Respected Peter Jackson,

because, you are 1951-born, whereas i, in November 1952.

The quality of your essay is also far superior to mine.

All physicists should read your essay.

When i was first introduced to the three-filter-paradox, i could see no paradox in it. The very name 'polarize r' means that it is the polarize r which polarizes the light. You have used more appropriate word "modulator". There is no paradox. Only the mathematical logic was wrongly applied.

Similarly, i agree with your other ideas.

With my best regards,

Hasmukh K. Tank

Hi Peter

Thank you for your generous comment on my page. You also placed a link for a video about your ideas which I watched. I have read your essay and as always find it refreshing that you forge bravely to investigate new ideas, debunk old ones, and still adhere to a general 'theme' you have been investigating over the years - helical motion.

Both the video and the essay introduce rather a dense domain of ideas, and it is impossible to absorb them all in one viewing/reading the video in particular needs pacing. The other difficulty in responding to your essay is in my own personal unquantum state just emerging from my annual bout of cherry-blossomitis fever trying to capture this glorious Japanese season in painting and photos leaving me drained. You deserve better!

I have a feeling that your geometrical/conceptual speculations will be comfortable in an absolute universe where, for example, each point on the Earth's surface rotating and also going around the sun is an actual ellipse in 3D space free from the observer-relativities of SR and GR where everything is in 'straight lines'. Ditto for the polarizer paradox. Oh I think you meant Buckminster's Domes not Bucky Balls - their Carbon-60 molecule version.

With best wishes from the other Vladimir

Dear Peter,

As I told you in my Essay web-page, I have read your beautiful Essay. Here are my comments:

1) I did not know Galileo's statement that "He who undertakes to deal with questions of natural sciences without the help of geometry is attempting the infeasible". This is exactly my dream of researcher, i.e. the geometrization of physics, which is also the foundation of my 2015 FQXi Essay.

2) I agree that the solution to Bell's problem can arise only from a merging between maths and imagination (Einstein stated that "Imagination is ore important that knowledge").

3) I did not know the Vienna experiments by Zeilinger A et al. Thanks for pointing them out.

4) Concerning your question if departures from paradigms are ignored or shunned as not mathematically driven, from fear of abandoning old beliefs, or simply from unfamiliarity, I suspect it is a mixing of both.

5) I like the similarity you raise between difficult financial periods and theoretical physics concerning the "bracketing".

6) I find intriguing the statement by Sir Bragg that "The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them".

7) I am a bit perplexed by Susskind's interpretation of Eulero's equations in terms of Cosmic Strings.

8) I learned a trick to prove 2 = 1 when I were at high school. I remember that my maths teacher became astonished!

Finally, the reading of your nice Essay was very interesting and enjoyable for me. Thus, I am going to give you the highest score.

I wish you best luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

    Dear PETER

    I find your essay very interesting, because it raises many other issues. Certainly, we share many things. but for the moment, I think, we should go step by step . In my essay, I suggested that quantum mechanics alone is not enough,because we have to explain, how particles spin around the center of the atom. How the milky way rotate around the center, for this, it was neccessary and fundamental to introduce Mechanics Iterative. I think it is one of the possible way to justify,from where the polarization comes... the rhythm. Only, in this moment, I realize that the formula was correct, because it explains the origin of the time. ie units iterative, are the source of 'acceleration, force and time. They are the real core.

    In my opinion, a mathematics that reflects the reality remains a priority for the current science. Bi-iterative calculation, could be the right math .because it has all Characteristics of a pure mathematics.

    "NUMBERS"

    first, are integers

    second, are geometric shapes

    Third, are physical quantities with infinite degrees of freedom

    Fourth, always maintain the aspect ratio ....

    fifth are elastic ... ..

    Sixth are compact, and unseverable by two egual part.

    That's why, I firmly believe that this can be the math right.

