I rated it quite high... WRL
Ridiculous Simplicity by Peter Jackson
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. [half of a sphere, see atch]
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. I rated it quite highly
Thanks for writing... and any future common interest.
Hi Peter...
In that theory is "formulation of apparent relationships or principles of specified observed phenomena...and knowledge of it's principles and methods"~ Webster
If formulation of relationships requires a Spatial measurement, then a minimum unit of Spatial measurement is fundamental to the theory... i.e. a theory is fundamental only in that it places constraints on formulation.
Even from the "the lower reductionist limit of 'condensed matter' " if not constrained in one's formulation, motion, "the apparently most ridiculously simple of concept", can be easily reduced by analysis of the requirements for perception of motion... i.e. some minimum unit of Spatial differentiation.
I agree "much theory is beyond observable" and thus "we principally constrain ourselves to the testable realm and scale of condensed matter".
Might I add, that 'foundational interpretations' of Quantum Physics... e.g. "'Many Worlds' or 'Pilot Waves'"... that have not verified fundamental units of measurement utilized in theoretical formulation of the fundamentals underlying "testable realm and scale" of specified observed phenomena, should not be accepted as constraints on one's cognitive processes.
Keep digging!!!
Peter, I cheer your tenacious investigation of constraints, and your willingness to acknowledge that "more fundamental" concepts may be required to resolve the "Limits of Understanding" that currently constrain the human species... and will rate your essay accordingly.
Sue Lingo
www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com
Paul,
Wow to that to! Much agreement, but I'll just focus on your questions.
1. The 'We' isn't quite the 'Royal' we. I've worked with other specialists on various aspects of the discrete field model (DFM) first described here in 2011 removing some of the nonsense interpretations surrounding SR (postulates are fine) to resolve the 'ecliptic plane/stellar aberration' issue and many more. Classic QM was a severe test, which it's nicely passed, now with computer code support from Declan Traill.
2. Yes, it's all about motions within motions. Twin vorteces without a 'surface' (i.e. water) can be seen at wingtips etc. and often produce toroidal dynamics, as a galaxy and its active nucleus AGN ('Black Hole' in ancient theory!) However all galaxy discs rotate within an oblate spheroid. Earths EM field on the other hand it toroidal! Obtaining QM output from complex toroidal spin proved tricky but wasn't needed!
3. how come we don't see new fermions popping up everywhere, since motions are moving around all over the place? Look hard, because WE DO! It's fine structure surface electrons, also 'surface charge' increasing with motion, the Unruh Effect, the Coma of ALL bodies moving in space and Earths Bow Shock. Just look at the heat as they reach max plasma density 10^22/mm at the shuttle nose on re-entry! We've known of 'pair production' for 100+years. Also see earlier essays. And of "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..? Yes. And it's by the Higgs process.
4. In a field all local fermions will have the same axis, so N near S, yet in their case like poles don't 'attract' but keep a quite even 'lattice type' distribution! There's something we don't know, and with know known 'bottom' to scale below 'matter' maybe your '5th dimension' direction has validity. But yes, stars DO of course explode, then the torus re-forms! Google the HST Crab Nebula core shots.
But someone/something must have 'moved' in the first place many cycles ago!
I hope that's the main ones but comment or ask on.. Great to find someone who connects and asks.
Very best
Peter
Wayne,
Thanks for the support. The link to QED was just what someone pointed out about field depth not anything I 'attempted' to do. However your electron model attachment looks shockingly close to my own some years ago;fqXi finalit 2013-14 Do Bob and Alice have a future? (see the figs etc towards the end). However to remove the weirdness from QM just needs those colours to 'bleed into' each other rather then just 'switch'. Is that excluded in QED?
It seems you 'switched off' from the essay just when it opened up the ontology for a classical reproduction of QM predictions, as it headed off your own familiar path (indeed m MOST peoples paths!), so you missed the big finale! Do look again if you get a chance. It's consistent with Bell and this important paper, referred in Gordon Watson's consistent paper; Fröhner, F. H. (1998). "Missing link between probability theory and quantum mechanics: the Riesz-Fejér theorem." Z. Naturforsch. 53a, 637-654.
Very best
Peter
Richard,
I'm relieved a few understand QM without blind 'belief' in weirdness, so can see and understand the solution when presented. But is is far to few! I've read your own excellent & perceptive essay and commented. I think you'll find Declan Traill, Gordon Watson and Sue Lingo among others worth reading.
