Dear Peter,

First let me say that I am not trying to discredit all of your concepts. It looks like you are at least very close to coming to the conclusion that it is really the motions that are the true existing most basic entities from which all things are made. That is an insight that very few people in this world have attained to. The next step after that is to come to the understanding that since energy photons and matter particles can be broken down into basic linear motions, you have to get an understanding of how they can be built up using only basic linear motions. Since linear motions always travel in a straight line in the absence of an interaction, you must find a way to generate the interactions necessary to generate curved motions, etc. It also looks like you understand that in order for a matter particle to have a static mass effect that is the same in all three dimensions, the angular motions that create this effect must be three dimensional instead of just a two dimensional rotation, as an example. All that you need now is to understand how a three dimensional composite cyclical angular motion can be generated from simple linear motions and you will understand most of the basic concepts needed to explain the structure of matter particles. Energy photons require a simpler back and forth non curved cyclical angular motion to create their frequency, wave length, and dynamic mass effects. Since a matter particle is just an energy photon that contains the additional curved angular motion mentioned above to cause it to travel in a repetitive cyclical enclosed curved path at the speed of light instead of traveling in a straight line at that speed, it also contains the frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects similar to that of the energy photon that is contained within it. Field structures are also composed of simple motions that I call sub-energy particles. Once you understand all three of them you can then figure out how they are combined together to make atoms and how they operate or interact together, etc.

These things are much more important to understand than any attempt to try to justify an infinite universe when entropy precludes that possibility. Once you understand that the total amount of motion is the only thing that is truly conserved and, therefore, can't be increased or decreased in the universe, you will begin to see why it is impossible to use the energy that is produced by the fusion of light elements in stars to turn all of the heavier elements that are produced by that fusion back into the light elements that they originally were. That would require total 100 percent conversion efficiency. In actual fact since the fusion process is a normal entropy motion dispersion process, reversing it would not only require the use of all of the originally radiated energy, all of which could not be recovered, but would also require an additional amount of energy to cause the process to run in the direction that is opposite to the normal entropy dispersion process. To put it more directly, it takes more energy to break down the heavier elements that are produced by fusion reactions then the amount of energy that is freed from their atoms binding energy during the fusion process that creates them. Since matter particles are composed of motions you can't just create new ones from nothing because you can't create the motions that they contain from nothing. This would mean that if the galaxy mass were to continue to increase over time it would require the continual introduction of motion into it from outside of it. That would not be practical. That could possibly happen for some time if the matter between the galaxies was slowly taken into the galaxies, but that source of matter would eventually run out. Everybody wants a free lunch, but the universe doesn't serve it. You always have to pay more than you get back from the universe because it is slowly decreasing the motion content of entities that have more and transferring it to those that have less, thus decreasing the total range of motions, while at the same time dispersing all of the motions evenly throughout space. That is what entropy is all about. Because of this the most efficient way to store matter particles in atoms is in the middle of the range of atom sizes. That is why the lightest atoms can give up or free motion through fusion into heavier atoms. Once you get to iron it takes more energy to fuse them into heavier atoms than is freed in the process because you are too near the center most efficient energy storage part of the range. Of course the atoms at the high end of the size scale have the opposite problem because as you go away from the center of the range in that direction it takes more energy to store all of those particles in one atom than it does in the middle range atoms, so the natural entropy reaction for them is to break down into lighter atoms through fission. In either case if you go in the direction that is opposite to the natural energy flow, it requires the addition of all of the energy that had been freed from the fusion or fission reactions plus an additional amount because some of the applied energy is always dissipated and lost in one way or another in the process. I can understand your desire to believe that the universe is never ending because it makes it easier to believe that the tremendous complexity of living creatures could somehow have come about by some natural process if it can be over an infinite amount of time, etc., but entropy makes the world run down over time and that can't be stopped. That is one of the problems with man's current quantum mechanics is that over time many foolish concepts have been added to it that make it look possible to do such things. It is not until you get the understanding of the level of structure that generates the quantum effects that you can sort out the fact from the fiction. If you continue to work on understanding the basic structures of matter particles, energy photons, and sub-energy particles as mentioned above, you will come to understand these things and all of the indeterminate fog will be removed. Of course maybe I am just talking gibberish and you have it all figured out already.

To cover a few things in your response:

1. When you talk about requantizations, I am assuming that you are saying that energy photons interact with matter particles on the way from the emitting star to your eyes or other sensor and are thereby frequency up shifted every so often to restore their frequency to the higher level that we detect. I see a few problems with that concept.

a. During the individual interactions the amount of frequency up shift that a given photon would receive would be variable depending on the amount of energy that the matter particle brought to the interaction and other variables.

b. The interactions would be random so some photons would intersect and interact with many matter particles while others would go all the way from the star to your sensor without any interactions, since the matter particles would not just be sitting in one place, but would be moving around at various velocities.

c. Depending on the direction of interaction, etc. a photon could actually be down shifted instead of up shifted during an interaction.

The end result of all of these things and also other things would be a great variation in sensed frequency from the photons coming from any star, so that you would not see all of them red or blue shifted from normal, etc. as is usually observed.

