Jackson

If you haven't already, I suggest you look at papers by Tamari, Schultz, and Dariano.

Dariano

Are models based on probabilities `physical theories'? I suggest `physical models' necessarily require a cause - effect model. I think probability models suggest a cause - effect model. The probability models are measurement models.

Would you classify the group models of particle classification the same as you classify statistical analysis? The periodic table was developed first by noting common characteristics of elements. A few holes were filled (predicted) by where the hole was in the classification scheme. Later, the causal underlying structure of atoms explained the periodic table. Indeed, the position of an element indicated something about the atomic structure. The same type of classification is true for the group models. Holes in the group model have been used to predict particles that were found. Can this be used to imply an underlying structure of particles? How would such a study proceed? Is anyone working on the structure of particles (papers I see seem to stop with the group description with no indication of an underlying structure)?

Tamari sugggested a how to build elementary particles' structure.

Schultz suggested the patterns of the 5 Platonic solids could be the pattern of the elementary particles' structure. The same patterns construct crystal structures.

I combine these to solve the problem of my models of how to construct elementary particles from photons. Thus, the SU() groups may be the result of structures of photons much like the periodic table suggested the structure of atoms (my fractal thinking). This would be a physical model rather than a probabilistic model.

Hodge

Thanks all for your valuable and kind comments and scores. I'm reading hard at present (I'm impressed you read them all Domenico!) but will answer each after tomorrow. Many answers are in this latest paper reproducing the predictions of QM 'quasi' classically as Bell and Gell Mann predicted.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1411.0081v1.pdf ">Quasi-classical Entanglement, Superposition and Bell Inequalities.](https:// https://www.academia.edu/9216615/Quasi-classical_Entanglement_Superposition_and_Bell_Inequalities._v2

http://vixra.org/pdf/1411.0081v1.pdf )

or in previous essays and other papers here;

Academia.edu archive link for PJ & co-authored papers.

For those who haven't yet seen the latest video it's here, It's 9 mins but rather blueshifted to gamma so allow at least 20 to take it all in.

Condensed video.

John (I prefer to use names 'handles'); I've read Vladimir's (high scored) and have added Dariano and Schultz to my list.

P

Peter,

I just realized that many of these essays are yelling at us. Your essay calmly takes us by the hand and talks to us. The real world of Physics seems to be messy and math is the soul of order. One can see how math can fool us into seeing order even when order is sadly lacking. I don't know if I saw any new ideas, but ideas were presented in a clear and interesting way.

If you present light as corkscrews, having angular momentum and the polarization filters as slots (like for microwaves)you can have a classical picture of the three filter problem.

All the best,

Jeff

    Dear Peter,

    I finally got to read your very interesting and nice essay. I like the visual approach to abstract problems. You illustrate very well the idea that mathematics can be misused (like any tool), in which case it misleads us. Using the inadequate math misleads us for example that there should be no light after inserting the diagonal filter between the two, but the adequate math makes the correct predictions. Congratulations for the high position and good luck in the contest!

    Cristi

    Hi Peter,

    I found your essay to be thought-provoking and easy to read - I think it's your best essay so far, and deserves to be up there near the top. What you say seems to make sense to me: the idea of multiple layers on layers; bracketing calculations so that "each proposition must be resolved in it's own LOCAL context". I'm not clear about how to decide where one layer begins and ends; where locality begins and ends. But I'm sure that : "all is potentially knowable and rational if our intellectual evolution progresses hand in hand with refinement of mathematics."

    Cheers,

    Lorraine

      Hi Peter,

      Your discussion of the 3-filter Paradox reminded me of Ron Garrett's 2011 Quantum Conspiracy Google Tech Talk where he talked about the same experiment. He reaches the conclusion that measurement is the same thing as entanglement and we are all living in a virtual reality. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on his presentation. Would you consider the possibility of a piece of code evolving a deterministic, yet highly complex/encrypted universe which only has pockets of predictability? Do you think lots of different math used to describe reality could be encoded in one very gerneral discrete logic system (i.e. a computer)? Your F. Werner quote

      "How do we know that, if we made a theory which focuses its attention on phenomena we disregard and disregards some of the phenomena now commanding our attention, that we could not build another theory which has little in common with the present one but which, nevertheless, explains just as many phenomena as the present theory'? It has to be admitted that we have no definite evidence that there is no such theory."

      has a striking similarity to one of the "Dedekind Cut quotes" in my essay.

