Steve,

The concrete block is to allow you to distinguish 'weight' (gravitational potential) from rotational 'torque', which is quite different. The weighing scales will read (almost) identically no matter what the angle of the post or where it's connected. Your analysis is flawed and you're not carrying out a proper scientific experiment and rationalising it consistently.

Now certainly the rotational and linear effects are different forces, (which is what I point out on the surface of a rotating sphere, largely ignored in OAM) Also certainly the torque or 'twisting force increases with lever length.

Now finally yes, because the tip is describing an arc, the change in torque will be non-linear with angle of inclination. The distribution will be by Cos theta however far away the centre of mass of the pole is for the exact reasons I give in my essay. That's simple undergrad classical mechanics, if not rationalised in current quantum theorization!

However that has absolutely NO (or trivially no-zero with height as I derived) effect on 'weight' (so on gravitational potential).

Simply try it with scales to confirm that. I hope that helps understanding?

Peter

Hi Peter:

Your conclusion - "... the apparently most ridiculously simple of concepts can

resolve & unite incomplete and incompatible theories." is vindicated by my paper -"What is Fundamental - Is C the Speed of Light". that describes the fundamental physics of antigravity missing from the widely-accepted mainstream physics and cosmology theories resolving their current inconsistencies and paradoxes. The missing physics depicts a spontaneous relativistic mass creation/dilation photon model that explains the yet unknown dark energy, inner workings of quantum mechanics, and bridges the gaps among relativity and Maxwell's theories. The model also provides field equations governing the spontaneous wave-particle complimentarity or mass-energy equivalence. The key significance or contribution of the proposed work is to enhance fundamental understanding of C, commonly known as the speed of light, and Cosmological Constant, commonly known as the dark energy.

The paper not only provides comparisons against existing empirical observations but also forwards testable predictions for future falsification of the proposed model.

I would like to invite you to read my paper and appreciate any feedback comments.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

Peter

You haven't identified the parameter I point too. Otherwise you wouldn't and couldn't say "The weighing scales will read (almost) identically no matter what the angle of the post".

You have introduced elements and terms which are not relevant to the observation I describe. You are talking about something other than what I am, so you cant comment on what analysis is or isn't flawed, and what serves as a proper scientific experiment.

If you've ever dropped a heavy son of a bitch motor cycle, then you will have experienced its extreme of weight as you first hoist it from the ground. But the lifting effort reduces as the bike transitions to an upright position, as the bikes weight is increasingly centred over the tyres.

The parameter I measure is the bikers experience of weight as the bike is lifted toward a balanced position in the Earths gravitational field. The shifting proportion of weight is non-linear. It is disproportionately heavy while the bike as at 22 degrees from the ground, and disproportionally lighter at 68 degrees from the ground.

I have measured this very simple parameter utilizing a pole and scales. The transition of weight is the same curve as expressed by quantum probability.

At this moment I will not extrapolate an interpretation of this classical system and why it might relate to quantum probability distributions. Except to say that both can be related via interaction of forces, and angles of influence.

The observation itself is not something you can disagree with. It is a non-subtle parameter which is easily measured. If you disagree with it then you are arguing with nature, not myself ? Good luck with that.

I hope that helps understanding?

Steven

Peter

I appreciate your considerations towards hidden variables. I have expressed as much. I merely seek to share an additional consideration which might complement yours. The interaction between particles and detectors might be presumed to have consideration of geometries(particle shape) but it is also going to be a consideration of forces (two way forceful interaction) changing states of momentum and position.

The larger part of your proposal might be termed geometric. Decoding Bells inequalities based on geometries and various positions of those geometries. You also include considerations of momentum, which are related to forces and forceful interactions.

The consideration I put to you distills the simplest geometry possible, a pole. But shows (if you would look at it) that force interactions can still relate a basis for decoding photon behavior and Bells inequality.

That isnt to say we can do away with your considerations and proposed dynamics, because the simple pole geometry can only decode the photons behavior. Massive particles have additional complex behaviors which require your general method for decoding. But, force interactions are a dynamic which needs to flow through your considerations, based on the observation I have put forward to you. In my opinion.

I believe it is a very conservative assumption, physics is about geometries "and" very particular force interactions. Force considerations entail issuing of force, and resistance to forces issued. That is the basis for why the pole behaves as it does in a gravitational field and presumably why it might replicate a photons probability curve.

If you should weigh a pole at various angles and see that it does behave that way. Then you might ask why it displays the same curve as quantum probability? Why do poles and photons at the same angle, share a relate-able value?

Steve

Steve,

Yes, I better understand you (until the end!) make no assumption of total system weight change, but it's still clear that my third to last paragraph above (please read it again carefully) analyses it correctly in classical mechanics terms. i.e.

