Dear Peter,

I don't quite follow what is meant by "However to remove the weirdness from QM {one} just needs those colours {gotta love that British spelling ;} to 'bleed into' each other rather then just 'switch'. Is that excluded in QED?"

The colors are the partitioned ~string-theoretic basis for well-known QCD color local gauge fields. There is no reason to 'bleed' but rather 'average out' their effects over weak and higher scales. Thus the cardinal importance of the mathematical operator "|" [i.e. |planck is inaccessible to colliders, |strong indirectly detectable, and the traditional use of |H> becomes (*)|H>|weak ].

The electron representation geometry image has (c) 1992, so it is with welcome arms that I find a fellow traveller on this austere path.

I am familiar with the ontology and didn't find that finale added much to the veracity of the idea. For my part, I take the massive oscillating neutrino as evidence of 'new' physics, since it clearly was NOT considered SM when I first published on the subject. Your illustrated discussion was interesting, yes, but a path to new fundamental insight?

Wayne

Vladimir,

Thanks. Interesting. But as a level 1 racing yachtsman I have a logic and direct correspondence between ~13hr tidal periods, spring & neap tides, & sun and moon and can even predict adjustments for wind. I understand your description, which doesn't seem to conflict, i.e. more net gravity with no bodies overhead so less UP vector leaving more DOWN, giving a 180 degree major axis ellipse, but I'd like to understand why you find 'vector summing' doesn't work the same way after allowing for lag, flow momentum and angular influences, which can be major factors. However that wasn't what my question was about.

I'm interested in why & how the motions of larger bodies further away are assumed to be a different case to smaller closer bodies. In my own field a body of mass is a body of mass. All should have the same influence on the magnetosphere, however it's 'described'. Surely there aren't two different 'types' of gravity?

Sure it may be 'detectable' but I suspect they just haven't thought far enough out of the boxes and away from theory so have confirmation bias. i.e. there's no explicit proof of the 'curved space-time' hypothesis in the LIGO finding. Is that fair?

Very best

Peter

Jouoko, Link on your thresd.

The point is that each one of the pair has parallel axis to the other which is retained, but each pairs axis direction is random. The reversibility by A,B dial angle creates the apparent 'magic' and EPR 'paradox'. No non-locality needed.

Peter

Steve,

Really sorry to hear that. I'd understood social security and state benefits in Belgium were good!? Are you receiving what you should?

If you know how to use the surface 4 inverse rotational momenta of a sphere (cos of latitude angle) to get a Lagrangian and arrive at a Hamiltonian for the mechanism in my paper, that would be very useful for a joint publication. Are your maths up to it?

I wish you the best.

Peter

Peter,

Did you forget to rate my essay? I NEED your vote. I DID vote for you, even if I did not understand it all. Logical Foundation for physics has to be QG?

Ulla Mattfolk.

    Hi Peter,

    I die there , but it is the life, I am isloated at home and now I am going to loose it and be without job and home.

    Returning about my theory of spherisation and my equation, E=m(b)c²+m(nb)l²

    here is the general reasoning, I learn at this moment the works of Hestenes and Penrose,I learn maths a lot and I must formalise the spherical geoemtrical algebras that I have invented with the motions of spherical volumes and the vectors and scalars.

    Now about l I don't know if it is a constant, you are going to understand why.If this matter exists, so it is produced by something like our phtons are produced by stars.We know that c is a constant.Now if the cosmological spheres producing these particles of gravitation for me are proportional with the BH where they come from and its volume, so perhaps that l is not constant but proportional with this cosmological volume.But I am not sure of course, that must be experimented and tested.In all case if these particles are produced and exist, so like the photns they are encoded in nuclei and it is a new era for our physics and sciences.We have so many works to do with this DM and these correlated particles and motions.

    The bosons are the vectors of forces of our electromagntic forces, these photons encoded on this entropical irreversible arrow evolutive of time to make simple imply these forces and are vectors of this force, that is why I consider them like a fuel.Now imagine that these particles not baryonic also are encoded but instead to be vectors of electromagntic forces, they are vectors of gravitational forces, now consider the rotations of spherical volumes and the senses of rotations differenciating the electromagntism and the gravitation......

    The quantum mechanics and its distribution of spherical volumes is like in logic a relativie foto of our csmological picture and its spherical volumes.So let's correlate simply with this celestial distribution.Like if at this zero instant at this preplanckian era , we have had a link between them about this distribution finite of groups of spherical volumes.So we can consider that we have the same relative logic for our cosmological scale and our quantum scale, so we can insert the BHs in our quantum scales and also this DM.Now like our cosmological scale we see that this standard model is encircled by BHs and this DM, so let's insert simply a serie of quantum BHs farer than nuclear forces and now let's encode these particles of gravitation them weaker than our electromagntic forces, we see that our standard model is encircled by this gravitation permitting to balance it.The paradox is that this wekest quantum force due to these pârticles encoded is the weakest but also the strongest when we consider these quantum BHs.The gravitation seems really the main chief orchestra.

