What remains is the experiment. Perhaps you could suggest how Huygens (wave ) cab explain the experiment.

Hodge

Dear Peter,

I never stated that "no part of the surface is made of anything." I accurately stated that No part of that unified infinite visible surface am finitely made of finite matter. You may think that there am different kinds of finite matter that originated from different finite sources, bot the one real unified visible infinite surface must be eternal.

Joe Fisher, Realist

John

Certainly. Without going back in detail, and just a little more than the bare Huygens derivation. It's the 'wave' in the aether which you surprisingly agreed towards the end of one of the video's.

Lets consider flashed from a space probe. The signals will 'expand' in all directions as a Schrodinger sphere. Passing a detector first with light then not then light then not etc. That is the 'wave' pattern I describe, but more complex.

Take a 'patch' of the surface of the sphere and consider it as a gold miners panning 'sieve' being lifted. But it is also 'swirled' laterally as it moves up, and not only that, but it can also be moved up & down slightly (relative to its' progress upwards) as it swirls, which gives elliptical polarity.

The instant this energy encounters matter or any perturbation fermions 'pop up' (pair production/Higgs etc) which re-quantise the energy - to you 'photons', which then spread again (unless self focussed into a Bessel beam).

Now you first said there's NO diffraction pattern from a single slit, which is wrong, but then agreed it! Have you never wondered why electrons gather densely at sharp topological changes? EACH edge of the slit re-quantises the energy, so giving the diffraction pattern. All else follows from that duality. I thought you'd already seen this, which also shows how the model solves a whole tranche of 'anomalies' including producing cosmic redshift WITHOUT accelerating expansion!;

Cosmic Redshift (etc) Video

I'm sure there may be some other aspect I've missed. If so just identify it for me. Past papers include various more detailed photonics experiments you'll be interested in, including this one I think;

Inertial Frame Error Discovery Derives Stellar Aberration and Paradox Free Special Relativity Via Huygens Principle

Best

peter

Peter:

I remember see you paper years ago. I'll reread it.

There is no diffraction pattern after the 1st slit in the Young's Experiment. But the light does become coherent so there is a diffraction pattern after the second slit. This is long recognized. Do the experiment.

The rest of you comments have very little to do with the Hodge Experiment. The wave in the plenum is caused by the photon. The wave thus formed DOES NOT come through the slit , it is reflected off the mask.

You commented that the Huygens model could explain the Hodge Experiment. I don't understand how. Please explain - I'd like to understand.

photon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k

As I understand, The Huygens model suggest each point in the slit radiates a wave. Therefore, a point on the higher intensity side of the slit should illuminate the entire width ( above and below the center) of the screen. The integration then forms the pattern. This implies both sides of the screen should have an (nearly) constant diffraction pattern.

RE: your cosmic redshift video, I saw lots of hand waving, where is the data calculation. There is lots of redshift, should be able to do the calculations.

Hodge

John

I'm confused by your assertion of no diffraction pattern from a single slit. I've always found one, varying with energy, distance and width, and it's well documented. Are you saying something different?

Single slit diffraction

I think few here subscribe to the view that real ontological understanding is just 'arm waving' without maths! There's no new maths needed for the redshift model, it's simple as Pi! - The circumference length increases as the orbital diameter increases so each orbit takes longer. As the lateral (propagation) speed is constant the wavelength increases (redshift). 'Understanding' that simplicity is everything.

You may be right that one simplistic 'interpretation' of Huygens may be; "each point in the slit.." but that's not correct. Each PART of the slit has TWO edges, which is what produces the single slit diffraction.

Another big common error is thinking 'frequency', which is only a time based derivative. The real physical property is WAVELENGTH Lambda, which any professional Astronomer or Astrophysicist will tell you. Diffraction patterns change with wavelength. Your assertion "therefore it MUST be from photons" as "no other model can explain it" is therefore quite wrong. The reason being that you started with a false assumption.

Later you say the same of the lateral shift, which is similarly untrue. Remember just because there's no light in the dark stripes doesn't mean there's no energy on that "trajectory". I found an interesting action was to move the screen further forward and back for the CHANGING 3D picture. As my essay identifies, reality becomes far clearer with 3D models.

Of course there are photons, spreading but requantized continually, but that doesn't falsify wave diffraction or Huygens principle. Better understanding of wave/particle duality is needed (I'm referring to ALL not just you John!)