    Any thing we do is characterized by the repetition, for example, The language is a sequence of words (voice waves) each word has its stamp and its duration.

    sincerly yours

    Bannouri.A.Wahed

      Christian,

      Thanks for your kind and perceptive comments.

      Susskind's interpretation led to string theory, but is far from complete or the only possibility. I show what seems a more coherent and powerful variant in this short video;

      Time Dependent Redshift effect. A number of other quantum/relative and particle solutions just seem to flow from it. Do please comment or ask question as it's quite 'dense'.

      many thanks

      Peter

      Bannouri,

      I agree QM is a small part. Indeed the first of a finalist essay string considered electron absorption and re-emission at local c.

      2020 Vision.

      The 2013 essay looked closer at the issues you raise, and the role of maths;

      The Intelligent Bit.

      I also agree "a mathematics that reflects the reality remains a priority". My point is that we're not quite there yet, because we can also mis-use mathematics so fool ourselves and confound understanding. 'Bi-iterative', if used in a recursive sense to increasing 'fractal like' orders certainly seems the way to go. I show a powerful physical mechanism it can describe in the video I've just posted to Christian above. It's only 9 minutes but really should be 30 to cover the topics so may need 'stop/starts'. Do ask any questions.

      Many thanks for your comments. I hope your essay keeps rising.

      Peter

      Hi Peter,

      Was able to take a quick look at the video on youtube. Quality and content wise was quite nice. Must have taken a lot of effort and time to turn out so.

      I observed I made one of the earliest comments on your essay on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 14:23 GMT. I had forgotten. After that comment, in my exchange with Gordon Watson, I got to know of Malus' law which seems to be saying something similar to the 3-filter paradox.

      As you know the wave model of light is my preference and I have been wondering what would become of that with Malus' law/ the 3-filter paradox. I think a way out will be for Polarizers, rather than being a medium of propagation like ordinary glass to rather be absorbers and re-emitters of light. I know in your model you prefer all media, ordinary glass or polarizers to be absorbers and re-emitters.

      More on the OAM and the video later if I can cope with amount of turning and turning that comes with model. When you say charges spin is it the same way earth spins or a different way? I think in QM, it is said the spin is a different way and characterized with half, 0, 1 etc.

      All the best in the competition. I will do my scoring a day or two to the end when the 1-bombers are most devastating. Thanks for your rating.

      Regards,

      Akinbo

        Akinbo,

        Yes. I analysed Malus's Law in my last 2 essays, and derive it physically here; Quasi-classical Entanglement, Superposition and Bell Inequalities. The 3-filter analysis is a proof.

        In the DFM ALL dielectric media consist of or include absorbers and (usually) re-emitters of light. They're one and the same.

        "When you say charges spin is it the same way earth spins or a different way?"

        The same ways as Earth. That's not a typo, you've just found the invisible wall of the next level 'box' most thinking is stuck within I've pointed this out before but our brains seem unable to assimilate it; Earth spins BOTH ways at once, entirely subject to observer position or orientation. Imagine yourself encountering ANY planet in space. If you see the North pole it's anticlockwise. if the South pole, it's clockwise. Similarly the equator may be spin up AND spin down, depending on which side you are and even which 'way up' you are; Quote; "There is no 'up' in space"!! That and it's implications demands much thought and assimilation. I still feel 2020 may be an optimistic estimate for most, if ever!

        Sometimes we can find that in testing a hypothesis so many disparate 'jigsaw pieces; all fit coherently together that it would be rather difficult for the axioms to be incorrect. But again, if you do see any apparent flaws do raise them.

        Thanks for your kind comments. Fewer seem to be reading and (genuinely) scoring this year.

        Best wishes.

        Peter

        Dear Peter,

        Reading of your Essay was very interesting and enjoyable for me. Your figures are very instructive and are good with text. Thus, I am going to give you the high score. I invite you to comment my esay.

