Ridiculous Simplicity by Peter Jackson

Dear Peter,

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

Regards,

Branko

Dear Peter

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

Best regards

Bashir.

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

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.

Hi Peter,

After the poll closes, on my essay page, I will post a somewhat detailed/lengthy/hard to read response to your inquiry as to whether a "falsified Cartesian" "boxes within a boxes" configuration would resolve the issue I have with the Cartesian coordinate system's inability to resolve closure of a point Source Volumetric Singularity in a manner that inherently defines the unified/uniform geometry of a minimum unit of Space (QI).

Hopefully individual essay pages are maintained until the contest is concluded in May, and you will pay me a virtual visit when essay reviews are no longer prioritized by rating deadline.

REF: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3000

I must admit I get entangled in reviewing each essay I read, and have not read as many as I would have liked to, but am unwilling to rate what I have not reviewed, and it is now time to go to the poll.

Expect a 10 bump on your essay in a few minutes, and may qualified "reductionism" take the "What is fundamental" contest field.

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Peter

Thanks for following up on that discussion. I couldn't determine if you were recognizing that which I referred too. Telling me that the poles weight is an overall constant was irrelevant to my point. But yes, you do understand me now. The transition of weight for the top end of the pole, as it is leaned over. You refer to as torque.

I am not familiar with how this consideration of torque relates to a spheres? That is something I will have to follow up with you. And it sounds as though Ulla has something interesting to contribute in this regard. I will follow up on this also.

So yes. A poles top end weight transition as it is leaned over in a gravitational field, creates the same curve as a Photons probability distribution (at the same respective angle). The question is, is this a meaningful observation? Does it tell us anything about the photons properties or behaviours?

The pole and the Earths gravitational field is representative of an interaction between two systems, which gives a variable value for weight (top end of pole). The same can be said for the Photon and the detector, they represent an interaction between two systems, which gives a variable value for Quantum probability. They are both values obtained from twin systems.

Let us focus on the nature of force interactions. We might use the example of the pole in Earths gravity to build a model for consideration. The simplest distillation of force interaction considerations is represented by (forces applied to bodies, and bodies resistance to forces applied) or (forceful influence, and resistance to forceful influence).

The poles weight transition is a consideration of the poles resistance to pull of Earths gravity at various angles. Simple!

Is it possible this is the nature of the relationship between a photon and detector, that gives variable quantum probability? The prospective origin of Bells Inequality. Photons possess force, and it makes sense this is coupled with the ability to resist forces applied toward changing its state, angle. And we know that the detector is applying force to the photon, because it does change the Photons state, angle.

If all force interactions do possess component of (force and resistance to force), and the photon and the detector are a force interaction, then the answer is (of course the photons angle can effect its ability to resist the forces acting to change its state, angle.

These are ultra-simple observations and conservative claims. And they do provide the prospective basis for decoding Bells Inequality. A pole in a gravitational field decodes a photons quantum probability. A simple geometry (pole) coupled with considerations of (forces applied and resistance to forces applied). To decode massive particles requires varied geometries (spheres) but the same force considerations apply as for the Photon.

Peter, in my view your work represents the needed geometric considerations. However could benefit for the force dynamics. Physical interactions are about geometries, but also the "force interactions". There can be no interaction without forces. Force interactions include the dynamic of "resistance" which does contribute a necessary component.

I'm glad I could say this for you. I wasn't sure we were on the same page the other day, so I didn't see the point in going further. The beauty is in how simply these considerations are retro fitted to your current body of work. It just clicks on. That is part of the reason I was so impressed by your work, and its prospective validity. But also allows you to begin your sequence of decoding geometries from a simpler basis geometry (poles), that then leads on to your higher level decoding efforts of massive particles (spheres). The simpler your starting position, the more fundamental your basis, the more justified and easy to interpret is your argument/theory.

Think about Incorporate force interaction dynamics into your hypothesis.

Steve

Whoops!!

I actually bumped your essay rating yesterday, got logged out, then nterrupted, and forgot to edit the above before I posted it today.

Good luck in the final moments of the essay open poll!!!

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Dear Peter,

An interesting essay with some evidence in support. I had to read this twice and then read some of the posts in order to gain a better understanding of it.

As I am not a proponent of reductionism, a couple comments:

* What if the answer to the recursion of reductionism is to consider the whole continuum that the recursion continues to move through? In this case it is scale. What if reality is a whole and all levels of scale need to be considered as connected - which would mean recognizing an additional direction to reality (that of crossing scale)? Rather than limit the understanding of reality to what physicists currently study, what if we need to consider the continuum of scale across which nearly all disciplines of science work - connecting then all along this continuum?

