John, your main thesis is that simplicity needs to be judged by how it applies to society as well as physics. It is a nice take on the question of how simplicity is determined, but if simplicity is the objective why is the universe not so simple that nothing interesting can happen?
Fundamental principles criteria by John C Hodge
I'm not. I follow these each year to find just 3 or 4 new original ideas to investigate. So far I'v found just 1 in Peter Jackson's essay. Yhe observation of vorticies in continuous media appears at all scales. The "proof by analogy" suggests vorticies should appear at the sub atomic particle scale also. So, what observation at the small scale is accounted by vorticies? Is there a viscous media at that scale? Or, is the media inviscid?
Philip:
A model needs to be judged by its applicability to physics and society. The simplicity part is so humans can comprehend the model to the degree we can understand (explain the observational/experimental evidence) AND to be useful (predict outcomes of actions - wisdom). I see the goal of wisdom is debated in other essays.
I note the fundamental agent of a society is the individual family (not individual of one sex). With such as large, easy to observe agent, we should be able to comprehend and create a society/world-order that can last forever. See how that is working/failing.
That is, we don't know yet. we don't know howto create a universe, yet.
If we have to act outside of our wisdom, we'll fail. We don't know ho simple the universe actually is. we know only we have a long way to go.
What I'm addressing is the next step for humanity.
Hodge
As I look at the question, there is a subtility. The human model of the universe is NOT what the universe is. Thinking that our model is what the universe is or that our models even represent the universe is the height of conceit (from Hayek). Humans thought the Earth was at the center of the universe. Later humans thought the Earth was THE center of the universe. Now nearly all models of the universe assume without overtly saying that the universe is adiabatic. Yet, ALL systems in the universe are open. Each system accepts heat from another system and ejects heat to other systems, ad infinitem. So, the model should have the universe as open.
I take models as helping humans understand (explain) and predict (wisdom) outcomes of observations. How can this model discovery be uninteresting if getting better is persued.
John,
You covered a wide range of valid areas, though often seemingly not entirely tied together. You succeeded in avoiding the error of most ignoring the guidance not to shoehorn in their pet theory, though more references to work other than your own would have benefited. I suspect all may baulk at; "Recently, experimental evidence rejected the wave models of light (Hodge 2014b, 2017)" as poorly phrased. As so much leading edge experimental evidence seems contrary to that I'd have suggested more acceptable to say; "...evidence was inconsistent with the wave models.." and also give the case why before progressing as if it were a 'proof'. Your; "The hod/plenum model is the only...etc" has the same effect, likely edging you to the 'crackpot' bin in the eyes of many!
But enough criticism (helpful I hope). The essay also contained much of value. Certainly; "fundamental descriptions are simpler, more useful, and apply to the entire universe".
"The amount of unexplained observational data is huge. We need to think about it."
The problems with our; "separate and independent disciplines." also
"paradigms are so entrenched that they are barely recognized as a postulate"
and; "The necessary paradigm shift in the fundamental models is long overdue."
I agree all are more 'society' matters and fundamental too better physics.
Well done, and best of luck.
Peter
Peter:
Thanks.
I pass the Baez crackpot index (not his kind of crackpot). The STOE model is radical and ouside socially accepted physics. So, it's not going to be accepted any time soon. If it is better, it will be accepted eventually. But until then, I play alone. I doubt if anyone else will join me, but it would be nice.
All the feelgood stuff in the philosophy of science/physics is ignored in practice. The STOE has been found to correspond to both GR and QM (so all their successes apply to the STOE); explained many problematic observations that required ad hoc explainations such as dark matter, dark energy, quantum weirdness, inflation, etc.; and made predicions that later were verified (Pioneer Anomally and Hodge Experiment). Well, society rules. It's too bad science society cannot test the outlier models for acceptance as philosophy suggests.
I think I understand your point about using "reject" (a harsh logic true or false hypothesis judgement) for a whole model, especially a model (from Young's experiment) that is at the core of all quantum mechanics. Only one experiment is needed to reject a model. Many models have their domain and are inconsistant with data outside their domain. Also, many models are inconsistent with some data in their domain, but on the whole are better than competing models. So the problem becomes to explain the experimental results that other experiments seem to support. The STOE does this by repeating the standard experiment (uniform intensity across the slits) and providing a replacement model (simulation). It helps that the replacement model's equations reduce to the Huygens Fresnel model.
