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

        Hi Peter, local realism has a particular meaning. Its meaning is not only that something is happening that is local and real but the outcome state or value exist prior to measurement.I.e. not as a superposition of states or in an indefinite condition. The state or value being thought of as a property of the particle alone.

        Both you and I recognize that the state found depends partly on behaviour and partly upon the choice of measurement angle. So, the state/value is not merely something about the particle itself. The measurement is forming a relation that enables a determination to be made, rather than it already being definite and just awaiting discovery.

        Your mathematics may work but that does not mean that is therefore how the particles are moving. Meant matter of factly not disrespectfully.

        Welcome back, Peter. Your entry is quite impressive as usual.

        I made it easy for myself by grabbing the definition of fundamental is that which is Essential for existence. You took the weightier tract. Russell's pile of turtles are in keeping with the anatomical "fundus" definition and does seem to orient toward the larger and weightier at the bottom but then of course there are many interpretations of fundamental which you point out. I'm hoping for "the barmaid effect," hoping the slopped-over beer suds do not obfuscate my attempt.

        Your essay embarks on a journey of multifaceted interpretations of fundamental, some quite complex. We do want our mysteries to be simplified. You ably prove that fundamental is not a simple theory of everything. Maybe fundamental should be qualified with "more or less." I believe fundamental evolves with discovery and that we must say "more or less" with our discoveries because our understanding always seems to be incomplete. Regarding the "lower reductionist limit of condensed matter," I use the creation of metallic hydrogen as an achievement relating to the evolution of of fundamental through discovery. Hope you get a chance to read mine.

        Jim Hoover

          Thanks for your kind comments on my essay Peter.

          I am not of the expertise to assess your essay but enjoyed what I could understand.

          Good luck in the competition,

          Jack

          Cristi,

          I confess. I wanted you to analyse the actual ontology. I hoped that as you'd indicated knowledge of QM. But although John Bells pleaded "never give up trying to find" ..the classical mechanism I'd never blame anyone for doing so. The 3 degrees of freedom and discarding various hypotheses helped make it both tedious and mind bendingly tricky! Nobel?! I don't want, need or do this for money or kudos - saving one cat would be more reward than I'd expect!

          Thanks for the advice, all good ..but already done. You'd see in my bio I still visit at two universities so have good access and I've consulted more widely. Submissions to peer reviewed journals have been rebuffed at first glance. Editors seem scared by major paradigm departure and aren't qualified to judge so no papers have reached peer review.

          Some professors of QM gave similar responses (not surprising) but discussions with a couple who didn't were rewarding. As at last year, though seemingly ~90% sound, the final piece, squaring the modulus, was unproven and outwith the experiment. I'd hoped my identification (see last years essay) of the 'cascade' expansion in photomultiplier (pm) tubes being 3D (so a 'cone' face, squaring amplitudes), might complete it, but that wouldn't resolve. The solution came later last year from stepping back again for overview, and was blindingly obvious. pm interaction momentum exchange is the same as at the polarizer, so the Cos distributions with angle are simply applied again! - note; values between 0 and 1 are of course lower when squared.

          That completed the classical mechanism. We now have a consortium producing the paper, which Declan has kindly agreed to join after his computer code, (following the classical ontology precisely), confirmed the exact reproduction of QM's predictions -the first time ever for a classical mechanism! So yes, the ideas you gave did work. Of course the model still may never penetrate the mainstream.

          Thanks for looking and for your kind comments anyway.

          Best of luck with yours.

          Peter

          Georgina,

          You're right, QM did axiomise that initial state affects outcome, but Von Neuman recognized 'the meter is part of the system'. What I've done is identify EXACTLY

          A) WHAT links the pair & carries through ('entangled' quality) and

          B) WHAT changes the interactions effect and outcome values.

          A) Only has to consist of maintained paralell polar axes to produce the apparent effects we call 'nonlocality'.

          B) Is then the non-linear inverse distributions of the linear/curl state pairs identified, changing with (random) attitude and 'detector' (x2) field rotations across all 3 axes.

          QM simply said the couldn't be done! at all.. ever!! Bell disagreed. He just showed it couldn't be done simply with QM's assumptions. It now seems he was right.

          Your last paragraph is wrong & not 'fact' because there is NO MATHEMATICS in my essay and none were used in finding the mechanism! The ontology itself describes the full process and motions (visible as long as you can visualise it). You only have to look at non-linear or quantum optics on wiki to see how particles move and what rotations do to phase. That's what John Wheeler said we should do - work it out first only THEN do the mathematics to match it for the proof.

          But don't worry. Quantum physicists may fear to even look at it! Mind you I've just read Prof McHarris's essay. Spot on! Have a read.

          Very best.

          Peter