Ridiculous Simplicity by Peter Jackson

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.

Dear Peter

An immensely rich essay! I like what you said about 'Nature is weird - Live with it'. It seems to be a mantra for today.

Best Wishes

Mozibur Ullah

Peter Jackson

No, it is not so. The emitting electron exchanges energy with the ether. After that, at a time interval, the detecting electron exchanges energy with the ether. Therefore, excluding the ether caused the problem in quantum physics.

I could not open the video you sent me.

Best regards from _____________ John-Erik Persson

Peter

I generally read essays once, as I have done of yours. However when I elect to read an essay a second time, it is personal interest. As I will yours before forming a proper reply.

In my opinion you are a deep thinker with quality deductions, these informing your world overview and guiding your general scientific inquiries. But you also have a handle on an abundance of highly technical considerations, an ocupational hazard I guess.

Nearly everybody else assumes the answers to fundementals of the world are berried beneath layers of additional complexities of theory. You and i look in the other direction, toward symplicity. You assume one day a revelation will lead us to say, "so simple and explains so much of the world's charactor". And you also persist the search for hidden variable for bells inequality. I share these general deductions with you.

I'll write you again once I've built my ubderstanding of your work. But in the mean time I rate your essay a 10.

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundemental Origin

Peter Jackson

See my comments above

John-Erik Persson

Peter

You are a visitor for long time of Fqxi website, with interesting ideas.

Your essay is a good essay, but with honesty and frankness, I don't read the fundamental idea.

I chose to give only high votes in these contest, so that a my non-votes for your essay is better of a downgrading.

Ragards

Domenico

Peter,

WOW! That's INCREDIBLE. I've just read it a third time after brushing up my QM for the last fortnight... and it really works!. That's 90 years of stupidity we can escape from. Well done you! And truly from the most fundamentally simple action in physics.

I've also read your previous papers and see how it allows unification with a slightly less flawed interpretation of the Special Theory of Relativity. You may rtecall a few years ago my essay included the Cluster Probe data analysis which matched your own.

I also read Traill's essay (or rather computer generated proof and graph), and gather you're now collaborating on the astonishing finding.I didn't notice your end note experiment explanation the first time. That's important as its cheap and easy to reproduce. Finding the last peice of the puzzle, the squaring of amplitude to get Intensity, was truly inspired! and again so simple!!

I want to track down the rest of the solutions to the bizarre quantum explanations for things. I think I've seen most in your other work and the video's (the long one needs updating by the way!) but how do you explain short range tomography?

The down side is the dimwitted among physicists either don't understand QM well enough, or as you wrote, are so convinced the world is weird they won't be able to accept a classic solution can exist, even though Bell insisted it did. Best of luck there! Anyway thats a 20 from me! (if I could) I see someone mentioned it being worth a Nobel in the discussions, that's certainly correct, if you live long enough!

I hope you'll read my own essay, a bit more philosophical but I think you'll agree with it. Do tell me if not.

Thaks, I'm truly uplifted, at last! I'm sure you were even more so when if fianlly came together. Most just SAY we need new thinking and new physics but don't seem to mean it and do the necessary, so just hollow talk. Now we'll see if they DO mean it!.

All the very best for the scoring & judging.

Richard

Peter

Your essay is no minor piece. Infact surviving review, it would prove a ground-breaking work. My only reservation is to acknowledge my limited ability to qualify such a work.

I'm glad we share some general points of view, that science might be restored to a semblance of realism. That an imaginative leap might link QM and relativity, and that "time" is an important, if not the important component in unification. Your occupation will have honed your interpretative skills, and so I hope you will have properly appreciated by treatment of (clocks as a measure of QM force dilation, not time dilation). Forces drive clock function, so if times governance over forces cannot be redeemed by scientific explanation, then what's the justification for (clocks measure time?) Force dilation is an observable, quantifiable, and equivalent QM substitute for time dilation, applied to equivalent effect in relative motion and relative gravitational environments.

On another topic, I believe I may have something useful for you, regarding your resolution for Bells Inequality, and it is delivered by an observable. To sum up in simplest possible terms, you apply considerations of relative motions of 3D spherical bodies to decode Bells inequalities.

