Thanks for your kind remarks Bill!
I've begun digesting the Susskind paper and some of its associated references. I'd be surprised if it dies not tie in with my work fairly directly. Thanks greatly for the heads up. The comments above will be re-read and mined for insights later.
Warm Regards,
Jonathan
Bill,
Brilliant job, again. Our past close agreement is enhanced and your expression of it excellent. That'll surely be a 10 I think. Of course big affects big, but I see you don't suggest we don't need the smallest & simplest to solve current mysteries. I won't pick out highlights as we have more important work. i.e. I seem to show in mine that we CAN solve current mysteries with the smallest & simplest;;
I hope you'll read and check through my ontological mechanism carefully. There are a number of components which fit together appearing to reproduce all 'non-linear' QM Classically, free of non-local weirdness. 'Superposition' is of REAL states, both non-linear!! Declan Traill's short essay confirms the code based on the mechanism gives the required CSHS >2, with the 'detection loophole' closed with a >1 steering inequality.
Maybe best to first read a short outline sequence I've just posted on John Klausers string.
I have lots of agreement notes & gold stars on yours an apologise, but will post them if you'd like. Exciting times I hope. Do you know where we can get quantity discounts on coffins?
Very best
Peter
Hello again Bill,
Above you commented "Have you thought about looking, for example, at the simplest third-order Mandelbrot Set (missing the x-squared term) to see see what it might have to say..?" so I wanted to find this paper to attach. It is entitled "Physical meaning for Mandelbrot and Julia sets" and Professor Beck does talk about using 3rd and higher degree Mandelbrot and Julia Sets in Physics models. I recall that Barnsley was already talking about creating Green's functions using Julia Sets back in the 70s, so it seems pretty incredible there are so few Physics developments in this area to date.
All the Best,
Thanks, Jonathan,
I downloaded the paper and will get to it shortly. I agree that it's odd there has been so little followup in this field. Perhaps it's because it falls between disciplines -- unnecessary for pretty fractal pictures, yet alien to standard calculus techniques.
Cheers,
Bill
Dear Eugene,
Thanks a million for your comments. It happens not only with theory, but also with experiment. I find that from time to time, getting back to relativistic nuclear-nuclear collisions (the last major topic I worked on when mostly involved with nuclear science), it seems like the discussions are but a continuation of what we were discussing just yesterday -- new, mostly redundant experimental examples, but very little advance in understanding and/or interpretation.
I have gone over your essay many times, and I must admit that I am both most impressed and overwhelmed by it. Plus, it's a neat idea to contrast Einstein with Hertz rather than with Poincaré, as most people would have done. The dialog is a novel but good way to present the alternate ideas based on Hertz. I'm only marginally familiar with gravitoelectromagnetism, so my comments must be somewhat naive. Emotionally, I really like the idea of a universal, fundamental time, but if it really requires some sort of quasi-ether, have you (or for that matter, anyone else, since I'm not familiar with the field) -- have you thought about the idea of "E generating B generating E..." (a good example of nonlinearity) producing the composite electromagnetic wave acting as a sort of self-generated "ether" that travels along with the wave? This would get around the MM results. How would local gravitation affect such a wave?
At the very least, questioning apparent inconsistencies between special and general relativity has to be a very healthy exercise. It reminds me in a way of the Einstein-Bohr debates concerning quantum mechanics. And for the latter it seems that history is beginning to question the hastily drawn conclusions that enthroned the orthodox interpretation.
I'll keep working at your essay and hopefully get a better physical "feel" for it in time, when we might continue the discussion.
Best wishes,
Bill
William McHarris
Thank you very much for telling us that we often have too much trust in reductionism, and also in mathematics.
A question: Should we also change our view about Occam's Razor from Simplest is 'most true' to 'easiest to understand'?
I think my essay would interest you:
Best regards from John-Erik Persson
Dear Bill,
Thank you for doing me the honor of multiple readings of my essay. I know I put in too much info for one reading, and I hoped there would be a few who found it worth a second look.
I probably erred in putting too much detail about gravito-magnetism [the non-linear field that I find so important] because it has little to do with most of the other ideas in the essay. [Actually, it does have to do with the energy of moving systems, but I do not explain how in this essay, as that is another essay in itself.]