I think 'dimwitted' may be harsh of most in academia, but do agree the approach of many is poor and they all have a responsibility most are not meeting. But that's merely the state of our intellectual evolution. My last essay identifies the strength of 'Cognitive Dissonance'; i.e. they may SAY new physics is needed but when encountering something that works better, they reject it a priori as it's to unfamiliar. I'd just like some help & support from someone who DOES want some kudos!
Most have careers invested in the old stuff they regurgitate year on year so fear the thought of throwing it away. Indeed I discussed recently that the whole profession has 'fear' based culture which is mainly what prevents advancement (and just 'maths based' being much of the rest!).
We may eventually evolve to intelligent beings, though yes, the jury's still out! Though true it's a massive leap I don't think there's the slightest chance I'll be going up for a Nobel! I don't do research for that, wouldn't want to and am 67 so will likely be long gone before the paradigm change!
But thank you for your kind words, inspiring you is an inspiration to me to keep fighting through the (Popper) mud.
And yes, I do recall your excellent essay invoking the Cluster results which, like the WMAP, COBE and Planck findings, are still now not interpretable due to the flawed theory used to try to do so - yet they wont try anything else!
Bless em!.
Lastly; Yes tomography has helped screen to solution. It's 'entanglement' effects only work locally so seems to be a field effect then using QM to misinterpret it as similar to the long range statistical case. It's mechanistic sequence is explainable ontologicaly in the same way as in my essay, just one more level of complexity beyond where most brains have reached. In a way this is a test of the Academic community, which so far most have failed.
Best of luck in the contest
Peter
Peter,Hi
In good agreement with your assumption on an existence of simpler - than -assumed - fundamentalness, I investigated universal Homochirality in number theory and beyond - Please,see my Fundamentalness of Homochirality.
Thank you for essay
Michael A.Popov
Dear Peter Jackson
Thank you for all the nice explanations...
I want to ask you few more questions, if you don't mind....
............ Your words......
You asked me to explain further.
For Dark Energy the evidence of something beyond out detection and understanding is now overwhelming from every source, and even with flawed cosmological theory we know it mus contain ~86% of the total mass energy of the universe. It's also the 'condensate' from which all matter condenses. Can we really thing 'pair prooduction' comes from nothing at all! I suggest that would be naive and blinkered. The evidence below isn't exactly mainstream but all is more consistent with the evidence, i.e. resolving a tranche of anomalous findings;
..................Correct, matter or energy cannot be produced from nothing....
..........Your words....
As fermions don't detectably interfere with EM when coupled (n=1) they are 'matter' and 'dark'. Despite old theory hanging on, the numbers we now find contribute significantly.
On cyclic cosmology, answering the 'pre-big bang' paradox and reproducing all CMB anisitropies this model looks better supported than any other including Concordance.;
...................... Have a look at my paper also explaining CMB anisotropies...
...........Your words.....
HJ.v36.Cyclic Galaxy & Cosmological evolution. Alspo Google Laniakea and watch the video of cosmic dynamics...............................
I could not download your PDF please... it was circling around some passwords... can you please send me copy to ... snp.gupta@gmail.com or attach that pdf here to your post?
...................Your words....
Ans in line with modern quantum optics this derivation of quantum redshift at the surface of all expanding Schrodingger sphere surfaces
Redshift without expansion.
...................... Very good idea , and then how will you explain Blue shifted Galaxies?
.......................Your words...................
It's well known Newton is incomplete and inaccurate, as is GR but a bit less so, and my essay(s) show(s) QM's 'absolute' time is correct and 'space/time' is simply derived from just diffraction and Doppler shift of waves...........................
Vet nice and correctly said....
.......................... Your words......................
On that subject, last point; when you say 'frequency will increase (red shifted)' you mean 'wavelength'. Redshift is extended waves which gives DECREASED frequency (the time derivative at c). Wavelength (lambda) is blue shift (gamma waves are very short waves so high frequency. Waves are the REAL scalar, and fl is a constant. That's a staple of astronomy, and my see my 'Much Ado about Nothing' essay for more complete analysis.
......................
I am sorry for this error. I was travelling very heavily in that period at the time of posting this essay. I posted the wrong essay....
