Peter, I watched your Vimeo video of 38 minutes (in your bibliography) and then read your essay. Listening to you speak in the video helped me to read your voice on the page.

It seems you advocate a "language translation" between models: the model used in your video to the current Standard Models for example. I wonder if the translation might be done formally following the diagram of the "infomorphism" on page 73 of "Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems" by Barwise and Seligman.

My own belief is that we will never understand the Universe-- there will always be mysteries. And then there is the old story about the blind men encountering an elephant for the first time. One grabs the tail, and the tail becomes the model in support of his statements about the elephant.

Much like your sphere in various situations becomes the models supporting your statements in the paper. Much like experiments become the models supporting statements in the Standard Models.

Of course in the old story about the elephant, each blind man has a different model, each model supporting their differing statements. Although there would be no infomorphism between some statements-- such as the elephant being like the branch of a tree for the man holding the tail, while for the man feeling the leg, the elephant is like a tree trunk-- there may be other statements which translate exactly. For example, the smell of the elephant would be largely the same for each man.

My own approach In this contest is to translate from the probable experiential knowledge of particular pre-socratics (Thales, Xenophanes, Parmenides, and then Socrates himself)-- specifically about their probable experiential knowledge of "the self"-- into possible scientific knowledge for a community of researchers, for example, those who have the know-how to use non-wellfounded sets, co-algebras and streams. Especially when the likes of string theory seems beyond verification by experiment.

As for the blind men feeling the elephant, for each domain of mathematics such as field theory, co-algebras etc., there may be infomorphisms between each language, including yours.

Thank you for making me aware of your work!

Peter:

Excellent essay. Got the deserved high marks. Sharp and witty language as expected from a Brit!

We are FUNDAMENTALLY in agreement пЃЉ!

I agree with you that the light bending by the Sun is most likely due to refraction by the gradient index of its corona plasma.

You have quoted Einstein's desire to find the foundation from a fundamentally new way of thinking. This is critically important. Otherwise, we will remain stuck in the "success rut", as I have mentioned in my essay.

However, I do see differences in our approaches. This is only because I am a hardcore experimentalist and coming with a background optical science and engineering. I also differ from you from the sociological implication of "Revolution". We know from the history of politico-economic revolutions that they are very disruptive and more damaging, specifically, for those who were supposed to have gained more economic freedom. In reality, what we see is that again a minority of "Tribal Leaders" have taken over the helm and only a small fraction of the revolutionary benefits have "trickled down" to the masses. Therefore, I prefer, slow, steady and incremental changes in our SCIENTIFIC ENTERPRISE where the funding steadily shifts towards out-of-box thinkers who are system engineers in their epistemology. After all, nature has been the most impressive system engineer in creating, managing and letting the universe keep evolving.

Chandra.

    Chandra,

    Many thanks. Most agree big change is overdue. I suggest

    Dear Peter Jackson

    Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.

    My essay is titled

    "Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin". It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.

    Thank you & kind regards

    Steven Andresen

    Thinking freely does not mean we can think the way we like. Science has developed a methodology of operations where we have some postulations. These are build up to explain the process under study. The outcomes are expressed mathematically. The process is continued till we reach the objective we have set to explain. Finally, our approach has to be confirmed experimentally, no escaping that. Pure Mathematics has no place in Physics unless backed by logic of postulates based on existing knowledge. Kindly indicate your response if you differ.

    Peter,

    Thanks for your kind words. Seems to be sparse reviewing and rating in this essay contest so far. I am revisiting those I have reviewed and see if I have scored them before the deadline approaches. I find that I did score your on 1/27.

    Luck in the contest.

    Jim Hoover

      Peter Jackson

      Regarding what you said about hf=E or dfh=dE. Remember that we do not see the light. We can only observe electron behavior when they are exposed to light. Therefore our image of light is indirect and quantization can be done by the electrons. Therefore, Planck's constant can represent an electron property.

      Regards from _______________ John-Erik Persson

        Peter, hoping this helps, I've transferred the following reply from my essay-thread

        More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

        ....................

        Thanks Peter,

        It's good to see that we're on the same map when it comes to resolving Bell's "action-at-a-distance" dilemma and related matters. My "neo-classical" foundations are intended to support fundamental classically-based research like yours. For -- under an old mantra of mine -- reality makes sense and we can understand it. However, let's now see if we can get onto the same course to the same safe harbour.

        You write: "I couldn't read all of [your essay] as I didn't recognise the symbols ...."

        O Captain, my captain: eqns (1)-(3) chart the stormy waters, with ¶¶4.1-4.2 written expressly for keen sailor's like you. (And here be no dragons! Rather, here we come to my comment about "the mathematics".)