The observation

A pole or rod standing in a gravitational field, incrementally weighed as it is laid over, beginning at 90degrees from ground, and concluded at 0 degrees. Are you aware that the transitional weight profile matches the same curve as given by QM probability? This is fact, not theory!

What could a photons angle of approach to a polarization filter, and its probability of passing the filter or being stopped, possibly have in common with a poles incremental weight transition in a gravitational field, respective of that same angle? What could leaning photons and leaning poles have in common?

There is a forceful interaction between a pole and gravity, which is characterized by a poles balance and its resistance to the forceful effects of gravity. As the pole is incrementally laid over, gravity has an increasing proportion of leverage over the pole. Or you could term it as, the pole is losing its leveraged balance, and therefore its ability to resist force of gravity.

The photon and the polarisation filter clearly have a forceful interaction with one another. Whereby the filter is imposing a force on the photon, and changing its state/position/motion. And its fair to assume that the photon might have resistance to changes in its state/position/motion, dependent upon its angle to the filter, the leverage associated with that angle.

This is very simple, and might entirely capture the essence of your proposal. Summed up as an interaction between two elements whereby one exerts a force on the other, and the other expresses a forceful resistance to changes in state/position/motion, dependant on leverage at various angles.

I will be thankful for your opinion on this please?

Steven Andresen

Peter

What I have discribed might sound foreign to your theme on first account. But what it might do is fill in another piece of the puzzle. You have discribed an object that can express the various positions that decode bells inaquality. But discribing positions can only be part of the story, because there must be a process ocuring, a mechanism, an interaction between the quantum object and the detector.

It's going to be a forceful interaction, because what other type of physical interaction is there in the world? Force and resistance to force.

The pole in a gravitational field is only comparable to the simplest quantum object, a photon. The priciple becomes a more complex range of considerations when comparing to massive particles which you have modeled with a sphere. But it remains a consideration of force given, and an objects resistance to that force at verious angles

Steve

My comment to Peter Jackson in reply to his comment to me on my paper's page on Feb. 5, 2018

Dear Peter,

Thank you for the positive comment on the essay and hypothesis and the comments on language and communication. I do have a tendency to transfer the information without always including all of man's language structures in the written form because they are not included in the form in which it is provided to me. I try to add the commas and paragraph extra lines, etc., but I tend to miss some especially if I get in a hurry or near the end of a long project, etc. From what I have seen in other papers, it seems to be a common problem of many. Sometimes I see things that appear somewhat odd in papers, but if it does not interfere with the transfer and understanding of the intended concepts of the paper, I try to just ignore them. As an example, in the first paragraph of your paper you say "We suggest 'yes' but we want most fundamental." The use of the word "we" would suggest that you worked with one or more others to generate your paper, but you are the only one mentioned as the author of the paper. Of course this does not have a direct bearing on the paper's content except as a slight distraction from the subject, which is not important.

