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

    Peter Jackson

    Yes, my health is OK. Thank you.

    I am glad that you like my article. My main interest is in SRT. Light takes the fastest way as pronounced by Schnell's law. Stokes missed that when he reduced Michelson's prediction by half. The missing part opened for Lorentz to introduce the GAMMA factor, and thereby absurdities.

    If you like my article, as you said, you can comment on my page.

    Thanks and good luck from ______________ John-Erik Persson

    Dear Peter,

    I think FQXi.org might be trying to find out if there could be a Natural fundamental. I am surprised that so many of the contest's entrants do not appear to know what am fundamental to science, or mathematics, or quantum histrionics.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

      Peter,

      That is a very forceful and clear description of various of the more taken for granted problems in physics(which is to say a lot deeper than strings), but I do think it misses the obvious. In trying to peel away the layers of the physical to find what is fundamental, Physics ignores the context, space. Which is something else Physics has spent a few generations trying to reduce to geometric abstraction, yet unlike more energetic processes, it sits there quietly.

      There can be no proven "first cause," but space doesn't need or provide cause, just primary context. That, like a blank sheet of paper, or canvas, is fundamental.

        John,

        Anything in motion in a matter medium creates paired vortices. Often we see them; in smoke, at wing tips and in all viscous fluids. If 'dark energy' has some sub-matter existance, and the same applies (i.e. pair production, Unruh effect, Higgs process etc.) Then the vortex will be the electron positron pairs (as their opposing 'spin').

        As of 'what they're made of'? It's what you and I and everything in the universe is 'made of'! Apart from ever smaller states of motion we don't have a clue and haven't even yet thought it needed a name! Some years ago I suggested 'Comprathene' just for the sake of a name. I'm sure we can do better. Any ideas.

        Good to see you back.

        Very best

        Peter

        So, an electron (for example) is a spinning vortex of smaller matter particles. The positron has the opposite spin. When vortics of opposite spin collide their energy sums to zero. Vortices of the same spin can add.

        I'll think about your suggestion.

        I had been thinking the vortices were in an inviscid medium (plenum. ether, space, etc.) as a result of the motion of matter. Electron produce vorticies with a spin opposite to the positrons. Only 2 rotation directions with an axis in 3D. The vorticies manifest as the coulomb field that travel outward according to the spherical principle (1/r density). Neatly solves "What is charge?'

        The next issue I thinking about is the EM signal within the STOE.

        Hodge

        John,

        Your 2 descriptions both loosely describe what I hypothesised, but a Majorana fermion is found to be 'it's own antiparticle' which is exactly the paired opposing polar spin states of a SINGLE sphere of torus! Think about that for a bit; we can never interact with both hemspheres at the same time, so only FIND either clockwise OR anticlockwise (+1, OR -1)!!

        Yes it's 'motion' (of matter) that creates the vortices. Electrons (or rather all fermions) then don't 'produce' spin, they ARE spin! The energy density reduces around the vortex so the overall spin density distribution in the greater area around a 'vortex' will be 'flat'. We'd experience the local uneven density distribution around matter as 'gravity'. If the matter is 'annihilated' the potential goes flat (no gravity).

        The validity of that general approach is supported by the resolving power of the model when turned to QM. i.e. the astonishing classical derivation emerges!

        EM waves (fluctuations) can only propagate in the ether at c, but not 'couple' or be modulated by it. However interaction with fermions DOES modulate, to LOCAL c giving CSL, so producing the effect we call SR in the process.

        Does that help your understanding of the hypothesis, or compatibility with you own model?

        Very best. (Yours is on my list)

        Peter

        Hi Joe,

        I'm not sure 'fqXi' or most anyone would recognise a 'natural fundamental' at present! As Sabine H says, it's clear Academia really doesn't know what the f*** is actually going on, and it's unlikely the solution will come from that direction!

        She's probably right, but then also applying to your second sentence regarding most all outside academia. I've suggested that's no shame, simply a function of the state of mans intellectual evolution.

        I predict a heap more 'quantum histrionics' in the next few years as the revolution takes it's toll!

        Very best

        Peter

        John,

        Glad you're back. I've described 'space' as a 'sub-matter' medium, certainly not condensed matter but possibly just smaller states of the 'spin' that forms matter, i.e. the condensate, just with slightly different behaviour at that scale (see my post to John H above).

        After presenting the evidence for it's existence as obvious I then said lets focus on the lowest 'matter' state before we get deeper into speculation, which identified a key solution. So one step at a time!!

        Of course 'between' those smaller ('dark') energy states may be none! though there's no actual evidence of that apart from that we don't 'see' anything, and we don't 'see' 98% of the universe that we know is there!!

        So in that case did I really "miss it"? And could it give the same solution to QM & SR?

        I hope to get to yours before too long.

        Very best

        Peter

        Peter,

        A further point that arose in discussion with Georgina, Our senses detect form and motion. Forms are finite, while motion is positive/negative disequilibrium. Which would seem to imply equilibrium and infinity as preconditions. The absolute and the infinite, with the extant between them.

        This also goes to my argument that there are two directions of time. That energy(motion) goes from past to future forms, while these forms coalesce and dissolve, going future to past.

        To really press the issue, consider that galaxies are energy/radiation expanding out, as gravity coalesces in. Further aspects of this dichotomy are covered in my essay.

        Think of absolute zero as volume, without any action. While it might be unattainable, the fact it provides a conceptual end point, or equilibrium between positive and negative, makes it hard to completely dismiss. It took mathematics a long time to appreciate zero.

        Good Luck!

        John

        Peter,

        I always enjoy your essays since you tend to emphasize measureable and observable things.

        Your 10 axioms seem reasonable enough ... especially regarding polarizers. BTW, are those polarizers linear or angular? I want to buy some and don't want to buy the wrong ones.

        I'm not familiar with Transition Zones or the behavior of antennae ... so that was new to me.

        I have seen a video on the "Quantum Erasure". It is certainly difficult to understand. I tend to think that the wave-function is instantaneous and therefore it determines that the signal is recombined in path B while the signal is still travelling in path A.

        All in all, this is a good essay.

        BTW, I really think you would benefit from quaternions.

        Best Regards and Good Luck,

        Gary Simpson

        Peter:

        When I first saw your observation that vorticies are present at all scales, I thought this is exactly the kind of mechanism that should help describe QM phenomena. My mind raced. Then I thought the way this can fit in the STOE.

        Your suggestion is also interesting. If a +1 (positron?) collides with a -1 (electron?), the result is photons. No gravity for photons seems the generality accepted view but debatable. At least energy survives.

        Thanks I think I understand your model more. I'll think about it.

        Thanks for the insight. Vorticies have to fit in somewhere in the Quantum world.

        Hodge

        Peter,

        Thanks for the comments in my forum.

        I'd still like to know if I should buy linear polarizers or circular polarizers:-)

        Best Regards,

        Gary Simpson

        We will see, if the mentioned scientific r-evolution will be speedy or gradual, Peter. This remains an open and informed guess: the paradox and the mystery are part of science.Complexity is simple and simplicity is complex. The inter-section between logic and ethics is human communication; almost 30 years ago, I worked on paradigm change in technical science, consulting T.Kuhn often for his views. I tempted to say: the time is now.