Ridiculous Simplicity by Peter Jackson

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

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

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

Hi Peter,

Happy to see your essay , I liked it , I am wishing you all the best,

ps :) they turn so they are :)

friendly

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

Peter Jackson,

Thanks for reading my Essay on Electron Spin and giving your views. I have read your Essay and regarding QM, Einstein was right when he did not agree with the EPR experiment conclusions and had said, "spooky action at a distance" cannot occur and that, "God does not play dice". Please read Linear Polarization http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0174v5.pdf

Kamal

Dear Peter,

1. I guess then that you really aren't the Pope or the king of the world as I thought you were. That is such a disappointment. I was thinking that you might have the power to open up diplomatic relations with my world. That was a Si-Fi moment. At least as far as you know. It looks like you are very concerned about making your work compatible with relativity and quantum mechanics. When I looked into them I found that both contained some major errors that have propagated many nonsense beliefs. Probably the greatest error in relativity is the concept that time is a physical dimension that you can travel back and forth in. In quantum mechanics, when it was discovered through observations that matter particles expressed the property of angular motion, instead of gaining the understanding that they were not point particles, but were actually extended particles that contain internal motions that can present themselves as angular to the direction of travel of the particle in interactions, they just invented the idea that they possessed some not well defined property of spin, which most have now come to believe that they really meant spin in the normal sense. Since they still want to believe matter particles to be point objects, this has led many to believe that a point object can spin when that is not the case in reality because a point object contains a point about which to spin, but it does not contain any extension to spin about that point. In any real world spin, the angular motion decreases to zero at the center point of the spin. Because of all of this, I decided to look at the observational information and see where that would lead me.

2. I found that not only the observational information, but also current theories indicated that matter particles, energy photons, angular motions and even simple linear motions could all be changed into each other. This meant that each one of these entities had to contain all of the basic substance of which the others are composed in order to be able to be transformed into them. When I looked at the observed properties of each of them I found that the simplest structure is the simple linear motion. I decided to see if all of the others could be constructed out of one or more simple linear motions, such that they would exhibit all of their individual observed properties and I found that it is possible to do so. When I analyzed the matter particle that would be produced in that way, I found that it would not be a point particle and it would exhibit angular motions in interactions with other matter particles. The internal motions of the matter particles also explained why interactions between matter particles could generate several possible different outcome results and why they would each have a particular probability of occurrence. This cleared up a lot of the quantum mechanics nonsense, such as the idea that things don't happen until they are observed and the need for space vacuum pressure to explain the different outcomes, etc. I also found that simple linear motion particles could make up the structures of fields and explain why it sometimes appears that matter particles and energy photons just seem to appear from nowhere, etc. The fields composed of them also could explain the mechanisms of how the electrons and the matter particles in the nucleus of the atom are joined together and contained within the atom and how atoms are joined together into molecules, etc.

The basic problem with spins or rotations is that they are two dimensional structures. They can be extended into three dimensions, but if you look at any point on a rotating sphere, you can see that it just revolves around the center point in a two dimensional plain. This means that it will not produce the same mass effect in all three dimensions. As an example, If you have two rotating spheres that both rotate in the same direction at the same angular speed and you place them, so that they are aligned side by side with their north rotational poles up and you then give one of them a small amount of motion toward the other one, when they come into contact, their angular motions in the opposite directions will cause them to repel each other. On the other hand, if you move one of them above the other one, such that its south pole is above the north pole of the other one and you then apply a small amount of motion to cause them to come together again, you will see that their angular motions will not cause them to repel each other because they are both moving in the same direction at the same speed in relation to each other, so that there is no relative angular motion difference between them. It requires a three dimensional motion pattern to generate a three dimensionally stable equal static mass effect in all three dimensions, which is what matter particles generally do, observationally.

3. The particle pair productions, etc. that you mentioned, create electrons, etc. as the result of energy photons receiving enough motion during an interaction, so that they contain an adequate motion content to be able to produce the matter particle or particle pair that is created and then come into contact with an adequate angular motion such as the sub-energy field of an atom near its nucleus to allow that extra motion to be transferred from its fourth dimensional wave motion to the fifth dimension, which causes it to travel in a curved path that encloses back upon itself to generate its three dimensional cyclical enclosed path that changes it from an energy photon into a matter particle. Of course, it is also possible for a sub-energy particle to receive enough motion in an interaction to cause it to travel faster than the speed of light, such that the extra motion that would have caused it to travel faster than the speed of light is transferred to the fourth dimension to generate its frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects, which changes it into an energy photon and if it receives enough motion it can also become a matter particle as described above. The matter particles don't just pop up from nothing it is just a matter of motion transfers that change one type of already existing particle or motion into another one.