        Regards,

        Branko

          Branko,

          Thanks for pointing me to your essay which seems to provides the original and brilliant mathematical formalism consistent with the mechanisms and logical analysis I describe. These conclusions are important for improving coherent understanding. However it seems final judging still conforms to other considerations than improving understanding of nature. I commend all to read yours, and I comment further there.

          best of luck

          Peter

          Dear Peter,

          Your excellent essay is both refreshing and stimulating, and I appreciated how it very much addresses this forum topic. The three filter paradox (and really solution as you also exemplify) is a perfect example to demonstrate how different paradigms are necessary to explain physical phenomena, and each time I review it there's always something more to get out of it. My essay also discusses changing the paradigm used in explaining physical phenomena and the subsequent effects on mathematical abstraction, and how changing the mathematical representation affects physical explanation. I'm familiar with some of Zeilinger's work that you mentioned, but your perspective as applied to the sock trick and Bell's assumptions is very insightful and compelling. The bracketing dynamics you discussed is very interesting, and reminds me of symmetries and order theory, and of course set theory, as applied to a higher syntax. It's intriguing how you applied that to special relativity. I'm motivated to study Susskind's interpretation cosmic strings from your essay.

          Very fascinating and enjoyable, I give this the highest rating.

          Please take a moment to read and rate my essay as well. Thanks,

          Steve Sax

            Steve,

            Many thanks for the compliments. I've added yours to my 'read' list and it sounds as if I should find something valuable. This essay is just a glimpse of my fundamental work on this paradigm which proves very powerful and, so far, flawless.

            To make inroads it does however need collaborations and a mathematical formalism - which is not strictly my department (I recall Einstein had similar problems!) and I think we should all play to our strengths.

            I'll comment on yours when read.

            Peter

            That's right, Peter. E.Gusserl has many good ideas which demand deep judgment. There is no doubt that mathematics and physics require semantic ontological extension, primarily the category "space". Alexander Zenkin has well said in "SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS" : "Truth should be drawn ...

            Good luck in the Contest!

            Kind regards,

            Vladimir

            Dear Peter,

            Thank you for your kind complement. Yours I agree more beautiful than my essay. I join in this essay contest to learn and join the celebration of beautiful ideas of our great bits-beings civilization with all wonderful and colorful ideas. I like them all. Yes, I combine not only Greek, Shakespearian but also Chinese philosophy that amazed me that we share common bond in ideas. People look for differences but I look for similarity and beauty of all ideas. Your red and green socks picture are really wonderful and simple to understand to explain complicated ideas. Well done! Let us celebrate diversity and enjoy many varieties foods for thought as presented here.

            On serious note, our Multiverse is infinite, it can not be constrained by limited rule this or that. It must be both this and that simultaneously. We must have both relativistic time as described by KQID pictures using Lorentz's inverse transformation to KQID-Newton's absolute time that is clocking at Multiversal time clock per absolute digital time тЙд 10^-1000seconds. Believe me or not KQID has also discovered from it's equations how light speed c evolved from the Bit Bang to our present light speed c. So wonderful right if it is true. We can know Newton's mass as we know Eintein's equation of mass = E/c^2 that eluded Einstein. He did not know what is energy because he did not what is c.

            Let us celebrate diversity of ideas and all bits-beings human as well as self-conscious robots and cyborgs. Let us live forever here and now in harmony and after this precious life that we have. No wars but Giving first Taking later in a regulated but free and open market of ideas.

            On math, KQID picture is that math is fiction but real or real but fiction. It is both a trick and a truth. Any way, I rated your essay as usual to what it deserved a full score. Thank you again for your kind comment on my essay.

            Best wishes,

            Leo KoGuan

            HI

            I remember last year FQXi

            I have rated your essay a 10 already some weeks ago.

            I noted your paper on acedemia.edu, ``Quasi-classical entanglement, ...''.

            You noted several aspects of my paper that won't help my rating. I agree. I thought the standards and the idea of time (rather measurement clocks) would also be negatives.