As you mention frequency is not fundamental because it is a resultant output property measurement of cyclical motions, which are also not fundamental because they are the result of the interactions between two or more basic linear or cyclical motions. In the same way, wavelength is the resultant output of the joining interaction of a cyclical motion with a linear motion at an angle to the direction of the cyclical motion's back and forth motion. This can, of course, be more complex if the cyclical motion contains more than one linear motion component within it. Time is one of the most misunderstood concepts in science today because it is generally considered to be an existent physical dimension, but it is actually only an output property of the interaction between a motion and the spatial distance through which it travels. Things become much simpler when you understand that a given motion can contain more or less motion than another motion, such that if two motions travel from points on a line in the same direction that is ninety degrees from the direction of that line and both travel to another line that is parallel to the first line, one of the motions can reach the line and the other motion has not yet traveled that far because it contains a smaller amount of motion. I call this amount of motion that is contained within a given motion its motion amplitude because it represents the magnitude of the motion content within that motion. Any convenient motion amplitude can be selected as the standard motion amplitude. This frees one from the extra complexity of adding a rate function. This changes D=RT to D=MT where M is the motion amplitude of the motion. This shows that T=D/M. From this you can see that time is only an interaction relationship between a motion and the distance that it travels. You could, of course, select a standard motion amplitude that would be that rate that would cause it to travel one mile of distance that would compare to the distance / motion amplitude spectrum that would currently be called one hour. Twice that motion amplitude level would then be equivalent to 2 miles per hour, etc. An hour is actually only a measurement of a standard motion traveling through a standard distance. Whether it is considered to be the time that a point on the earth takes to travel 1/24 of the way around the circumference of the earth or the time it takes for an atom to travel through the distance of many complete cycles of vibration, etc. it is just the measurement of a motion's motion amplitude as it travels through a specific distance. Since T = D / M, There is a whole spectrum of motion amplitudes and their associated distances that equal the same time. Any distance greater than zero would have an associated motion amplitude that would cause it to take one hour to travel that distance. If you want to tie a standard distance to a standard motion amplitude to produce a specific time output, you can just select the desired standard distance and then select the motion amplitude level that will yield one standard unit of time. We are used to using specific standard motion spectrums to generate our standard times, but a standard time could be any D / M spectrum combination that together all equal one unit of time. The only reason that the concept of time is even needed is because motions can contain different amounts of motion. If all motions contained the same amount of or amplitude of motion, the need to consider time would not exist. If someone asked you how long it took you to get to someplace, you could just say it took 12 miles and they would know how long that was because anything that traveled 12 miles would take the same amount of time. In that case D = T and since they would be equal, it would not be necessary to consider time at all. The concept that time is some sort of existent dimensional entity in itself, especially one that you can travel back and forth in, is one of man's current scientific errors.

You are right that we both start out with motions, but I see them as the existent entities that occupy an otherwise empty spatial structure while you look at them as somehow existing as motions that are contained within some kind of undefined fluid. It is very hard for man to get away from the concept that motions must always be expressed as something else that is in motion rather than the understanding that all of those other things that you see in motion are actually composed of motions themselves. In interactions, the number of matter particles and/or energy photons is not always conserved, so they cannot be the most basic structures. Only the total motion content is always conserved. It is possible that the total number of motions is also conserved, but since man here cannot presently observe individual sub-energy field particles, that concept cannot be observationally tested at this time. I say that because when an energy photon is absorbed by an electron in an atom, it may only transfer its fourth dimensional wave motion to the electron and then leave the interaction as a linear motion sub-energy particle, etc. The point is that the total amount of motion in the universe always remains the same, but those things that are constructed out of that motion like energy photons and matter particles can be constructed and destructed by interactions. A particle can exist as a linear motion that does not contain any rotational or spin motion associated with it. Such particles are evident in field structures that operate in a linear action with no angular motion. In your hypothesis what is that fluid composed of and how do its individual parts act and interact to produce the interactions with motions that you propose that somehow produces vortices that are in the shape of spheres? This fluid level and the motion that was introduced into it would, of course, be a more fundamental level of structure than the matter particles that would be produced by them and would, therefore, need to also be understood to obtain a complete fundamental understanding of the universe. Since the Higgs Boson contains a very large amount of motion, it should be able to produce many other particles and/or energy photons as decay products. That should not be a surprise to anyone.

It looks like you identify curl as rotation. If that is the case, you are right that the curvature of the rotation decreases as you travel away from the pole on the surface of the sphere toward the equator, but it does not reduce to zero at the equator because if you look at a rotating sphere from above the north or south pole, you can see all the way to the equator and observe that it is still rotating. If it was not rotating anything at the equator would fly off away from the sphere in whatever linear direction that its linear motion was going when it reached the equator. You are right that the linear motion is greatest at the equator and does reduce to zero at the zero dimensional point of the pole, since that point cannot rotate. In most cases vortices in a fluid do not take the shape of a sphere. You would have to explain how that shape is formed.

Although the rotation curvature does decrease to a minimum at the equator and then increases again as you travel toward the other pole, it does not change direction of rotation. You can see this by fastening a flag on a long pole to the far pole that you are not above so that the flag pole is at ninety degrees to the axis of rotation and the flag pole is long enough that you can see the flag sticking out beyond the equator of the sphere. You will see that the flag is rotating in the same direction as the half of the sphere that you can see is rotating. The appearance of rotation in the opposite direction only occurs when you view the sphere from above the opposite pole. This is not due to a change in the direction of rotation of the sphere. It is due to a change of direction of the observer in relation to the sphere.