        With every pointed critical comment most welcome, my [cough] lovely notation is meant to be physically significant and to helpfully include every relevant beable and every relevant interaction. Even to the point of charting the dynamics of interactions (see the little arrows). Thus a polariser is represented by a "delta" denoting "change" -- akin to a delta-function -- its orientation and output channels identified. Even an analyser (often a multiplier) is represented by a multiplication (a scalar-product). How about q for qon, a quantum particle? [Just kidding?] Have a look again (sometime) at ¶4.1 and the little exercise there for diligent sailors; knowing that we're on a steady heading to a safe haven and more conventional representations -- see eqn (21).

        So that's why I'm keen to see: (i) your representation of the beables in your work; (ii) the interactions; (iii) the outcomes; (iv) all wrapped up in some math (by you or some shipmates, mate).

        As for working in unison: I'm up for that, but tend to be a bit of a Lone Sailor given my current solo focus on showing how TLR (true local realism) takes us all-the-way to Shangri-La.

        In response to this from you -- "Very well done, and I look forward to your comments on mine, with particular regard to the maths!" -- I'll also put this as a comment on your essay-site. I'll also read the essays that you mention.

        With my thanks again; Gordon

        .....................................

        PS: I should add that I will be moving to a fancy-P for Prevalence and a fancy-q for qon; thus P and q can retain their standard role in QM, etc. The point being that, with (in my "neo-classical" terms), the Laws of Malus, Bayes, and Born (thanks to Fourier and the R-F theorem) established from first principles: the consequent confirmatory QM-style application of Born's Law to EPRB and DSE (+++) is immediate.

        Gordon Watson

        More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

          John Eric

          Partly yes, as my essay identifies. But the detector electrons will do nothing if the signal doesn't arrive, and the momentum exchanged is a function of BOTH, so observed states can't be JUST 'an electron property'.

          My essay identifies excactly what information is shared between signals A & B (polar axis orientation and energy), and how the exchange produces the observed results.

          All 3 degrees of freedom are required to rationalise it classically, and also produce so called 'non integer spin' states, (as this video);100 sec video

          Best

          Peter

          James

          Thanks. You're right. I've found reading seems to be going out of fashion. Many professors have been reading 1/20th of the papers I have in recent years! I'll ensure I apply yours shortly.

          But I think the system's cracking up anyway, gaps exchanged for 'n's!!?

          Best

          Peter

          Dear Peter

          An immensely rich essay! I like what you said about 'Nature is weird - Live with it'. It seems to be a mantra for today.

          Best Wishes

          Mozibur Ullah

          Peter Jackson

          No, it is not so. The emitting electron exchanges energy with the ether. After that, at a time interval, the detecting electron exchanges energy with the ether. Therefore, excluding the ether caused the problem in quantum physics.

          I could not open the video you sent me.

          Best regards from _____________ John-Erik Persson

          Peter

          I generally read essays once, as I have done of yours. However when I elect to read an essay a second time, it is personal interest. As I will yours before forming a proper reply.

          In my opinion you are a deep thinker with quality deductions, these informing your world overview and guiding your general scientific inquiries. But you also have a handle on an abundance of highly technical considerations, an ocupational hazard I guess.

          Nearly everybody else assumes the answers to fundementals of the world are berried beneath layers of additional complexities of theory. You and i look in the other direction, toward symplicity. You assume one day a revelation will lead us to say, "so simple and explains so much of the world's charactor". And you also persist the search for hidden variable for bells inequality. I share these general deductions with you.

          I'll write you again once I've built my ubderstanding of your work. But in the mean time I rate your essay a 10.

          Steven Andresen

          Darwinian Universal Fundemental Origin

            John-Eric, Yes I see the link is dead. Try one of these;

            Youtube 100 sec Classic QM.

            Vimeo 100 sec video.

            As foor your model, I've agreed it's novel and interesting and we must test all. But the QM test is like a complex jigsaw puzzle we're told can't be solved. There is only ONE solution (be it describable in many ways).

            Your theory don't yet derive such a solution. Our classical mechanism DOES do so, and unarguably because its classical mechanics. So if you suggest our solution is 'wrong' it's the same as saying the completed jigsaw puzzle is wrong! (it also produces non integer spins, remarkable in itself!)

            You may still be right if a flaw in the puzzle solution is found. Nobody has yet but you might. OR a modified s description may be consistent. Our model also works with a plane wave from a 'photon' emission interacting with detector electrons. Could you not say in a way that's not inconsistent with yours?

            Very Best

            Peter

            Peter

            You are a visitor for long time of Fqxi website, with interesting ideas.

            Your essay is a good essay, but with honesty and frankness, I don't read the fundamental idea.

