Ridiculous Simplicity by Peter Jackson

John Cox

Thanks Pete.

Sounds like your channel run was a lot of fun. Congrats!

Yeh, I would flemmish my garden hose, before renting, for fast tangle free drawing. There is a lot of accumulated wisdom in preindustrial arts. And when it comes to deduction of possible physical form at quantum level, I don't think we can discount macroscopic natural forms. I think with caution that we can find transcendence of scale by shapes. I once built a scale model of an architectural design which was a stack of octahedrons with the equilateral face of one module on the horizontal so that the next module reversed the orientation of vertex. It goes 4pi, and gives a triple helix for both hand torsions. I often wonder if that isn't associated with magnetic equilibrium.

The definition of *photon* is so blasted ambiguous that there are very many who immediately say. "Is Not!" But we cannot even say that the Planck Quanta isn't really a composit value of work. If we take e=hf literally, then each photon is a single quanta waveform, and to register any measurable effect it must accumulate to a system value. So intensity becomes confused with rapidity and number. So hey, maybe a photon is really built up of quanta strands, twisted and laid up like a short piece of rope? I think when it comes to scales of macroscopic Bell-Aspect experiments, that might illustrate what we are dealing with. (It's a trick bulb, man! Keep your money off the bar!) Sorry, though. A couple pages to qualify each of 10 axioms is a bit much for my attention span.

But best of luck. I think it axiomatic myself, that for inertia to translate throughout a discrete energy quantity that some parameter must relate to the whole quantity of energy. And if that be density, than a small portion of the total energy existing at a constant density at a c^2 proportion to the total quantity, would quadraticly fit the bill. So a 'charge' quantity could have a center of inertia without having a greatest density that would be inelastic, as would a subluminal particle, if the quantity of energy was small enough. It would still be dense enough to react to magnetic fields orthogonally, and would be less resistant to length contraction and thus more easily accelerated towards c by inductance reactance. So your helical rationales would not lack an inertial center. Best wishes, jrc

Terry Bollinger

Hi Peter,

This is one of the more readable and better-argued "there is no such thing as entanglement" papers I've seen, so that's a plus.

You have way too many ideas for a full assessment, since I'd have to track down a lot of your ideas, many of which are highly non-standard and so would take some time to learn.

I've already provided a quite long set of comments inspired by your notes on your essay, so I'll leave it at that with the above link for anyone interested. You triggered quite a few discussion of related topics, too, so anyone interested in my view on some of these topics can find quite a bit of info on that too at the above link.

Also, I owe you a "thank you!" for inadvertently helping be find a John Bell quote that I had forgotten or skimmed over long ago. Bell's intriguing take on this issue is highly relevant to my own computer modeling argument that you can have a distinguished-frame or even single-frame universe that nonetheless has exactly the same full and beautiful all-frames-are-equal symmetry of "standard" special relativity. Here's the Bell quote, for whatever it's worth:

Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics by John Bell, page 180: "As with relativity before Einstein, there is then a preferred frame in the formulation of the theory ... but it is experimentally indistinguishable20,21,22. It seems an eccentric way to make a world."

Again, thanks for a genuinely intriguing read and argument, and for your generosity in encouraging other essayists!

Cheers,

Terry

pjackson

Terry,

Of course I'm NOT saying "there is no such thing as entanglement" at all. I show an 'entangled' relationship of antiparallel polar axes reproduces QM predictions, and only then say "there is no such thing as spooky action at a distance" required!

The below is from your string;

Terry

Thanks for looking. You clearly have your own well established ideas, something we're all guilty of to some degree. I studied the ID230 and essentially it seems to be based on random number generation and not any 'action at a distance' so found it's descriptions a little misleading and struggle to see it's direct relevance. Can you explain.

I was also surprised you didn't see from the video how adding different rates of z axis rotation to a 180o y axis rotation transformed it to either spin 1/2 or spin 2, or indeed other non-integer rates. (The North pole returned in either 90o or 360o y axis rotations). It's beauty is in it's simplicity.

Did you a) not see it do so? or b) not think it replicates the data?

I was also disappointed you couldn't follow the mechanistic sequence reproducing Dirac's formulation. It is indeed multi faceted so it's clear (we) have to do a better job breaking it down into brain-manageable steps.

Re Dr Bertelman's socks; Did you read my (top scored) 2015 essay; The Red/Green Sock Trick. which clarifies how my red lined green socks (& vice versa) avoid Bells theorem as he anticipated, the solution; "..will be found by going round the back". Most understood in 2015 so I hope at least you may also!

That essay also shows how the QM solution emerged from an SR solution free of paradox (as 3 prev finalist essays) so unified with the fundamental probability distribution of my 'Law of the reducing Middle' (which the ID230 uses), consistent with Prof Phillips excellent essay here.

But all have their own embedded ideas, whether mainstream or not. I know it can be hard to suspend them to explore others as I try to do so systemically but still often struggle. That's human nature, and we all have limited time. If yours is to short, thank you anyway for the time you spent.

