Dear Peter,

You wrote an interesting, provocative and entertaining Essay which deserves the highest score.

It is strange that John Bell's comment on Bohr et al's assumption that no classical QM derivation could exist seems the opposite of the result of his famous theorem.

I have a question: Are your statements that

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

connected with general covariance?

Concerning your statement that

"Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, often seen as fundamental, may share a single derivation"

maybe you could be interested in my Essay, where I discuss physics unification from another point of view with... Albert Einstein!

Congrats again and good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

    Peter Jackson

    I like your article very much, but there is one exception, and that is your explanation to destructive superposition. I have written that reservation on my own page also. In my opinion your explanation is not logically consistent. The same can be said regarding your explanation to the disappearance of your comment.

    With the best regards from ______________ John-Erik Persson

      Christian,

      Thank you kindly. John Bell was very consistent, as usual we've taken his 'theorem' alone and ignored what he knew and said it proved; that "The founding fathers were in fact wrong". & "..quantum mechanics is at best incomplete"

      Q; Connection with "general covariance"? Not directly. Indeed I found it a rather woolly concept and have looked closer. A better definition does emerge. Sure, 'Laws' don't often change, but much else does.

      One example of a law the DOES change is Snell's Law of refraction. It fails at the (Maxwell, Lorentz, DFM etc) near/far field transformation zone TZ. We then find 'Fraunhofer' radiation, as familiar as it is poorly understood to date but clearly derived in the new model. Also look at 'kinetic reverse refraction', which appears with the co-motion CREATING the TZ and for which there's NO law (I must get round to that!) as nobody else yet understands it! (fancy helping, so it'd be the JC law?)

      I greatly look forward to reading yours.

      Best wishes

      Peter

      John Eric. Thanks. But consider this;

      I show you a spinning sphere. I ask you to touch it and judge the clockwise or anti-clockwise rotation. You touch the south pole and clearly say 'Clockwise'.

      Now I can make your result disappear to ZERO without removing the spinning sphere!

      I simply rotate the sphere half a turn on either the y OR z axis. You find 0!

      Now stay there and start again. I ask you if it's spin UP or DOWN. Easy! But then rotate 90 degrees and THAT ALSO goes to zero! (there's no up/down or left/right momentum at the equator) We can rotate either the sphere or just YOU! (and at 180 degrees you find the opposite).

      The energy does not disappear! The spinning sphere is still there. It's all about at what angle we measure things. It's then entirely logically consistent once you use the correct starting assumptions. Exactly like QM in fact! Remember a two channel photomultiplier has orthogonal channels.

      Peter

      Dear Peter,

      Thanks for clarifying. By the way, I did not know such details of Snell's Law of refraction. I will look it closer.

      Thanks again, I look forward to read your comments on my Essay.

      Cheers, Ch.

      John-Eric,

      There's also a simpler way to test if 'destructive interference' is real. Move the back board of a 2 slit or similar interferometer experiment slightly forward or rearward. The light fringes become dark and vice versa. Huygens construction helps rationalise but modern quantum optics does even better.

      The 'build up' of 'single photon' events to a fringe pattern does however also show the retained 'particulate' characteristic on interaction ('requantization'). Richard Feynman thought 'duality' was just confusion, but things are now far less confused.

      (I'm sure the '1' applied to mine at the time of your last post wasn't you John-Eric.)

      Very best

      Peter

      Dear Peter,

      Thank you very much for nice comparison with discrete field model. You said....." All in all not a bad model but still inconsistent and with a couple of major conflicting assumptions. None I can see that are fatal, but it looks to me like more solid foundations are still needed.".... can you please explain them further?

      Best wishes to your paper...

      =snp

      Dear Peter,

      Thank you very much for nice comparison with discrete field model. You said....." All in all not a bad model but still inconsistent and with a couple of major conflicting assumptions. None I can see that are fatal, but it looks to me like more solid foundations are still needed.".... can you please explain them further?

      Best wishes to your paper...

      Sorry I posted above..

      =snp

      Peter Jackson

      Thanks for mail. (I wrote this on my own page also.)

