Ridiculous Simplicity by Peter Jackson

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

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

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

again

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.

again

Peter, I watched your Vimeo video of 38 minutes (in your bibliography) and then read your essay. Listening to you speak in the video helped me to read your voice on the page.

It seems you advocate a "language translation" between models: the model used in your video to the current Standard Models for example. I wonder if the translation might be done formally following the diagram of the "infomorphism" on page 73 of "Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems" by Barwise and Seligman.

My own belief is that we will never understand the Universe-- there will always be mysteries. And then there is the old story about the blind men encountering an elephant for the first time. One grabs the tail, and the tail becomes the model in support of his statements about the elephant.

Much like your sphere in various situations becomes the models supporting your statements in the paper. Much like experiments become the models supporting statements in the Standard Models.

Of course in the old story about the elephant, each blind man has a different model, each model supporting their differing statements. Although there would be no infomorphism between some statements-- such as the elephant being like the branch of a tree for the man holding the tail, while for the man feeling the leg, the elephant is like a tree trunk-- there may be other statements which translate exactly. For example, the smell of the elephant would be largely the same for each man.

My own approach In this contest is to translate from the probable experiential knowledge of particular pre-socratics (Thales, Xenophanes, Parmenides, and then Socrates himself)-- specifically about their probable experiential knowledge of "the self"-- into possible scientific knowledge for a community of researchers, for example, those who have the know-how to use non-wellfounded sets, co-algebras and streams. Especially when the likes of string theory seems beyond verification by experiment.

As for the blind men feeling the elephant, for each domain of mathematics such as field theory, co-algebras etc., there may be infomorphisms between each language, including yours.

Thank you for making me aware of your work!

Peter:

Excellent essay. Got the deserved high marks. Sharp and witty language as expected from a Brit!

We are FUNDAMENTALLY in agreement пЃЉ!

I agree with you that the light bending by the Sun is most likely due to refraction by the gradient index of its corona plasma.

You have quoted Einstein's desire to find the foundation from a fundamentally new way of thinking. This is critically important. Otherwise, we will remain stuck in the "success rut", as I have mentioned in my essay.

However, I do see differences in our approaches. This is only because I am a hardcore experimentalist and coming with a background optical science and engineering. I also differ from you from the sociological implication of "Revolution". We know from the history of politico-economic revolutions that they are very disruptive and more damaging, specifically, for those who were supposed to have gained more economic freedom. In reality, what we see is that again a minority of "Tribal Leaders" have taken over the helm and only a small fraction of the revolutionary benefits have "trickled down" to the masses. Therefore, I prefer, slow, steady and incremental changes in our SCIENTIFIC ENTERPRISE where the funding steadily shifts towards out-of-box thinkers who are system engineers in their epistemology. After all, nature has been the most impressive system engineer in creating, managing and letting the universe keep evolving.

Chandra.

Dear Peter Jackson

Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.

My essay is titled

"Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin". It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.

Thank you & kind regards

Steven Andresen

Thinking freely does not mean we can think the way we like. Science has developed a methodology of operations where we have some postulations. These are build up to explain the process under study. The outcomes are expressed mathematically. The process is continued till we reach the objective we have set to explain. Finally, our approach has to be confirmed experimentally, no escaping that. Pure Mathematics has no place in Physics unless backed by logic of postulates based on existing knowledge. Kindly indicate your response if you differ.

Peter,

Thanks for your kind words. Seems to be sparse reviewing and rating in this essay contest so far. I am revisiting those I have reviewed and see if I have scored them before the deadline approaches. I find that I did score your on 1/27.

Luck in the contest.

Jim Hoover

Peter Jackson

Regarding what you said about hf=E or dfh=dE. Remember that we do not see the light. We can only observe electron behavior when they are exposed to light. Therefore our image of light is indirect and quantization can be done by the electrons. Therefore, Planck's constant can represent an electron property.

Regards from _______________ John-Erik Persson

Peter, hoping this helps, I've transferred the following reply from my essay-thread

More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

....................

Thanks Peter,

It's good to see that we're on the same map when it comes to resolving Bell's "action-at-a-distance" dilemma and related matters. My "neo-classical" foundations are intended to support fundamental classically-based research like yours. For -- under an old mantra of mine -- reality makes sense and we can understand it. However, let's now see if we can get onto the same course to the same safe harbour.

You write: "I couldn't read all of [your essay] as I didn't recognise the symbols ...."

O Captain, my captain: eqns (1)-(3) chart the stormy waters, with ¶¶4.1-4.2 written expressly for keen sailor's like you. (And here be no dragons! Rather, here we come to my comment about "the mathematics".)

With every pointed critical comment most welcome, my [cough] lovely notation is meant to be physically significant and to helpfully include every relevant beable and every relevant interaction. Even to the point of charting the dynamics of interactions (see the little arrows). Thus a polariser is represented by a "delta" denoting "change" -- akin to a delta-function -- its orientation and output channels identified. Even an analyser (often a multiplier) is represented by a multiplication (a scalar-product). How about q for qon, a quantum particle? [Just kidding?] Have a look again (sometime) at ¶4.1 and the little exercise there for diligent sailors; knowing that we're on a steady heading to a safe haven and more conventional representations -- see eqn (21).

So that's why I'm keen to see: (i) your representation of the beables in your work; (ii) the interactions; (iii) the outcomes; (iv) all wrapped up in some math (by you or some shipmates, mate).

As for working in unison: I'm up for that, but tend to be a bit of a Lone Sailor given my current solo focus on showing how TLR (true local realism) takes us all-the-way to Shangri-La.

In response to this from you -- "Very well done, and I look forward to your comments on mine, with particular regard to the maths!" -- I'll also put this as a comment on your essay-site. I'll also read the essays that you mention.

With my thanks again; Gordon

.....................................

PS: I should add that I will be moving to a fancy-P for Prevalence and a fancy-q for qon; thus P and q can retain their standard role in QM, etc. The point being that, with (in my "neo-classical" terms), the Laws of Malus, Bayes, and Born (thanks to Fourier and the R-F theorem) established from first principles: the consequent confirmatory QM-style application of Born's Law to EPRB and DSE (+++) is immediate.

Gordon Watson

More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.