2. It seems that you consider antimatter particles to just be matter particles that are turned upside down compared to each other. It has been demonstrated that when a matter particle interacts with an antimatter particle, such as an electron with a positron they both turn into energy photons. If one is just the other one upside down, it seems that it would be possible to pass two streams of electrons through opposite fields that would align all of the electrons in one stream in the same alignment with each other and opposite to those in the other stream and then bring the two streams together to cause them to all turn into photons and generate a lot of energy. Moreover, if they are just at opposite rotational directions, it would seem that free electrons would be at random rotational positions compared with other free electrons and we would, therefore, often see them aligned naturally, so that they would be converted into energy photons and there should then be a great shortage of electrons in the universe.

3. Fractal structuring generates similar structures at various size levels. You might be able to use such a system to generate RNA molecules, but the code patterns for the protein machines that would be contained in the RNA molecules can vary greatly for each code pattern of the 200 or so complete codes that would need to be stored in the molecule to allow it to be used to generate the needed protein machines to make the first living creature. It is, therefore, not subject to fractal duplication except that an RNA molecule could possibly be duplicated with the same code that happened to be randomly formed in the first RNA molecule that happened to come about in some way naturally, but since that first molecule would not likely get the valid code patterns in it randomly, duplicating it would not be of much practical use. Fractal duplication would not help much to produce the particular RNA molecule that contained the complete valid code pattern set for all of the machines. It takes intelligence to determine the jobs that each machine needs to do and then to design the machine to do that work and then to build the first Molecule that contains all of the right codes. There is no random short cut due to the extremely large number of possible proteins that could be made, most of which would not produce machines that would work. All indications are that at small scales things can be identical. The fewer parts that are contained in something the easier it is to assemble it in the same way each time. When it comes to matter particles and energy photons, etc. the built in dimensional structuring components generate duplicate entities due to the constants that are built into the dimensional system. There are various servo mechanisms that are built into the structure of entities such as atoms, etc. that control conformation of their parts to basic structural design requirements, thus limiting variability in their operation. It is much easier to have an atom or molecule missing in a crystal, etc. in large scale objects because they are not operationally bond to the degree that the smaller entities are and they contain so many more parts.

4. When looking at the accretions of galaxies what methods do they currently use to determine what the accretions are composed of and the level of their structure, such as plasma and if so what elements are included, whole atoms and if so what elements are included, molecules and if so what complexity level are included, large scale objects and if so what size scale range is included? I ask this because you mentioned that in the milky-way galaxy several whole stars have been accreted. On the other hand, it seems that the thrust of your argument would be that it is all broken down into protons and electrons.

5. My assumptions were based on the information that you supplied that indicated that the mass of the galaxy would increase with each cycle and that the cycle times have been increasing. It is only logical to assume that if the mass increases, it would take a longer time to complete the next accretion in order to accrete that extra mass. It would be reasonable to then extrapolate that increase in mass and cycle times into the future and see where that would lead us, especially since you propose it to be an infinite cycle. It looks like it would work ok until the cycle time became greater than the average life time of the stars in the galaxy. Then the fuel source for the accretion would be used up leaving more and more burned out remnants of stars not accreted at the end of each new cycle. This material would mostly be heavier atoms that could not be fused in the new cycle's stars. It would, however, be drawn into and become parts of those stars, thus adding to their mass. This would mean that the stars in the galaxy would become larger and larger with each new cycle. Large stars fuse more source material much quicker than smaller stars do because they need to be at higher temperatures to balance the pull of gravity on their greater masses. This would use up the available fuel quicker with each cycle. They also have much shorter lifetimes than smaller stars. Stars the size of the sun might last about 10 billion years, but stars about 60 times the size of the sun would burn out in as little as 3 million years. This would mean that the fuel source for the accretion would be depleted much faster as the cycles progressed. At the same time the larger stars usually end their lives in supernovas that generate much heavier elements even including lead and uranium, etc. This would add even more heavy elements to the stars in the next cycle making them burn out sooner. Over a long enough time the accretion process would completely die out because there would not be enough accretion to enable the production of functional stars for the next cycle. There are several assumptions used above, but they are all in line with man's current understanding of the ways that stars function. Supernova explosions don't generally break atoms down into lower elements. The temperatures and pressures created by the explosion tend to condense the matter into higher more heavy elements.

Since your model is based more on realistic structures of matter particles, etc. than the currently believed point object construction it is no wonder that you come out being able to explain things that can't be acceptably explained by the main accepted theory structure. The more that you learn about the detailed structure of the basic particles and how they work together to make larger scale structures the more your theory will be able to explain and the less likely it will be that you will get sidetracked into unworkable concepts. I would not worry too much about uniting relativity and SR, and quantum mechanics, etc. because they contain some truth and some false information. As you progress you will see the good parts of them and they will then fit together. At the same time you will also be able to see the false parts of them and be able to not get caught up in following their dead ends. It will come naturally as you gain in understanding of how things really work. Occam's razor or the concept that the simplest answer is usually right is good to remember, especially when you hear people talking about multiverses, 20 or 30 extra dimensions, or traveling forward or backward in time, etc. Sometimes a few things must be added to get things to work, but it is best to add only what is necessary to accomplish that. Continue the good work. Sorry I wasn't paying attention to how big this was getting. I hope it is not too much.