      I agree with Feynman that wave or particle confusion indicates that we do not understand light. Since fringes are changing over the surface they should also change over transverse direction. So, i do not think that your simple test is certain.

      Regards from _________________ John-Erik Persson

        Dear Fellow Essayists

        This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

        FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.

        Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

        All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist 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.

        Only the truth can set you free.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        John-Eric, (copied)

        It does. It depends on polarization type and direction. Just turn the slits by 90 degrees and the fringes are transverse.

        Best

        Peter

        Hi dear Peter

        It is nice to read your next attractive article. I can say most of that you saying seems to me very right. I believe too that everything can be don ridiculous simplicity, but matter is many things has been don simply wrong at the far-beginning. So, we must considering that the main problem has more psychological (or, maybe political) character than a technical (I mean math or experimental aspects.) Thus, you and me can crying and to prove whatever we see is right, but the matter is not what here is right or wrong. The important thing is - what we need (or, they) to see there! And I see you says almost the same:

        //It seems Einstein's view that; "we should be able to be explain physics to a barmaid" may then be valid but, if so, may pose issues for many of us. Do most in physics really want it's mysteries to be simplified so all can understand at will? Some may perceive it as not in their best interests!//

        So, I can only support and wish you succeeded in this contest!

        My best wishes to you!

        Peter Jackson

        Of course the pattern rotates with the equipment, but that does not prove how the pattern changes when you move the detector. So, you cannot prove energy to exist in light. You know that there is two transverse fields, but you cannot know if there is a longitudinal field.

        Best

        John-Erik Persson

        Eric,

        I'm not sure what 'proof' ever is, but rotation has three degrees of freedom not just two. Ellipticity change can be from rotation on any axis.

        Don't you agree the changes found when changing the backboard distance seem evidence enough of longitudinal change? (If plotted progressively it describes the same fluctuation pattern).

        The 'impact' axis energy in beams such as Bessel beams & lasers is quite well known. And what of the photoelectric effect?

        Peter

        Peter Jackson

        3 fields and 2 must change; 1 of 2 transverse and longitudinal. Does not prove energy motion inside the wave fronts; and not prove energy to even exist in light. Instead, 2 transverse fields can represent information (potential forces) that later become real when light hits the detector (charge) we use. If so, energy comes from the ether.

        John-Erik Persson

          Peter Jackson

          You are perhaps interested in my last comment that I wrote on Josephson's page. Take a look!

          Best regards from John-Erik Persson

          John-Erik, I can agree the following;

          1. Nothing can 'prove' anything in physics.

          2. Energy is found from interactions with light. Precisely how? we don't know.

          3. As 'meters' are part of the system they DO influence detected values.

          4. Dark energy does exist, not as 'matter', but can condense to pairs.

          You don't explain what 'potential' and 'real' forces are. I could rationalise them as 'dark' and condensed particle energy (with all 3 degrees of freedom not just 2) but I suggest we can't say more.

          Best

          Peter

          Peter Jackson

          The distinction between POTENTIAL and REAL is clear. However, the meaning of BLACK can be discussed.

          In the comment to Josephson I suggested light that not transferred energy. What do you think?

          John-Erik Persson

          John-Eric

          I did look but couldn't comment more that the above. In quantum optics energy transfer on the propagation axis is found on interactions and can be calculated for any lambda. It's pretty dramatic when focused such as in Bessel Beams & lasers!

          I think suggesting that findings, Planck's equation E=hf etc are wrong will take exceptionally rigorous proof with counter experimentation results! I also can't see any theoretical logic as to why any one of the 3 degrees of freedom should or could be 'underprivileged'. So sorry I'd need a lot of proof to seriously consider it.

          Peter

          Hi Peter,

          I see your still working on your classical OAM model. Me I'm still working on a Bohr interpretation of physics and think to have found a mathematical sound formalization of Bohr's view. I always wondered, what Einstein or Bell would have said to my interpretation.

          I would be happy if you could find the time to read my essay called The quantum sheep - in defence of a positivist view on physics.

          Best wishes for the contest

          Luca