Then later I changed the Abstract and posted on Jan 2:
Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 21:58 GMT
Essay Abstract
I know the essay will not be changed by FQXi....
Thank you for the thorough observation. And keen reading.....
.................your words................
But all good work otherwise. See Also the Sauron survey of galactic rotational shifts and ATLAS3G. I hope that helps.
Can you please give me a link....?
Best Regards
=snp
Hi Peter
I wonder if you might comment on the following observation please?
A pole or rod standing in a gravitational field, weighed as it is incrementally laid over, beginning at 90 degrees from ground, and concluded at 0 degrees. Are you aware that the transitional weight profile matches the same curve given by Quantum Mechanical probability, a photon at the same angle passing or stopped by a polarization filter? This is observation, not theory!
May I ask for your comment towards this please?
Steve
[deleted]
Peter
We understand why a pole behaves as it does. In short simple terms, it is to do with balance, force and leverage of that force at various angles. I've had plenty of time to consider this in respect of photon QM probability, and there is an interesting interpretation.
Why science hasnt made note of this simple observation?
Looking to nature for inspiration clues and answers seams out of vogue in this scientific era. Health sciences are largely devout to synthetic compounds and seams intent on having little or no association with natural remedy. Infact it seams they scorn natural. Physics is largely devout to synthetic math, which is becoming increasingly distant from natural observation. Especially modern attempts toward progress. I might read a professional paper on quantum gravity, and it will be based entirely on synthetic terms, giving me no purchase on how their work relates to natures process, and natural observations. How science relates to nature is how I discern my understanding, how I orientate my inquiries. Good science doesnt divorce association with nature.
I judge your work well. My challenge I place here does not undermine what you have proposed, within circumstances you have proposed. Rather, it questions a circumstance your proposal doesn't extend solution for, only to suggest you need an additional consideration to what you have already established. You use a geometric sphere to decode Bells Inequality, which is useful while considering massive particles. I do not doubt. However photons display quantum probability also, and do you propose photons are spherical entities?
If you consider that quantum interactions are forces interacting with other forces, then the angle of interaction can conceivably introduce a leverage consideration. Much the same as a pole standing at various angles in a gravitational field. The way I see it this can compliment your work, not undermine it.
Steve
Steve,
You didn't include a reference for the pole finding. It's essential to study the experiment. (Most would mark you down for citing with no citation).
I'd need some convincing about the 'leverage' solution. Placing the pole in a concrete base on some scales there would be no 'leverage' on the scales to explain a weight change (just subtract the block weight). There's a natural increase in gravitational mass as the centre of mass of the pole is lower, similar in ALL theories of gravity. That's a non-linear effect, under Newton it's the inverse square law. Now if the finding repeats in the concrete block case and is greater than the inverse square of the CofM height, THEN there WOULD be an anomaly! So we must look at the experiment.
Yes, and expanding Schrodinger light sphere (from an emission) is roughly spherical. But Huygens construction applies to interactions as photons spread and are only requantized at interactions, co-moving media can cause 'dents' and 'bulges' at the sphere ('causal') surface, and any point on the sphere surface itself (wavefront) has all 3 ('spherical') degrees of freedom so 3D motions.
My experiment and analysis are equally valid for a (nearly) 'Plane' wave front or an electron (or rather a fermion) which retains it's form in transit. So yes the Bayesian distribution applies to ALL phenomena, well beyond just light and particles! Note that though all that is consistent with specialist physics and findings not a lot is consistent with current theorists assumptions!
Have a quick look at Wiki quantum optics, phase change etc.as it shows the 'helical' path we know well, and from which you can find the implications of tiny rotations or delays. But you're right. Little of that has transferred to theorisation!
Also check this out; INVISIBILITY
We have to correctly identify cause, and rotation is the key. i.e. did you know a spinning disc weighs more than a stationary one?! In discrete dynamics matter IS spin so that's predicted, contrary to current doctrine.
