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

Jon,

Ron Garret's analysis was significantly flawed so it's not surprising he could only conclude we're only virtual not 'real' (not too surprising from a software engineer). All the effects he showed are more coherently explained in the quasi classical mechanism, including the quantum eraser. It goes off the rails from the beginning where he fails to define 'measurement' in a way far more consistent with light and photonics.

Entanglement is properly derived and defined in the full paper (see all the links above etc) and only requires a shared polar axis, which is then changed in the 'filter' (really modulator' interaction). Read it (3 times if you want to remember it!) and identify the flaw. There aint one! (It's also shown to be exactly as Bell predicted).

The real issue seems not so much to do with the science but n more to do with theoretical entrenchment so deep they don't seem to have long enough ladders to see beyond the walls, escape, or even pick up a signal to watch your movie!

Best

Peter

Giacomo,

Interesting response. I see that view as rather 'dumbing down' the problem to that of the chicken and egg, suggesting the two views of 'which came first' are irreconcilable. In my first lines I accept your case, then reconcile it coherently with reality.

I've derived the chicken/egg solution elsewhere nearby; to simplify, It's a chicken, which contains an egg, which contains a chicken embryo, which contains the physical constituents required to form an egg, with a chicken inside, etc etc, chicken soup all the way down!

So at the bottom, when our microscopes get enough resolution do you think we'll find a mathematical formula written out? Will it be in Arabic numerals, perhaps Roman? Babylonian? or even Mayan? Or do you not agree that it's more likely to be some fundamental relative motion, spin or OAM state of motion DESCRIBABLE or representable by a simple equation (in Arabic or whatever system the observer wishes)?

In the same way SR and QM are probably only irreconcilable due to inadequate understanding I feel our approaches are Ying and Yang, both essential and more "inseperable" than irreconcilable, except perhaps in blinkered or 'tunnel' vision.

Do you really not agree? If so what would you expect to 'observe' as 'information' being processed at the smallest (sub-planck?) scale? A micro computer?

I'm not convinced we generally think things through thoroughly enough before pinning our colours to them them. Can you convince me?

Best wishes

Peter

Gordon,

I don't see my derivation as 'the full monty', just the minimum required to reproduce the findings termed quantum non-locality (QNL) without abandoning local reality. I don't quite understand what it is you 'have to offer' beyond that simple need to circumvent the Bell constraint. What else is needed? Can you elucidate?

Once that tough nut was cracked, sure a whole lot of other solutions to anomalies came flooding out. They're mainly just verification, though ok, many are also important in themselves, and yes, far too much flooded out for most human brains to assimilate, but noe of thet detracts from the accomplishment of the simple task rationalising QM and QNL.

I do agree we've approached from opposite aspects, but I think that'd be useful as the problem can't 'get away' and both together have 3 times the value. I'm used to working with top teams to accomplish complex projects individuals can't, but if you don't think you could collaborate that's fine. I'm sure someone will. but I hope you'll stay in touch.

Best

Peter

Hi Peter,

Congratulations on a high community score! And as Sherlock Holmes said:

"There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact." (A. Conan Doyle - Author & Ophthalmologist)

John M

I had thought (reading your essay) of a optical neuron, where a Faraday rotator in the Zeilinger apparatus can change the polarization of the intermediate three filter case, so that could be an optical memory devices for a laser light: a combination of filters could run storage and calculation logic.

dear Peter

congratulations with your socks.

I did not participate this year because of my lack of math so I could not give a group rating but my public rating comes with this. Hopefully you are getting this year a better rating of the committee.

best regards and again best of luck

Wilhelmus

I love the polarizer/analyzer game, but you have set up a fixed game with your absorbing polarizer paradox. A polarizer actually works for even a single photon and not just for ensembles of photons.

A single photon is always in a superposition of polarization states and a linearly polarized photon is a sum of a right and left circularly polarized states. A circularly (or helically as you like to say) polarized photon is a superposition of two linear polarizations with a pi/2 phase shift.

A linear polarizer prepares a photon in two circularly polarized states and a circular polarizer prepares a photon in two linear polarized states. There is no paradox therefore in how this game works.

A photon or indeed any particle also exists as a superposition of polarizations or spins or two paths with a beam splitter or a dual slit or any number of similar techniques. The basic issue with quantum effects for civilians is that phase and amplitude and interference and coherence are simply not yet part of our gravity reality. We think that the incoherent reality that we normally experience with macroscopic objects is how all the universe works.

This is not how the universe works, but it is close.

I actually do get a lot out of your intuitive grasp of reality because your eliptical plasmas do seem to represent superpositions of coherent matter states, you just do not have the math to make it work. The superpositions of coherent matter states are at the root of quantum action, but are not yet a part of gravity action.

Your DFM plasma refracts light just like any dielectric medium and my quadrupole gravity photon field seems to behave just like your DFM plasma. A quadrupole photon field surrounds all matter objects and derives from the photon emission for each object over the history of the universe. Photon waves emitted from an object matter in the past result in the quadrupole photon field around each object that we call gravity. In effect, each photon wave emitted from a matter object is equivalent to a photon wave coming back to the object attenuated by the size of the universe.

