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.

    Stephen,

    If only...!

    My 2010 essay '2020 Vision' suggested 10yrs. But it assumed an optimistic rate of intellectual evolution. The QM solution only emerged from a test of the SR solution there.

    But even those most respected and experienced are simply ignoring it, no analysis, just paying lip service to the need for change but plunging heads into the sand.

    I'm told that's stage 3. I think the next is; "It's self apparent anyway." 2020? Hmmm.

    Very best.

    Peter

    John,

    Good. I'd remind you that electrons and positrons are opposite poles of a single 'vortex' body/fermion 'particle'. If opposite poles meet the potential reduces to zero 'annihilation', so the gravitational potential in the region flattens. 'Photons' would then be the result of interacting with the fluctuations from the disturbance (we can't measure any wavefront without interacting with and 'requantizing' it (via fermions) so will always find the energy in 'photons'.

    But also. As the wave motion is 3D at every point, we CAN also assign notional 'particulate' characteristics to it's orbitals, which normally also have helicity. That's difficult to visualise at first but clarifies with thought & slots right into many vacant 'link' gaps in the optical sciences.

    I should be at yours soon.

    Peter

    Dear Peter,

    I really appreciated your essay, even if sadly my lack of mathematical tools was an issue for many part of it (my formation is in philosophy).

    You point out that (and I agree)

    > the word 'fundamental' should be qualified with 'more' or 'less'.

    Then you conclude that

    > the apparently most ridiculously simple of concepts can resolve & unite incomplete and incompatible theories [...] That simple concept is relative motion.

    I wonder: how something relative can be considered fundamental? Should we consider relativity itself, as set of relations, as even more fundamental?

    It's a topic in common with my essay about absolute relativism, so I'm very interested in it.

    Bests,

    Francesco D'Isa

    Francesca,

    Many thanks. I minimised maths but we must pay homage. See my 'red/green sock trick' essay (top scorer 2yrs ago). Declan Trail's essay gives the code and cos^2 plot for the classic QM ontology identified.

    I started with just 'motion' but motion is an entirely relative concept, which needed saying. I see no dichotomy in cheese being tastier than music. Without relative motion there would be no matter so no perceptible universe, so I set the foundation at the condensation of matter while giving a nod to the condensate we can only speculate on.

    Sure it's a 'set of relations'. I look forward to finding the 'even more' fundamental in your essay. But 'Special' Relativity is, as AE defined, a special case, and resolvable if the matter condensed couples with EM fluctuations and re-emits at the new LOCAL speed c (=CSL). Well I never, we know that happens! It's only our disjointed physics and thinking (and theoretical inertia) that blocks advancement in understanding. We even ignored AE when he got it right in '52 (spaces in relative motion within spaces') as initial assumptions were by then embedded.

    Yes I agree 'absolute relativism' is fundamental. You're on my list. (Do also read Trail's essay for the holy grail proof if you haven't yet).

    Very best

    Peter

      Dear Peter

      IMHO, " the moon IS there when we stop looking! " because there are other copy moons looking down to every quantum of our moon. HOW?

      According to my Quantum FFF Model, we live inside one of an even set of instant entangled symmetric copy universes. Based on a new particle ( Charge Parity) symmetric Big Bang process.

      See also my essay:

      "22, We seem to live inside one material universal bubble of an instant entangled (Charge Parity Time) CPT symmetric raspberry bubble multiverse. Each quantum jump or wave function collapse or human choice is guided by this instant entanglement at long distant. If our material universes has a chiral oscillating Higgs field, then our material Right Handed DNA helix molecule could be explained. However it also suggests that in our opposing ANTI-MATERIAL multiverse neighbour universe the DNA helix should have a LEFT HANDED spiral.

      Also: according to Max Tegmark: in an entangled multiverse we may ask: is there COPY PERSON over there, who is reading the same lines as I do? If this COPY person is indeed living over there, then even our consciousness should be shared in a sort of DEMOCRATIC form, Then we are not alone with our thoughts and doubts, see: Democratic Free Will in the instant Entangled Multiverse.

      Conclusion, Quantum FFF Theory is based on Non-Local Realism. The CP(T)-symmetrical raspberry shaped multiverse (with 8-12 berries) is non local instant connected down to each quantum. Each quantum can be visualized as a deformed Axion-Higgs ring able to convert into other shapes and able to form compound structures like quarks, muons or even Tau leptons. So realism (cogwheels) connected by symmetric non-local instant entanglement. http://vixra.org/pdf/1401.0071v2.pdf See also: "Democratic Free Will and Telepathy in the Instant Entangled Multiverse." http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0026v3.pdf "

      An old but extended simple experiment made by Benjamin Libet is able to prove our human VETO statistics as cruxial part of our FREE WILL by our veto freedom..

