Edwin,

Thanks. In saying SR & QM use different 'time' concepts I'm saying one at least is wrong. I look forward to reading your 'energy' approach. I define energy itself as simply relative 'motion', so, as clocks move, your concept looks valid.

Most first reads will skip over my classic QM proof of CHSH >2 which if correct is a mega breakthrough AND unifies SR!! I hope you might study and help falsify it, even repeat the simple experiment (protocol in end notes). Also see Declan Trail's short essay, which appears to give a full mathematical coding proof consistent with my rationale and finding!

Interesting times.

Best

Peter

Scott, Thanks. I've found unification very possible. You may have missed a logical and experimental proof in the essay. If so do look again and comment. Your essay sounds interesting. It's now on my list and I look forward to discussing both.

Peter

Alan,

I greatly look forward to reading yours. I never did subscribe to 'point' particles, Hilbert space or 'space-time' as an entity. Have you done any new 'direct experimental tests'?

I'm sad mine looked "less clear and simple" but all new concepts first will!

It really IS simple and I hope you'll look less quickly & help to falsify it. Look at this short video, 100 second video Classic QM & non-integer spin, but in a nutshell;

1. 'Pairs' have random (x,y,z) but parallel polar axes, and each the TWO (Maxwell curl/linear) states, inversely proportional over 90o as I show.

2. A,B polarizer fermions have the same or opposite axis subject to setting angle.

3. Momentum (as known), so exchange varies by Cos theta 'latitude' inversely for each state (equivalent to rotational velocity distribution).

4. An amplitude varying with (x,y,z axis) angle hits orthogonal photomultiplier channel (fields again! but charged). The Cos angle distribution repeats (so Cos2). High energy at any angle = *click* low doesn't.

5. Click rates are then 'collated' and misinterpreted! Diracs 4 'spinor' equation and offset Cos2 plot is reproduced. CHSH >2 and 'steering equality' >1 so closing the so called 'detection loophole'.

My experiment (see photo's & end notes) confirms it. Also see Declan Trail's short essay with a perfectly matching maths code & plot!

Re-emission is always at fermion centre of mass rest frame. Speed c is thus localised by ALL interactions! SR is then implicit (though not quite as present misinterpretation).

I was counting on your help. Initially to falsify. Do ask questions.

Best

Peter

Wilhelmus,

Thank you kindly. I greatly look forward to reading & discussing yours.

Peter

Declan,

Thanks. This looks like really game changing physics; You'll have seen the code in yours and the mechanism and protocol in mine match almost perfectly, and for the first time reproduce a >2 inequality with local causality, and no conflict with SR!

Many don't understand QM (not surprising!) but you have to understand the problem to recognise the solution. Of those who do it seems most are just convinced nature is 'weird' and won't countenance a real physical analogue. That may not leave many so prepare for the most rigorous discussion!! (from those who understand the importance).

I have an Email for you and sent a message (mine's in an essay you cite) as well as commented on & scored your essay.

Very best of luck in the contest. It's doing well, which mine was before getting 1 bombed already!

Peter

Peter,

There are some parallels in our thinking but we use different language. Your concept that relative motion is fundamental requires time. I agree with your statement that fermions require spin. In my essay, spin is motion in one direction opposed by a field representing the opposite direction. It takes both to have relative motion. I spent a lot of time with the PDG meson and baryon data and didn't expect that properties would balance to zero but I think it is important. Your illustrations on the ball remind me of parity. The simple rotation (looking down vs looking up) super-imposes two results for the same object.

But what separated directions so that we can have relative motion? As I mentioned, I use P=exp(iEt/H)*exp(-iEt/H) based on the MIT reference (search MIT22 Evolution of Function Chapter 6). My neutron model finds the E's in the equation, t is time around a circle and H is Planck's unreduced constant. I placed an excerpt from the proton model below. The values of E that satisfy P=1 are 13.797, 5.076, 101.947 and 0.687 MeV. For example 5.076 MeV comes from the equation E-2.02e-5*exp(12.432).