* A sphere is a geometrically scale independent shape. What you mention for spinning particles, on a very small level, applies to a sphere at any scale. We do not experience reality as working on only one scale (eg. that of particles) and so what needs to be considered is if a sun is spinning in a galaxy, which has a planet spinning around it, which is itself spinning, and on its surface (will it matter at what latitude or longitude?) is a boy spinning a globe, which has spinning particles in it. If pure reductionism is correct, then all we need to consider is the actions at the scale of the particles. I do not see any way or any explanation that all the other motions (at larger scales) will not have an impact upon those spinning particles that make of the globe. We have no theory that can explain these actions across scale and I very much doubt any explanation that only starts from the smallest particles will be able to account for (as in casually explain) such actions at much larger scales. I believe this is a requirement for any 'theory of everything' or fundamental theory.

So I will suggest that the reductionist program so limits any concept of reality to one scale or another that it exempts much of what we experience (and other scientific disciplines study) as being part of reality. The program is, therefore, doomed to fail.

Any fundamental theory of reality must explain the inter-relationships across the vast expanse of scale we have discovered over the course of the last few hundred years. And I do not see where any theory that limits itself to one scale (or even a couple near-by scales) can possibly succeed or be called 'fundamental'.

Don

Many thanks Dear Peter!

And I am very agree with you about of Declan's work that was really impressive for me. That is nice we are not alone in our efforts to understand where is the main root!

Be well, my dear and succeseful in this contest as you doing really a huge work!

Sincerely,

George

Hello Peter,

As an expat in the US, it was a pleasure for me to read a paper written by somebody who cares about English grammar.

Your introduction draws the reader's attention immediately to the fundamental question, 'What IS "Fundamental"?' in the singular, distinguished from 'What ARE "Fundamental"?'

But before we can confidently identify THE 'What", we have recognized the need to disqualify a number of conspicuous candidates. So let's re-visit at a few of them:

'Time' is simply duration, in the absence of which nothing can exist! We subdivide time any way that we find doing so useful. Like space, time extends infinitely in all directions.

Any search for the 'most fundamental' effect is an investigation looking for darkness with a flashlight. What is more fundamental than any effect is a single 'cause' or facilitator in the absence of which there can be no events or effects.

I thought that the notion of 'ether' had been abandoned by most scientists, but if persistence by the few does not bring this idea to an end, it will likely bring us to the end of the beginning.

I agree that 'a solution should look ... 'ridiculously' simple. So maybe we should ask Einstein's barmaid! I don't think that we should be looking for the most fundamental action in physics. That is not the question!

Concerning your 'simple rotating sphere'; time and orientation upon the earth's surface are both local. Dinner time in Quito, Ecuador on Monday is breakfast time in Singapore on Tuesday; just as surely as 'up' in Quito points in the same direction as 'down' in Singapore.

With reference to gravity, again we may be looking in the wrong direction. I suspect that science is going to come into general accord in recognition that gravity is not as fundamental as currently believed.

In matter we find an exhibition of defiance against vacuum (the predominant constituent of the cosmos), the exception that proves the rule. What is the rule? The rule is that vacuum abhors nature, and flows to fill its absence.

RML is an acronym, one of an infinite number. If we want to know what it means we should refer back to the original author. Read My Lips. itsinmybook.com.

Thanks Peter for your good thoughts. Good luck,

Gary

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your essay! That was a wild ride full of so many ideas. It will take some time for them to settle in my mind. I will definitely have to revisit this essay.

I liked your statement "Deep familiarity with complex

(if incomplete or flawed) theory may then dissuade many from adopting new unfamiliar concepts, even, or particularly, if ridiculously simple! "

One of my favorite quotes (anon) is "familiarity breeds the illusion of understanding." This is even true in the case of familiarity with incomplete or flawed theories. It is a dangerous business!

Thank you again,

Kevin Knuth

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 (http://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

Peter,

Finally getting to your essay, going item by item and numbering

1. reductionism - final paragraph caught my eye, agree both with qualities you suggest 'most fundamental' should possess, and with your emphasis upon relative motion. I think here we find perhaps the deepest connection between our models, as that which Michaele and I present is based upon an epistemologically rigorous analysis of the two-body problem and Mach's principle, which is all about relative motion. How does your understanding of relative motion relate to the concept of background independence?

2. 'Of What' - relative motion of what? agree re nominal bottom of event horizon at Planck length, tho the mind can go where the body cannot. Beyond that not clear to me what the what is that you refer to with your 'Of What'. Would not agree that 'states of motion' form 'matter'. There is more to it than that, as i think you would agree, tho the way you close this section leaves me confused.