Sincerely,

Paul

Stefan,

Yes, it'd be ideal if such major advancements were perceived immediately, but it never happens, as history shows. Big new physics is 'wrong', ignored, and finally 'self apparent'. In 2010 I estimated 10 years ('2020 Vision') so it's on track.

But there are no 'local hidden variables' in the model. Bell was correct. The 'secret' is found in the particles themselves, hidden from current theory and designated as the second unreal but 'superposed' quantum state. It isn't unreal. IT IS REAL! (And we know well the process in an eyes lens 'decoding' lambda!!).

We get lots of discovery's in astronomy, only the odd one BIG. An astronomer in my field, Nick, had the previous big one a while ago, but that similarly proved TOO big to be accepted! To save loosing his job and livelihood he stopped pushing it. All very sad. Finally, more recently, it 'crept in' after verification by someone else, but it then caused that guy endless problems too!

As the US Chemical Soc. president said explaining why Dan Sheckman had 40 years of pain before his recent 'quasicrystal' Nobel, "That's how science is done". That was only a minor advance! but he was right, and I'm a realist. I just hope nobody ends up like the guy who followed Nick, he ended his life under house arrest by the Pope!

To answer your question; People really should READ essays as I try to, not skim them! I identify clearly that, and why, there can be NO 'perfect printer plot!' Chaos and stochasitic variables are not eliminated. They just can't reproduce the QM findings, as Bell showed. you'll find the explanation partly under 'mutation'. 'Curl' is uncertain to 50:50 at an 'equator' and similarly linear momentum at EACH POLE (So both orthogonal to the angle of max amplitude).

"how can it make a difference if it has no experimental consequences?" It's a fair question but I don't think you thought much before asking it. Nicholas Copernicus and Galileo's discoveries also had no physical consequences. Celestial bodies didn't suddenly head off in different directions! They just explained what we DO find (that's what all Cosmology is too!) Yet those were the greatest advancements in understanding for eons, and have ended up affecting almost everything in physics in some way or another! (I don't include Relativity or QM as both are flawed and have been counter productive).

So; Yes. Unlike Eddington's view, science ISN'T 'all sorted'. My papers and video's include long lists of just about every anomaly, paradox and inconsistency in physics which the combined 'SR/QM' model resolves. They only have to be actually read! If you're interested in any one in particular just ask and I'll show you how it emerges.

Unlike most I DON'T want to be a 'new Einstein' and don't want rewards. I was a legend in my own lunchtime by 30, have a nice yacht and drive an Aston. But think about it; if you were me wouldn't you feel guilty if you 'kept it all secret'? It's actually now rather a cross to bear!

Very Best

Peter

Dear Peter,

thanks for your reply.

I really read your essay, not skimmed it. You used 47 times the term 'may' in the sense of 'it may be that'. Therefore and for the reason that i am not into cosmology, i don't want to comment on the anomalies, paradoxes and inconsistencies you claim to have resolved. It only appears to me that you use two different modalities to communicate your ideas, one that does claim something to be ultimately true (IT'S REAL), the other which suggests a probability for something to be true in a subclause (it may be).

Then you go on to claim that 'the secret is found in the particles themselves'. Peter, why don't you then - after a couple of essays on your topic - eventually write down the relevant equations which describe the particles and their interactions and show mathematically that they violate Bell's inequality? You can't argue that there isn't the appropriate maths out there if you have already identified the physical mechanisms. Please show mathematically the interactions between your particles and how this necessarily leads to the violation of Bell's inequality. Put in some stochastic terms to even mathematically model the chaos you spoke of.

I never saw an elaborated equation of the interactions from you, nonetheless seeing you so heavily claiming these interactions meet reality. This is not a cross to bear, but could be elaborated together with a good mathematician. The fact that you do not show up such equations leaves the impression that if indeed done, they wouldn't lead to your intended claims.

You cannot compare your case with Galileo and Copernicus, unless you have done the mathematics. I very well thought about it, and additionally i must note that even if Galileo and Copernicus couldn't prove some of their ideas by observation, the later generations could - and verified them. Your theory is immune against testing it empirically and moreover, there are a multitude of different ideas about how to explain what you want to explain out there. How can you, for example show that your theory IS REAL instead of the one David Bohm developed, unless you have exemplified your theory with mathematical equations that show that your theory is more than just a suitable idea?

Peter if you have a yacht and you drive an Aston, you should also be able to find a mathematician with whom you can develop the needed mathematical equations. Nobody is guilty of developing and publishing some ideas. But couldn't it be that your were really guilty if you would further insist that IT'S REAL without simply doing the maths? This would be your fault, nobody in the scientific community can be blamed for that, not even i myself for criticizing you! You constantly complain about modern science and its omnipotent behaviour and its trickery, but yourself do just the same - you constantly claim something to be true without putting the mathematical litmus test on the table!