If I understand your question about "E generating B generating E..." as a self-induced "ether", then a comment I made on my page Feb 18, @21:02 is relevant. I'll copy the relevant part here:
"Even as an assistant professor of physics, I once taught that the E and B fields of electromagnetic waves were 'out-of-phase' and their sum, ~(sin^2 cos^2) preserved energy across the vast reaches of space. When I noted the "in-phase" diagrams in my textbooks, I thought them mistaken, but quickly convinced myself that the Maxwell solutions do yield E and B in-phase with each other.
This means that (E^2 B^2) energy is max at one point in the waveform and zero at another. Thus as the waveform passes through a point, the energy of the point pulses from max to zero, and this repeats every cycle.
The equations(1) in my essay provide exactly the mass-energy density compensation needed for conservation of energy at every point the photon passes through. This only works when the non-linearity of the field is taken into account, and is "non-intuitive". I hope to solve and graph the solution, but it ain't gonna happen in this comment."
Bill, I hope this is what you meant by "E generating B generating E..." . If so, then the answer is no, they're both generated in phase with each other. I used to think that God missed a good bet, but now I believe the answer lies in the full use of equations(1), making use of the non-linearity. If you meant that they interact 'in-phase' to self-generate, it's difficult to see what starts and stops the process, then repeats.
I too find search for inconsistencies healthy, and I agree that some of the hastily drawn conclusions about orthodox QM might not withstand such bright light. I left a comment on Cristi Stoica's essay and copied it to my own page [Feb. 20, 2018 @ 00:56 GMT] pointing out certain aspects of this issue.
Thank you again for rereading my essay and putting serious thought into it.
Very best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Dear Luca,
Thanks for your insightful comments. One of the positive aspects of a blog such as this is its getting experimentalists' and theorists' views together. I appreciate your open-mindedness for accepting experimentalists' ideas.
As for nonlinear dynamics being incompatible with reductionism, one has to be careful to distinguish between weak and strong nonlinear systems. In a truly strong nonlinear system, one that is dominated by feedback (not simply nonlinear perturbations), the parts get hopelessly mixed up so that one cannot sort things into straightforward reductionist piles or categories. One has to view the system more or less as a whole. This is where Hollis' quotation (see my comments to Jack above) becomes important. In systems such as these, simple reductionism breaks down. And many, if not most of the so-called paradoxes generated by the orthodox or Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics can be expressed in terms of nonlinear dynamics -- they are just as superficially counterintuitive as before, but on deeper investigation they seem much more, almost logical.
I enjoyed your fascinating essay and really liked your sheep/flower analogies, although I realize that you take the orthodox quantum mechanical view. The main thing I must disagree with is your statement that "whether a system is a classical system or a quantum system depends only on the symmetries of the system." Surely you can't really mean this.
I liked your single paragraph concerning free will. You might be interested in my investigation of free will vs determinism in my previous essay [ref. 13]. Determinism in the context of an infinite regression, such as those encountered in most chaotic systems (everything from the Logistic Map to much more complicated fractal systems) yields statistical (essentially nondeterministic) interpretations that might be associated with free will.
Again, thanks, and thanks for your own intriguing, fascinating essay.
Cheers,
Bill
Dear John-Erik,
Thanks for your comments. As for Occam's Razor, one always has to be careful -- and sensible -- when discussing such things. ALL ELSE EQUAL, why not go with the simplest explanation! (And there can even be argument as to which of several explanations is really the simplest. A good discussion of this is given by Penrose toward the beginning of his book, "Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe" [5].) One of the danger signs about any explanation/model/theory is when we have to add corrections upon corrections... in order to get agreement with experimental data. The best known example of this is the old Ptolemaic theory, where epicycle had to be added to epicycle added to epicycle, ad nauseam. The Copernican Theory is not only more esthetically pleasing, but also it is far easier to use. Today the Big Bang Theory appears to have similar problems, although nothing better seems to be currently on the horizon.
A good example of such a quandary is trying to add nonlinear elements to quantum mechanics. They certainly make the basic logic easier to follow, eliminating much of the forced paradoxical thinking. However, nonlinear dynamics is at least as difficult to calculate as standard quantum theory, so we haven't gained much there. It thus becomes very much a matter of taste as to which is, as you say, "most true" or "easiest to understand." Perhaps old Occam was trying to be practical in eliminating nonessentials.
