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

        Basically Peter Jackson and Decaln Traill have have shown - that the indistinguishable i - can be thought of as the two indistinguishable constants of closure on the geometry (of a sphere). Or the "Fundamental Theory Of Algebra" needs two constants to close a general "energy count of a measurable outcome". Clearly we need two halves at work from their work, that seem to imply we close Peter's equations on his sphere using (up,down) & (left, right) etc two ways.

        From wiki - That is, i is a unique (i.e. distinguishable) number defined as the square root of minus one, i.e.,i тЙб +тИЪ-1. Since there are two possible square roots for any number +тИЪ and -тИЪ, clearly the square roots of a negative number cannot be distinguished until one of the two is defined as the imaginary unit, at which point +i and -i can then be distinguished. Since either choice is possible, there is no ambiguity in defining i as "the" square root of minus one.

        Clearly looking at Traill's computer programme and Jackson's physical experiment - what is being mapped out is how +i and -i are indistinguishable, all his programme does is to use random numbers to show that quantum vectors can distributed over a whole sphere, as a classical system. All we do is assign +1 or -1 (via Bell/EPR duality), and then as compared to pure randomness, when we do the actual measurements as a series, we get quantum correlations. One half of the sphere we get +/- 1 and the other half we get +/- 1.

        Well the indistinguishable +i and -i each has it's own +/- signs. That is, what Traill and Jackson have done is do the experiment to show that the "complex imaginary unit" (where +i and -i are indistinguishable hence we do the extraordinary as they have shown) in our current theories has been using only one-half of the indistinguishable "complex imaginary unit". See attachment didn't know how to attach diagrams in this message box.

        I really enjoyed reading your essays over the last few years so full of details and always with an experiment as well. I think you have done some good work here, and I have mark you highly

        see my essay "What is Fundamental is the area of the imaginary unit" for more details,and Peter please read the attachment in the first post as well. It is a FAQ post.

        https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Tiainen_Essay_2018_Final_2.pdf

        Also Peter I have attached a PDF of more comments about +i and -i using your red/sock trick, it features heavily in my essay. Enjoy Harri

          Sorry Peter I cannot seem to attach files to posts for some reason - if you send me your email I can sent it to you- will attempt again tomorrow.

          Luca,

          Yes, I certainly adhere to all Bell & most of what Bohr said. I'm also sure if I'd been at Solvay in 1927 and shown the way to unify SR & QM we may have avoided ~100yrs of confusion!

          Did you see my 3 pre 2014 essays showing how SR is implemented by the same absorption/re-emission mechanism?

          I have yours on my list and look forward to some positivism.

          Very Best

          Peter

          Jouko,

          Thanks for the eulogy and fresh view of what we've achieved. I'll check it out.

          I look forward to reading your essay, also the pdf, send direct to; pj.ukc.edu@physics.org

          All help is welcome in overcoming the massive theoretical inertia, here as much as anywhere.

          kind regards

          Peter