Saying "inconsistent" merely tags an experiment to be ignored - perhaps rightly so. I have used "inconsistent" in other contexts. But, in the context of a core experiment (diffraction of light), "reject" is appropriate because the photon (a matter particle) was shown to produce the same result as Young's Experiment (uniform light intensity across the slit). So, the experiment and its simulation is addressing the whole of QM. Well, as I said it's not going to be accepted any time soon.
Evidence (experimental observation) is not "inconsistent" with models as if the model is correct and the observation is suspect. This is conditions (2) and (5) that are way too prevalent but socially accepted. I think this phrasing is very widespread. It is the models that are inconconsistent. "The wave model of light is inconsistant with the Hodge Experiment."
The cases for statements are in the references. I dislike regurgating it again. But then, in looking at the other essays, all they are doing is regurgaing with few exceptions. Even though much is new to me, the statements could be much more concise. But you are correct, that is how it is done.
Thanks for the one bright spot (vortices) in this contest so far.
Dear Mr. Hodge,
I enjoyed reading your essay on the meaning of "fundamental" in science. I especially noted your emphasis on the importance of simplicity and unity.
One other remark is your citation of Jacob Bronowski's "The Ascent of Man" at the top of your reference list. This may date both of us, but I remember (about 40 years ago) being extremely impressed with this BBC series, and I went on to read not only the accompanying book, but also Bronowski's earlier essay series on "Science and Human Values". These have been largely forgotten, but I remember his argument that science is a dynamic open process, rather than a predefined body of knowledge. This process is now under attack from several sides.
I interpreted the FQXi mandate a bit differently. In my own essay, "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics", I argue that unity and simplicity are most fundamental, although the unity of physics was broken in the early decades of the 20th century. I review the historical basis for this rupture, and go on to present the outlines of a neoclassical synthesis that should restore this unity.
This neoclassical picture has no quantum entanglement, which has important technological implications. In the past few years, quantum computing has become a fashionable field for R&D by governments and corporations. But the predicted power of quantum computing comes directly from entanglement. I predict that the entire quantum computing enterprise will fail within about 5 years. Only then will the mainstream start to question the foundations of quantum mechanics.
Alan Kadin
Thanks for commenting on my essay.
I agree the edifice of quantum foundations will fall. I think my diffraction experiment may contribute to that.
However, I suggest the "entanglement" can be viewed in a classical setting. All we need is for gravity waves to travel much faster than light. Photons need not be the only signal mechanism. So, entanglement can continue after the quantum edifice collapses.
Hi John C Hodge
Very nicely said " Human survival requires creativity for advancement and adapting to a changing environment. Creativity's essence appears to be the synthesis of a large diversity of observational types. and you have rightly pointed out " The amount of unexplained observational data is huge. We need to think about it." You are correct Dr John C Hodge.................. very nice idea....
I highly appreciate your essay and the hope for reciprocity. You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance
Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :
-No Isotropy
-No Homogeneity
-No Space-time continuum
-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy
-No singularities
-No collisions between bodies
-No blackholes
-No warm holes
-No Bigbang
-No repulsion between distant Galaxies
-Non-empty Universe
-No imaginary or negative time axis
-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes
-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically
-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition
-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models
-No many mini Bigbangs
-No Missing Mass / Dark matter
-No Dark energy
-No Bigbang generated CMB detected
-No Multi-verses
Here:
-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies
-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way
-All bodies dynamically moving
-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium
-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe
-Single Universe no baby universes
-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only
-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..
-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass
-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step
-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering
-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet
-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy
-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.
- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html
I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........
Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.
In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "
I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied
Best
=snp
snp:
What is the link to the papers that compare the Dynamic Universe Model to actual observations?