If you view the rotation of the sphere from above the equator with the north pole of rotation up and the south pole down, you can move all around the sphere staying above the equator and it will always continue to rotate in the same direction either toward the left or the right according to its original motion direction. Its direction of rotation will only appear to change to the opposite direction if you rotate yourself so that the south pole is up and the north pole is down. Again, it is not the direction of the rotation of the sphere that has changed, but the direction of the observer that has changed. In both of the above changes due to observer orientation, the observer could be another spinning sphere and an interaction between the two spheres could generate different outcomes depending on the spheres' relative orientations.

When you say "6. Fermion pairs DO 'pop up' from a sub-quantum condensate (motion induces pressure changes)." Is the sub-quantum condensate the same thing as the fluid that you mention earlier or is it something else? If it is something else, it would also need to be defined as to its basic substance and how that substance is structured. Its fundamentality in comparison to the fluid, etc. would also need to be established and if one generated the other in some way that generation mechanism would need to be determined and explained. If motion induces pressure changes and the pressure changes cause fermion pairs to be created, how come we don't see new fermions popping up everywhere, since motions are moving around all over the place? In (7.) When you mention "sub-ether" is that something new or is that just another name for the fluid, the sub-quantum condensate, or something else that you have already mentioned? If it is new how does it fit in with the other structures? In (9.) when you say "Majorana fermion; north hemisphere = electron, S = positron, (equator is up, or down at 180 degrees)", it looks like you are saying that a positron is just an electron that is rotated 180 degrees. If that is actually what you are saying it would seem that in a gas where particles can move freely and interact with each other, an interaction could easily cause a matter particle to be rotated on its axis, which would cause it to become an antiparticle compared to those that had not been rotated. When the rotated particle interacted with a non-rotated particle they would both be destroyed and turned into EM radiation. Over time as more and more particles became rotated by interactions, the gas would become completely changed into EM radiation. Since most of the matter in the universe is composed of gas, such large scale conversion in stars would create so much EM radiation that the stars would all explode, etc.

This comment is getting large, so I will end it now.

Sincerely,

Paul

Hi Peter, once again a very good essay, which I can say without completely agreeing on the premise of simplicity. For me, somewhat of a reductionist view only works from the macro level down to something more involved than molecules or chemistry if you will. Then things start getting increasingly difficult. If things got increasingly simple, we would have answers to all questions that can be answered by Physics. Increasing fundamentalness does not require being simpler.

As you know, my sandbox is Octonion Algebra and my opinion is the meaningful path from most fundamental is physical reality -> a subset of mathematics -> Algebraic structure. Octonion analysis is difficult enough to require use of symbolic algebra tools, and yet is more fundamental than and perhaps ruling out simpler associative algebras like tensor and spinor matrix like forms provide since these can't duplicate what the generally non-associative Octonion Algebra can do. Then there is the unavoidable disturbance of what is experimentally being examined at the detailed level making things more difficult.

So being able to describe Physics to a barmaid, not thinking any barmaid. But I guess starting a conversation about curved space with a shapely one is an approach. It was their story it was all for science, and they are sticking to it!

Rick

Peter,

I certainly appreciate your motivation, eschewing the point-like assumption which introduces inconsistent singularities into theory. I also enjoyed the many historic quotes and comments.

Your choice to examine fermions, particularly electrons, first was astute. In fact the (tripartite) Band Theory also results in an electron geometry that resembles a sphere. [You'd have to follow some of my linked references to see the combinatorially correct shape.. It is a sphere split in half like a baseball but with three lobes, for consistency.]

This just thrilled me! A colleague who recognizes the essential requirement of finitary particles, although...

without recognizing the Proofs available and then asserting 10 much higher-level Axioms. {I get by great with two theorems, thx}

Then the essay wanders far from fundamental issues in a discussion of light polarization ... hmmm

Anyway, apart from a traditional non-geometric extension in an attempt to include QCD, the insights were amusing and in at least one important way astute. Thanks for writing... and any future common interest.

Wayne