Very best

Peter

PS. Are you aware of the IAU/ USNO's big 'ecliptic plane/stellar aberration problem? (astral navigation etc.) I have the clear solution but entrenched thinking won't allow it to emerge. What on Earth can I do?

John Hodge

Thanks for your comment in my essay.

I rated your's some time ago. After my input, your essay was first place (a 10).

See you next year.

Hodge

pjackson

John,

Thanks, that didn't last long, a bunch of 1's sunk it. We really need a rule change!

I'm disappointed so few had the patience, knowledge or analytical power to follow the ontological sequence of the classical QM derivation. It's an indicator we need to work harder on presentation, but I suspect it comes from over reliance on just 'shut up and use your calculator' for so long, since Feynman said it's 'too hard' to work things out logically.

The trouble is that's all students are now taught. I hope this long 'lull' in theoretical advancement since then won't end up being permanent!

Keep well

Peter

pjackson

Steve,

I keep finding parts of your text I can rationalise but then can't keep the thread. Sorry. I have no issue with spheres, dark matter and ether or dark energy and it's relationship to gravity etc. but I can't build your model in my mind from your apparently disjointed descriptions.

I'm upset and disappointed by your suggestion of plagiarism. Can you identify what and where? We must all build from past theory and I never claim others work as my own.

Peter

Steve Dufourny

Lol I knew that my jumbles of words there were going to imply a reaction , interesting Peter interesting.You don't plagiate, I just say that you mix an ocean of ideas and that in fact it could be well to be more general in considering the DM and DE and this quantum gravitation correctly, but you don't want.It is your choice, good luck and don't forget lol they trun so they are these sphères. Geometrically, spherically, algebrically yours Peter , Jedi of the Sphere :)

corciovei silviu

Beg your pardon MR. Jackson

As you may know, this contest is almost finished, but I noticed (despite your nice words) that you didn't rate my essay. It is for a particular reason or you just forgot?

Respectfully,

Silviu

pjackson

Silviu,

Started rating today, I was pleased yours lifted your score.

Peter

Richard Marker

Peter Jackson,

Thank you for a great essay. You have obviously thought and explored the thoughts of others a great deal. It's too bad there isn't a suitable forum for exchanging thoughts such as these. It seems that most people go into self-promotion mode which does little to advance community thought.

You seem to be a listener. The community needs more of that balance. I need more of that balance as well. It is not easy to listen. Your evaluation of so many views demonstrates this.

Best wishes to you.

Richard Marker

pjackson

Richard,

Thank you. Nice to agree, we learn all from input and zero from output.

Peter

BASILEIOS GRISPOS

Hi Peter

I enjoyed reading your essay, it gave me a lot of ideas how nature is functioning and I do agree that "Nature is weird, live with it".

I wish you best luck with your essay in this contest

Regards

Basil

Don Limuti

Hi Peter,

You are on to something with relative motion. I come at it with a bit of reverse philosophy. The speed of light does not have relative motion ....why? My answer is that perhaps all observers bring their own frame of reference with them and that is why we need observers (see pic on my essay of what dark matter looks like).

Thanks for visiting my blog. I came late to the contest and am attempting to catch up before the end.

Some thoughts and a queation:

1. Frodo can overcome dogma (gollum) and find the ring :)

2. Your conversation with Terry Bollinger was superb.

3. Thanks for helping to break the mould. Sorry, best pun for today.

4. Can you tell me in a sentence why spheres are "fundamental"?

Hope my vote helps your find the ring.

Thanks for a thought provoking essay.

Don Limuti

pjackson

Don,

I agree entirely with; "perhaps all observers bring their own frame of reference with them" (which is as my 2011- 2015 essays). Light goes through each lens at the same speed irregardless of the relative lens motions.

If spherical rotation didn't exist there would be no matter, no universe and no Frodo. Of course that's still not the bottom, but we may have many smaller scale rotations rotating at bigger radii. Each motion also MUST be discrete at each scale (Pauli/Boscovich exclusion) Is that fundamental?

Thanks for the score.

Peter

Maxim Khlopov

Dear Dr. Peter Jackson,

Thank you for your nice essay and stimulating ideas of reductionalism.

I really enjoyed it

With the best regards

Maxim Yu. Khlopov

Branko Zivlak

Dear Peter,

A well-conceived essay. It deserves a good score.

Regards,

Branko

Bashir Yusuf

Dear Peter

Thank you for the comment, I will also comment yours soon after reading it

Best regards

Bashir.

pjackson

AS MOST STRUGGLE WITH THE CLASSICAL SEQUENCE (TO MUCH TO HOLD IN MIND ALL AT ONCE) A QUICK OUTLINE INTRO IS HERE;

1. Start with Poincare sphere OAM; with 2 orthogonal momenta pairs NOT 'singlets'.

2. Pairs have antiparalell axis (random shared y,z). (photon wavefront sim.)

3. Interact with identical (polariser electron) spheres rotatable by A,B.

4. Momentum exchange as actually proved, by Cos latitude at tan intersection.

5. Result 'SAME' or 'OPP' dir. Re-emit polarised with amplitude phase dependent.

6. Photomultiplier electrons give 2nd Cos distribution & 90o phase values.

7. The non detects are all below a threshold amplitude at either channel angle.

8. Statisticians then analyse using CORRECT assumptions about what's 'measured!

The numbers match CHSH>2 and steering inequality >1 As the matching computer code & plot in Declan Traill's short essay. All is Bell compliant as he didn't falsify the trick with reversible green/red socks (the TWO pairs of states).