The STOE did this in STOE model of the universe http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648
Hodge
Hodge
Thank you for nice questions. Dynamic Universe Model solves with different problems at solar system level, Neutrino level, Galaxy level, Conglomerations of Galaxies level for the last 35 years. Some data is available here on my laptop, some is available with Academia web, some data in available in some floppy disks...., Some old data is in old hand written note books.... Some data is lost....
Generally these are large files, many can not be uploaded into publishers web pages...
You please ask me specific paper, I will search out for you.
Many of these papers and books are available for free downloads from...
https://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/
Everything I will have to do you know without guidance, financial or other without any support. I came to fag end of life.... I am not a rich man, just a steel plant employee, I used to go on a bicycle with my wife on the back carrier...
.............Your words.......
What is the link to the papers that compare the Dynamic Universe Model to actual observations?
..............Reply.......
Read the above explanation and.....You can see here...
https://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/
.............Your words.......
The STOE did this in STOE model of the universe http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648
I ask because I think it fails to fit data:
..............Reply.......
No, show me the data, I will fit and show for you... what is STOE model...
.............Your words.......
Rotation curves are error?
..............Reply.......
Yes, observations not error, interpretation is error
.............Your words.......
CMB(background radiation fits black body curve very, very well - not starlight.
..............Reply.......
Lets check calculations, I can take any open challenge
.............Your words.......
Other 10 observations of Pioneer anomaly (especially annual and diurnal variation) not accounted.
..............Reply.......
Lets take the data and see openly....
.............Your words.......
Several other issues.
..............Reply.......
All such issues can be solved dear Hodge, don't worry, we will do it, you your self can doi with Dynamic Universe Model without any problem, I will guide you. You should know Excel that's it. No expensive software....
Best regards
=snp
John,
It is important that the language used to communicate ideas be readily understood by the average educated, non-specialist audience. This is particularly so if specialists wish to gain thoughtful analysis and criticism of their ideas for the purpose of testing, and if necessary modifying them in order to gain broader public acceptance.
The question: What is "Fundamental?" invites a singular response, either in the form of a definition, or as the identification of an all-embracing fundamental entity. Otherwise the question would be framed: What are "Fundamental?"
Best wishes,
Gary.
Dear John Hodge,
Admittedly, I did still not yet read your essay although I tend to agree with some of what I found in your abstract. However, in the discussion with Peter Jackson you referred to a "Hodge experiment" as if it was performed by another Hodge and known to everybody.
I don't pretend being in position to easily understand and judge something that is perhaps based on diffraction.
At least I grasped that you are trusting in entanglement and you are suggesting a superluminal mechanism for it.
Such hypothetical mechanism is fundamental to your explanation of why you are ar odds e.g. with Traill, McEachern, and Kadin.
I would rather appreciate you to answer the question that my boss kept for too fundamental: Parmenides or Heraclitos?
Eckard Blumschein
Eckard:
What is the question?
Who is your boss/
If the question is which of the two philosophers is closer to me, I suggest Heraclitos.
Superluminal mechanism is what allows the quantum weirdness to be understood by classical analogy. It is much simpler than all the quantum baggage. Further, it suggest all observations are non-local in the sense if Bell's inequality. See how simple the quantum world can be?
Eckard:
addendum: This is a short video showing the model and the actual experiment. Note the superluminal speed is required for the single photon in the experiment at a time.nhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k
John, hoping this helps when I comment on your essay, this is carried-over from my answer to you at More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.
......................
Thank you, John [John C Hodge = JH below]. I appreciate your pointed comments, all the more so for bringing your essay to my attention.
Reading your essay, it seems that our personal philosophies differ little, especially as we seek to understand the nature of Nature (by which I mean reality). I'd thus welcome the details behind your use of "the Reality principle" -- I recall only Freud's version. [As an aside, re your next-world-order: as a management consultant, specialising in fixing sick organisations for free, I practice and recommend benign-dictatorships: where overthrow is a vote-based and happy (because evolutionary) occasion.]
Thus, for me, it's truly good that you are taking the opposite approach to that which I take in my studies. Since, from such a position, we cannot both be right, I see here a chance to make real mutual progress. Thus, welcoming a clearer explanation of your position (and wondering if you endorse "infinite-speeds" sometimes associated with van Flandern), your claims give rise to several preliminary questions.