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Stefan,

I did so & published the algorithm in 2014. You had the link. (Diracs twin stacked 'spinor' pair equation is then fine). DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3754.1287 (open access). Most schoolboys know spherical surface momentum (Earths surface speed) varies by the cosine of latitude, and QCD shows Amplitude2 values emerge in fields ('squared' 3D 'cascade' geometric progressions couldn't be simpler!) and I identify WHERE - which is in cascade photomultipliers or avalanche photodiodes). The words 'cascade' and 'avalanche' kind of gave that away, hiding before our eyes!

All I can do is publish it, point to it and keep working Stefan. I'm a scientist not a salesman. In the end notes of my 2014 essay I even reported an experiment deriving it subjectively with students and did a full results chart! So it's certainly NOT immune to testing! In the next I showed that 'reversible' socks, like dipoles, or simply 'lining' red socks with green, allowed the classical solution. In algorithmic terms the (mathematicians) correction of QM's 'state pair' revised algorithm was;

p(A1 B1 |a,b, l b,a, l) = p(A2 B2 |a,b, l b,a, l) = p(A1 B2 |a,a, l b,b l) = p(A2 B1 |a,a, l b,b l) = 1. Certainly perturbation theory always applies too.

I do ask mathematicians regularly if they'd like to look and play with it, but have the same problem Einstein found with that! (You'll even note a co-author is one J Minkowski!). I don't know what else you want. I can teach students and children, but it seems that beyond 25-30 everyone knows better so ignores it. That's really not a problem for me Stefan. I'm really anyway not entirely convinced humanity is quite ready for any great advancements in understanding.

On "MAY", just so you know; I've said 'NOTHING is certain in science', but some are more certain than others (My 'Law of the Reducing middle' in logic is Bayesian curves) so adopt the convention "may" for anything suggested but not 'required' (or 'highly probable' like finding 'left' or 'right' near an equator).

Lastly on ANOMALIES etc. Your assumption that these are just in astrophysics is wrong. Try me on ANY well known anomaly, the chances are I've 'turned the model on it' and a resolution is shown; CP Violation? simple dynamic geometry produces it, Lorentz Transformation? I described & derived that 5 essays ago, 3 Filter problem?, Non-integer spin states etc? - all in the video, Quantum eraser/backward causality? simple and all in a current draft paper. Just pick one.

For me this is an academic excercise Stefan. I don't have a website (the net abounds with them!) I don't 'OWN' it, nature does! I don't want to belittle work by others, much of it has informed the DFM, and I'm certainly not an expert on everything! But at the end of the day it's veracity can be judged as a jigsaw puzzle. Either it fits together or, like most current science, heaps of confusing inconsistencies remain. Anyone who looks at it all can see this fits rather better.

Please take any part you wish and improve it (but do beware the papal police!).

Very best

Peter

Peter,

thanks for your reply. Surely i had the link, but i cannot see the algorithm which produces the common experimental findings. You write that the dynamics you propose is not 100% deterministic, but i do not understand this statement in light of the recursive fractals you also mentioned. In a fractal, there is no room for quasi-causal mechanisms, your attempt to unite both points of view, the deterministic and the probabilistic one, are then contradictory. Therefore it is no wonder that you write you published the algorithm in 2014, but what you published was a Bayesian probability assignment on the basis of your assumptions.

If nature operates mechnistically in a fractal setting, there should be a non-bayesian equality to show at what place within the fractal the interactions you are interested in take place and how 'higher order uncertainty' within this fractal does impact the measurement results. Introducing higher order uncertainty itself does not help, because within a fractal there is no higher or lower level, but only precisely defined mechanistical relations that lead to a precise sub-picture of the fractal. With the notion of fractals, i think you run into problems with infinity, because you can zoom in and out without ever identifying the initial causal basis for each quantum event and that is something which i think really does circumvent Bell's theorem. If your main assumptions meet reality, i think this reality cannot be a fractal. But if the latter would be true, you need another 'source' to introduce uncertainty.

I am not the one to decide what nature really does. I am just not convinced by your papers. And you indeed do not need to convince me, but need to convince the professionals. I regret that your co-author, having such a prominent name like Minkowski, has not achieved to present your ideas in a more radically mathematical formulation, but mainly by words which are sometimes hard to trace if these lines of wordings really describe an ontology or merely an idea (an idea to which you personally attach a high probability to meet reality). Personally, i would say, presenting your ideas as a string of words instead of a string of mathematical symbols does damage your ideas. And personally i think your diverse concepts are contradicting each other, leading to inconsistencies, but that's only my personal view. Maybe it is the case that what confuses the one person, elucidates another person and vice versa. As Lawrence Crowell recently wrote, you cannot disprove a theory with another theory, same as you cannot disprove strict determinism with the concept of fractal emergence of different sub-pictures within that fractal.

We humans cannot in most cases attach proper probabilities for our ideas to indeed meet reality, because we lack the needed information. What seems probable for one person, seems totally improbable for another person (think of the idea of God). The consistency of the idea does not prevent us from not having the needed information to judge the proper probability for that idea to meet reality. So you are right that nothing is certain in science, at least for the things from which we yet don't know how, why and if they indeed exist.

And i am far away to pick more of your ideas to analyze them, because i see no reason to do this in general and also specfically not in the current essay contest, where the main question is much different than the ones you claim to have consistently answered.