3. 'Most Profound' - here i question including SR at the level of most profound. SR is a three-body effect, Lorentz transform is just Pythagoreus. At foundational level it is better to confine the logic to two-body interactions imo. Background independence is lost in three body problem, the mix between spin and orbital angular momentum is resolved with introduction of third body,... also one can advance topological arguments against introduction of another singularity, at the least has to properly account for the effects in terms of nonlocality...

Love explaining physics to barmaids. Agree that one should be able to coherently present one's worldview over a single pitcher of good beer shared at a moderate pace, preferably in company with traditional 'garbage pizza'.

4. Motion - the notion that a particle requires 'spin' to exist is new to me. According to wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meson, spin zero mesons form a nonet, with pizero/eta/etaprime being the non-strange members. Branching ratio calculations for those mesons are shown in an impedance analysis of the chiral anomaly, posted on my vixra author page. Model used there is geometric interpretation of Clifford algebra, which defines 'geometric wavefunction'. In principle one should be able to use that model to confirm or refute your suggestion that particles require spin to exist. However more than just impedance analysis is required to sort out which components of geometric wavefunction comprise spin zero mesons, so it could be that mode structure of these mesons have two spin modes that cancel. Whether these would correspond to your two counter-rotating vortices is more complicated.

5. OAM - finding it very difficult to follow this. I look at things from two-body perspective, the simplest possible imo. The Riemann sphere (?) construction you present may well be correct and appropriate, but my mind has a very hard time following what you're doing and why. Background independence appears to me to be lost by doing this. Agree that to formulate a testable experimental prediction one must establish the sort of structure you develop, but to incorporate that into one's conceptual foundations rather than using it as a reality check has my head spinning a little. As i understand it background independence is an essential property of any viable quantum gravity model. This is major obstacle for the mathematician's Riemannian 'curved space' interpretation of Einstein's thinking. In any case what you're doing with this may be completely valid, appears to me to be pointing in interesting directions so must be at least partially valid.

6. Transition Zone - here you hit the nail on the head, tho with a hammer that makes me laugh at least a little. Agree it is in the near field that things get interesting. What is little recognized in physics community is that near field impedance of photon differs from far field. Particle folks just set impedance to dimensionless unity along with light speed, Planck's constant,... Was the fashionable thing to do in the day. But what governs amplitude and phase of the flow of energy at the foundation of QED (our basic QFT template), what governs energy flow in the photon-electron interaction, the near field impedances, fell thru the cracks. This is why we have to renormalize. Renormalization coefficients are just impedance mismatches in a geometric wavefunction model. Mainstream folks have forgotten about your transition zone.

7. QM - here again i get lost in your formalism, in the structure you're imposing on the two-body problem, on the interaction of two geometric wavefunctions. To my mind this is still very subtle. For me to comment sensibly here would require much more study. Like that you introduce three body three filter problem, tho not yet getting if/how it is connected to the work you and Declan are collaborating on. The nested Mach-Zender we briefly touched on earlier in my thread appears to me a potentially much more symmetric tool for evaluating the work you and Declan are doing. Please, take a look at the work Vaidman (Aharonov's former student and inventor of 'weak measurement' theory/technique) and company are doing. It seems to confirm the Wheeler-Feynman papers on time symmetry of quantum phase, is related to phase symmetry/polarity reversal you mention, phase clock of QM running CCW for particles and CW for antiparticles, and back to oppositely spinning vortices, that old film of 'galloping gertie', resonant vortex shedding oscillating a suspension bridge torsional mode into destruction out west back in the 30s,... Curious how that maps into your formalism,...

so enough already. like what you're doing, agree re importance of properly understanding relative motion. It was foundation of my lifelong work. Came from working with my brother back in the mid 70s, designing, building, and operating vibratory piledrivers. Two synchronized spinning eccentric weights. Two body problem and Mach's principle at gut level. Mechanical impedances. And dad was electronics guy, we built the electromagnetic analog on his test bench during the design process. Eventually this evolved into what we are now calling quantized impedance networks of geometric wavefunction interactions.

Don't understand your decomposition into orbital and helical, why you do that, but still have some confusion about helicity/chirality and its origins in geometric Clifford algebra. So perhaps there is something i can learn from you there.

Peter,

darn. just got another of those anonymous 1 ratings, drove Michaele and I from 7.1 to 6.7. Agree moderators need to take those behaviors into consideration. Reading their rating guidelines to contributors, my guess is they already do in their final selections of which essays go to the referees, adjust their perceptions regarding justified ratings accompanied by comments and penalize the backstabbers as well. Simple software to catch the outliers, tag the perps. Tho it doesn't compensate for the fact that higher rated essays get more attention.

Would help to have a more sophisticated fqxi search interface imo.