Very best
Peter
Rick,
You're right,ish, Classic QM was trickier for barmaids than logical SR, but I've shown it possible with my rotating sphere. Viz; Get her to shut her eyes, spin it on a vertical axis, then;
1. Touch her finger on a pole and ask 'Is it going left or right?' (= 0)
2. Do so on the equator & ask 'Is that clockwise? or anticlockwise? (= 0)
3. Touch it on the N pole & ask 'Is it going clockwise or anti..? (=-1)
4. Touch it on the S pole & ask 'Is it going clockwise or anti..? (=+1)
5. Do so on the equator her side & ask 'Is it going left or right?' (=-1)
6. Same on the other side (or flip the poles) & ask 'left or right?'(=+1)
7. Finally at latitude 45supo & ask is it moving or rotating? (=both)
Now we KNOW the spin AND linear speed both change NON-linearly, by Cos latitude. Rotate the polar axis in any plane and that doesn't change. Three out of five barmaids understand.
Now ALSO tell them each sphere re-emits at 'c' with respect to itself whatever the original 'closing speed', and there are millions on the surface of a lens, and her understanding of SR allows complete unification with QM. There are a number of barmaids around who now understand that (more) logical analysis! Some were impressed enough to... well you'll need to use imagination.
Can you find logical or epistemological fault?
Very Best
Peter
Peter
its early hours of the morning here so please forgive the brief reply. The pole observation and experiment is my own. so no points lost for failure to cite.
i think perhaps i havent explained it well though. i dont know why you have introduced a concrete block?
balance your pen upright on its end. then allow it to tilt incrementally to the table, while considering its increasing weight upon your finger. the weight transition is not linear. it charts the same curve as expressed by quantum probability from 90 - 0 degrees.
i you find something heaver than a pen, like a fence post of bigger the better, then the effect is pronounced enough to perceive intuitively. i can provide measured results tomorrow if you are interested?
steve
Steve,
The concrete block is to allow you to distinguish 'weight' (gravitational potential) from rotational 'torque', which is quite different. The weighing scales will read (almost) identically no matter what the angle of the post or where it's connected. Your analysis is flawed and you're not carrying out a proper scientific experiment and rationalising it consistently.
Now certainly the rotational and linear effects are different forces, (which is what I point out on the surface of a rotating sphere, largely ignored in OAM) Also certainly the torque or 'twisting force increases with lever length.
Now finally yes, because the tip is describing an arc, the change in torque will be non-linear with angle of inclination. The distribution will be by Cos theta however far away the centre of mass of the pole is for the exact reasons I give in my essay. That's simple undergrad classical mechanics, if not rationalised in current quantum theorization!
However that has absolutely NO (or trivially no-zero with height as I derived) effect on 'weight' (so on gravitational potential).
Simply try it with scales to confirm that. I hope that helps understanding?
Peter
Hi Peter:
Your conclusion - "... the apparently most ridiculously simple of concepts can
resolve & unite incomplete and incompatible theories." is vindicated by my paper -"What is Fundamental - Is C the Speed of Light". that describes the fundamental physics of antigravity missing from the widely-accepted mainstream physics and cosmology theories resolving their current inconsistencies and paradoxes. The missing physics depicts a spontaneous relativistic mass creation/dilation photon model that explains the yet unknown dark energy, inner workings of quantum mechanics, and bridges the gaps among relativity and Maxwell's theories. The model also provides field equations governing the spontaneous wave-particle complimentarity or mass-energy equivalence. The key significance or contribution of the proposed work is to enhance fundamental understanding of C, commonly known as the speed of light, and Cosmological Constant, commonly known as the dark energy.
The paper not only provides comparisons against existing empirical observations but also forwards testable predictions for future falsification of the proposed model.
I would like to invite you to read my paper and appreciate any feedback comments.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh
Peter
You haven't identified the parameter I point too. Otherwise you wouldn't and couldn't say "The weighing scales will read (almost) identically no matter what the angle of the post".
You have introduced elements and terms which are not relevant to the observation I describe. You are talking about something other than what I am, so you cant comment on what analysis is or isn't flawed, and what serves as a proper scientific experiment.
If you've ever dropped a heavy son of a bitch motor cycle, then you will have experienced its extreme of weight as you first hoist it from the ground. But the lifting effort reduces as the bike transitions to an upright position, as the bikes weight is increasingly centred over the tyres.
The parameter I measure is the bikers experience of weight as the bike is lifted toward a balanced position in the Earths gravitational field. The shifting proportion of weight is non-linear. It is disproportionately heavy while the bike as at 22 degrees from the ground, and disproportionally lighter at 68 degrees from the ground.