This is often accomplished by the transfer of kinetic motion from one entity to another one. Since man cannot yet detect single sub-energy particles, it can appear to him to be coming from nowhere, though. High densities of sub-energy particles that are directionally aligned can be detected as magnetic fields, etc., but man has generally not yet progressed to the point of understanding that yet. You are right that motion induces pressure changes. When a matter particle travels through a dense sub-energy field with enough kinetic energy it can generate enough pressure on the field to cause the probability of an interaction between it and a sub-energy particle in the field to be high enough, so that an interaction occurs. Since the matter particle contains the greater amount of motion, some of its kinetic motion is transferred to the sub-energy particle which changes it into either an energy photon or a matter particle depending on the amount of motion transferred and whether an adequate angular motion content is encountered, etc. In man's current particle accelerators, electrons are created by this type of interaction between the strong magnetic field used to compress and guide the matter particle beam and the matter particles in that beam, which is generally undesirable.

4. In a field it would be possible for all of the particles to be aligned, such that their north poles were all in one direction, let's say up, and south poles at 180 degrees from that in the opposite direction, down, to make a two dimensional plane, but when you placed the next vertical level above it, the south poles of the particles in the new upper level would be above the north poles in the level below it, which, as described above, would not cause them to repel one another. Such a field would only work even in one layer with solids and to a lesser degree with liquids. In a gas the kinetic motion of the entities is great enough to overcome or be greater than the strength of the field that binds them, which is why they can move around freely in the gas. As you increase the kinetic motion level in the gas, you first exceed the level of the field structure that binds the molecules to each other, which causes the molecules to be able to move freely. Next you increase it to the point that it exceeds the strength of the field that joins the atoms into molecules and the molecules are broken apart leaving a free flowing gas of atoms. If you continue to increase the kinetic motion level of the gas you reach the point that you exceed the binding strength of the electrons to the atoms, which results in their separation from the atoms. Man usually calls this a plasma state and it creates the maximum free flowing motion structure that is usually found in nature. It would be possible to increase the kinetic motion level to the point that the nucleus of the atoms would also break up, but this does not usually occur in nature because in those places where the kinetic motion level might reach that level, such as in a star, there is also the great pressure due to the pull of gravity in the star that counteracts such dispersion and actually instead causes matter particles to be joined together into atoms. Of course, man's particle accelerators can create enough kinetic motion in matter particles to break up the nucleus of atoms and even the quark bindings in composite matter particles, etc.

In our universe, the bottom of the scale is the simple linear motion sub-energy particle. Next above that is the energy photon, which is composed of a sub-energy particle and an additional motion that generates its wave properties. Next above that is the matter particle that contains an energy photon and an additional motion that generates its three dimensional enclosed path and its static mass effects. One complication that man is not yet generally aware of is that the matter particles that we know to exist can only interact with other matter particles and energy photons within a specific frequency range. This is because an interaction requires an adequate interaction cross section. This means that matter particles and energy photons with high enough frequencies have such small cross sections compared to the matter particles and energy photons that we experience that they cannot interact with those in our level of structure. The same thing applies to those that are of such low frequency that our matter particles and energy photons have such a small interaction cross section in comparison to them that interactions can't take place. This means that our detectable universe is just a frequency subset of a much larger frequency continuum composed of many levels. As a matter particle's motion is increased toward the speed of light a greater portion of that motion is transferred to its fourth and fifth dimensional motions. The extra fifth dimensional motion causes the curvature of the matter particle's enclosed path to increase, which causes it and thus the matter particle to become smaller while the increased fourth dimensional motion increases the frequency of the energy photon contained within the matter particle, such that the proper angular motion component is preserved to maintain the matter particle's stability. When it is traveling very near the speed of light, this makes it possible for it to interact with higher frequency energy photons and matter particles of the next smaller structural level, which can allow it to gain enough more motion from them through interactions to allow it to transfer into that level from ours. A similar transfer method can work at the other end of the frequency spectrum of our particles to enter the next larger level.

My point about the stars was that if matter/antimatter particle pairs can just popup from the sub-quantum condensate, from motion induced pressure changes, and they then come together and annihilate each other and are converted into EM radiation (energy photon(s)), then in a gas that contained a great amount of motion, such as in a star, one would expect a very large number of energy photons to be created in a very short time by that method in addition to those that are created by the fusion process. This great amount of energy would greatly overcome the pull of gravity and the star would explode. This would apply not to just a few stars, but to all stars. Most of the stars that explode do so because they have used up most of their fusible atoms and can no longer generate enough energy to counteract the pull of gravity. They then collapse due to gravity. This causes a type of expansion that depends on the star's mass, etc., which could be an explosion of one type or another.