I have given your essay only a superficial reading, and I compliment you on daring to take on much of the accepted ideas in physics. My first impression is that you may go too far, and I disagree with much of what you conclude. However, one of the main purposes of this contest seems to be to get new, even controversial ideas, out into the open. I'll do my best to give your essay a more detailed study as soon as practicable, and hopefully I'll have more comments then.
Best wishes,
Bill
Dear William
If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don't rate them at all. Infact I haven't issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.
Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?
My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn't then gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.
Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?
For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.
My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.
By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.
To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".
Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest
Kind regards
Steven Andresen
Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin
William McHarris
Thank for these ideas regarding Occam. I agree to all that you say in this blog post. Occam is not in much help regarding truth, but perhaps of some help regarding the order of testing theories.
I hope that you will keep your promise and write comments on my essay. I try to be provocative and is hoping for some kind of resistance. However, until now nobody has given any negative feedback, and that is what I am hoping for. So, please, tell me something that you find inconsistent, so we get something to discuss. It is the negative feedback that is most important.
Waiting for your response, and with best regards __________ John-Erik Persson
William
I have read your essay. Its wonderful and understandable even by an electrical engineer, with no previous knowledge of nuclear chemistry. Thanks for that interesting reading. I hope for comments on my own essay.
Thanks again ___________ John-Erik
Hello William,
Your beginning quote set the tone for an exceptional essay.'Science progresses one funeral at a time.' The future depends on some graduate student who is deeply suspicious of everything I have said.
Geoff Hinton, grandfather of deep learning September 15, 2017
I have this suspicion that what is fundamental is not only non-linear, but discontinuous. For something different take a look at my essay "The Thing That Is Space-Time".
Thanks for your essay,
Don Limuti
Dear Peter,
Thanks once again. I really appreciate your comments.
I studied your essay (also, your comments on John Lauder's string, which seems to be missing his replies). And I really enjoyed reading your literate essay. You must have had a lot of fun writing it. I got rather lost in the parts concerning orbital angular momentum's components, but I'll go back and work on that again. Meanwhile, since time for evaluation is short, I rate your essay highly, especially the introductory parts -- which I can understand. I especially liked your statement, "Theory, like piles, gains traction over time to establish itself and be harder to move."
Keep up the good work of punching holes in orthodox thought. Science can use more of that.
Best wishes,
Bill
Dear John-Erik,
Thanks again! I really appreciate your remarks. Also, despite my statements about some disagreement, I think very highly of your essay. I consider it underrated and hope to do my part in changing that.
Best wishes,
Bill
Bill,
Thanks. I often feel I'm punching a citadel wall so appreciate you, Chandra and others support. I'd like you to understand the orthogonal vectors in OAM and have just discovered, though unfamiliar to all, they've been in Poincare's Sphere for 100 years! See the Figs in my last years essay; http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2755. Simply ROTATION at poles opposite but is zero at 90o, LINEAR at equator is zero at poles and also opposite at 180o
So start point is NOT 'singlet' but 2 inverse state pairs! Then I show both momenta values physically change non-linearly over 90o by the Cosine of the latitude of the interaction tan point. A bit more careful thought, 2nd photo-multiplier (orthogonal channel) interactions and the WHOLE of QM resolves into classical mechanics with no weirdness. I've just put a quick sequence checklist on my posts to help reconstruct a mental picture. Do also see Declan Traill's short confirmation code & plot, & Gordon Watsons similar analysis.
A 100 sec video here gives a quick glimpse of the dynamics. A full version is also available but needs an update.
THIS may be the weapons we need to open the citadel gates. But I need help to refine and wield it. Let me know how you get on. Top score going on yours now.
Very best
Peter
Dear William,
I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand.
I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.
Vladimir Fedorov
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
Bill,
Great essay. Also liked your comments on Peter J's. No time now to chat! Boost coming.
Rich
Thanks again Bill,
For the reference to Susskind; I thank you. It appears it may be a direct outgrowth of some of the work I cite in my essay, but it is definitely worth following up the complexity limit notion in the context of my present research.
Best of Luck!
Warm Regards,
Jonathan