Steering the Happy Path to Humanity’s Future by Brent Pfister

Brent Pfister

Israel, thank you I really liked your essay too. Good luck in the contest!

Brent

pjackson

Brent,

You just hit the top of my 'read' list and your 'error' message came up! What are the problems? I don't 'mark down' - unless I find one that's all utter drivel of course! At first glance it looked enticing.

As a Sci-fi fan you may like my allegorical first derivation of non-fiction QM!

I'll be back.

Peter

Brent Pfister

Peter, my essay has several problems which are listed in my comments above.

I read your essay before but did not score it. I did not understand it enough to decide whether it seemed correct and was waiting for experts to decide later. But now I will re-read it and comment in your forum.

Thanks!

Brent

pjackson

Brent,

I saw no 'problems' worth marking down. Einstein said we "don't yet understand 1,000th of 1% of what nature has revealed to us." Most are fumbling in the dark.

"there is physics beyond the standard model and general relativity. I hope another surprise breakthrough is possible." It surely is but not if mainstream physicists stay stuck in the current 'rut' of thinking methods.; "How far humanity can go depends on laws of physics, how well and soon we can understand those laws" perhaps never!;

"What hope is there to find new physics that will be of practical help? There are at least 139 unsolved problems in physics and surely other questions that have not even been thought of yet. So a huge breakthrough may still be possible." Yes, well over 139, but it's the same problem. Read my previous 3 essays. All top 10 (2nd 2013) but passed over in the judging.

You testing' analysis was good but is poorly used in theoretical physics. Judy (below - thank you Judy) is right. Breakthroughs are by definition unfamiliar so are dismissed as they're a poor match to embedded beliefs. In a way you say it yourself; "No fact proves or disproves a matter of faith universally". Beliefs trump evidence.

You're also spot on with the amplituhedron, which is another proof of recursive 'quantum gauges', Godel's 'fuzzy logic' and Chaos theory fractals. The evidence of helical paths (spin plus motion) within helical paths at all scales is overwhelming. I simply apply that using 'joined up' science and consistent logic (unpopular in QM!).

I quite understand your initial uncertainty about my model, but 11 year olds have understood (see the end notes experiment) how the supposedly 'impossible' classical explanation of quantum 'predictions' is arrived at. It's silly having to learn a pile of illogical nonsense first to then disprove it. I'll simply set out the EPR paradox in a post below, and how the quantum 'prediction' is reproduced classically.

It's just slightly complex dynamic geometry that QM never bothered to even address! You'll then hopefully understand the essay better. It leads to unification of QM and SR (classical and quantum physics) and needs to be somehow brought to the attention of the so top 'experts'. The knock on effects are inestimable. So far over 200 (of the 139!) resolved!

This is supposed to be about YOUR essay, but mine shows your own views to be correct, so also shows yours worth a good score!...

Peter

pjackson

Brent,

Quick review; Einstein said Bohr's 'observer is part of the system' was nonsense as it must mean Bob and Alice, parsecs apart could instantly 'change' each others findings (heads/tails) by changing their own 'detector setting'. Bohr agreed! but pointed out that's what's found! (alongside a curious 'cosine curve' distribution as their relative setting angles change (not actual but RELATIVE) = 'spooky action at a distance' or 'superluminal communication'. Bells theorem said no classical variables could reproduce that.

I show that there was a hidden assumption nobody noticed, and that changing it (still satisfying Bohr) allowed a logical derivation. Simplistically; the assumption is that each half of a split pair can only EVER be found spinning opposite ways. I show that (consistent with Bohr) the detector influences the finding, so REVERSING the detector electron spin (by well known electron 'spin flip' with EM field angle) reverses the finding. Suddenly it all makes sense.

The cosine curve emerges as the change in rotational speed (so OAM) of any point on a sphere surface with 'latitude', which is a geometrical fact. Unification follows logically.

The solution is self apparent, circumventing Bell's 'proof' as he anticipated it would be (see his quote in Victor Vaguine's) essay). Now of course all the 'experts' will squeal and scream 'foul' because they didn't 'expect' that solution. Even nonsense acquires credibility over time! I tried to show it in a way that also showed the 'out of the box' thinking required to see it. Without much luck it seems.

I always did suggest it may take till 2020. fQxi '2020 Vision' 2011. But if we don't do it by then the rut may be too deep!

That skimmed over a small part of the coherent whole. If you're interested a lot more aspects and logic are explained here; Discrete Field Model.

Best wishes

Peter

Brent Pfister

Peter, thank you. Good luck!