[I hesitate to say more right now. In relation to your comments here, let's first eliminate misunderstandings and ambiguities before embarking on trickier conceptual questions.]
............................
JH-1: "I take the opposite approach. Quantum entanglement and quantum eraser experiments suggest a plenum (space, ether) wave speed much greater than light as found by T. van Flandern."
GW-1a: If we take "your opposite approach" -- ie, accepting that "quantum entanglement and quantum eraser experiments suggest a plenum (space, ether) wave speed much greater than light as found by T. van Flandern" -- how does that make things non-local?
GW-1b: Why wouldn't we call such events "van Flandern-Local"?
GW-1c: As I recall, van Flandern himself held: "(i) EVERY effect has an antecedent, proximate cause; (ii) there is NO true action at a distance"; eg, see Wikipedia, from his seven principles. Since, unless I'm missing something, I could endorse the van Flandern position given here: please, how do I reconcile your position here vs. van Flandern?
GW-1d: In saying that an experiment "suggests" superluminal speeds, on what interpretative assumptions do you personally rely?
GW-1e: Relatedly, what is your definition of "realism".
GW-1f: If I understand you correctly, we could solve many of our differences by substituting van Flandern-Locality for Einstein-Locality. Since all my ideas are subject to development in the light of sound experimental outcomes, could you elaborate, please: which results of my essay [thus far] would not hold under van Flandern-Locality?
...............
JH-2: "The STOE model and Hodge diffraction experiment (see references in my essay) suggest plenum wave speed much greater than light. Experiments!! Therefore, there is no "local" effects. All experiments are non-local."
GW-2a: You use "local" in scare-quotes (for effects) but the non-local (for experiments) is not? Does 'local' have different meanings here?
GW-2b: In what way do you say that experiments are non-local? (See also vF in GW-1c: above.)
GW-2c: "Experiments!!" Where might I find independent replications, please? From what you write, you are heading in a Nobel direction.
GW-2d: Wouldn't van Flandern himself say that your results are still van Flandern-Local?
GW-2e: Do I take it that your experiments find QM and QT unsatisfactory?
[To be clear: Since, in my experience to-date, I find Einstein-locality to be currently better supported experimentally than van Flandern-locality, you have here the basis for my current 'locality' choice.]
..................
JH-3: "Therefore, our macro-scale is an analogy of the nano-scale and the Quantum weirdness is more simply explained."
GW-3a: Yes, we seem to agree: In my theory, I do not render the micro different to the macro; you seem to disagree?
GW-3b: Again, seeking to be clear: What does "the Quantum weirdness" entail for you; with examples to help me please?
GW-3c:: As mentioned above, I'd welcome the details behind "the Reality principle".
GW-3d:: Please, which of your essays give me your latest mathematical analyses?
............................
PS: John, with my thanks again, I will post this on your site too, hoping it will be helpful when I comment there, on your essay.
With best regards; Gordon
.................................
Gordon Watson
@ More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.
Gordon:
Thanks for your query.
I started the STOE development with the idea that Bell's inequality proved that action-at-a-distance (ADD) and local (less than or equal to speed of light ) interactions were impossible. (GW-1a) That is, cause and effect interactions happened at a greater than light speed distance. Many experiments appear at local speed because they are close. For example, an observation which appears to show a photon colliding with other matter is not the model because of the speed of the reaction is so fast as to fool the instruments.
Start by refering to your paragraph 2.0 (i) The STOE model suggests (postulates) that hods (smallest matter particle causing the gravity effect, one component of the universe) causes the plenum (like Space of GR or ether, etc. another component of the universe) in contact with the hod to deform/warp - the gravity effect. The plenum deformity/warp/wave causes neighboring plenum to deform (like waves in water). The warps cause other hods to move. NO ADD everything is by contact -Hods do not and cannot "touch" (share any common space). GW-1b
2.0(ii) There is no boundry between differing scale observations. We're in one universe as the STOE takes as fundamental. Better /more efficient to take macro models and apply them to big (cosmolgy) and small (quantum) scales.