In any case you should recall from my paper that the old 'ballistic' theory of conserved photons without wave characteristics doesn't and can't coherently explain Stellar Aberration.

I like and agree with much of your model, but in suggesting it falsifies waves the whole thing fails the consistency test. That's the area I see most refinement needed.

I hope that was clearer and helps.

Best

peter

The light from a candle is incoherent. when passed through a slit or pinhole it becomes coherent. As i said in the video, Coherence produces a diffraction pattern when passed through a slit. But light from a candle is incoherent. as I said in the video, there a 3 sources of coherence, for far away light sources (stars), form a lasar, and from the 1st slit in young's experiment. Incoherent light impinging on a mask with a pinhole produces an image not a diffraction pattern it's called a pin hole camera.

It's obvious you have not listened or understood the video. Otherwise you'd know the photon is the source on the direction (Bohm) wave. When the photon is between the mask and the screen, there is no wave coming through the slit to the photon. Huygens requires a wave passing through the slit.

But you don't have to accept the reflection. In that case you have to say where the directing wave comes from such that the diffraction pattern reflects photon's energy. This is the Major, major problem with the Bohm interpretation.

You really don't understand the accepted physics or the problems with it. There is a reason accepted physics says Young's experiment is the whole key to QM.

Hodge

Dear Jackson,

Very good essay, you have gone into depths of quantum mechanics very nicely....

I am just quoting few of your words just for further discussion sake ....

1. ..... "No conclusion is possible as to whether or not a cosmic architect created our or any universe"...

................ Why we should think this way sir? Just have a look at my essay, where I have discussed about birth and death of individual galaxies, independent any other galaxies. Why should we think of some creator......?

2........ "It is possible to model mechanisms producing aims and intent algorithmically and give similar architecture to AI, but a computer as complex as a brain may be required for useful predictions.".........

....... More complex computer structures like super computers , single bit computers which work like individual neurons which can simulate Neural networks of brain are available...... The main problems faced are, how to use them and software development and programming. Another problem is they are very expensive. Some of the programming developed on them can be done very easily on your PC, and many times more accurately .........

Best wishes for your essay

=snp.gupta

    John

    You seem wholly wedded to your theory which blinds you to it's flaws. That's quite usual, particularly as we get old (as am I too). But you shouldn't assume or blame others ignorance. I well understand the theories behind the single slit diffraction pattern, which are FAR from settled.

    I did well understand your video, also wide experimental results and current interpretation. The problem is, apart from 'passing over' key issues, that you clearly haven't recognised or taken on board that; NO WAVE HAS TO PASS THROUGH ANY SLIT!! - (That's duality for you!)

    I also quite agree the Bohm interpretation is also flawed.

    I'm only trying to help John, but if your belief in your full model is that deeply embedded then it supports the hypothesis of my essay, there's no capacity for development and and may then be little point discussing further.

    Best

    Peter

    Peter, thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.

    You taught me quite about bit AI. I had not heard of Propositional Dynamic Logic. Apparently you work in the field and I will definitely look into some of the issues since it relates to what is happening at neural junctions. Also, I enjoyed your presentation of spin. I had to look up Bloch spherical vectors. If I understand your paper, you have found a classical explanation for half spin based on rotation in 3 dimensions. Spin and its associated wave function determine whether a particle is a fermion or boson. I wonder if signals that add in a neural network are boson like until they reach a particular junction that determines the result. Multiplication at nodes may addition of logarithms until a different kind of junction is reached (your neural hub?). I recall your red sock green sock paper and its relationship to EPR. As I mention in my paper, we need to know a lot more about hidden connections. Overall your paper was excellent. I agree that reaching conclusions regarding intent is a stretch for science with our current level of thinking. One thing that continues to bother me is how we all think so differently.

    Gene Barbee

      Satyav

      Thank you.

      I agree galaxies are evolving and also published a paper on an evolutionary sequence and recycling by quasar some time ago. I'll read your paper with interest. However nobody can prove how anything 'started'. I didn't want anybody to interpret or assume my essay suggested a god, or not, as many do.

      I agree we're progressing, but still a very long way off nature as our doctrinal theoretical foundations remain badly flawed.

      I look forward to reading your essay again in more detail and commenting.

      Best

      Peter

      Gene,

      Thank you kindly. I think our work knits together perfectly.

