George,
I understand. Yes, all my essays have been rather dense for some, but they've been scored highly (better than any I think) so maybe that extra effort is rewarded.
I do warn there are 7 concepts or building blocks to construct the ontology, where most can cope with 3 if a bit lazy. (They DO all come coherently together!)
I identify it's important to use our brain in that 'rational' mode for very good reasons. I show we haven't previously identified a classical mechanism able to reproduce the statistical predictions of QM precisely because the mechanism is complex and 'layered', with around 6-7 stages! It allows complex neural interactions and far more. If the mechanism is carefully followed it can be seen as entirely self evident. (I'm going through it in detail with Stefan on my string under Mar.4 if you're interested).
Of course very many won't be bothered, or don't understand QM enough, or do but are 'sold' on its weirdness so fail at cognitive dissonance (certainly editors are all 3!!). I understand that. But in my position (unless I wish to keep it secret!) I seem to have have little choice but to describe the complex sequence as simply as possible. Can you see another option?
Let me start you off with some basics; Did you know that surface momentum distribution on a rotating sphere varied by the Cosine of the angle of latitude? Neither did most outside (and many IN) geophysics! Had you spotted that QM doesn't employ BOTH the Maxwell ('Curl' AND angular momentum) states for its "entangled" pairs? Neither had anyone else! Do you know how Photomultipliers work? or considered that interaction 'cascades' in a field are 3D (cones) NOT just 2D? so 'square' not 'double' at each 'matrix layer'? No, nobody has before (outside QCD). This ensemble adds up to new physics and NO new physics seems simple at first!
But as I've written, I AM impressed with ALL who follow it through and understand it, so it's not something I 'expect'. John Bell did predict and write on this; "professional physicists really ought to be able to do better." I'm sure they can, ...but none have as yet. Even the odd 'pointer' is eshewed!
I do hope you'll have a go. You would need to read slowly and some bits at least twice, but you may find it a revelation!
Very best
Peter