The quadrupole photon field that we call gravity deflects or delays a single photon at twice the Newton deflection or delay of an MEE equivalent particle. This as it turns out is due to the additional dielectric effect that a photon dipole has in quadrupole gravity. An equivalent oscillating matter dipole will then show the same deflection as light does in a quadrupole gravity field.

Steve,

Thanks for that. Yes, the model considers a 'single' photon (or electron), though the former are still in reality almost impossible to produce and maintain.

You describe to he doctrinal position of 'superposition' but the quasi classical sequence has has a specific relationship and mechanism for that, resulting in the effect terms 'non-local state reduction'. You need to carefully follow the logical causal progression in the paper.

Quasi-classical Entanglement, Superposition and Bell Inequalities.

It's not easy as most brains can hold 3 concepts at a time. This has ~7 which is why it wasn't found before. I also show it's precisely as Bell predicted. Only the last step, deriving the square of the amplitude for the Cos^2 intensity, invokes QED and the multi electron modulator 'field' effect.

The basic change to the standard notation is in the paper, but it's initially a physical model; a helical path skewed on any and each axis, giving the 4 'twin stacked' complementary Dirac spinors in spherical co-ordinates. The video shows the real dynamic paths and hierarchical scale sequence, etc.

90min video blueshifted to 9 mins.

Quaternions seem a perfectly reasonable approach, and your description sounds generally quite consistent. QG seems to emerge courtesy of Bernoilli, resolving a couple of tough paradoxes, but you seem to perhaps have a slightly different approach there. Do you predict that bodies will weigh more when they spin?

All interesting stuff. Please do read the paper very carefully and revert.

Thanks

Peter

    Peter:

    A very interesting essay with evidence for the need to open one's mind. Thank you.

    I do have one concern with your essay (being educated as a mathematician) - that maths "doesn't do 'imagination'." And I agree with your statement that any "solution is unlikely to emerge just from maths".

    Consider the number of squared quantities in physical theories along with the connection to complex numbers. If we have a squared value, then the 'real' (un-squared) value can be either positive or negative. Since we cannot know which it is, from only the squared value, there are two paths by which the squared result can be obtained. We cannot know which 'path was taken', so long as we live in a 'real' world constructed with Real numbers. In this world, there are always two paths. This is not the case if we use all complex numbers, in which case the path can be known.

    Integers, Rationals, Reals, Complex, Quaternion are all 'bracketed' levels of mathematical knowledge with specific mathematical contexts that present a multitude of mathematical spaces. Algebraic equations with integer coefficients, rational coefficients, real coefficients are examples. Also equations with integer exponents and rational exponents bring us into much more complex mathematical spaces. We can consider algebraic equations with real coefficients and integer exponents or rational exponents. What about such equations with complex coefficients and complex exponents? Can we even do this?

    Are we using the correct spaces to understand our physical world? (I will suggest we are using one layer of your hierarchical relationships) Do we have the correct tools to make use of certain mathematical spaces? It would appear we do not, since we cannot represent a complex number in the same way as we represent real, rational, and integer numbers - as completed values without unknowns (complex values today always have the unknown 'i'). If this is true (we don't have the correct tools), then we would be forced into 'heuristic necessity' in order to address situations that require math tools that we do not have.

    If we do not have the appropriate tools, then what might change, if we did have the appropriate tools? A complete complex value might be capable of measuring quantities we currently do not consider measuring, since we are unable to measure them using real values. If we could represent complex values as complete, without unknowns, then we should be able to compare them (greater or lesser) and rank them along a continuum. The universe might be better represented (not 'Finally' represented, however) using a possible complex continuum. (The separation of the Continuum Hypothesis from current foundational mathematics should allow this without destroying current foundations).

    Given your presentation of red-green spin as a spinning sphere that 'flips', what if this is reasonably accurate, however the spinning sphere is occurring in a geometric space with a physical dimension that we currently do not include in our models (not some tiny rolled-up invisible one)?

    If our mathematical tools cannot adequately measure quantities along this dimension, then we would not have a reason to include it in our models (even though this could be leading to 'heuristic necessities'). It could be directly in front of us and we would not see it, because we do not realize it as a measurable quantity.

    One last conjecture: This dimension is scale. It is exponential in character, is not measurable by current 'real numbers' (decimals are limited to specific scales), and is unaccounted for in current models of space (and it is 'right under our nose'). Our body, at each level of scale - organ, cellular, molecular, atomic - is always a 3-D volume. This 3-D volume is populated by different objects at each level. Connecting the levels at any 3-D location gives a 4-D line (a line mutually perpendicular to the other 3). Note that a complex numeric system will likely require a system of numeric representation that, beyond the addition/subtraction, multiplication/division, and exponentiation/logarithm incorporated into current 'real numbers' (eg. decimals), will add integration/differentiation into the operations inherent in constructing a complex value - thus requiring a complete revamp (major upgrade) of all computing systems.

    Maybe this is a maths fantasy and maybe it is maths imagination, yet not maths alone as it is coupled with a significant change in physical perspective. It also follows your hierarchic boxes within boxes approach, as it simply expands current ideas and levels, not destroying existing ones.

    (Mark as 'inappropariate', as appropriate.)