      I think the fermion/boson description is flawed as I've now shown the two (Maxwells) momenta within OAM can produce both so called 'states' purely subject to interaction angle with respect to the polar axis.

      The problem was that QM never did consider what a particle might 'look like' so blinded itself to the logical derivation.

      I think our different ways of thinking is at once our greatest strength and weakness. If we all though identically we'd be clones and not evolve at all! The key then should be to better organise our thinking to rationalise input more consistently, then allowing us to communicate better.

      I'm very glad we both rationalise well already so 'are on the same wavelength'. On occasions I wonder if I'm on the right planet!

      Peter,

      Thanks for an interesting read. The three concept rule is new to me. It was also unknown to my college professors. Perhaps they thought it was a minima rather than a maxima:-)

      FYI, Milo Wolff presented a visualization similar to what you present to explain QM spin. The key requirement is that there must be rotation about two axes.

      Regarding genetic mutations, I had assumed that mutations were somehow related to the decay of carbon 14. Spin alignment is a less destructive alternative.

      All in all, a good effort.

      Best Regards and Good Luck,

      Gary Simpson

        Gary,

        Thanks. And a big thanks also for the heads up on Milo Wolff. I've now visited his page, sent an Email and ordered his book! I've had massive self doubts that such a simple but important discovery hadn't been spotted by ANYBODY before, so it's great relief to have it ('pre'!) confirmed.

        Wolff doesn't seem to extend to the rest of classic QM yet from what I've seen so I hope our work each informs the others.

        I had a first speed read of your own essay this week and found some nice harmonics with my own thoughts, (the harmonics theme is one I've discussed in past papers). But I stumbled over the generous scattering of equations, conventionally frowned on for these essays. It doesn't help that I'm by no means a mathematician (though I did a while ago see and agree the physical analog of quaternions).

        I nonetheless earmarked it in the top grouping for a second and deeper read and look forward to discussing any points emerging.

        Best wishes

        Peter

        Jo

        Yes, I see it. It did take rather a long time but not long ago I became quite comfortable with the concepts of infinity and eternity.

        Best

        Peter

        Dear Peter Jackson,

        This reply i posted on my essay, I am just reproducing here for your immediate attention please...........

        Thank you very much for the supporting reply. You touched many points, very nicely. I want to give a point by point reply. I like the idea to work in collaboration with you, we will definitely do that. You are an multi-talented person with very nice knowledge of many fields. Please give more details of your model to me....

        ....Your words: As an Astronomer long focused on galaxies and cosmic evolution I found your ideas interesting and novel with much agreement with my own work and (some joint) published papers. Certainly the universe is dynamic, and many current assumptions (mainly in the 'Concordance' model) are flawed, incomplete or plain wrong!

        .....My reply... You are exactly correct! Thank you very much for your appreciation!!

        ....Your words: but specifically; ".......our Universe reproduces its Galaxies." I've actually produced a model of precisely how it does this, with a full life cycle bases on detailed data analysis.

        .....My reply... Wow, very nice!, I want see details.......

        ....Your words: "Galaxies tend to evolve from spiral to elliptical structure" Again that is indeed a basic part of the full evolutionary cycle the data supports.

        .....My reply... Very Good, it is an expected part.

        ....Your words: I should say other ideas don't correspond well with findings and data. Part of my studies have been of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field survey data. Indeed I have the 'visible' wavelength image as my computer desktop background. One thing for certain is that it did NOT look the same back then as now. Far from it. There are many differences, including faster evolution and significantly lower mass functions (all smaller).

        .....My reply... I want see that data, and want know why you decided like that, Was that based on the observed data.....?

        ....Your words: Few of the inconsistencies argue with your basics, but if you wish to be taken at all seriously by the current regime you'll need a lot better consistency with data across the board.

        .....My reply... I am damn serious, I want this Dynamic Universe model to be always based on Experimental results and observed data, I will never back out.

        Many papers and books were published on Dynamic Universe model, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994), 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required' , "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations" , "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background" in FQXi, "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model , 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly' , 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free , Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model . Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe .

        Prediction of existence of large number of Blue shifted Galaxies came true. Prediction of "no dark matter" came true. All these papers were published many places available in the internet.

