Dear Jim,

No part of visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light could ever have been affected by any imaginary person's abstract invisible will.

My 500 word essay. ONLY INFINITE SURFACE MATTERS has been accepted by the female Peer Review Manager of the CHAOS Journal of the American Physics Institute. I expect it to be rejected by the white male editor on Monday without it being sent out for Peer Revue. I happened to have called the editor a codswallop peddling mindless imbecile a couple of years ago, and my guess is that he has not forgotten about that,

Joe Fisher, Realist

Reality does not need to be rescued from entanglement and quantum bonds are what hold matter together and quantum entanglement is what holds the universe together as well. Charge is an exchange of single photons and gravity is an exchange of biphotons. While source and observer do not commute for the single photon exchange of charge, source and observer do commute for the biphoton exchange of gravity.

This means that charge bonds are subject to the uncertainty principle while gravity bonds are not subject to the limits of uncertainty because of the symmetry of the biphoton exchange. Gravity is the simultaneous excitation and exchange between source and observer as a biphoton while charge is a single photon exchange.

While gravity does not change when source and observer switch, charge does change when source and observer switch. Far from being unreal, entanglement of amplitude and phase is what makes the universe the way that it is and not the GR geodesics of causal gravity. Causal GR gravity is simply a special case that works for much but not all of the universe.

    "Causal GR gravity is simply a special case that works for much but not all of the universe."

    That would violate the principle of uniformity.

    Dear Pentcho,

    Reality is not scientific. Although FQXi.org only pays Grants to the proponents of the finite invisible atoms swirling finitely about in finite invisible space unrealistic point of view, FQXi.org has published my contention that although I am eighty-one years old, I am convinced that the real Universe must be constructed in the simplest fashion permissible. All I am asking anyone to do is to notice that no matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed varied colored surfaces. One cannot see invisible empty space no matter how carefully one looks for it, even by peering through the Hubble Space Telescope. There must only be one unified visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. When one uses the word "is," one implies a finite state arising from a previous finite state of was. The word "am" is truly descriptive of a state of infinity.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    Dear Steve Agnew, and Thomas,

    Reality is not entangled. Reality is not scientific. Although FQXi.org only pays Grants to the proponents of the finite invisible atoms swirling finitely about in finite invisible space unrealistic point of view, FQXi.org has published my contention that although I am eighty-one years old, I am convinced that the real Universe must be constructed in the simplest fashion permissible. All I am asking anyone to do is to notice that no matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed varied colored surfaces. One cannot see invisible empty space no matter how carefully one looks for it, even by peering through the Hubble Space Telescope. There must only be one unified visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. When one uses the word "is," one implies a finite state arising from a previous finite state of was. The word "am" is truly descriptive of a state of infinity.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    As expected, even though the Peer Review manager found my essay acceptable, as soon as the female Peer Review Manager of the CHAOS Journal showed my brilliant 500 word essay, ONLY INFINITE SURFACE MATTERS to the white male editor to make sure it was sent out to the right knowledgeable Peer Reviewers, he decided to reject it without sending it out for Peer Review. The ignorant jackass only publishes codswallop about invisible quantum particles entanglements taking place in invisible space.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    The problem with theoretical physics is that the theorist are trying to devise a finite system containing invisible strings of impulses, or even more bizarre, writing endless codswallop tracts about invisible multiverses. Only visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light am.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    • [deleted]

    "Comments on Kate Becker's article "Rescuing Reality" discussing Matt Leifer's FQXi grant:

    I found the subject matter of Matt Leifer's FQXi grant very interesting since I've been studying the question of quantum theory and reality for the past 10 years or so. As most everyone knows, the current orthodox "physicist" model of a quantum particle really does challenge if not contradict reality. I found Leifer's possible approach to restoring reality quite creative.

    In his research efforts, I hope Leifer examines a new proposed model of a quantum particle that's been debated and under discussion for the past five years in the physics community. I call this model the engineering "mechanicist" model which requires no non-reality based assumptions such as "entanglement", the "qubit", and/or "simultaneous multiple paths" for free particles. The main claim of the "mechanicist" model is that it actually does satisfy previously collected quantum test data, in particular, all "Bell test" types of data examining the spin measurements on twin particle spins.