After deriving it in last years figs I only discovered the Poincare sphere already existed thanks to Ulla M during this contest. I hope that helps introduce the ontology.

Peter

Gordon Watson

Peter, from my thread:

Peter, how glad am I (as previously explained) that I got out early on this stuff! Some thoughts.

Maybe:

1. Sketch it like the Figure in Fröhner that I referred you to.

2. Importantly, sketch each of your beables and interactions on separate sheets of A3 paper; in time sequence: so that details are not lost when you make slides for online display. Supported by 3D models.

3. Recall that, in Aspect and EPRB, the Detector unit-vectors a and b are in 3-space; not necessarily orthogonal to the line of flight.

4. Purely hemispherical or sgn models do not work.

5. Get familiar with the FEW QM models that deal with polarizing particle-field interactions.

6. NB: Understand the BB dynamics via GA and my vector-product approach.

7. Convert your coded scribbles (above) to complete sentences, with all abbreviations defined at the start.

8. Then, please, tell me again what your goal is.

8. Sorry if it looks like I'm saying, "LOOK; over there", as I sneak out .. .. .. ..

Good on you, hang in there, +++, and all the best; it's way past my bedtime; Gordon

pjackson

Gordon,

Thanks. So many in the community who SHOULD follow the ontology don't seem able or bothered it's a bit of a disgrace. John Bell view of that current acceptance of the nonsense of QM was that "professional physicists really out to be able to do better". Seems he may have been right.

I appreciate your points;

1. Froher was incomplete, figs ok, I know what you mean, but I think the coloured versions in my previous papers & essays i.e. 2014 Essay; Do Bob & Alice.. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2104 should be clearer.

3. & 4. yes, 5. Got any links?

6. I agree the vector product approach.

7. Yes, a fuller sequence 'checklist' will accompany the figure/s. I also neglected to include the key 'elliptical polarity' matter.

The initial goal is to get the paper published in a high index PR journal. I understand you don't like collaboration hope you can assist and agree an algorithm with Declan.

Very best.

Peter

Bashir Yusuf

Peter Jackson

I really enjoyed reading your essay, and also rated it to highest.

On the other hand, I feel sorry of the the gap between human understading and the effort to approach simplicity by overcoming the difficulties of complexity.

In other word, to reveal simplicity of fundamental physical theory by thinking deeply with the Nature's puzzling and related effects is quite difficult, but what most difficult is Human understanding.

Since these two problems are interlinked we should prioritize and focus first to find ontological solution modern physics before finding a answer to fundamental related questions.

My previous essay I have only focused to hypothesis that links theories together in terms of fundamental particle and force. My current essay I focused more than half to point out needs for ontology related issue rather than answering the fundamental question. After evaluation I realized that answer is almost meaningless without good ontological/philosophical ground, that is why give more importance to essays focusing ontological issues. There are many essays to read but from the ontological point of view, I think that Vladimir I. Rogozhin and Maxim Yu. Khlopov, may be interesting essays

One very intresting example is that Natural Philosophy set good foundation Nature's fundamentals by quantizing in terms of elementary particle and force equilibrium in terms of neutral and charged including similarities of both macro and micro levels such as;

Formulaions Newton's and Coulomb's law

Experimentals Cavendish's and Coulomb's experiments

Implications Newtonian and Maxwellian two planet-like systems in different scale.

But things got strange in 20th doe to interpretation without ontology even terminology are some how affected,

In general I agree your conteptual explanation, some points I appreciated;

"simple components does seem to imply increasing physical dimensions but we'll test the 'more simple' aspect of reductionism, taken down to perhaps it's most ridiculous extreme, to find a most fundamental cause".

"This domain limit is also the lower end of electromagnetic (EM) coupling. Electromagnetism (EM) permeates, lights and connects the universe, interacts with matter and allows communication."

"a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal." and suggested a 'lack of imagination' was the problem, that we should keep looking, and; ""...the new way of seeing things will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us. In any case it seems that the quantum mechanical description will be superseded."

elementary character e rests upon fundamental character of matter (particle), combination with it's potentail difference 1V becomes elementary energy 1eV = 1.6ﾃ--10^-19J, on the other hand mass included 1.782ﾃ--10^-36 kg. see also wikipedia. I think even maximum ratio of wavelengths of electron-photon to the pot.difference and ....

Regarding the context, what is real meaning of "elementary" and it's relations to mass value and energy value.and to Fundamental.

Best wishes

Bashir.

pjackson

Bashir,

Thanks. I agree, recent habits of 'interpretation without ontology' along with reliance on the calculator not our brains will be fatal if allowed to prevail.

Very best

Peter

« Previous Page Next Page »