Brent

pjackson

Brent,

Thanks for your post on my blog, but Wow!' Suggesting the essay says "scientists are wrong about global warming" is a worryingly opposite conclusion from; "Earth was in trouble on all fronts, humans had delayed the hard choices..".! 'Climategate' is about scientists disagreeing over the CAUSE of global warming (and the Essex evidence debacle). I'm sure you know very few actually 'deny' it completely. My point is that confidence wanes when half say one thing and half the other.

'Predictions' are about ALL potential disasters (dozens are identified in the essays) and analysis shows ALL as inaccurate so far. My point was; "the problem was we really didn't understand enough about fundamentals to properly interpret the details." i.e. the 139 (and more) unsolved problems. I'm sorry if I didn't make that absolutely clear, but perhaps you 'skimmed' it a bit too quickly. Bob and Alice also at the end wonder if they've returned in time!

'Quantum computation' is using quantum particles to store and compute, which is modelled on exactly what our brain does! Reminding those outside the field of that fact may be a shock but it's part of the 'finding new ways of looking at familiar things'. My last essay discussed that in more detail (well supported). I'm agreeing (with Einstein, Bragg etc) that sticking with familiar ways of seeing things is what prevents advancement. Belief and old myths may be fatal!

I'm not sure which Academia paper you couldn't find. There are a dozen on that link. Could you download any? Try the previous essays here and this this PRJ preprint;http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7163.

Experiments have BEEN DONE and reproduced (see end notes), and anomalous data from others uniquely predicted (Aspect and Weihs).

'quark/gluon' oscillation within polarity' is (amplituhedral) gauged motion within motion, i.e. a spinning motion of something within a (polar) spinning body. The Planck Institute finding reference in the essay has an excellent diagram.

I was disappointed and a bit shocked by your response, but it's consistent with my analysis of why we struggle to resolve those 139() problems (as Judy agrees). However self apparent the science I need to find a better way to overcome prior assumptions. All ideas are welcomed. As far as score goes I know yours can't help mine anything like mine helped yours, but every little would help I with so many unsupported '1' scores!

Thanks for your interest. I hope you now better understand my points, and that I'm certainly not a denier!

Best wishes

Peter

Brent Pfister

This thread continues at Peter Jacksons essay on May 29. Thanks, Brent

Judy Nabb

Dear Brent,

Your essay had a wonderful directness and naivety, a pleasure to read compared to some of the pretentious gobbledygook permeating right to the top. I couldn't find what you wanted to mark it down for, except you did loose a mark for only allowing long existence through genetic engineering! I discuss some of the issues there in my own essay.

I see Peters post above and certainly think you'll appreciate his essay as it seems the only one here actually offering a direction to steer and make progress with a great scientific advance, indeed the one you identify is needed, and self apparent. But I identify why present physicists simply won't depart from present beliefs.

If you need proof just study the conversations in the recent blog here on "Classical Spheres." One omission from your test of theories was the most popular and common technique of "comparison with prior beliefs", so another mark has to be taken from my bag and added as a bonus (three if you can make it happen!)

You also got a bonus for mentioning the embarrassing and crass complacency of the 'crackpot scale.' I do hope you make the cut.

Judy

Brent Pfister

Judy, thank you very much. Genetic engineering is not needed on Earth, but may be needed to live on another planet. My essay describes the difficulty in finding another Earth and the much greater likelihood of finding "habitable" planets which require different DNA, like in Avatar. Even animals that lived on Earth in the past with twice the oxygen level might not be able to live on Earth today. My May 13 post above says more about genetic engineering.

Good catch on "comparison with prior beliefs". My essay should have said more about psychology.

I included the crackpot scale to make fun of myself and make the essay more entertaining. I also like quack and anti-crackpot index.

I actually like the top ranked essays that I have read and many of the other essays too.

Good luck in the contest!

Brent

Brent Pfister

What are the requirements or guiding principles for a new theory of physics? (This should be described in a textbook or web article but I have not been able to find it yet.)

A conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves. Noether's theorem states that there is a one-to-one correspondence between laws of conservation and differentiable symmetries of physical systems. The conservation of energy follows from the time-invariance of physical systems. The fact that physical systems behave the same regardless of how they are oriented in space gives rise to the conservation of angular momentum. Destruction of information conflicts with the law of energy conservation. Concentrations of mass energy, such as elementary particles, are stable only if a conservation law forbids their decay; examples include the conservation of electric charge and of baryon number (which, unless it is somehow violated, assures the stability of protons).

The theory should solve some of these unsolved physics problems.

The theory should be mathematically consistent, meaning it does not contain a logic contradiction and the result of a calculation is not infinity.

The theory should allow feasibly calculating predictions. This means there is no problem calculating because of NP computational complexity.

The theory satisfies the a-theorem.

The theory should satisfy this meta-theory.

« Previous Page