    What are the differences between the "physicist" and the "mechanicist" models of quantum particles? Briefly, to simplify one characteristic, consider the one-dimensional Schrodinger probability distribution f(x). The "physicist" model assumes that "x" is the "true" but "hidden" particle position that is probabilistic and non-existent in real time. This true position only comes into existence when it is "measured." In the "mechanicist" model, on the other hand, physical properties, such as an object's true position, can never exist in a probabilistic state. Every particle, including each quantum particle, has a true real time position which follows the classical and relativistic laws of nature. That position happens to be the average value of "x" derived from the distribution f(x). For a particle that has mass, it's the "center of mass" that is the particles true position in reality. In the "mechanicist" model, the Schrodinger "x" is a "random variable," not a physical property, which describes the probabilistic "outcome" of a measurement procedure or other process. It is the measurement process itself that is probabilistic and not the true position prior to measurement. The Schrodinger f(x) describes the internal structure of a quantum particle which gives rise to the probability distribution of measurements.

    The requirement for "locality" is satisfied in the "mechanicist" model by having the true positions of twin particles, which are its "averages," be equal at the moment that the particles fly off in different directions. In the case of particle spin, twin particles are in "pure" spin states about fixed complementary axes. This satisfies all test results in the conduction of so-called Bell tests.

    Attached is an article entitled "An Engineering Mechanicist's Look at Quantum Theory" which describes in more detail the comparison of the "physicist" and the "mechanicist" models of quantum particles.

    Ronald Racicot, PhD, Case Western Reserve University

    ronaldracicot@gmail.com

    • [deleted]

    "Comments on Kate Becker's article "Rescuing Reality" discussing Matt Leifer's FQXi grant:

    I found the subject matter of Matt Leifer's FQXi grant very interesting since I've been studying the question of quantum theory and reality for the past 10 years or so. As most everyone knows, the current orthodox "physicist" model of a quantum particle really does challenge if not contradict reality. I found Leifer's possible approach to restoring reality quite creative.

    In his research efforts, I hope Leifer examines a new proposed model of a quantum particle that's been debated and under discussion for the past five years in the physics community. I call this model the engineering "mechanicist" model which requires no non-reality based assumptions such as "entanglement", the "qubit", and/or "simultaneous multiple paths" for free particles. The main claim of the "mechanicist" model is that it actually does satisfy previously collected quantum test data, in particular, all "Bell test" types of data examining the spin measurements on twin particle spins.

    What are the differences between the "physicist" and the "mechanicist" models of quantum particles? Briefly, to simplify one characteristic, consider the one-dimensional Schrodinger probability distribution f(x). The "physicist" model assumes that "x" is the "true" but "hidden" particle position that is probabilistic and non-existent in real time. This true position only comes into existence when it is "measured." In the "mechanicist" model, on the other hand, physical properties, such as an object's true position, can never exist in a probabilistic state. Every particle, including each quantum particle, has a true real time position which follows the classical and relativistic laws of nature. That position happens to be the average value of "x" derived from the distribution f(x). For a particle that has mass, it's the "center of mass" that is the particles true position in reality. In the "mechanicist" model, the Schrodinger "x" is a "random variable," not a physical property, which describes the probabilistic "outcome" of a measurement procedure or other process. It is the measurement process itself that is probabilistic and not the true position prior to measurement. The Schrodinger f(x) describes the internal structure of a quantum particle which gives rise to the probability distribution of measurements.

    The requirement for "locality" is satisfied in the "mechanicist" model by having the true positions of twin particles, which are its "averages," be equal at the moment that the particles fly off in different directions. In the case of particle spin, twin particles are in "pure" spin states about fixed complementary axes. This satisfies all test results in the conduction of so-called Bell tests.

    Attached is an article entitled "An Engineering Mechanicist's Look at Quantum Theory" which describes in more detail the comparison of the "physicist" and the "mechanicist" models of quantum particles.

    Ronald Racicot, PhD, Case Western Reserve University

    ronaldracicot@gmail.comAttachment #1: MechanicistLookAtQuantumTheory.pdf

      Dear Ronald,

      Complex quantum theory has absolutely nothing to do with simple reality. The real visible Universe must be constructed of the simplest means allowable and the simplest physical construct is visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      • [deleted]

      "The founders of quantum theory maintained that objective reality is an illusion, that you cannot say anything about the state of particles before you observe them, and that the only hard facts in the world are the results spit out of quantum experiments."

      The trouble I have with what some of the founders said, and people still say of course, and with looking for [retrocausal] resolutions to it, is that it just doesn't follow from the fact that quantum theory doesn't describe an objective reality that an objective reality doesn't exist.

      In my view there is no problem - no offence against common sense - in quantum mechanics in the first place. On the contrary, it's just the necessarily subjective and necessarily noncommutative probabilistic theory which results when you dispense with the offences against common sense which classical mechanics is founded on (perfect, universal knowledge, effectless/non-interactive measurement).