      Also your remark that paradoxes (what you refer to as "trickery") "is not the fault of maths but from misuse due to our poor initial conceptual understanding and analysis of empirical findings and thus valid formalisms" also directly relates to my main thesis and some of the questions I pose at the end of my essay.

      I would love some thought on my Digital Physics essay if you get the chance.

      Thanks,

      Jon

        (copied from my essay forum -- THR)

        Peter,

        Thank you, that's very kind. There's no mystery to why my score languishes below the cut -- never in my memory, from the first time I entered these competitions (which dates from the very beginning), has a fully relativistic viewpoint in foundational physics gotten due respect, while some of the fringiest views in quantum theory have won big prizes. So I have long abandoned any illusions I might have had. It is enough that the FQXi forum gives voice to a minority viewpoint that it de facto opposes, and I am grateful to the Institute for that, even when I think it could do more.

        There is an even lower score than mine, given for a far better essay by Vesselin Petkov, and -- I expect -- is low for the same reasons. I am going to do a lazy thing, and quote Vesselin's reply to a recent forum participant, because it matches my opinion: " ... if Minkowski had lived to see the advent of general relativity, he would have realized, as a mathematician, that the mathematical formalism of general relativity implies that gravitational phenomena are merely manifestation of the non-Euclidean geometry of spacetime (not an interaction). Einstein made a gigantic step by linking gravity with spacetime geometry, but even he was unable to overcome the seemingly self-evident 'fact' that gravitational phenomena are caused by gravitational interaction (which, unfortunately, is still the accepted view in physics)."

        Things are changing. I got an Email from The Minkowski Institute Press just a few days ago that they are publishing Cristi Stoica's PhD thesis (congratulations, Cristi!) , which is relativity-based, with a perturbative path to quantum gravity (my own solution is non-perturbative, but we are pretty close).

        In regard to your own defense of conventional quantum theory in the Bertlmann's Socks analogy, I applaud your expansion of the pedagogy, and give high marks for that. It is deservedly among the best of Bell's output (and your own, for that matter).

        If you don't mind, I am going to do another lazy thing, and reproduce this reply in your forum.

        All best,

        Tom

        Dear Peter,

        I read your essay and saw your nice video that you suggested to me in my essay blog. I should honestly say that--if I haven't misunderstood your essay and video--we are on the opposite sides of the fence: it seems to me that you want to mechanize the whole physics (including quantum), whereas I want to derive the mechanics itself from something more fundamental: pure information processing, or, to be precise, from very fundamental principles that are mathematically stated but have physical interpretation. Our two positions seem to be irreconcilable.

        However, I should say that I enjoyed parts of your movie, and the animations illustrating your "mechanization" point of view.

        Congratulations for your high position

        Best regards

        Mauro

          Dear Peter, thanks for getting in touch via my Essay Forum. In reply:

          The remarkably broad sweep of your latest ideas, coupled with your new ideas re the details (eg, Jackson & Minkowski (2014)),* is mostly moving beyond me! Dare I say, leaving me behind. I might even say that our approaches are diverging to the extent that we are moving to be polar opposites in approach.

          Fortunately, I still understand you to be a local realist to the point (as spelt out in my essay) of being an Einstein-local and a Gisin-realist.

          To be clear re our differing methodologies: For my part, I am investigating a very small part of physical reality: one where, like a stone in my shoe, most interpretations contradict my basic understandings of that reality; at the same time aggravating my fundamental sense of comfort -- as a successful engineer -- with my intuitions re such.

          That small part, as you know, relates to the many and varied interpretations of many and varied Bell-tests: whose results I accept without question, since they are exactly the results that my own views endorse.

