necessarily centered on the current human condition, so speculation which projects a little too far in any one direction, from physical abstractions, to futuristic projections, tends to raise too many issues and questions for me and so I seem to follow them less and less, as the current world situation becomes more and more precarious.

                    I wrote it last night on Michael Allen's thread and slightly edited it;

                    "That is a very interesting and well thought out plan. I think though that you really need to step back even further to get a more complete picture and some of these issues might fall into place of their own accord.

                    For one thing, humanity shouldn't be an end in itself, but one more tool, one more bridge between what came before and what will come after.

                    One of the essential fallacies running through western thought is that the ideal constitutes an absolute, but in fact it is a simple collection of preferred characteristics. The absolute is a ground state. The universal state of oneness is not a singular entity, one, but the median in which all positive and negative cancel out. The flat line on the heart monitor. As such, it is the essence from which we rise, not an ideal from which we fell. In order to project ourselves upward, we necessarily have to push downward. And we do that as best as possible and it is a process of expansion and contraction. This dichotomy manifests both aspects of how we progress, as expansion is forward, but unfocused, while the contraction stage draws inward and back, but consolidates down to that which is most stable and focused. This is the political dichotomy of liberal and conservative, in that liberalization is an encompassing expansion of energy outward, while conservatism is a distillation of the lessons learned and the rewards gained. In nature it's the dichotomy of spring and fall. Since this manifests on the personal level as birth and death, we need to put it in a broader context of the full cycle. We exist as manifestations of the energy propelling us forward and the structural integrity holding us together. As the energy continues to push and thus stress the form, eventually it breaks down and is replaced by a newer form that often grew up as a patch over the weaknesses of the prior form, since that is where the energy was most expansive. So it is not a straight line, but a lot of bouncing around on the level of the particulars, with the larger manifestations best expressed thermodynamically, like waves across a medium of parts jostling each other.

                    Our awareness is like that energy constantly pushing forward, while the thoughts it generates are the forms which coalesce and then recede in its wake. Memory is our ability to be able to construct coherent streams of these thoughts, collectively known as history and as you point out, myths.

                    One of the themes I keep pushing, to the frustration of some, is that we look at time backwards. As one of those individual points of reference, we experience change as a sequence of encounters and events and so we model time as the point of the present moving along a vector from past to future, which physics further distills intellectually as measures of particular durations to use in its math models. The basic larger reality is that it's the changing configuration of what is, that turns future into past. Probability into actuality. Tomorrow into yesterday. This makes it much more like temperature than space.

                    Time is to temperature what frequency is to amplitude. With temperature we think of the collective effect, yet it consists of a multitude of individual velocities/amplitudes, but with time we think of those individual changes and measure their frequency, but cannot decern the measure of the universal rate of change. That is because, just like with temperature, it is a cumulative effect of those many actions.

                    Now our minds are composed of two sides, with the left described as a linear processor, responsible for rational, linear, causal logic, while the right is considered a parallel processor, responsible for emotion and intuition. Essentially they function as a clock and a thermostat. Like time, the serial function takes one step at a time and derives a causal route. The right side functions much more as a scalar process, with all the information available pushed into it and the response as what rises to the surface, like that wave through the medium, or the whistle of a boiling pot. Sometimes it results in insights and connections and other times it will boil over with frustration and anger as a response to too much input, or boredom from too little. More complex emotions, such as attraction can be thought of as magnetic and radiant and various such elements.

                    Now this relation is fundamental to our existence as mobile organisms, since we must first process a larger context and then proceed to navigate a path through it. Plants, on the other hand, don't move, so they function primarily as thermostats, with a very residual need for any serial processing.

                    This then goes back to that relation between expansion and contraction, as the expansion is much more a thermodynamic, non-linear process, while the contraction, on the intellectual level, is to consolidate that narrative sequence of connections necessary to derive a sense of order for our linear selves and thus project a subsequent course. Awareness coalescing as thought.

                    The problem is that sequence is not necessarily causal. Each event is composed of input coming from all directions, while we only approach it from one direction. One rung on a ladder isn't the cause of the next, nor, in a wholistic sense, is one footstep on the ladder cause of the next. Causality is energy transfer. So one day doesn't cause the next, rather the sun shining on a rotating planet causes this sequence of events called days. Which come into being and dissolve, ie. go future to past. Yet because our rational function is necessarily linear, we try to impose this sequencing onto the larger reality and so our sense of order grows from prior, less informed states, as the basis for future input and observations and so we keep imposing models onto reality which she only partially considers. Then to compensate, we make them more complex, because one doesn't question the myth.

                    Eventually though, the pot boils over and all our stories melt into on big origin myth for the next leg of the big expansion cycle. So it ultimately is only the energy which is conserved and yet it must continually manifest form, but keep changing it, so energy goes past to future forms, as these forms go from being in the future to being in the past.

                    Without action, nothing exists, but with action, nothing exists forever."

                    Peter,

                    I'm not trying to question your model, but it doesn't ring my bells sufficiently and I realize mine don't much interest you, but I do feel the situation on this planet is heading in a dangerous direction and so I like to think I will promote any ideas that might help and even work to quell those which don't. To find the needle in the haystack we have to sort through a lot of otherwise perfectly good hay. It just seems to me that you have not addressed the question very effectively and while you might see resolving the current conflicts in physics as fundamentally important, their solution will do little to cure humanity's rapacious treatment of its only viable habitat. If anything, the technologies arising from some such a discovery would likely be used to further the process. As people have understood from the time of Adam and Eve, knowledge is a double edged sword.

                    Regards,

                    John

                    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