        All these books and papers can be downloaded from freely from Dynamic Universe Model Blog or viXra

        ....Your words: My own model is massively well evidenced (I've studied 20-30 papers etc/wk for decades)and includes better alternatives for the big 'Bang/Bounce' and the cosmological constant (cosmic redshift). But it still hasn't penetrated old doctrinal beliefs! ...

        .... My reply... Please give some more details.... You can contact me by emails also... snp.gupta@gmail.com

        ...... Your words....(Yet it's still being refined and evolving as NONE of us should be too 'precious' about our theories!).

        ... .... My reply.... You are exactly correct, NATURE is very complex, and it produces new and new facets always. What we can check is how this model explains that observation. All these are being done for the betterment of humanity.

        What we can check is how this model explains this new observation. That's what I am doing always for the last 30 years, without any support from mainstream..... It was a real torture to me for the last so 25 odd years, whatever the results and predictions that are that came true, no support.....

        ..... Your words....If you wish I'll post links to the Evolution paper and a video simply deriving redshift without requiring accelerating expansion. I think both may help inform and advance your own good work. ...

        .... My reply... Yes please, I want have a look at them. Please send me, or post them here.

        ..... Your words....Most will of course say you're too far of topic here, but I feel better fundamental understanding of all nature from the smallest quanta needs better understanding of how the universe works. ...

        .... My reply.... Don't worry. These all being done for the better understanding of the universe and its nature, and for the benefit of humanity, definitely NOT for embezzlement of Government funds.....

        .... Your words.... It's also well written so I have it down for a good score. (though I try not to apply scores before reading all) ...

        .... My reply.... I am also thinking the same, but I am giving high score to you now itself ! These interactions are very important.

        Best wishes....

        =snp.gupta

          Peter,

          Regarding Dr. Wolff ... unfortunately, he has passed away.

          You are correct about my use of equations. It is frowned upon in essay formats such as this. However, this is the only venue where I can present these ideas with any hope of reaching a technical audience that my have useful criticism. If it affects my ranking in the contest then that is a price I will gladly pay.

          Best Regards and Good Luck,

          Gary Simpson

          Dear Satyav,

          Thank you kindly. I've come across some of your papers before (though among thousands!) and now recall appreciating your 'It from Bit' essay on the CMB etc.

          I'll give the links below. I'm probably principally and Astronomer/Observational Cosmologist but as all nature is connected have been a perpetual student spending intense periods studying a wide range of other specialist areas over 50 years. That's proved highly valuable for 'joined up' thinking & science. One essential for a coherent theory is to study the scores of papers posted weekly in the likes of the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (MNRAS) etc. Of course much interpretation there is based on older false ones but the basic findings are valuable. It seems you may not do that quite as much.

          I think a useful first job may be to find the Hubble UDF image, put it on your desk top and study it in comparison to the near universe, then look (critically) at the widest range of findings.

          I did that at various ranges looking at the evolution of morphologies and eventually a new more coherent picture emerged, outlined in the first paper below.

          DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4540.5603 or;

          http://www.hadronicpress.com/issues/HJ/VOL36/HJ-36-6.pdf

          That and most other other important results are also archived on arXiv i.e. http://arxiv.org/a/jackson_p_1

          or rather more on Academia.edu;

          Peter http://independent.academia.edu/JacksonPeter/Papers

          The video deriving cosmic redshift is here;

          Cosmic redshift without accelerating w expansion Video

          and the (longer one) explaining the Classic QM mechanism here;

          Classic QM video, (Full)

          I expect that's quite enough for now as we both have many essays to read and review! I'll copy this to you string, and score it now.

          Very Best

          Peter

          Aaargh! I won't expect a response then. Massive shame.

          Do you know if anyone is carrying on his work?

          Do you think there may be any math input you could contribute on the ontological foundations I identify? I suggest a 'classical' QM could allow great theoretical advancement.

          Best

          Peter

          Peter,

          Several folks are attempting to carry forward Dr. Wolff's ideas with myself being one. We are mostly amateurs. Although, one gentleman does have a PhD in Physics. You might be able to make contact through the WSM users group on Yahoo.

          Words such as ontology and teleology are barely in my vocabulary:-)

          I have posted two works to viXra.org that might be of interest to you. They are Quaternion Dynamics Part 1 and Part 2. This is an active area of study for myself. They can be found here:

          http://vixra.org/author/gary_d_simpson

          Best Regards and Good Luck,

          Gary Simpson