          But I reject the common interpretation that local realists like us must give up Einstein-locality (for nonlocality) or Gisin-realism (for un-realism): and, in that regard, I happily note the increasing trend of old foes to be moving to my position (which is, hopefully, still our position).

          In particular, my small corner of the business holds out hope for a new quantum theory: one devoid of Hilbert space (since spacetime appears to be sufficient) and certainly absent nonlocality (since, to be blunt, how on Earth could any such thing be possible). For a very simple critique of the mainstream view, just skim paragraph #6.1 of my essay.

          Nevertheless I see a growing trend to go for the Full Monty here; and though I'm not in favour, it's good to see that trend reflected in the very high standing of your essay.

          However, from my own broad experience (and for those who are aware of it), the Full Monty does not quite measure up against what I have to offer!

          With best regards, and hoping to keep in touch; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.

          * Jackson, P. A., Minkowski, J.S. Quasi-classical Entanglement, Superposition and Bell Inequalities. Academia.edu 9th Nov 2014.

            Thanks Christian, indeed thank everybody for your support and, most of all, comprehension. I'm astonished that the essay has scored highest, particularly considering the excellent quality of many others. however I think and I hope that may bode well for the eventual evolution of entrenched thinking methods and beliefs required for advancement in understanding of nature.

            In the long run the last bastion of such change is represented not by the essayists but the judges. That's the way it must be. Community 'peer' scoring has meant little in that final analysis and I don't expect that to change. Perhaps the placings also mean little. In a way the judging is more a test of how those in the position of judges handle social pressures than the science and essays themselves.

            We're now half way through the 10 year estimate to a new paradigm given in my first ('2020 Vision') essay. I really have no idea how it's going! - but perhaps the events around us on the planet show that mankind isn't quite yet ready for any great advances.

            I'm now off the a dear friends funeral. A salutary reminder of mortality, but will respond to the above posts and continue some excellent and valuable discussions for which I thank you. I'm still learning a great deal, though as Dyson reminds us (and often needs to!) 'there are no 'facts' in physics.

            Peter

            Steven,

            Thanks for your kind comments. The slightly different interpretation of the equations leading to cosmic strings is implicit in the video model of expanding helical paths at all scales with frequent requantizations, and is free of all the issues with the Susskind etc String Theory route. If you wish to look at the important relativistic foundations of this 'discrete field' model (with a similar slight re-interpretation as Einsteins 1952 paper) you might start at my 2011 essay, a slightly less abridged version here.

            FQXi '2020 Vision. A model of Discretion in Space'.

            I was impressed with and enjoyed your own essay and you'll have seen I commented there. If you feel you can have any input to the thesis I always welcome it.

            Peter

            John,

            Many thanks. Please do stay in touch on your photon diffraction work. I feel quantum and nonlinear optics and photonics are very important areas with many interesting experimental results many theorists seem largely ignorant of, possibly due to the (important!) inconsistencies with embedded doctrine, just one of which my essay addresses.

            Peter

            Sherman,

            Thanks. For me the validity of 'Turtles all the way down' improves each day, but in the 'discrete field' model each turtle is simply an ever 'smaller' state of orbital angular momentum (OAM) like octaves in music and wavebands. Translation than gives helical paths within 'charges' with helical paths. (At just one level planet earth has a helical path through the galaxy). The next below the Planck length exists and does NOT couple with EM, but does form the larger 'spin state' polarisation scale motions which does ('Higgs process') when disturbed, like simple vortices. Then all becomes consistent with photonics etc etc and the puzzle pieces all start to fit.

            'Ant's crawling round wires'? Apart from the one helical path I see no value in that. Where was it from?

            Best wishes

            Peter

            Pankaj

            Many thanks. You've identified most of the key points in the essay. It pleases me greatly they're now being recognised and understood, not true of previous essays. I hope that's partly due to the development of my writing style which I've been working on. It seems communication is as important as content.

            But the next and far more onerous test is of course the judges!