Take your bike. The total Hamiltonian of you plus bike is a constant, equivalent to weight (you bike). As the bike is raised the SHARE of that changes until the bike is upright and each resolves to it's own weight.

As I wrote, the point you're making is that the rate of change is non-linear, and as my essay identifies, the force changes by the Cosine of the angle between 0 and 90o, which gives a Bayesian distribution or Gaussian Bell curve. Now read Prof Phillips excellent essay where he brilliantly explains why that's ubiquitous for ALL distributions in the universe, including where described as 'probability curve'.

But then you go off track with; "If you should weigh a pole at various angles and see that it does behave that way.." I repeat; It does NOT behave that way. Try it! Go back to your bike; with wheels on scales you find it weights LESS when inclined! and if you stand on scales (the ONLY way to measure weight) you'll find you're taking that exact difference.

Now we CAN also consider the orthogonal 'rotation' case at the base of the pole, which has the same cosine distribution with angle but again is NOT 'WEIGHT' in ANY sense. It's purely rotational, which you can call torque or Maxwell's 'curl'.

Prof Phillips identifies, as I and you do, that this distribution is oft ignored and poorly understood, but reading this and his essay explains why it's the case. So yes, you do have a point, but as Phillips identifies. "the Gaussian distribution (i.e. the bell curve) is perhaps the most celebrated probabilistic example of a kind of fundamental inevitability. ..pick a bunch of random numbers and take their average, we get a new random number. If we now repeat this lots of times, the collection of random averages we generate will have a Gaussian distribution. ..might seem abstract and far removed but it's not. But indeed you're right insofar as what's not seen in simplistic OAM analysis is that second orthogonal and inverse distribution.

I hope that clarifies what, and what the importance of it, is.

very best

Peter

Hi Peter:

Thanks for your time and efforts in providing detailed analysis and comments on my paper. I appreciate it deeply.

I am not an expert in optics, plasma, plasmonics etc . Hence, I would try my best to respond to your questions in terms of relativistic formulations of the concerned phenomena:

1. Peter: "You seem to start with an assumption that photons are particles, so not waves and not requantized."

Avtar: While QM formulations are probabilistic wave functions, my paper depicts quantum events as relativistic, deterministic, and mechanistic phenomena in terms of mass/energy/space/time. Instead of quantization or re-quantization, my model allows spontaneous mass-energy conversion back and forth as needed to satisfy conservation laws and boundary conditions in a classical relativistic space-time. Hence, the optics formulations focusing on a detailed beam structure of individual particles - fermions, excitons etc are quite different and not easy to reconcile.

2. Peter: "2. You seem not to have considered the re-emitted photon speed as 'acceleration' rather than 'powered' by the emitter, i,e. the constant fermion spin energy after coupling (absoption/re-emission). Have you considered and discarded that apparently very consistent model? if so, why?

Avtar: I am proposing a new model or missing physics of spontaneous mass-energy conversion or equivalence totally focused on relativistic conservation of mass-energy as governed by relativity theory. You can draw your own parallels with fermion spin energy model that I do not have much familiarity with.

3. Peter: "You describe galaxies at z=8 as 'mature'. How do you arrive at this description when we have no model or sequence of secular evolution. I assume a 'red' stellar population? In any case this implies a life cycle' of galxies. i.e. what do you assume 'happened' to the old ones from 11bn yrs ago? (I don't challenge anything but I do have a coherent cyclic sequence answering that).

Avtar: The key point of my paper is that time or evolution sequence is not a governing parameter in my model. I have no problem if you would like to call either "mature" or "Red" etc. My model is a quasi-static universe model since the universe has no unique absolute time (time is relative in relativity, there is no one unique clock in the universe, no beginning, no ending, no evolution). Further my model predicts large mass galaxies far beyond 11 billion years that is falsifiable via future observations.

4. Peter: "You may have noted I've been working on QM the last 3yrs essays. I agree all you say (of SR as well as GR). You suggest the inconsistencies are 'resolved' but I've looked very hard and can find no actual full resolution defined, including to the EPR paradox. For the QM must be derived classically with CSHS >2, (or GM be proved completely weird!). On reading mine you'll see that's precisely what it does. Please study and identify any similarities."

Avtar: I read your paper and tried my best to digest the intricate details involving the particle physics, optics, and QM mathematical concepts that I admit not to have deep familiarity with. So, instead of treading in unknown waters, let me try to answer your questions in relativistic terms of my model:

• Peter's model explains the gaps between SR and QM via - " .... simple concept is relative motion, linear and rotational, so orbital & helical. All bound & ever more complex molecular matter and physics then evolves. As for 'foundational interpretations' of Quantum Physics; .......... Simply adding re-emissions at local 'c'. The model explains QM experiments, no comparisons or analysis presented against far-field cosmological expansion data showing dark energy. Need explanation for why the QM vacuum energy predictions are 120 orders of magnitude higher than observed, what is quantum gravity, how the collapse of the wave functions occurs, role of the consciousness of the observer, did the big bang happen, is there a unique time/clock in the universe, where, how, and when it started and what was before it?