There are 4 E's, and P=1=psi*psi*psi*psi=exp(13.797it/H)*exp(5.076it/H)*exp(-101.947it/H)*exp(-0.687it/H). The imaginary numbers multiply out and each Et/H=1. The equation also represents energy zero. (13.8+88.15=101.95+0.687 (MeV)). I believe that probability 1, energy zero was an initial condition but I can't escape association with collapse of a wave function and consciousness. It seems to me that consciousness is the intersection of P=psi*psi*psic*psic=1. This is a busy intersection as consciousness develops since fermions make things we recognize. The "quantum circles" probably represent a plenum of information from which we develop an internal model of the things around us. The P evolves and separates nature into many possible concepts.

Do you have thoughts about what "sees" the relative motion?

    Gene,

    Interesting. Yes, motion does need time, but I see time as unphysical and focus on the physical, even if at sub matter scale.

    That brings us to; "what "sees" the relative motion? I assume you mean to 'define' it, so before all 'detector' fermion interactions. Yes. I invoke that sub-matter scale 'dark energy' that's 84% of the universe. It CAN have some 'rest frame' as long as it doesn't couple with EM, so Dirac's 'new ether', but not 'lumeniferous'.

    So perhaps in the beginning, simply; "something moved". Once something had moved the vortices started (more movement) and there went the whole neighbourhood! before you know it (just a few billion yrs) we've got a massive messy universe of motion! Does that gel with you at all?

    Our views on consciousness are compatible. Mine was rationalised on terms of interaction layers and feedback loops in last years essay leading to much discussion but pleasingly no dissent (yet!). I like your description to.

    Have you looked at Declan Trail's mathematical proof of my ontology for classical QM yet? That looks like a major advancement but I'm very disappointed it seems it's scared off any comment so far! Any thoughts?

    Best

    Peter

    Dear Peter,

    I read with great interest your deep analytical essay with important ideas and conclusions aimed at solving the problem of a single "foundation" of knowledge. Only I believe that the "big bang" hypothesis must be subjected to a very deep philosophical doubt in the spirit of Descartes.

    Good luck!

    Yours faithfully,

    Vladimir

      Vladimir,

      Thank you kindly. Nice to hear from you. I agree your BB doubts. Indeed the model leading to a Classical QM derivation previously showed a recycling cosmology as far more consistent, though including regular 'big whooshes' very much like a scaled up version of active galactic nuclei (AGN's, so opposing quasars jets re-ionizing most matter).

      Recycled galaxies are one gauge down giving a full evolutionary cycle. Around 70% of the mysteries of the current Concordance/BB model can then be simply explained. I published jointly on it with Minkowski if you haven't read it yet; DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4540.5603

      How does that fit with your thinking?

      I greatly look forward to reading your essay.

      Very best

      Peter

      Marcel-Marie,

      I agree, duality is explained. But considering the fermion as spherical rotation with seperable momenta state pairs is also critical to allow a classical derivation of QM's predictions. I disagree photons and any 'signals' are particulate until re-quantized by interaction ('measurement').

      I have yours on my list.

      Peter

      Peter,

      I will definitely look at the article. Here is an open letter on the "big bang" issue... I recall the good thought of Karl Popper: "I, however, believe that there is at least one truly philosophical problem that any thinking person is interested in. This is the problem of cosmology - the problem of knowing the world, including ourselves (and our knowledge) as part of this world. All science, in my opinion, is cosmology, and for me the value of philosophy is no less than science, it is solely in the contribution that it has made to cosmology."

      All the best.

      Vladimir

      I just want to thank you again for looking at my theory... I re-read you essay and I just would like to say - The reason why the theory of everything has not been found is because everyone seems to think that it can be derived from current math or through explaining an new experimental finding - Those methods will not work.

      I can tell immediately if a person is on the right track or not.... If a known equation is used - it's over. All known equations must be derived from the primordial ingredient and energy - My book does just that and answers basic questions - What is distance? Why does spacetime has three spatial dimensions? WHat determines Straight? How are energy fields created? And I derive the math of maxwell's equations, GR and QM but under one model.