      See: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0003v1.pdf

      Dear Peter,

      thank you for your answer and for your interest in my essay. My point of view is more philosophical, and it has the virtues and vices of this kind of approach; the "more fundamental" level I refer to are relations - but you'll find it better explained there.

      I read Trail's essay as well, which I found very very interesting in its conclusions, but sadly I'm not able to evaluate their correctness.

      Excuse my very ignorant question but:

      > Without relative motion there would be no matter so no perceptible universe

      motion of what?

      All the best!

      Francesco

      Francesco,

      Good question. I suggest in my essay ever smaller states of motion as vortices. The QV and dark energy states may form the condensate but there's no known bottom (or 'top' for that matter!).

      So yes, I agree. I'll discuss on yours.

      Declan's, as mine simply gives a second option, effectively;

      A. Jet engines work by weird & magical probability drives coupled with distant pilots waving their arms.

      B. (New hypotheses consistent with evidence) Burning fuel spins turbines compressing air and pilots have direct control.

      Science has had to live with 'A' for 100 years so it's now established, though apparently unphysical. 'B' can't be right because it's different to 'A'.

      Stony silence from the academic community.

      I'll discuss 'what' on yours as that also seems no longer in professional physicists terms of reference.

      Peter

      Dear Peter,

      that's even more interesting... and mysterious. Sadly I've no means to evaluate - nor even to comprehend - Declan's physics hypothesis, nor yours, but sounds quite revolutionary as it is stated. Anyway the history of science is full of thunderous silences.

      yes, the "what" can't be maybe (yet) defined in physics frame... we maybe need a little philosophy.

      Bests and thank you for your answers,

      Francesco

      Dear Peter,

      While reviewing my reading list - essays I promised or just want to read but I was a bit slow - I noticed that your feedback to my essay disappeared, which seems quite strange. it doesn't matter, I just thought that you may want to know. I remember it was there, because you wrote that your favorite line from my essay is the last one, in which I convey the message that despite the arguments I brought in my essay, I don't consider holomorphic fundamentalness proven yet and I don't want to take myself too seriously :). Something that I guess you did more straightforwardly, already in the title of your essay. Your essay is well written, and you took an interesting path to making the case for the thesis "turtles all way down" based on condensed matter. (If I would explain in terms of turtles the core of my proposal, it is as if there are base turtles everywhere, but none of them is special, various hierarchies of turtles being related by isomorphisms, somewhat similar to how different frames are related by transformations.)

      Best regards,

      Cristi

        Hi Peter,

        You said:

        > You didn't seem to notice or comment on the main important new finding in my essay, but I don't know how up on QM you are.

        Don't take this personally, I gave up discussing here proposals for "fixing" quantum mechanics by making it classical years ago. Let's just say we disagree.

        Best,

        Cristi

        Hi Peter, I have read your essay twice. It still isn't ridiculously simple to me. Many subjects are considered leading up to the quantum physics part, which I didn't find easy reading.

        I think you are over complicating matters by trying to explain exactly how the particles are moving, for example. It is enough that what happens, because of the way in which the particle is behaving interacting with the measurement apparatus and or protocol, does not exist in isolation prior to that happening. The measurement itself provides the limited state or value.That the particle is behaving classically, in some way, is not sufficient to save local realism.

        It seems enough, to explain deviation from expected classical outcomes, that polarizers alter paths and do not just block them. So that simple arithmetic using pre and post filtered particles doesn't work.

        I realize a lot of thought and effort has gone into your work and presentation. It is good that you have had lots of good and positive feedback. Kind regards Georgina

          Christi,

          We'd be in serious trouble if we all 'agreed' on everything. Understanding would never advance! (I suppose that's why 'agreement' isn't a scoring criteria).

          But I should say this is more like 'agreeing or not' to a longish but basic arithmetical equation. Under the rules it's either correct or not. The only thing most should struggle with is the different starting assumptions. Either

          A) No hypothesis about the pairs except some unexplained 'superposed' spin states that can't be rotation; 'up or down'.

          Which you and all are so familiar with it's become 'intuition' despite it leading to unphysical weird outcome interpretations.

          B) Using proven distributions of momenta, orthogonal as Maxwell's, which vary with interaction angle.