GW-1d, GW3b So, examples of quantum weirdness observation (experiments) are single photon (or very, very low intensity) at a time in a diffraction experiment, entanglement, quantum eraser (no time reversal wave either), van Flander's measuring the direction of gravity and light being such that gravity leads light by 8 minutes, and the Hodge Experiment. The idea Newtonian model also assumes that gravity effects of a planets position in the solar system effected by other planets' instaneously (otherwise, Newtonian mechanics does't work).
GW-1e The issue becomes to find a model that no experiment rejects (as in my essay). So, "real" or "realism" is not adressed. Real (as most use the term )is a metaphysical/religeous concept. My interest is finding useful models to aid human survival. We don't need to know what is really real, only experimental results. Observable beable (?)
I started to think about light diffraction experiments because this and Young's experiment are the very fundamental base of all models of the quantum world. The science community had worked on wave models of light and were hung with experments that were weird (too much ad hoc stuff and too many possible alternatives to the Schroedinger equation). I developed the hod/plenum model based on several experiments (vanFlander, Shapiro delay, etc.). The simulation program produced what I initially took to be a problem. The paths of the photons crossed just past the slit. I worked for over a year thinking this was a major error. Then I saw a paper about walking droplet in a diffraction-like experiment. (see Bush, "The new wave of pilot-wave theory", Aug. 2015, Phy Today, p. 47 and references therein - Fig. 5(c)). This suggested the Hodge Experiment which I did. (see photon: http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1603 (paper) and
Hodge Exp video -12 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A07bogzzMEI )The experiment is easy for an amateur to do.
BTW If you have access to a Photon counter, repeating the experiment with such equipment would be a step forward.
Now for some responses to your response not yet covered:
Not "infinite speeds" , no infinites in the universe. But very fast- 10^7 c.
I've experience as a turn-around division manager. I'm thinking and writing a book suggesting a 3rd US Constitution. some is on my web page. I think the framers of the 2nd (current) Constitution get a lot correct - they rejected the Bill of Rights. But had no provisions to allow the bill of rights or other abuses of the uninformed electorate.
Mutual progesss - Agree. That is why I'm writing an essay about your comments so long as experiment guides the way.
Van Flandern- I use his experiment results, only. I don't know what "van Flander local" or "Einstein local" means. All observations are a result of actions occuring through a plenum which have speed >>> speed of light. The Shapiro observation suggest speed of light change for differing plenum densities rather then time dilation. I reject van Flandern' idea of creation and demise of the stuff (hods and plenum) of our universe. I noted in my essay that all observation we know about have a source of energy entering a process that the provides energy to another process. Stack the processes end to end to reach an source of stuff into the universe and an sink (thermodynmic terms) of enegy from our universe. Our universe cannot be adiabatic - no process in the universe is totally adiabatic.
GW-2a, GW-2b quotes because others use the term that is, to me, meaningless. All actions involve a plenum, therefore, plenum speed.
GR-2c published replecations. That is a problem. So, do the experiment yourself. I have difficulty thinking that even if another did the experiment with photon detectors, they would not publish because it would be too disturbing to the status quo - hence, their career like Halton Arp's career would be ruined (book - "Seeing red").
GW-3d Each paper topic has its own math. Hodge, J.C., 2014a, Universe according to the STOE, IntellectualArchive,
Vol.4, No. 6, P.6 , ISSN 1929-4700, Toronto, Jan.,
http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648 . has the overall observation math.
Hodge, J.C., 2016a, STOE assumptions that model particle diffraction
and that replaces QM, IntellectualArchive, Vol.5, No. 3, 2014,
http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1719 . has the latest postulates. My goal has been to use existing (with the exception of the predicted Hodge Experiment) to determine the fundamental characteristics of the plenum and hod to produce ALL the obseration of our universe.
Hodge
Thank you, Hodge,
[This is from my essay thread, with 3 small edits: so please post all replies there, too.]
Q1. What do you mean by, and how do you use, "the Reality principle"?
Q2. Is something missing where I have inserted [.....?] below? Because otherwise your qualifying phrase is "impossible" (at the end of the sentence).
"I started the STOE development with the idea that Bell's inequality proved that action-at-a-distance [AAD (edited)] [.....?] and local (less than or equal to speed of light ) interactions were impossible. (GW-1a) That is, cause and effect interactions happened at a greater than light speed distance."