• Avtar's model bridges the gaps between SR and QM via - " ......simply adding spontaneous mass-energy conversion inducing simple expansive (anti-gravity) relative motion complementing molecular, complex matter physics (described in detail in my book -"The Hidden Factor" but omitted from the FQXi paper due to space limitations). Predicts mathematically dark energy, supernova expansion, collapse of the wave function (via spontaneous conversion of wave energy to classical mass as V is interrupted via measurement), red galaxies in far-field universe, non-locality via space dilation etc. Need to develop details at the particle level (spin, refraction, rotation, plasma etc) - the focus has been global or universal mass-energy conservation rather than local particle behavior details.

• The EPR paradox becomes irrelevant in Avtar's model because of the relative motion between the two subjects (Alice and Bob) effects each of them equally and hence, no paradox of varying ages between the two.

• Heisenberg's uncertainty is shown by Avtar's model to be an artifact of the measurement deficiency/error in resulting from classical (fixed space-time) measurements of the highly relativistic (V close to C, greatly dilated space-time) quantum phenomena. The uncertainty would dissolve if the measurements are made in the same relativistic space-time as the quantum event. (This is described in great mathematical detail in my book).

• Both models prove that "the apparently most ridiculously simple of concepts can resolve & unite incomplete and incompatible theories."

Wishing you the best for the contest and hoping to continue the wisdom-full dialogue,

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

avsingh@alum.mit.edu

  • [deleted]

  • Post #140

Peter,

2020 sounds good. Once two people have a common understanding of a truth it may catch fire.

Sherman

Satyav,

You'll see the explanation for blue galaxies at high z in the 'cyclic..' paper, there's effectively no blue shift, just red, and derivable without accelerating expansion, as here;Video http://youtu.be/KPsCp_S4cUs

There are many Sauron kinematic survey papers on arXiv i.e; https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703531.all quite specialist, but all based on the same premiss of Doppler shifts from opposing edge rotation speeds.

I hope all that helps. Do pass me a link to your CMB anistropy derivation.

Very best

Peter

My Dear Peter!

Thank you very much for your great opinion to my work.

And my opinion with my high support to your huge efforts to go to the truth I have exposed already in your page (1 of February) that maybe you just did not seen yet, (because you are overloaded!) It is not so important thing my dear, but important is that both of we are same thinkers (almost) and I always will happy to see your new works!

With my best wishes,

George

    Peter,

    So close. Still too complicated. More fundamental still. The barmaid will still have some of the same roadblocks. Namely preconceived ideas. And "..if it was that simple...surely someone would have thought of that." I have tried the barmaid theory more than once, no luck. What I mean is, they didn't grasp the explanation. But you may have even less luck with the expert with their own idea and politically correct limitations etc.

    Sherman

      Sherman, (+posted on yours) -see also my fine structure 1/137 analysis there.

      I agree. Physics is closed minded. So I try Feynmans method, start by explaining it to a child...

      A spinning sphere works well if I'm there to explain it; child or in the bar. But let me try my fishbowl: Go down to the other end of the bar, shine a pulsed (1 sec) laser back at my fish bowl. The light slows to c/n glass then back to c/n air (or water or vacuum with some particles to light up) then c/n glass & back again. OK? I then slide the bowl at v down the bar & 'beam' to you (it won't fall off, I've practiced lots!)

      DFM analysis; As SR's postulates, the light does c/n in the rest frame of the fish bowl k' until it exits into the background bar rest frame k, so is further delayed, by v while in the bowls inertial system. A webcam in the moving fish bowl records the pulses being encountered more frequently then 1 sec. due to the Doppler shift. The barmaids webcam half way down the bar records apparent c-v (and c+v when you slide it back) while in the bowl! However those are NOT local propagation speeds. Evidence from another frame only gives 'apparent' speed.

      DOCTRINAL interpretation analysis; No 'preferred' background frame can exist so the camera lied because the fishbowl really shrunk or expanded without cracking, and 'time itself' dilated in the bowl.

      Now 5 of 6 children and barmaids understand and chose the correct logical analysis, in line with all optical science. Why can't 90% of academic physicists overcome cognitive dissonance to also do so? I last year suggested (apart from fear etc) that it's just our state of intellectual evolution. Is that fair?

      Classic QM was a test of the DFM, which it seems to have a passed. A tranche of more fundamental truths emerge, including cyclic cosmology, changing the 'Law of the Excluded Middle', Determinism etc, many in previous essays.

      Links available. I'm sure you've found others as good or better, do pass me yours. We have a bit of a consortium to make all coherent. Prof Chandra Roych.. also wants to go that way. Are you interested?