            Keep up your own good work. Best wishes

            Peter

            Alma,

            I'm really pleased your brilliant essay ended in the top group and think perhaps it should have been top. Both your perception and writing style are beautiful and I'm sure it has more chance than mine of a prize. (2yrs ago both Christian Corda's and mine, top and 2nd, were omitted in the judging).

            But what would be far more valuable to me is to have a collaborator with your brilliance to help coherently assemble and describe the more consistent model of nature behind by my essay(s). You may be surprised to find the QM derivation fell straight out of a slight re-interpretation of SR consistent with Einsteins 1952 concepts and descriptions (QG is also lying there awaiting description). Your descriptive skills and other attributes far exceed mine.

            First perhaps some careful readings of the full complex progression here, which seems still slightly beyond most (including 2 editors);

            http://vixra.org/pdf/1411.0081v1.pdf ">Quasi-classical Entanglement, Superposition and Bell Inequalities.](https://https://www.academia.edu/9216615/Quasi-classical_Entanglement_Superposition_and_Bell_Inequalities._v2

            http://vixra.org/pdf/1411.0081v1.pdf )

            Just let me know any or what questions you have or subjects to test the 'discrete field' model with and I'll answer or post a link to the relevant paper.

            Did you watch the redshift (etc!) video?

            Very best of luck in the judging.

            Peter

            Michel,

            Strangely my comprehensive response appears to have vanished into cyberspace! Was it operator error, system failure, or some aliens overlooking us finding it too close to truth!! If I mislaid it and you find it do respond and advise. If lost, I'll try to sneak the other responses to you.

            Essentially you need to read this, carefully and probably at least three times to remember it as it's a complex progression

            Quasi-classical Entanglement, Superposition and Bell Inequalities.

            I look forward to your thoughts and questions. Best wishes

            Peter

            Jeff,

            Thanks. Shame yours didn't make the cut.

            Yes, some of the 'ideas' (analyses) in my essay were quite new. Those most important ones will likely be the ones most quickly forgotten as they have no matching 'hooks' in neural networks yet. I estimated 10 years 5 years ago so there's no rush (Essay '2020 Vision')

            I hope what you might take away, if you needed to, to teach your students is that the only thing we really know about current theories and models is that they're 'wrong'. We might say 'incomplete', but in a similar way to a paper dart not quite being Concord. As my favourite Dyson quote; There are no 'facts' in physics.

            I suspect that may get MORE interested in physics not less, but we must teach our science students 'how to think' and challenge instead. Too many professors might hate that, and all those who do should be identified and fired. Then we can advance paradigms!

            Very best wishes

            peter

            Lorraine,

            Thanks. The 'domain boundary' problem was recognised long ago and never solved. It's solution via 'discrete fields' is the key, but it's still a brain teaser. Like a bracketed function, a 'spatial domain' may be ANY size, and contain ANY number of smaller domains. In maths etc the brackets themselves represent the boundaries.

            In reality it's the same but trickier to imagine and we need to invoke 'virial systems', which are groups of particles/bodies WITH AN ASSIGNABLE GROUP 'REST FRAME' (state of group motion wrt some other group). A galaxy is one, all orbiting it's centre, as are the solar systems within it, a cloud is one, so are ALL LENSES, and so is each electron if in motion through a group! That's true 'locality' but takes some careful thinking through, for some weeks!

            When you get it into your neural network you can then throw all the anomalies of physics at it and find it's resolving power is astonishing.

            The best intro may be my '2020 Vision' essay (2011) though the model has come a long way since 2010.

            Did you see the (compressed!) video yet? - showing we may not be undergoing accelerated expansion after all. Links are scattered all round.

            Thanks and best wishes

            Peter

            Thanks Dominico,I only managed to read 2/5ths and am sure I missed many fine ones. You're right about the potential for quantum computing, you may recall I discussed and analysed that 2yrs ago with my helical 'IQbit'. Zeilinger has recently transmitted a picture across Vienna using that method to prove it's potential.

            best wishes

            peter