Q3. And elsewhere (as I recall) you wrote that experiments should guide the mathematics. Do you have such mathematics for the Hodge experiment that you show on youtube?
Q4. Without such math, see Q3, why do you believe that conventional math [edit: ie, conventional best theorizing] will not deliver your results? [Let me assure you that they will.]
Q5. You write, "All experiments are non-local." Since you did not put non-local in quotes, what do you mean here?
Q6. Re Q5, since you dismiss infinite speeds, why would you not say that all experiments are, in your opinion, van Flandern-local? (As to the meaning of "local" see my essay for what I mean by Einstein-local; or google it under QM.)
[edit, to be clearer: as I understand your theory, by "local" you mean "NOT superluminal". I use Einstein-local for that. Since you allow speeds that are "superluminal but NOT infinite", I use van Flandern-local for that.]
Tks; Gordon
Gordon:
Response to your question of 15 Feb.'15
Q1: The older term I used was "the one universe principle" and its corollary that the universe is fractal. Therefore, the quantum world should have analogs in the Newtonian world without weirdness. In addition: since we learn from birth many characteristics of our scale, these become instinctual - more: they become the very definition of what is logical.
Q2: The [AAD] is meant to show that "AAD" will mean "action-at-a-distance" in the paper. So, 2 of the things Bell's inequality showed was (1) AAD does not happen -was impossible, and (2) local interactions did not happen. Note "local" is here defined as less than or equal to the speed of light (see later questions). I think it's common to put definitions and symbols in parentheses immediately after the word. I don't understand what you expected to see there?
Q3 experiments should guide the physics models/theories and the appropriate math should be used.
The photon model with the math:
The initial which showed how incoherent became coherent. However, although the slit simulations were encourging, the trace of photon paths left something to be improved.
Photon diffraction and interference
IntellectualArchive, Vol.1, No. 3, P. 31, ISSN 1929-4700, Toronto, July 2012
http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=597
improved math simulation
Single Photon diffraction and interference http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1557
Light diffraction experiments that confirm the STOE model and reject all other models
http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1578
some evolution of the model happened
video based on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A07bogzzMEI
Diffraction experiment and its STOE photon simulation program rejects wave models of light
IntellectualArchive, Vol.4, No. 6, P.11 , ISSN 1929-4700, Toronto, Jan. 2014
http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1603
Hodge Experiment distinguishes between wave and particle caused diffraction patterns
IntellectualArchive, Vol.5, No. 3, P. 7, ISSN 1929-4700, Toronto, Jan. 2014
http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1712
STOE assumptions that model particle diffraction and that replaces QM
IntellectualArchive, Vol.5, No. 3, P.1 , ISSN 1929-4700, Toronto, Jan. 2014
http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1719
another video based on this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A07bogzzMEI
Hodge experiment (continued) of interference with a slit in a transparent mask rejects wave models of light
IntellectualArchive, Vol.6, No. 5,
http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1862
Hodge experiment (continued) with opaque strips and about the Afshar Experiment
IntellectualArchive, Vol.6, No. 6,
http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1872
Q4: Conventional math does deliver with the unconventional STOE physics postulates. Little about the STOE physics postulates is conventional.
Q5: The model is that all matter interactions are through the plenum and that the plenum wave effect is faster tha light ( faster than light means non-local). Therefore, any experiment performed involves an influence the happens at faster than light speed.
Q6: ? sure if you wish. But my meaning uses instantaneous in the simulation as an approximation. I see little difference in what we can measure between 10^7 c and instantaneous except to say that infinite speed like infinite anything is physically disallowed in the STOE. When the math yields an infinity, something is wrong with the math or the model.
However, diffraction observations on solar system or galactic scale may be possible where speed of gravity would be important. We have to think about what to look for.
Thanks for the query.
Hodge
John,
Hope you found a few more high spots. I haven't found many, and few who can rationalise s complex sequence! Indeed mt essay's just been hit with more 1's which is a comment on a few things!
Pleased to now rate yours as promised, giving it a push up the latter.
Very best
Peter