      It doesn't need fixing: it is the fix.

        Dear Paul,

        Infinite surface is always visible. Complex quantum theory has absolutely nothing to do with simple reality. The real visible Universe must be constructed of the simplest means allowable and the simplest physical construct is visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        Tried to submit ONLY INFINITE SURFACE MATTERS to The New Physics Institute, but failed to do so because of lack of membership in any scientific society. Emailed a copy to the editor instead. Submitted THE SIMPLEST UNIVERSE to the CHAOS Journal of the American Physics Institute.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

          Although my brilliant essay, THE SIMPLEST UNIVERSE was rejected by the Journal of the New Physics Institute, and the CHAOS Journal of the American Physics Institute, Editor Ben Sheard, and Editor Kurths, gave written affirmations that my essay could be submitted to the likes of the Foundation of Physics.

          Joe Fisher, Realist

          5 days later

          Two Falsehoods That Killed Physics

          These are the second law of thermodynamics and Einstein's 1905 second (constant-speed-of-light) postulate.

          The first falsehood: Misled by the would-be version of the second law of thermodynamics "Entropy always increases" (which has nothing to do with the Kelvin-Planck version if logic is obeyed), scientists believe that violations can only occur at the microscopic level:

          "Dr Lluis Masanes (UCL Physics & Astronomy), said: "The probability of the law being violated is virtually zero for large objects like cups of tea, but for small quantum objects, it can play a significant role."

          Actually violations of the second law of thermodynamics at the macroscopic level are easy to demonstrate. In the following two videos one switches the capacitor on and off and the system can repeatedly lift floating weights:

          Rise in Liquid Level Between Plates of a Capacitor

          Liquid Dielectric Capacitor

          Switching the capacitor on and off involves no work done on the system so the energy for the work done BY the system (if it repeatedly lifts floating weights) can only come from the environmental heat, in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

          The second falsehood: When the initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ. This means that either the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, or the motion of the observer somehow changes the wavelength of the incoming light - from λ to λ'=λc/(c+v). The latter scenario is absurd - the motion of the observer is obviously unable to change the wavelength of the incoming light. Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false - the speed of light is different for differently moving observers.

          Pentcho Valev

            Dear Pencho,

            Physics has not been killed for all physicists still only believe in finite mathematical complexity. They refuse to believe that one real Universe must be organized in the simplest manner possible. The simplest Universal construct must consist of unified, visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

            Joe Fisher, Realist

            Experiments have unequivocally shown that the speed of light is not a constant:

            "Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. [...] In The Optical Society's journal for high impact research, Optica, the researchers report that twisted light pulses in a vacuum travel up to 0.1 percent slower than the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second. [...] If it's possible to slow the speed of light by altering its structure, it may also be possible to speed up light. The researchers are now planning to use FROG to measure other types of structured light that their calculations have predicted may travel around 1 femtosecond faster than the speed of light in a vacuum."

            "Spatially structured photons that travel in free space slower than the speed of light" Science 20 Feb 2015: Vol. 347, Issue 6224, pp. 857-860

            "Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum [...] ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. [...] "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release."

            "The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently."

            "Although the maximum speed of light is a cosmological constant - made famous by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and E=mc^2 - it can, in fact, be slowed down: that's what optics do."

            "Glasgow researchers slow the speed of light"

            "For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum -- a speed of 186,000 miles per second. But in an experiment in Princeton, N.J., physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering. The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum. Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light -- supposedly an ironclad rule of nature -- can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances. [...] The results of the work by Wang, Alexander Kuzmich and Arthur Dogariu were published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature."

            Nature 406, 277-279 (20 July 2000): "...a light pulse propagating through the atomic vapour cell appears at the exit side so much earlier than if it had propagated the same distance in a vacuum that the peak of the pulse appears to leave the cell before entering it."

            Pentcho Valev

            Dear Pencho,

            Universal physical conformity abides. Only real surface can move. Real light cannot move because real light does not have a real surface. You can prove this by observing a real light. Starlight never moves from the surface of a real star. Electric light never moves away from the surface of a real electric light bulb. Real reflected light never moves from the real surface of the real moon. Please stop repeating complex abstract physics codswallop. Think simple.

            Joe Fisher, Realist

            Physics,Einstein all are the favorite one for me.Thanks for remembering Einstein one of the legend in world. Just think the world without his invention it is unbelievable.Online essay writing service review submitted an article about Einstein and his works.

            online essay writing service review