            Last year I learned the papers are close to the socially accepted metaphysics get the higher ratings. Some papers suggest the "social accepted" in peer reviewed papers should be relaxed. Ironic that the FQXi rating encourages the same thing.

            Therefore, I know my ideas will not score high - why try? But, some suggestions and comments help me improve such as the Ojo comment on Zeno's paradox that helped me see division and irrational numbers with an improved (my idea of improved) understanding.

            So, put my ideas out and maybe some improved understanding may be gleaned.

            Otherwise most of the stuff on FQXi is ignorable.

            BTW, I'll be publishing the single photon diffraction paper soon. Several ideas of photons and interaction had to be made to make it work. Some of these impact your ideas on entanglement, etc.

              Hi. I enjoyed your essay. You have a good explanation of light polarization, and the applicability of mathematics.

              Dear Peter,

              Thank you so much for your vote of strong confidence. I already had a look at your essay prior to this post. I hope to be able to understand what you are doing more easily that some other respectable essays with a strong philosophical taste. Recently I red "John Bell and the Nature of the Quantum World" by Bertlmann himself and this should help me. You can expect my feedback by the end of the contest that is of course very close.

              Best wishes,

              Michel

              Dear Peter,

              I greatly enjoyed your essay. Its wonderful.This is one of the most relevant essays I have found here on this site.

              The reasons are obvious.

              As you have mentioned

              ("We consider mathematics as fundamentally digitised geometry, so well able to approximate natures 'non-linearity'. As Galileopointed out;

              "He who undertakes to deal with questions of natural sciences without the help of geometry is attempting the infeasible."

              We cite various tricks which mislead us, not the fault of mathematics itself but of it's poor application due to our limited conceptual understanding.Reliance on mathematics as the 'language of physics' became pragmatic necessity when we were unable toclassically rationalise findings. Many now believe no classical rationale is

              possible at quantum scales. John Bell describing that view as 'sleepwalking.')

              I too believe that Mathematics,numbers ultimately come down to Geometry. The main reason why maths mislead us in any scenario is not the fault of mathematics but we don't understand the compatibility of mathematics with physics/natural sciences. There are certain laws of invariance behind mathematics itself,being a geometrical phenomenon and what is generally done is that we don't try to check whether its intrinsic law of invariance matches with that of the physical scenarios we are dealing with, and this leads to the mutual conflict and friction that can mislead us.

              The true reason why mathematics is effective in physical scenarios : first of all we have limited physics to certain criterias to be able to explain it mathematically. Further,once we have done it, its infact the hidden laws of invariance behind the mathematical setup (geometry) which explains the laws of invariance of physical setup, even if the scientist/mathematician may not be aware of this intrinsic invariance behind the mathematics itself. This is the key point.

              In context of Skolem paradox , as I have mentioned in my essay how model theory succeeds to explain some aspects of aphysical scenario while fails in other aspects. This is because of the instrinsic compatibility & incompatibility of their hidden laws of invariance.

              The main focus should be to peep into that hidden laws of invariance behind the mathematical setup itself . This is greatly revealed i probably the most important problem of mathematics"Riemann Hypothesis. David Hilbert said - if he wakes up after 1000 years , the 1st question he will ask - has RH been resolved ? I personally have devised a method to attack RH that its true and the clue is to reveal the intrinsic invariance behind the mathematical geometrical setup itself.Numbers are nothing but Geometry.

              As you have mentioned

              (Mathematics can show that multiple inversely proportional 'complementary' sine and cosine curves naturally and physically exist for various qualities, as they do for the Dirac paired inverse spinors in so called 'unphysical' quantum mechanics.

              Yet some higher order curvature is always superposed, at reducing scales but ensuring no entirely linear and precise mathematical description can be possible beyond the limits identified by Gödel. Many will find the visualisation methods revealing the relationships difficult, but they are powerful conceptual tools which

              can be taught.)

