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