I have measured this very simple parameter utilizing a pole and scales. The transition of weight is the same curve as expressed by quantum probability.
At this moment I will not extrapolate an interpretation of this classical system and why it might relate to quantum probability distributions. Except to say that both can be related via interaction of forces, and angles of influence.
The observation itself is not something you can disagree with. It is a non-subtle parameter which is easily measured. If you disagree with it then you are arguing with nature, not myself ? Good luck with that.
I hope that helps understanding?
Steven
Peter
I appreciate your considerations towards hidden variables. I have expressed as much. I merely seek to share an additional consideration which might complement yours. The interaction between particles and detectors might be presumed to have consideration of geometries(particle shape) but it is also going to be a consideration of forces (two way forceful interaction) changing states of momentum and position.
The larger part of your proposal might be termed geometric. Decoding Bells inequalities based on geometries and various positions of those geometries. You also include considerations of momentum, which are related to forces and forceful interactions.
The consideration I put to you distills the simplest geometry possible, a pole. But shows (if you would look at it) that force interactions can still relate a basis for decoding photon behavior and Bells inequality.
That isnt to say we can do away with your considerations and proposed dynamics, because the simple pole geometry can only decode the photons behavior. Massive particles have additional complex behaviors which require your general method for decoding. But, force interactions are a dynamic which needs to flow through your considerations, based on the observation I have put forward to you. In my opinion.
I believe it is a very conservative assumption, physics is about geometries "and" very particular force interactions. Force considerations entail issuing of force, and resistance to forces issued. That is the basis for why the pole behaves as it does in a gravitational field and presumably why it might replicate a photons probability curve.
If you should weigh a pole at various angles and see that it does behave that way. Then you might ask why it displays the same curve as quantum probability? Why do poles and photons at the same angle, share a relate-able value?
Steve
Steve,
Yes, I better understand you (until the end!) make no assumption of total system weight change, but it's still clear that my third to last paragraph above (please read it again carefully) analyses it correctly in classical mechanics terms. i.e.
Take your bike. The total Hamiltonian of you plus bike is a constant, equivalent to weight (you bike). As the bike is raised the SHARE of that changes until the bike is upright and each resolves to it's own weight.
As I wrote, the point you're making is that the rate of change is non-linear, and as my essay identifies, the force changes by the Cosine of the angle between 0 and 90o, which gives a Bayesian distribution or Gaussian Bell curve. Now read Prof Phillips excellent essay where he brilliantly explains why that's ubiquitous for ALL distributions in the universe, including where described as 'probability curve'.
But then you go off track with; "If you should weigh a pole at various angles and see that it does behave that way.." I repeat; It does NOT behave that way. Try it! Go back to your bike; with wheels on scales you find it weights LESS when inclined! and if you stand on scales (the ONLY way to measure weight) you'll find you're taking that exact difference.
Now we CAN also consider the orthogonal 'rotation' case at the base of the pole, which has the same cosine distribution with angle but again is NOT 'WEIGHT' in ANY sense. It's purely rotational, which you can call torque or Maxwell's 'curl'.
Prof Phillips identifies, as I and you do, that this distribution is oft ignored and poorly understood, but reading this and his essay explains why it's the case. So yes, you do have a point, but as Phillips identifies. "the Gaussian distribution (i.e. the bell curve) is perhaps the most celebrated probabilistic example of a kind of fundamental inevitability. ..pick a bunch of random numbers and take their average, we get a new random number. If we now repeat this lots of times, the collection of random averages we generate will have a Gaussian distribution. ..might seem abstract and far removed but it's not. But indeed you're right insofar as what's not seen in simplistic OAM analysis is that second orthogonal and inverse distribution.
I hope that clarifies what, and what the importance of it, is.
very best
Peter
Hi Peter:
Thanks for your time and efforts in providing detailed analysis and comments on my paper. I appreciate it deeply.
I am not an expert in optics, plasma, plasmonics etc . Hence, I would try my best to respond to your questions in terms of relativistic formulations of the concerned phenomena:
1. Peter: "You seem to start with an assumption that photons are particles, so not waves and not requantized."
Avtar: While QM formulations are probabilistic wave functions, my paper depicts quantum events as relativistic, deterministic, and mechanistic phenomena in terms of mass/energy/space/time. Instead of quantization or re-quantization, my model allows spontaneous mass-energy conversion back and forth as needed to satisfy conservation laws and boundary conditions in a classical relativistic space-time. Hence, the optics formulations focusing on a detailed beam structure of individual particles - fermions, excitons etc are quite different and not easy to reconcile.