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Stefan,

If you read my 'mutation' description again you should see that as well as stochastic process and mathematical perturbation there is a genuine 50:50 uncertainty at crossover points which maths can't predict. If I stand 10 people exactly on an equator and ask them to decide if they're rotating clockwise or anti clockwise, can maths predict the result? No, it cannot. Yet it's end up as 50;50 as coin tosses. This is as Kurt Godel proved.

Your suggestion "your attempt to unite both points of view, the deterministic and the probabilistic one, are then contradictory." uses an over simplistic approach so is untrue. Indeed I haven't "attempted to" do anything at all! That's what I pointed out to Lawrence is unscientific. What comes out comes out. That's it!

"you indeed do not need to convince me, but need to convince the professionals. Hmm. And why is that. Fact is I don't actually 'have to convince anybody! I'm very happy if I don't. I've done my 'duty' and explained it. Indeed I'd probably be more worried right now if I did! For one thing it'd suggest the first part of my essay (which WAS directly on the brain you may recall!) is wrong, which I don't think it is.

Anyway must dash for now; England are just about to set a new world record by decimating Ireland in the Grand Slam 6 Nations rugby union final and I'm meeting a bunch of friends from Ireland and here to witness it.

best

Peter

Peter,

there is no uncertainty in Gödel's results and the latter have nothing to do with coin tosses and 50:50 outcomes.

Anyway, have a nice rugby final!

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Stefan,

You just tried what you agree can't be done! Disprove one theory with another; i.e. That underlying the incompleteness theorem is a physical truth consistent with my own 'reducing middle' theorem (resolving the long standing fundamental logical paradox of the 'excluded middle').

You state current doctrinal interpretation of what Godel 'means'. I showed in an earlier essay why and how that understanding is incomplete. New physics is impervious to attacks using old physics. It need only be internally logically consistent, which it uniquely is, match findings, which it entirely does, and preferably also resolve anomalies and paradoxes etc. which it does in droves! You only need to look.

But please don't agonize over it Stefan. You CAN'T find it 'acceptable' and won't bear to look, not for some time yet anyway. The essay explained exactly why. Did you disagree with that part? It really isn't a problem, that's human nature.

The rugby was rubbish. The Frenchman ran away with it and never let England have the ball. They lost the match, but won the 6 nations championship and now equal the All Blacks win series. The Irish didn't play badly and Siobhan and my Irish mates were ecstatic. The lesson? Never give a Frenchman a whistle when England are playing!

Best

Peter

Peter,

no, my attempt is to interpret Gödel's results in a broader way, since it involves terms like logics, truth, consistency. But i am aware of that my attempt is only an interpretation (although i think it is a good one).

Your link with Gödel is also only an interpretation and i think it is somewhat arbitrary. What have Gödel's results to do with whether the earth spins clockwise or anti-clockwise? This question is ill-posed from the very beginning, because there is no external reference frame to decide it. We can not disprove an interpretation by another interpretation. I only wanted to state that both our views on Gödel's results are interpretations of it. Gödel himself never intended to interpret his results these ways - and more important, the involved mathematical relationships do not say anything about the earth's rotation or about the meaning of Quantum mechanics.

Peter, i indeed find it inacceptable, but for the reason that i don't fully UNDERSTAND what your theory says in detail. Not all things which exist are self-explaining and yours essays are of that kind, and i also criticized your style of writing and your hypnotic and suggestive language. I do not agonize about it, but if you want that professionals understand what you really mean, you should improve your capabilities to explain your lines of reasoning mor rigorously. And additionally you should really begin to model your results as mathematical equations other than merely as bayesian claims.

Hope the rugby night was nonetheless fun and enjoyable.

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Stefan,

I agree with most. But "All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses." (Bronowski) or finding "new connections". Too many reject such new connections as too unfamiliar. Mathematicians have tried to limit the implications of Godel's theorem into ever smaller boxes as they hate it. I discussed this about 4yrs ago here.

'Understanding.' OK.; Start from OAM, in which I identify an additional momentum HIDDEN from QM (or 'not used' in the simpler formulation; 'Up/Down' states). It DOES exist in some science, from Maxwell equations on. It is 'curl', which, despite confusion, is what we commonly call 'CHARGE', or clockwise or anticlockwise rotation. This momentum peaks at the POLES, so is ORTHOGONAL (at 90o to) the tangentially LINEAR ('up/down') momentum which peaks at the equator. BOTH these states are then OPPOSITE at 180o.

QM postulates NOTHING about particle morphology and dynamics, except to say up/down 'spin' are some magically 'superposed' states which CAN'T be classical rotation because different angles get bizarrely different 'orthogonal' findings!!

Bless their little cotton socks. Lets give them some nice new red socks lined with green, then explain each is REVERSIBLE. That's equivalent to reversing the angle of interaction with a sphere, so you find the OPPOSITE state!

I'll leave you with that for the moment because it DOES take some initial absorption and integration into neural networks, needing lots of old rubbish to be cleared away to establish. Once done it's simple to then learn how the orthogonal Cosine value distributions with angle emerge, and how they are squared. But one step at a time.