              You have also dealt with The Filter paradox.

              The concern is paradoxes. the paradoxes reveal the fundamental discrepancy lying at the root of mathematics. They arise because of underlying structural conflicts.

              I am also focusing on Godel incompleteness and Inconsistency theorems.

              Now, if they arise, there are two ways.Either, considering it as the the end and accepting the limitation and secondly,trying to resolve the limitation by making some structural and fundamental change in the way way formalistic mathematics has been developed. I am concerned with this shift in the formalistic mathematics by allowing time and reference dimension to mathematics to sort out the paradoxes like physics. What we do is we take physics to be in time and reference dimension and take mathematics to be in timeless absolute dimension. This is the cause of paradoxes.If physics is in timeless , absolute, then so is mathematics and if physics is within the periphery of time and reference frame and the so is mathematics. This is because Physics and Mathematcis both are the cause of vibrations.

              As you have mentioned :

              (

              We suggest then that 'new ways of looking' at large sectors of physics may then be

              possible by using mathematics in fundamentally different ways, improving

              understanding. However it seems that those 'different ways' are not visible using

              just the 'lens' of current mathematics. We need formalisms to avoid the various

              fallacies and hidden tricks and invalid proofs of a system which can prove 2 =1

              via 'division by zero' easily disguised for instance by any term with a value of 0)

              We certainly need formalistic mathematics which can sort out the fallacies,paradoxes,inconsistencies to deal with physical scenarios in a improved ways beyond conventional approaches.

              Hence,as I have mentioned that we need to restructure formalistic mathematics itself based on their intrinsic characteristics to look at physics in fundamentally different and improved way. we need to operate the laws of invariance behind mathematical(geometrical )set up itself before explaining to physical /other natural sciences.

              Anyway you have written great essay.

              Thanks,

              Pankaj.

                Dear Peter,

                You are so right that the time is now short. In a "last hundred yards" kind of effort, I read your essay this morning and was about to vote when I saw your comment. I just hope my opinion is enough to put your essay in a well-deserved place, as you gathered a lot of votes per total. Your essay is catchy from the abstract, where you say math is digitized geometry. I realize that I maybe like this idea because of a confirmation bias, because I find my ideas in yours, but I like it all the more! You are making a very strong case that real and deep understanding is the key to progress by reducing the time spent on the way in various dead ends and misinterpretations. I think the trickery is somewhat inevitable as it happens that people simply forget on the way what they've put in their equations in the beginning. I will be honest and say that while I find your ideas very interesting, some of them require at least a second reading so I can properly assimilate them; the filtered light is a very intricate logical tapestry which caught my attention and I proposed myself to put enough time aside these days to read it until I can grasp its consequences. I do however understand your point regarding how randomness is unsatisfactory. I also found notable the rope hinting at sub-quantic composability. Thank you or your kind words about my essay! Thank you even more for providing me with food for thought through your work :)

                Warm regards,

                Alma

                  Dear Peter,

                  Your essay contains many ideas not all I am familiar with. In general, it is pleasant to read although I would need more time to understand the underlying refinements. I am sorry that at this stage, my comments will remain a bit superficial.

                  * The 3-polarizer paradox: I don't consider it so much paradoxal since there exists a quite simple interpretation in terms of the Malus' law found to be valid even for set of single photons http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~phy225h/experiments/polarization-of-light/polar.pdf

                  * The Sock trick: here we are closer to Bell's trick and may be it is better to follow Beltram's viewpoint that I already quoted, it seems to be difficult to escape the contextuality viewpoint that I follow.

                  * Brackets: I wonder if what you are saying is similar to the Majorana bracketing in Kauffman and Rukhsan essay.

                  * It is strange that you also use the helix paradigm in the rest of the paper as in Hoover's essay.

                  Thank you again and my best wishes. I give you a well deserved good mark.

                  Michel