            I chose to give only high votes in these contest, so that a my non-votes for your essay is better of a downgrading.

            Ragards

            Domenico

              Hi Domenico,

              Thanks for looking. The fundamental requirement for all and any matter is identified as 'motion' which is a relative concept. Motion then requires some entity, some time period and a background. Without those there can be no matter and no universe at all! Condensed matter (fermion pairs) is then the simplest spherical rotation.

              I thought I'd got that across in stating it, but then went on to derive how unbelievably powerful that simplest action could be, the mechanism classically reproducing QM, so removing weirdness!

              I'm disappointed but not surprised so few even seem to understand the stupidities of QM and need to resolve them. Ce la vie. Perhaps the solution (Penrose called the 'holy grail) will be lost in space!

              Very Best

              Peter

              Peter,

              WOW! That's INCREDIBLE. I've just read it a third time after brushing up my QM for the last fortnight... and it really works!. That's 90 years of stupidity we can escape from. Well done you! And truly from the most fundamentally simple action in physics.

              I've also read your previous papers and see how it allows unification with a slightly less flawed interpretation of the Special Theory of Relativity. You may rtecall a few years ago my essay included the Cluster Probe data analysis which matched your own.

              I also read Traill's essay (or rather computer generated proof and graph), and gather you're now collaborating on the astonishing finding.I didn't notice your end note experiment explanation the first time. That's important as its cheap and easy to reproduce. Finding the last peice of the puzzle, the squaring of amplitude to get Intensity, was truly inspired! and again so simple!!

              I want to track down the rest of the solutions to the bizarre quantum explanations for things. I think I've seen most in your other work and the video's (the long one needs updating by the way!) but how do you explain short range tomography?

              The down side is the dimwitted among physicists either don't understand QM well enough, or as you wrote, are so convinced the world is weird they won't be able to accept a classic solution can exist, even though Bell insisted it did. Best of luck there! Anyway thats a 20 from me! (if I could) I see someone mentioned it being worth a Nobel in the discussions, that's certainly correct, if you live long enough!

              I hope you'll read my own essay, a bit more philosophical but I think you'll agree with it. Do tell me if not.

              Thaks, I'm truly uplifted, at last! I'm sure you were even more so when if fianlly came together. Most just SAY we need new thinking and new physics but don't seem to mean it and do the necessary, so just hollow talk. Now we'll see if they DO mean it!.

              All the very best for the scoring & judging.

              Richard

                Peter

                Your essay is no minor piece. Infact surviving review, it would prove a ground-breaking work. My only reservation is to acknowledge my limited ability to qualify such a work.

                I'm glad we share some general points of view, that science might be restored to a semblance of realism. That an imaginative leap might link QM and relativity, and that "time" is an important, if not the important component in unification. Your occupation will have honed your interpretative skills, and so I hope you will have properly appreciated by treatment of (clocks as a measure of QM force dilation, not time dilation). Forces drive clock function, so if times governance over forces cannot be redeemed by scientific explanation, then what's the justification for (clocks measure time?) Force dilation is an observable, quantifiable, and equivalent QM substitute for time dilation, applied to equivalent effect in relative motion and relative gravitational environments.

                On another topic, I believe I may have something useful for you, regarding your resolution for Bells Inequality, and it is delivered by an observable. To sum up in simplest possible terms, you apply considerations of relative motions of 3D spherical bodies to decode Bells inequalities.

                The observation

                A pole or rod standing in a gravitational field, incrementally weighed as it is laid over, beginning at 90degrees from ground, and concluded at 0 degrees. Are you aware that the transitional weight profile matches the same curve as given by QM probability? This is fact, not theory!

                What could a photons angle of approach to a polarization filter, and its probability of passing the filter or being stopped, possibly have in common with a poles incremental weight transition in a gravitational field, respective of that same angle? What could leaning photons and leaning poles have in common?

                There is a forceful interaction between a pole and gravity, which is characterized by a poles balance and its resistance to the forceful effects of gravity. As the pole is incrementally laid over, gravity has an increasing proportion of leverage over the pole. Or you could term it as, the pole is losing its leveraged balance, and therefore its ability to resist force of gravity.

                The photon and the polarisation filter clearly have a forceful interaction with one another. Whereby the filter is imposing a force on the photon, and changing its state/position/motion. And its fair to assume that the photon might have resistance to changes in its state/position/motion, dependent upon its angle to the filter, the leverage associated with that angle.

                This is very simple, and might entirely capture the essence of your proposal. Summed up as an interaction between two elements whereby one exerts a force on the other, and the other expresses a forceful resistance to changes in state/position/motion, dependant on leverage at various angles.

                I will be thankful for your opinion on this please?

                Steven Andresen