      If all else fails could we mass produce coffins and use Max Plancks solution?! lol

      Very best.

      Peter

      Thank you. I do judge your work very well. You are destined to do very well in this years contest and deservedly so.

      As for my leaning pole concept, you appear to have added the bikers weight to the bikes weight (you bike). If you had identified the parameter I point too, then you wouldnt have seen this as a necessary component. I cant judge your impression very well, partly because you havent spoken plainly enough about it. But it doesnt matter to let the subject go.

      All the best for the remainder of the contest and enjoy.

      Steve

      George (also on yours. ps I hadn't applied your score so will now)

      Yes, I note you had posted and thanks for your support. I'd forgot I took yours with others away with me to read on a trip and left them & notes there. I hope to get them back soon.

      Very best

      Peter

      Dear Peter,

      Here we are again all together.

      Thank you for the good evaluation of my work.

      I like your description to. I enjoyed reading your contribution.

      Аgree with Declan Andrew Traill «often correct explanations in Physics turn out to be ridiculously simple».

      I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

      Vladimir Fedorov

      https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

        Dear Peter,

        I have reread attentively your participation and liked your approach of "foundational".

        Some questions and remarks (if they are stupid to think of me as the barmaid...) between brackets is the page number.

        .

        (2)"a nominal 'bottom' in the Planck length. Any smaller scale condensate, continuum, Quantum foam (10в€'35), Coulomb/Casimir force field, 'zero points' or 'dark' energy, 'universe-filling medium' of Wilczek or 'New Ether' of Dirac is beyond observability"

        "Higgs process or fermion pair production 'popping up' from nowhere' implies a smaller perhaps more fundamental 'sub-quantum' scale of rotations as a 'sub-ether"

        (3)"(If the equator your side goes right or down the opposite side is going left or up)" I quite understand that by choosing the word "YOUR" side we are still talking about "the relative "motion" of this spin" and the agent itself is the reference? So the "rotations" are no rotations if there is no external agent to be aware of them?

        (4)no 6 "Fermion pairs DO 'pop up' from a sub-quantum condensate (motion induces pressure changes)" It is a very interesting "axiom" you propose as it can be explained as the Higgs Boson 'decay' producing fermions (on page 2). Does this also count for the popping up of particles and anti-particles at the event horizon of Black Holes (Hawking radiation)? My own interpretation is that this "popping up" is caused by the fluctuations on the border of emerging reality and "after Planck limits".

        (5)Your explanation of "superposed states" as an inherent property of internal "the exact set of 4 inversely proportional attributes changing by the Cosine of q to 0 at 90o and inverting at 180В°"is I think in its simplicity quite a genius thought and the approach you are making to explain "entanglement" is of the same quality. I think that the only basic need for this explanation is "These 4 inherent properties are simultaneously available at any moment" or am I wrong here?

        (7)"Other assumptions led to strange results in 'delayed choice/quantum eraser' experiments. Emissions use all paths." Maybe we both are trying to find the solution to this problem. You indicate that "every path is taken", I argue that Each reality loop is present (also the one where the future is causing events in the past) and every Loop where the agent is not experiencing this event is "disappearing" (becoming a probability again).

        "The more matter 'binds' the larger & greater this sub-matter energy density differential." I also have thought a long time for an explanation of gravity and until now I am a proponent of "Verlinde's" emerging gravity. But if we accept causal emergence this is congruent with your thoughts I think. (maybe the 4 inherent properties of particles that you mention have something to do with it when matter binds the rotational properties of the particles are creating a field called "gravity")

        I am but a "bartender" here Peter but you succeeded to explain the simplicity of your approach, and it made me think...I also think that without any consciousness matter would be in an ultimate state of equality of energy (highest entropy), so NOTHING would happen, we were not discussing anything. It was good that you advised me to reread intensely your participation. Thank you.

        Best regards

        And good luck in explaining your ideas.

        Wilhelmus

        link to my essay

          MR. Jackson,

          About your essay, i read and rated it. Further words are useless

          "...think outside infinite sequences of boxes..." would you mind if we change some perspectives about "loop thinking"?

          Silviu

            Vladimir,

            Thank you. Overcoming cognitive dissonance in academia seems to be the key to advancing understanding. Our greatest achievements will remain modest until then.

            I'm interested in your reply discerning cyclic lunar effects on our seas from the more distant 'waves' LIGO found.

            Rarity of agreement shows mankinds strength of diversity, yet that we find is reward in itself.

            Very Best

            Peter

            Silviu

            Thank you kindly.

            Feedback loops were last years essay, but yes, crucial to learning, consciousness and tying all those boxes together!

            Very best.

            Peter

            Steve,

            Thanks, Great to hear from you.

            I hope you and your spheres are well. I used them a lot!

            On the spot! ('spot on')

            Very best wishes

            Peter