5. In the Scriptures It says that God introduced motion into the universe when his Spirit moved upon the face of the waters that are a part of the background structure of the earth that we cannot detect. This would have created the field (sub-energy) particles that are an image of him. Next the part of him called the Word said "let there be light" and there was light. This would have created the energy photons by adding more motion to some of the sub-energy particles. The light (energy photons) is an image of the Word. Finally God (this would include all three parts of him including his body) separated the light from the darkness. This would have added an extra motion to some of the energy photons to create the matter particles, which would have made them become dark because the photon within each of them became trapped within the matter particle in its enclosed path and, therefore, it would no longer be free to travel and interact with other entities and transfer the information about one entity to another one as light photons normally do. The matter particles are an image of his body. After that he used these created entities to construct the rest of the universe. There is much more detail presented in the Scriptures, but this comment is getting very large so I will end it now.

Sincerely,

Paul

I forgot to rate it, sorry. now it's done

Hello Peter,

Thanks , it is nice.I am not well Pezter , my country destoys me , they are going to take my house now and I am going to be without job and home, Oh My God, what a world.I am lost and finished there.Are you on Facebook ? best regards

Dear Peter,

Thank you for the interesting question for all.

«Apart from obvious angular considerations; What is the difference between the variations in G potential from the moon at any one position on Earth?

And are not our seas excellent meters of such G fluctuations? (The tidal flows around the UK are largely moon dependent)».

If we consider the influence of only the moon, it seems that it attracts water in the oceans.

But the two tides are illogical in this scheme of action forces.

But if we consider the simultaneous gravitational action of the sun and the moon, then everything becomes logical [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hzn3q0vZVToxOMVFkwGsRlOxnNeb9OiY/].

When the angle between the directions to the Sun and the Moon is 90 degrees, there is a minimum of tides throughout the Earth.

If the Sun and the Moon attract water in the oceans, then it would seem that their vectors of strength should be summed and there must be tides, but they are not.

Consequently, the tides are not a consequence of the force of attraction, but are a consequence of the formation of increased gravity (heavy water) in places shifted 90 degrees from directions to the sun or the moon.

The increased gravity of water is caused by the orbital toroidal gravitational waves of the Moon and the Sun (analogues of Wheeler's geones, https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2806, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VMlesBfYVVa-Fp6bIr1I-uzU-Vnq3FFY/ ) in which the Moon and the Earth are in potential well of stability and which provide a minimum of the action of the forces of attraction and inertia, in accordance with the extreme principle of least action in soliton gravitational waves.

Those. in places of low tide, water is heavier and it is created the effect of 2 low tides in places shifted on 90 and 270 degrees away from the direction to the Moon or the Sun, hence will be two logical the existing tides, in 0 and 180 degrees from the direction to them.

Low tides on Earth are similar to low tides on the Sun from the action of coronal loops (toroidal gravitational waves) in dark spots.

The registered gravitational waves in the LIGO project these are stationary toroidal gravitational waves of the Earth's gravisphere (magnetosphere) [https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/668517main_vab-orig_full.jpg] and the orbital toroidal gravitational wave of the Earth [link:www.sciteclibrary.ru/yabbfiles/Attachments/Dipolnaya_sostavlayushaya_infrarad.jpg] that form the weather and cause tides and ebbs on the Earth.

Vladimir Fedorov

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

Help me Peter if You can, I am going to die there you know.Srry to tell this story, but my country destroys me and I am lost, tired and weak psychologically speaking.I die really ,I must publish and continue my theory of spherisation but I am lost.Regards, friendly, if I speak like that it is because it is very very serious my situation and that I need really help and quickly;We could publish several pappers together if you want also.

Dear Peter,

I don't quite follow what is meant by "However to remove the weirdness from QM {one} just needs those colours {gotta love that British spelling ;} to 'bleed into' each other rather then just 'switch'. Is that excluded in QED?"

The colors are the partitioned ~string-theoretic basis for well-known QCD color local gauge fields. There is no reason to 'bleed' but rather 'average out' their effects over weak and higher scales. Thus the cardinal importance of the mathematical operator "|" [i.e. |planck is inaccessible to colliders, |strong indirectly detectable, and the traditional use of |H> becomes (*)|H>|weak ].

The electron representation geometry image has (c) 1992, so it is with welcome arms that I find a fellow traveller on this austere path.

I am familiar with the ontology and didn't find that finale added much to the veracity of the idea. For my part, I take the massive oscillating neutrino as evidence of 'new' physics, since it clearly was NOT considered SM when I first published on the subject. Your illustrated discussion was interesting, yes, but a path to new fundamental insight?

Wayne