          So it seems really just a test of intellect over 'intuition', or an individuals ability to overcome cognitive dissonance (or embedded beliefs). Of course I expect most people to stick with A) for some time to come. Maybe forever, even though John Bell stated clearly he knew an equivalent to 'B)' must exist. Is that not simply the human condition?

          very best

          peter

          • [deleted]

          Georgina,

          I confess the 'sequence' is longer than we've expected. It's the basic 'rule' that's simple. Like arithmetic as I wrote to Christi above. Once children learn the new rules of ,-,x, angles and squaring it's simply a case of longer strings. Of course if it was short & DEAD simple it'd have been found before! It was nature who made it seem a bit complex not me! But he also used simple rules and gave us brains able to apply them!

          Underlying that is the very simplest notion of 'motion', so the the 'spin' of pairs really IS rotation, but not on just ONE of the 3 axes!!!

          (Look at the short video again if struggling - the 3D motion is critical)100 sec video

          The 'local' UNrealism in QM only comes from Alice's outcome 'apparently' changed by Bob's action. What I SIMPLY show is that does'nt happen. If your detector is set to NORTH, and the particle pole arriving is NORTH you find 'SAME'. The side arriving at Bob is then SOUTH If Bob's is set South he also gets 'SAME'. But if EITHER ONE of you reverses detector pole (so they're the same), you find 'OPPOSITE'!!. Present statistical analysis fails to account for that due to the wrong starting assumption!!

          Local reality is then irrefutably recovered. NO weird 'action at a distance' needed.

          The little effort to understand and embed it is rewarding.

          Very Best

          Peter

          Peter,

          I see what you're doing here :) So you say it's not simply to agree to disagree, because it is intellect vs 'intuition' (i.e. prejudice? bias?). You've got me, I live in superposition on Hilbert Space Ave. and my house is filled with Schrödinger cats, so my intuition is quantum :) So since you put the problem like this, I have no choice but to accept the provocation. I'm kidding, I'm not 5.

          If I accept, I think there will be a very long discussion, from which nothing will be gained and no agreement will be reached. But let's say that you will convince me that you are right, then what would you expect? I'm not in the Nobel committee :)

          Here are some ideas:

          - Find the closest University and discuss your findings with a professor of QM.

          - Submit your papers to a peer reviewed journal with IF, and see what the reviewers have to say.

          - Hire a physicist who is giving consultations for such things.

          Of course, it's your choice, and I told you mine.

          Good luck!

          Cristi

          Georgina, ..Hmm, that was me below -autologged out! here again;

          I confess the 'sequence' is longer than we've expected. It's the basic 'rule' that's simple. Like arithmetic as I wrote to Christi above. Once children learn the new rules of ,-,x, angles and squaring it's simply a case of longer strings. Of course if it was short & DEAD simple it'd have been found before! It was nature who made it seem a bit complex not me! But he also used simple rules and gave us brains able to apply them!

          Underlying that is the very simplest notion of 'motion', so the the 'spin' of pairs really IS rotation, but not on just ONE of the 3 axes!!!

          (Look at the short video again if struggling - the 3D motion is critical)100 sec video

          The 'local' UNrealism in QM only comes from Alice's outcome 'apparently' changed by Bob's action. What I SIMPLY show is that does'nt happen. If your detector is set to NORTH, and the particle pole arriving is NORTH you find 'SAME'. The side arriving at Bob is then SOUTH If Bob's is set South he also gets 'SAME'. But if EITHER ONE of you reverses detector pole (so they're the same), you find 'OPPOSITE'!!. Present statistical analysis fails to account for that due to the wrong starting assumption!!

          Local reality is then irrefutably recovered. NO weird 'action at a distance' needed.

          The little effort to understand and embed it is rewarding.

          Very Best

          Peter

          Dear Cristinel Stoica,

          A FQXi contest requires reading and digesting of most exciting essays too fast. Peter's claims, including re-emission theory, seem indeed somewhat premature, at least to me.

          You suggested finding a professor. While I didn't find professors of mathematics who were able to answer my fundamental questions concerning mathematics because I was not a mathemetician, and my last boss, an prolific expert in ground penetrating radar, called an IEEE paper of mine too fundamental, I hoped for serious hints here.

          What I got aware of exceptional papers was written by outsider like Tom Phipps, Robert McEachern, and this year Declan Traill, Edwin Klingman, and Alan Kadin.

          I didn't mention you for two reasons: I didn't yet read your paper, and I don't expect something very new. Sorry for being blunt.

          Since Peter Jackson learned from me to distinguish between near field and far field, he has been trying to discuss belonging issues with me. I refused because I didn't see a serious reason for such distraction from my essay, and I suspect, he didn't even read and understand it.

          Eckard Blumschein