2. Peter: "2. You seem not to have considered the re-emitted photon speed as 'acceleration' rather than 'powered' by the emitter, i,e. the constant fermion spin energy after coupling (absoption/re-emission). Have you considered and discarded that apparently very consistent model? if so, why?
Avtar: I am proposing a new model or missing physics of spontaneous mass-energy conversion or equivalence totally focused on relativistic conservation of mass-energy as governed by relativity theory. You can draw your own parallels with fermion spin energy model that I do not have much familiarity with.
3. Peter: "You describe galaxies at z=8 as 'mature'. How do you arrive at this description when we have no model or sequence of secular evolution. I assume a 'red' stellar population? In any case this implies a life cycle' of galxies. i.e. what do you assume 'happened' to the old ones from 11bn yrs ago? (I don't challenge anything but I do have a coherent cyclic sequence answering that).
Avtar: The key point of my paper is that time or evolution sequence is not a governing parameter in my model. I have no problem if you would like to call either "mature" or "Red" etc. My model is a quasi-static universe model since the universe has no unique absolute time (time is relative in relativity, there is no one unique clock in the universe, no beginning, no ending, no evolution). Further my model predicts large mass galaxies far beyond 11 billion years that is falsifiable via future observations.
4. Peter: "You may have noted I've been working on QM the last 3yrs essays. I agree all you say (of SR as well as GR). You suggest the inconsistencies are 'resolved' but I've looked very hard and can find no actual full resolution defined, including to the EPR paradox. For the QM must be derived classically with CSHS >2, (or GM be proved completely weird!). On reading mine you'll see that's precisely what it does. Please study and identify any similarities."
Avtar: I read your paper and tried my best to digest the intricate details involving the particle physics, optics, and QM mathematical concepts that I admit not to have deep familiarity with. So, instead of treading in unknown waters, let me try to answer your questions in relativistic terms of my model:
• Peter's model explains the gaps between SR and QM via - " .... simple concept is relative motion, linear and rotational, so orbital & helical. All bound & ever more complex molecular matter and physics then evolves. As for 'foundational interpretations' of Quantum Physics; .......... Simply adding re-emissions at local 'c'. The model explains QM experiments, no comparisons or analysis presented against far-field cosmological expansion data showing dark energy. Need explanation for why the QM vacuum energy predictions are 120 orders of magnitude higher than observed, what is quantum gravity, how the collapse of the wave functions occurs, role of the consciousness of the observer, did the big bang happen, is there a unique time/clock in the universe, where, how, and when it started and what was before it?
• Avtar's model bridges the gaps between SR and QM via - " ......simply adding spontaneous mass-energy conversion inducing simple expansive (anti-gravity) relative motion complementing molecular, complex matter physics (described in detail in my book -"The Hidden Factor" but omitted from the FQXi paper due to space limitations). Predicts mathematically dark energy, supernova expansion, collapse of the wave function (via spontaneous conversion of wave energy to classical mass as V is interrupted via measurement), red galaxies in far-field universe, non-locality via space dilation etc. Need to develop details at the particle level (spin, refraction, rotation, plasma etc) - the focus has been global or universal mass-energy conservation rather than local particle behavior details.
• The EPR paradox becomes irrelevant in Avtar's model because of the relative motion between the two subjects (Alice and Bob) effects each of them equally and hence, no paradox of varying ages between the two.
• Heisenberg's uncertainty is shown by Avtar's model to be an artifact of the measurement deficiency/error in resulting from classical (fixed space-time) measurements of the highly relativistic (V close to C, greatly dilated space-time) quantum phenomena. The uncertainty would dissolve if the measurements are made in the same relativistic space-time as the quantum event. (This is described in great mathematical detail in my book).
• Both models prove that "the apparently most ridiculously simple of concepts can resolve & unite incomplete and incompatible theories."
Wishing you the best for the contest and hoping to continue the wisdom-full dialogue,
Best Regards
Avtar Singh
avsingh@alum.mit.edu
[deleted]
Peter,
2020 sounds good. Once two people have a common understanding of a truth it may catch fire.
Sherman