    I need a little help for this formalisation and also my English is not perfect, I am alone and isolated Peter, are you on Face Book ? if my eqaution if correct It is in all humility revolutionary, the white pappers can be published, I need friends for these publications about my theory of spherisation, I need also friends to experiment and test, this DM intrigues me and this quantum weakest force also..

    Best Regards

    Wilhelmus,

    Thank you kindly. I hope you enjoy your retirement.

    I'm glad you understood the simplicity of the ontology, but you have the training to do so.

    Feynman's admittance that decoding nature was "to difficult" at the time led to the interim "shut up and manipulate numbers". Many in academia can only now think in maths so maybe they've lost the ability to use rational logic.

    It's then an interesting test. Chandra R is one of the few to show he still can but I'm still patiently waiting for most. Hopes are fading. It's the human condition!

    Very best.

    Peter

    The aim is to really encircle what is the correct universal distribution of spherical volumes and their motions, and also how they work at this universal scale.In logic the finite groups are important and we can utilmise the sphères and the vectors in inserting this matter not baryonic.It seems essential for a general understanding of how acts these spherical volumes at all scales.The associativity, commutativity or not, the linearity, the distibutivity...In fact all this puzzle can be papproached if we find the good method for these spherical geometrical algebras, I have asked to Mr Hestenes if he could help, I waith an answer, the maths are important and it is not easy.In all case we can do it and we can find how these sphères work at all scales with their proportions and constants.The primes intrigues me also fr the series of uniquenss, gravitationa, I have remarked that if we consider a serie, finite of decreasing spherical volumes from the singularitiy, we see that space disappears implkying that aether is gravitational instead of luminiferous, that implies that we can superimpose the fact we have only matter and energy to this space time, relativistic and electromagntic, that becomes relevant for theis quantum gravitationa and the spherisation.

    If this gravitation permits a kind of stability of matters Inside this universal sphere, there are reasons and they are not electromagntic in logic.

    PJ

    You have offered a rich set of ideas regarding fundamental concepts. Motion is basic and three dimensional space is filled by rotation. There are particles that have intrinsic spin but also some with zero intrinsic spin. Compared to linear motion, rotation needs higher spatial dimensions and thus offers a larger set to help explain phenomena. I may disagree with your conclusions but commend your effort in seeking that which is most fundamental in nature.

    JK

      Steve,

      I'm afraid I really didn't understand any of that in any physical sense. Two things I certainly disagree with are gravitons and the pre 'AGN' black hole concept. I read it twice but it seemed a jumble of words.

      I'm on Linked-in which is ok for conversations. I'm sure I did once have a facebook account but never use it & don't know how!

      Best wishes for a bearable outcome.

      Peter

      Steve,

      Answered below. There is definitely no increase in 'weight' as the pole is leant over. It weights the same (vertcal vector) whatever angle it's at and however it's held.

      If held at an end there IS a tortional force, which does NOT affect weight. Then; Yes, the tortional force (orthoganal vector) changes with angle by it's cosine, which yes, IS interesting. Pythagoras actually first found it but didn't apply it to rotation.

      In the leaning motor cycle case you can have the person holding it at weight zero and the total weight would still be the same at any angle!

      Very best

      Peter

      John, . (.. copied from your string)

      Thanks for your nice comments on mine. As my conclusions were a logical consequence of the classical reproduction of the Cos[su]2 curve can you identify what you thought was missing from the mechanism, or logically 'wrong' in the conclusions?

      The finding is very important if correct, though I know varies a little from your prior views, but I suspect I may not have described the ontological sequence in a way to allow it to be kept all in mind at once.

      If not I need to identify any error you saw.

      Many thanks

      Peter

      Well, Fisrt Peter, gravitons are bosons and not my particles of gravitation which are not baryonic.That said interesting analyse peter, so relevant and full of relevance lol, perhaps you could understand what is this DM and these BHs but I am doubting now, indeed you are not the good person to help me, you are better for the plagiaring of words and the mixing of ideas of people.Pzerhaps also you could learn what are the geometrical algebras , after we shall speak lol

      a physical sense, no but frankly I am dreaming there ,if you cannot encrcle this DM and these BHs and these sphères, why you try to utilise these sphères ? for what Peter, you do not need recognising? me yes I need recognisings because since that I have shared this theory of spherisation on FQXI, I see that many now speak about these sphères and do not respect me , you think it is normal Peter ? not it is not logic and frankly I thought you were a friend, not a plagiarist discriminating.