You know the common foundation with the DFM's 'Relativity' already. Light propagation speed is localised ts 'c' wrt the centre of mass of each fermion on interaction. That creates exactly Einsteins 1952 final conception 'spaces in motion within spaces' but gives it a quantum mechanism and removes all the nonsense (in BOTH) preventing unification.

But enough for now. First go back and embed the TWO DISTINCT momenta previously poorly understood and not employed.

On the subject of maths. Sure it'd be helpful to speak Swahili to those who speak Swahili, but my last essay shows that has limitations when it's essential they learn a whole new language to advance. Maths and logic need rebuilding using those simple common rule of brackets as foundations. That was understood on reading it and thus scored top, but then of course just forgotten! I also quoted Wheeler this year; Ontological understanding comes FIRST! Nonetheless if a mathematician came along and joined the party to numerate it all then that's fine. Be my guest! All I can say is; sorry but it won't be me! I have far more important things to do than spend time improving my Swahili.

Thanks for your efforts Stefan. I'm now wondering if you really can be an exception and overcome my essays cognitive dissonance hypothesis (that term itself intentionally not used).

Best

Peter

  • [deleted]

  • Post #102

Dear Peter,

so far i agree on what you wrote concerning Gödel's results.

Thanks for the first step of your explanation. I first like to know to what kind of particle you refer, to electrons or photons. I assume to electrons, since photons are known (at least to me) to have no charge.

The OAM you spoke of - is this the usual OAM of electrons? I assume not, since you write that it is hidden from QM. But i nonetheless ask, since OAM has two components, a position and a momentum component. To define the desired position or momentum, one has to take into account all 3 vector components of position or momentum.

I now assume that what you identified as additional momentum is the momentum component of OAM. The particle spin is always orthogonal to the OAM and both facilitate the total angular momentum. This is the standard interpretation and is valid separately for all 3 spatial directions.

You should give me feedback whether i understood what you wrote or misunderstood it. I would be also helpful to first tell what orthodox QM says in each step and then tell me what your theory says for that step.

Now i imagine a sphere with the north pole above and the south pole down below. This sphere has then its equator inbetween north and south pole. It is turning in the plane of the equator such that the poles do not turn. At the poles, the charges you spoke of are maximal, at the equator they are zero. Therefore, at the equator, another momentum (is this the QM spin?) is maximal an at the poles is zero. This particle has its maximum angular velocity at the equator, and its maximal charge at the poles. During its journey from its source to some detector, the poles always stay where they are, north up and south down below (so the particle has no precession or something like that?). Alternatively, during their journey from their source to some detector, the plane in which both particles turn around is always the equator plane and always stays the same, namely the equator plane (is this more correct?).

Is this the right description so far?

"You know the common foundation with the DFM's 'Relativity' already...."

Please let us proceed on step after another. I do not remember what DFM is, although i may have read it some years ago.

What is the next step (if my conclusions so far are correct)?

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Hi Peter,

I liked your essay a lot. It reminded me of a section in Frank Wilczek's book "A Beautiful Question" where he speculates that creatures as intelligent as humans, but with a different evolutionary history, would uncover nature's patterns differently. A species of intelligent birds would intuitively grasp Newtonian mechanics, super-intelligent spiders would stumble upon waves before grasping particles. We are limited by our cognitive evolution whose boundaries need to be overcome.

I hope I understood you as well as your barmaids. God-knows I've come across a lot of them more intelligent than myself in my time.

Best of luck,

Rick Searle

    Peter,

    This is impressive, You start your essay as a storyteller and interdisciplinary generalist, setting the table about the questions instead of just diving in with the argument. I like that. Could you clarify how the segue into angular momentum carries on to the end point, and per relevance to genetic change etc? I know how important the subject is in general in QM, what I ask is: how in particular, this aspect relates to other issues. Maybe looking at comments from others will help me understand your strategy here - and I need to brush up on "spin networks," spintronics and the like. The latter surely has relevance to neurology at the fine level such as in microtubules. There is something here to pursue. Best.

    Rick,

    Thanks. I like Wilczek too. I haven't read "A Beautiful Question" but that sounds spot on. I also appreciate your comprehension. Such responses have been well below my 'guesstimate' but you Jim & Neil (below) have got that back on track. Top job. (though non-reader '1' hits keep the score slipping down!)

    But the real problem now is how to get flawed but embedded understanding & paradigms updated? Editors and professors seem to run a mile screaming at the concept!

    I've resorted to evolution for now. Any other ideas?

    Very best

    Peter

    Neil,

    Thanks. I'm impressed when any understand it. Sometime I do too! Yes, posts to Stefan (March 4) may help. If 'end point' is' QM predictions'; the pairs of orthogonal cos values in 're-emissions' are simply squared by the 'cascade' or 'avalanche' detector amplification, which we already know from QED! This is all part of the 'discrete field' model (DFM) where fermions also localise speed because re-emission is always at 'c' in their own centre of mass rest frame. So we get full unification!

    In neurology the dual states provide the complexity needed to 'use memory' and run scenario's of likely outcomes, actually releasing biochemicals etc, so allowing feedback, informing more scenario's, leading to a decision ('Aim') which subsequent decisions serve; (I will/not jump from a plane with/without a chute).