      I entered this contest for people to be introduced to my work. I don't need the money - I am an orthopedic surgeon and my wife a cardiologist. I also entered because I will eventually be writing a book about how long it took for my work to be recognized. To show how my essay came in last place will be quite the irony in my story! LOL!

      All the best!

      Hi Peter,

      I highly appreciate Your statement "

      The two 'pillars' of science, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, often seen as fundamental, may share a single derivation, perhaps even the most ridiculously simple one."聽

      We are on the same track!

      see my introduction:

      Neil Turok: "And so we have to go back and question those founding principles and find whatever it is, whatever new principle will replace them.". Cheers Leo

        Scott,

        I do understand, and like your confidence. My 2010 essay on 'wrong assumptions', called "2020 Vision", Suggested it's be 2020 before any paradigm change. Will that do you? But as well as our state of intellectual development state that was partly as it famously takes 10yrs to change a paradigm. So do you think we're now looking at 2028!?

        You say; "If a known equation is used - it's over" so I assume you had no objection to my essay! What you would like is my recent 'Red/Green Sock Trick' essay identifying flaws in current mathematics - which came top in the community scores!

        I understand you don't do this for money, nor me. I have the houses, yacht, Aston, Mercs etc. We share the selfless motivation of advancing humanity. I'm also not seeking 'recognition' or kudos (I had enough as a representative sportsman and it can be a pain) as I think that and the Nobels are the bane of advancement.

        I had yours down for a decent score, mostly for originality and going deeper than almost any (I now assume no falsifiability then?) - but do you suggest you'd rather come last? Let me know.

        Very best

        Peter

        Dear Dr Peter Jackson,

        You wrote in the Abstract: "Einstein's view; "For the time being, we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics, which can be regarded as its logical foundation." That am because physicists obsess over trying to explain the Universe in finite terms.

        I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

        Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

        Your barmaid quote is evidently not Einstein but Rutherford instead.

        Anyway...your approach has certainly evolved from the old days, nicht vahr?

        As long as you continue to cling to the allure of continuous space and time, you will always be limited in the cosmos.

          Leo.

          Indeed. As an RNLI governer to me it looks rather like this; Most of moderate intellect on the ship agree; "It's foundered and slowly sinking, we need to leave and find better ones.", Yet run the lifeboats alongside and none even looks at them!

          I look forward to reading your essay. Please do look at, comment on or question mine.

          Very best,

          Peter

          Steve,

          You're right that Rutherfords (slightly different) comment almost certainly came first; "If you can't explain your physics to a barmaid, it is probably not very good physics."

          But I quoted Einstein's; "you should be able to explain physics to a barmaid," which I'm sure was derived from it, as much of his work (and most of all of ours!)

          The point is I think both are very wise and true but don't you agree habitually ignored by most of the academic community?

          On the Cosmos; I agree. As a Cosmologist ('observational') and RAS Fellow I feel the need to focus attention on understanding the cosmos better before we try to fly beyond it. That's not to say I don't explore hints from the data now & then!

          I gave your essay a 1st speedread and hope you'll be pleased I market it as worth reading again & discussing. Being brief may have helped in that but I found that didn't diminish quality.

          I wonder if you read & understood mine and have any intelligible questions or comments? (doing so in conjunction with Declan Trail's helps).

          Very best

          Peter

          John-Eric.

          Thanks. No. Spin is no illusion, but so called 'quantum spin' it CAN be reprodcud from simple rotation, which YES; produces north and south poles (left/right 'curl'). BUT; OAM (in spherical rotation) is more complex than most theorists have assumed, we should include BOTH Maxwell's state momenta pairs; so LINEAR (zero curl) at the equator and CURL +1/-1 at the poles.

          Correcting that allows the whole of QM to become classical (if retaining recursive uncertainty, i.e. of left/right near the poles). SR then needs the same mechanism and Einstein's 1952 ideas to unify it.

          Yours is nearing the top of my list.

          Very Best. Glad you're still going strong & hope you're well.

          Peter