Classical Quantum Conciousness by Peter Jackson

pjackson

Peter,

I mean that from Maxwells equations and in standard electrodynamics (EM) electricity and magnetism have an orthogonal relationship, exactly as the two states; 'curl' (peaking at the poles) and 'angular momentum' (peaking at the equator) - so 'orthogonal', or acting at 90 degrees to each other.

Then their inversely proportional complementarity and cosine distributions, (which we've now reproduced classically), also reproduce the predictions of QM (once the cos values are squared by the photo-detector cascade). All we then need is to agree electrons DON'T all re-emit absorbed energy at 'different' speeds wrt their own 'centre of mass' rest frame, and Special Relativity fits naturally into the whole 'Discrete Field' model as well! (see my essays from 2011 on).

That IS a lot to take on at once, but does it now make better sense?

Very best

Peter

pjackson

Conrad,

Thanks. What I've identified is that a classical explanation of QM's predictions can help REVEAL a deeper level of understanding to the quantum domain. There's a fantastic amount still to discover but I suggest we can never do that if we're making the wrong 'starting assumptions'.

Very best

Peter

pjackson

James,

Thanks. I agree. Secret judging, like peer reviewing, is reasonable and acceptable as long as you get some degree of feedback from those doing the evaluation. I have suggested it but (again) had no response. Form an evaluators viewpoint there will seem many reasons not to.

I'm not concerned about the prizes, just advancement of understanding of nature. However as my essay identifies we seem to be far slower than we could be at intellectual evolution, perhaps as Hawking, Gates, Musk and other suspect, too slow to stop AI overtaking & eradicating us in the foreseeable future!

Very best

Peter

Jonathan Dickau

Hi Peter,

After seeing your comments to George, and noting that the conversation quickly ground to a halt, I decided to take a look (at your essay's references and the comments page). It appears you are unaware of a new effort by the experimentalists to explore Chiral Quantum Optics. A web search of that term should get you a half-dozen leads to run with. My guess is that these folks have gathered some evidence that directly impacts your theory. I can't tell you whether it supports or conflicts with your ideas, but I am fairly certain it does offer perspective on what you are trying to prove.

Warm Regards,

Jonathan

pjackson

Jonathan,

Thanks. Yes, it does. I'd actually tried to make contact with the Vienna lot but had the usual (no!) response. The raw data all agrees with the causal model (as do ALL experiments) but their analysis is 'one dimensional' (they note they aspire to two in future!) so they're some way behind other work and Nature, which is 3D!

I'd only speed read most of it so went back, which was worth doing. The 2nd (orthogonal) 'state' is actually identified but they say (as it's still not understood) that they're only "concerning themselves" with the one! (that's rather like trying to solve a Rubic cube from a picture of one side! A few other labs are ahead of them with 3D work (i.e. Allen, The Planck Inst. etc.) See also my prev 3 essays and refs etc on the helical paths they 'discover! The hype may have been as much about funding as anything.

They also rely on old doctrinal assumptions which gives rise to the 'surprise' findings etc and makes their limited analysis even less useful. - Indeed most analysis focuses on an anticipated range of possible practical applications (consistent with a funding motivation).

Thanks for flagging it up. It should indeed have been relevant, but like most current experimentation, though the data all fits the 2nd, orthogonal, momentum state I identify it remains simply 'invisible' to most minds beyond Maxwell's 'theoretical construct' and a bit of lip service!

Have you managed to 'hold' it in your mind? (I assume you watched the video - short version here; 100sec 'glimpse' video. )

Very best

Peter

Jonathan Dickau

Thanks for responding Peter..

Agreed they are looking for funding, and probably will keep some findings to themselves until they have a (read: their own) congruent explanation for what they are observing. Which may mean that if the experiment greatly supports your work, but is not in affirmation of 'accepted' Physics, it may be a while before they do report anything meaningful objectively. And yes; of course it is worthwhile to contemplate and the visuals help. FWIW; I remain an agnostic, but I acknowledge that a major overhaul might be needed because a lot of researchers are plugged in to an answer that remains a cul de sac, rather than an open road to progress.

All the Best,

Jonathan

« Previous Page