    Genetic Change or 'mutation' will naturally arise where quantum interactions are 'on the cusp'. If you or I can't decide if we're going UP or DOWN at a pole then the new particle may have to 'guess' too! with 50:50 odds (answering you question about randomness). Similarly left/right CURL exactly on an equator. Of course RNA proteins are complex but they're BIG! We're at the most fundamental 'matter' scale above dark energy where perhaps billions of such interactions recreate proteins. That doesn't exclude Darwin, but works WITH those larger scale effects.

    All the 'spooky' effects of QM resolve into logic. It can explain each, even 'quantum erasers' and the nonsense of backward causality! But I'm not sure I 'have a strategy' apart from presenting findings and applying the fundamental mechanism to 'anomalies' to see if they resolve. They always do when I can find and understand the actual data. Much is in my many papers & essays. Can you think of anything in particular as a test? Or any other questions?

    It seems to me that Woolfram's 'simple programme' is right, but leads to better clarity than just 'known' laws. Look also at plasma physics and photonics, both useful if a bit insular, and at the less fashionable work of Huygens, Raman, Lagrange, Heaviside, Stokes etc.

    Do let me know how you get on.

    Peter

      Stefan,

      First, photons DO have 'charge'! Latest max= 10-46 of detector field 'electrons', which dominate exchanges. i.e. IOP & Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 261801 (old rubbish to go!)

      The key player is the detector electron field (as Bohr et al & now QBism infer) Use incoming photons or electrons at will, and photons as or part of 'spread wavefronts, and propagating ON their polar axis or with some 'elliptical polarization' (simply different axial orientation, or, think hard, Einsteins 'lateral' wave component.)

      You must also step back from the old 'position/momentum' assumption, cause of much of the confusion by assigning them as the offset sine curves. THAT is what's helped hide the distinctive curl PLUS linear momenta.

      It was also 'hidden' because QM famously assigned no 'morphology' to the paired particles. The algorithms then assume ONLY spin UP or DOWN. There logic all fell apart because they had to be magically 'superposed', and one 'collapse' on detection, with FTL or 'non-local' effects between Alice & Bob. Rather than listen to Einstein, EPR etc and correctly taking the hint that some assumption was wrong we just learned to live with what Bell insisted & showed was utter nonsense!

      You'll have seen the effects of the 3 'vector component' or 'degrees of (rotational) freedom in the video; (snippet here 100 sec Compressed version. The complex OAM analysis isn't far off, but famously it's said 'Quantum' angular momentum (QAM) CAN'T be OAM for the various 'reasons' I identify and reveal as invalid (non-integer spins from the 3 degrees...etc). But I show 'interaction latitude' is critical, So;

      QM; Each particle of a pair 'collapses' to just ONE 'state' (and a 'position').

      DFM; Each has both momenta, & relative detector field angle gives amplitudes.

      Your description would best start with the poles left and right. When 'split' they maintain that attitude, so lead by OPPOSITE charges. To keep it simple for now ignore elliptical polarity and remember the DETECTOR electrons, which Alice & Bob rotate, are king! The 'requantize' the energy by absorption and re-emission, and their angle DICTATES the new Cosine values of curl and AM. (that is equivalent to entirely poorly understood 'wavefunction collapse')

      Of course arriving electrons (read 'fermions') have similar charge to field electrons, but each encounters millions so the effect is the same. Once you've re-run and absorbed all that we'll go on to the final 'squaring' of amplitudes to complete the mechanism (or delve into QCD!). But do challenge any bits or ask any more questions first.

      Best

      Peter

      Peter,

      o.k., the particles propagate on their polar axis. Therefore the equators build an up/down line, so by propagating the equators do describe a helix-like path. Is this helix-like path the 'curl' you metioned?

      I understood the charge of the photons the way that only 10 exp 46 photons in a wavefront have the charge of one electron (detector field electron). Is this correct?

      What do you mean by "When 'split' they maintain that attitude, so lead by OPPOSITE charges"? Do you mean negative versus positive?

      "The 'requantize' the energy by absorption and re-emission, and their angle DICTATES the new Cosine values of curl and AM. (that is equivalent to entirely poorly understood 'wavefunction collapse')"

      You mean *They ‚requantize'*, right? So i assume that the particles are re-quatized. What property is re-quantized, the charge i guess? Or do you mean by re-quantized that the particle's new orientation is different from the absorbed particle's orientation?

      So, your DFM has two governing mechanisms, one the momentum, the other the detector field angles? What do these two mechnisms contribute to the measurement and first of all how do they contribute to the measurement result?

      I couldn't watch your video, because your link has no valid internet adress attached.

      Best wishes,

      Stefan Weckbach

      Stefan,

      Yes, "they requantize" not 'the' (or requatized!) See my 2014 'It from Bit' essay; 'The Intelligent Bit' for helices, also this cosmic redshift video Time Dependent Redshift, but remember the 'fractal' scale heirarchy (so all entities 'orbiting' as they translate are themselves rotating), so here 'curl' is really the transfer of "a momentum able to induce rotation." (Try to think simply for initial understanding, only then build the full complexity). And yes; When re-emitted the FIELD ELECTRONS dictate orientation (a whole new 'wavefunction' if you like). Now you can see REAL 'observer dependency'!!) The new amplitudes (pairs remember) have the inverse Cosine values of the the interaction tangent point.