      You are not general, ask concrete questions abut this equation, if this matter exists so it is produced by something but perhaps you prefer the MOND? It is ironical there Peter, the jumble of words like you say are logic and rational , if they exist these particles, this DM so they are also encoded in nuclei.Are you sure you encircle this universe and its laws lol ?because speak is one thing, understand an other Peter,Well, just for you now I am going to analyse all your papper and I am going to discuss here and write a lot , just for you Peter. sPHERICALLY YOURS LOL

      I am sorry Peter , I thought that you could understand in fact what is the real aether, what is this dark matter not baryonic and what is this quantum weakest force, but unfortunately, you cannot encircle these things.Sorry to have thought that yes you could.Make a jumble of mixings in a spherical electromagntic way, it is better indeed for you.The innovant things, really are not for you.

      Ok now Like I am here to open your mind, I am going to re-explain my eqaution because you have not understood, E=m(b)c²+m(nb)l² .m(b) is the mass baryonic you know this mass with c² and m(nb) is the mass non baryonic, you know this Dark matter which have big probablmilities to exist.Now if you cannot encircle whait is l , their linear velicity like c the linear velocity of photons, so there is a big problem there Pter, you must make an other passion than Theoretical physics, but it is just a suggestion of course, of course that is going to increase your vanity and in logic you arer going to be obliged to answer with odd words.Now if my reasoning is correct about the spherisation with quantum and cosmological spherical volumes Inside this universal 3D sphere, wo you must also encircle that if these particles of DM exists so they are produced by something, I see only one solution, the BHs.If now you cannot encircle what is the aether , you know this field from God like in the 1D field of strings or the muminiferous aether of eisnetin, so still make an other passion.Now my aether is gravitational p^roducing these particles from this cosmological central sphere, and we see that God Is connected with all quantum singularities.Now if you cannot encircle also that like the photons these particles are encoded in nuclei and that this standard model is encircled by this gravitation, there is a big problem, and really make an other passion than theroretical physics and indeed it is very very ridiculous.If you want speak about sphères also and about the spherisationn optimisation of this universal sphere, please make it well Peter , sorry but I am frank, I thought that you could help for my publications, but no you cannot.

      Best that said and good lmuck in this contest.SPHERICALLY yours Jedi of thr Sphere lol

      PJ

      At your request I offer one questionable statement you make. You write

      The Dirac electrons 4 spinors are equivalent to Maxwell's linear & curl states handed, inverse with each other over 90o and reversing over 180o.

      I do not agree with that statement if I understand its intention The 4 elements of Dirac refer to two separate particles (the electron and the positron with different charges) and two polarization's or spin orientations that each particle enjoys. The connection of 4 aspects of Maxwell EM refer to a different set of properties. Both systems have 4 elements but I find the assumption that they are related by that fact is a stretch.

      JK

      Thanks :)

      I have had your file open the whole day...as also some other Days...

      The sub-quantum' or root function is beginning to see light. It is the monopole as instance, as a bending loop, rotated. The most surprising (or not surprising at all?) is it is an solitonic expansive state. What cause the expansion? Maybe just the vanishing complexity? It must go into i-World, as I don't understand the 'annihilation' aspect at all...

      "the Higgs process or fermion pair production 'popping up' from nowhere' implies a smaller perhaps more fundamental 'sub quantum' scale of rotations as a 'sub-ether'. but we principally constrain ourselves to the testable realm and scale of condensed matter. This domain limit is also the lower end of electromagnetic (EM) coupling."

      This is what I talk of too. But the scenario you ask for is beyond this, and reversed actually, see the finnish scientist as instance the links here https://people.aalto.fi/index.html?profilepage=isfor#!vladimir.eltsov

      There is btw. very Little discussion about a non-Higgsian material emergence today.

      About motion I would suggest harmonic oscillation as one good candidate to explore in GR.

      https://www.google.fi/search?q=orbital+angular+momentum+Bloch+sphere&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjw4Z7usLDZAhVJsKQKHQUTBSsQBQgkKAA&biw=1280&bih=855#

      On the vector model of angular momentum, Peter Saari, 2016 fig 2. you see if you have it on a Bloch sphere, you get Three rotations.... hope you can open it.

      The problem with Bob and Alice is the assupmption the entanglement is broken by gravity, but at the same time gravity cannot break it otherwise.... maybe an informational theoretic approach would be fine? The head/tail approach is like coin flipping and has Little information, you need something more complex, and I have thought a bit about the Three-states. Can they be entangled? They should?

      Also amplitude is an important factor, at least in the semiconductors. It can maybe give some flip-flopping?

      I see you have the same problem as me, too Little space, but we do as well as we can. Your text reminds me of someone, Mr S.

      Thanks, it would be interesting to talk more with you.

      Ulla Mattfolk.