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

            Dear Teenu,

            Einstein was not an inventor, he was an incredibly inept theoretical physicist. His complex equations concerning abstract amounts of invisible mass and finite light constantly speeding through an invisible vacuum tube have absolutely nothing to do with the simplicity of the real observed Universe. Infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light must be empowered by manifest infinite energy.

            Joe Fisher, Realist

            Fede Benedictus, the managing editor of The Foundation Of Physics Journal has rejected my splendid essay. THE SIMPLEST UNIVERSE on the grounds that I did not apparently produce any reliable research statistics. It is truly pathetic. I am rewriting my essay in order to submit it in an essay contest being ran by the Creative Nonfiction organization.

            Joe Fisher, Realist

              Hi Joe, it sounds like a suitable place where you might get published if you present 'your true story' well and in the right way. I see that they are currently looking for new (general) submissions, perhaps you could write about the difficulty of being taken seriously as an independent thinker and the growing collection of rejections. I did notice that in the "The dialogue between science and religion" submission information it says- "Please note that while our interests are broad and inclusive, narratives should focus strongly on science and religion. We discourage submissions that focus on secondary issues such as bioethics; ecology, the environment, and sustainability; and pseudoscience." It looks like with that 'venue', unless you use the right tack, you might find you are still barred under the pseudoscience category.

              Dear Georgina,

              I have a pretty fair vocabulary. I do not have any words in my vocabulary to clearly express my gratitude to you for your sublimely gracious comment. I hope you will submit your own essay into the Creative Nonfiction contest.

              Joe Fisher, Realist