      Sorry about the '100 Sec' video link. Try these; youtube or vimeo But remember that's just a glimpse of this; Full Classic QM video.

      I see electron charge more as 'power' (amplitude) at each interaction but you may be right. So 'charge' is better thought of as rotational energy, not 'speed' (which is 'c' wrt the last event).

      Yes, +/-. If North happens to be left, then even when split, if heading left it will only be found negative, so the one heading right is Positive. Remember the +/- is a 50:50 chance but always opposite. NOW we can make sense of the findings when Bob & Alice rotate their 'electrons'. 'Action at a distance is NOT needed!

      "So, your DFM has two governing mechanisms, one the momentum, the other the detector field angles? What do these two mechnisms contribute to the measurement and first of all how do they contribute to the measurement result?"

      TWO momenta remember, with (Diracs) 'complementarity', dictated by the field angle, (so inverse Cos values).

      NOW the big finale; Those 'polarized' photon/fermion/whatevers now hit lets say (most commonly) a 2-channel photoamplifier, (each channel has opposite polarity) and each will only make ONE channel go 'CLICK', and at a rate dependent on it's amplitude. If Bob & Alice's settings are the same, and Bobs + channel clicks, then Alices - channel will click. If either of them reverses electron angle ('dial') at the last instant then both ++ (or both --) channels will click. If both dials are at half way (say the equator, for 'curl') then BOTH findings will be quite random 50:50 - yet angular momentum AM will PEAK!

      Thus the results of current statistical analysis are entirely reproduced with a classical mechanism, and without all the nonsensical spookiness currently needed. Shocking I know, but it's entirely self evident.

      So Einstein was right at Solvay 1n 1927, he was just a bit wrong about SR (c is localised by CSL) which prevented him finding the mechanism.

      How are you doing? I'm impressed you've hung in where professional physicists have so far failed. As John Bell said; "Professional physicists really ought to be able to do better!" I wait patiently.

      ...ooops I'm late for tennis! must dash.

      Peter

      Peter,

      Here's a 10 bomb for you. This is not vote collusion. I ask nothing in return, although a comment or question in my forum might be nice.

      It's amusing, my first essay did not even receive 10 votes total, but this year's has had almost that number of 1 bombs.

      Best Regards and Good Luck,

      Gary Simpson

        Peter,

        the field electrons dictate orientation (due to their own orientation relative to the incoming particle) and this orientation dictates the measurement outcome (if no more intermediate interactions occur), is this correct so far?

        The dial you spoke of is the polarisation filter, i guess?

        "Yes, +/-. If North happens to be left, then even when split, if heading left it will only be found negative, so the one heading right is Positive."

        Let's assume that the two polarisators have the same angles (there is no relative difference in angles between them). Then the one particle (say, the left with north) is re-quantized with a certain 'power (charge)', depending on the particles initial angle relative to this polarisator, is this correct? For the other particle it is the same, but with the difference that the certain 'power (charge)' i spoke of is complementary to the one for the first particle (the north particle). Complementary in the sense that if one would add up both 'powers (charges)', it always results in the maximum charge that is possible on a single particle. Is this correct?

        So if we give the maximum charge (power) an arbitrary value of 1, then the charges of the two particles always add up to 1. The same principle should then be true also for the other property you spoke of, namely the tangentially linear momentum. If charge has a zero peak at the equator, this tangentially linear momentum has its maximum peak at the equator and vice versa. The two properties of the particle, the charge and the linear momentum, have their opposite interaction powers both at 180 degree.

        Concerning the two-channel photoamplifiers, i now could investigate how these tools function in detail due to mainstream physics. But i guess they work a bit different in your scenario. Anyways, it would be helpful for me if you would explain me the detailed mechanism. Only ever one channel will click, i understood so far (and is self-evident). What channel will click depends on the orientation of the final re-quantized particle arriving at the photoamplifier. But how can a clicking rate depend on the (charge and/or linear momentum) amplitude of a single particle event? As i understood it so far, at the poles, there is no tangentially linear momentum, but maxiumum power (charge). But what for the case *near* the pole - does a certain channel, say the minus-channel (arbitrarily choosen), click here and what is the mechanism that would *prevent* this channel to click? I mean i must understand how a continuum of charge-values from the pole to the equator translates into a binary clicking behaviour of either + or - channel. At what point of the mentioned continuum does the clicking-channel switch from + to - ? The same question arises for the continuum of the tangentially linear momentum. How are these continua quantized into + or - clicks in the photoamplifiers for a *single* particle event? Something inside them must decide which channel clicks for a single particle event and this is something i haven't understood yet from your hitherto explanations.

        After a flue and lots of antibiotica i do well again! Thanks for your compliments concerning my essay, i do my best to clear up some issues which i consider as fog concerning the essay contest's questions!

        Best wishes,

        Stefan Weckbach