Blondes, Brunettes & the Flaw of the Excluded Middle by Peter Jackson

Peter Jackson

Essay Abstract

The deepest foundations of Philosophy, Logic, Maths & Physics, the 3 'Laws of Thought', are flawed. Updated laws can aid decidability, computability, and predictability, also help rationalise much of physics, and inform the paradox problems of Logic & Philosophy. The Greeks A=A is wrong in two ways. Aristotle = Aristotle is false because there is only ONE unique entity; 'Aristotle'. Also that 'prediction' needs 'time', so at higher orders Aristotle isn't even identical to himself a moment later. Similarly flawed are Logics 'excluded middle', and binary maths. Divisible Atoms also need new foundations, which we offer and test. Chaos theory & Godels 'Fuzzy' Sets help suggest coherent answers in; Relativity, QM & Cosmology. The 'Action at a distance' of EM and Gravity emerge from setting Diracs maths 'cut-off' between lowest EM 'coupling' scale; fermion pairs and a 'Higgs Condensate' scale. Dirac was also correct that answers can't emerge in "mathematical terms" but need "physical entities", We should now act on that.

Author Bio

Studied widely, at UKC, UCA & Westminster over 11yrs in the Sciences, Architecture, Engineering and Philosophy. RIBA, APS, AAS, RI and Fellow of the RAS. Visiting mentor at two universities. Lead Consultant on UK defense, petrochemical & renewable energy projects. Semi-retired to research in Physics & Cosmology. RNLI Governor, ex UK rep. yachtsman, Flag Officer, Rugby club chairman.

Download Essay PDF File

Jack James

Dear Peter,

Really enjoyed this essay, thank you.

It seems to me to show how far the human mind is from knowing reality "clearly", and indeed just how much further our evolved perception is from the task.

Fig 3 is very informing, thank you.

Best,

Jack

Peter Jackson

Thanks Jack. I hope it also shows a way to get to that clear reality, but it seems doctrine based on old predicates is a poor place to start, thus all the problems!

I've downloaded yours to read.

Peter

H.H.J. Luediger

Der Peter,

any invariants in your theory?

best,

Heinz

Peter Jackson

Hi Heinz.

Good question. First I hesitate to call it a 'theory'. It's more a new overview 'road map' or 'model' showing how the big picture fits together so much better starting with better assumptions. Invariants are then valid for whatever order of accuracy we want. Much more research work is than needed in all detailed areas.

The main one is all EM propagation at LOCAL c.Including on re-emission in EACH 'electron' rest frame. That allows light to change speed BETWEEN moving systems, thus the wavelength change.

In 'QM' our invariant is the relation between rotational and linear momentum at changing latitudes on a sphere surface, at any rad. so representing exchange of momentum. That's Cos theta, and inverse. Exactly as found at Earth's surface.

I think each invariant/constant will need testing and evaluating for the range of 'fuzzy set' orders. Uncertainty CAN then become insignificant, by choice.

Bala Subramanian

My thoughts are that eventually we might conclude that everything and everyone is a parallel universe and the mathematics that might connect all these multiverses probability might be quantum mechanical. Our sociology, biology and many such endeavors might benefit if the society transitions to these higher dimensional information processes. With digitalization these transitioned cultures might successfully eliminate frictions in interactions to make humanity closer to divinity than ever in the past.

Gilbert Beaudry

Hi Peter,
Are you stating that the wavelengths of light are determined by speed? I often suspected that was the case and that Maxwell's equations are flawed because they are based on a constant speed. The variable speed is statistically low so as to make Maxwell's equation acceptable within reason for calculations. The variance is not noticeable over short distances but is overall as one measures light arrivals from the Observable Universe.
P.S. Thank you for the favourable rating on my essay.
Gilbert

Peter Jackson

Gilbert
This was hidden amid earlier posts. I'll re-post it at the bottom so we can find it in date order, and reply there;
Peter

John Cox

Hello again, Pete!
I enjoyed a first read of your essay, there is a LOT to chew on. Just one observation off the cuff; on p.8 you point out a coincidence with Maxwell's 'curl' and thus a squaring of cosine THETA, in consequence of rotation translated at the poles. This is similar in reasoning *physically*, that BOTH permeability and permitivity co-exist in the electrostatic (or magnetic) field, but are mathematically treated separately under opposite signs limiting to a 'c' proportional difference. Hence; (-c)(+c)= (-c^2)! and that is simply ignored in theorizing, and remains unjustified mathematically! It requires being squared to be consistent quadratically with mass:energy equivalence; e=mc^2. Therefore;
(-c^2)^2=c^4!, m(c^4)= e(c^2)! and that argues for a physical universal proportion of total rest energy in a closed system, as the upper density bound at which some (even minute) portion of the total energy must exist to exhibit inertia. And physically translate inertia across a continuum of density variation to an empirical, hypothetical, minimum density bound and thus sequestering a finite quantity of energy in a self-gravitational material particle.
I'll no doubt drop back in later. I have always enjoyed dialogue with you. But right now I need to go outside and do some errands, and talk with with real people I'll meet and keep in touch with my own reality. Absolutely, no two particles are identical! best wishes and hope you have good sailing weather this coming season - jrc

Peter Jackson

Hi JC. You almost go it, or likely did but the description is incomplete. Curl is jut ONE of the inverse momentum pair on each particle, giving a cos theta output amplitude. What SQUARES that value, to give QM's data set, is the 2ND interaction & Cos theta, at the analyzer channels, giving the *click* rates. Difficult to visualise & remember! but them Feynman didn't manage it, contributing to all our issues.
I look forward to reading yours.
Peter

Edwin Klingman

Hi Peter,
One of your best essays. You think big!
You note that "maths is proving unable to model and predict the complex physical universe." I fully agree with this but I don't know that it is math, per se, that is the problem. I believe it is projection of inappropriate mathematical structure onto the physical universe that is the problem. This is true in almost every field of physics, but let's focus on one in particular. You state
"clearly no excluded middle exists in reality, or 'nature'. Binary maths is then metaphysics, an 'approximation' of nature."
This 'qubit' approximation works well enough statistically when large numbers of spins align themselves as 'up' or 'down' in magnetic domains. Where it fails is in individual atoms, as in Stern-Gerlach experiments. The famous 'fat lips' postcard shows the actual data and the distribution of up and down spins. They are not +1 and -1. Nevertheless John Bell's first equation insists that they must be +1 or -1. Then he shows that this can't yield the desired correlation and so we get entanglement. I have derived exactly the correct correlation using "classical" spins in an inhomogeneous magnetic field - with absolutely no need for entanglement.
So, just as you say "heads and tails" are an abstraction, spin up and spin down are abstractions, and it is only by insisting that this 'qubit' abstraction is real that we end up with the non-local non-logic of entanglement, which has probably poisoned physics worse than any other abstraction.
Therefore I don't disagree with you that the basic logical abstractions may be wrong, but I do believe the problem is primarily that physicists project inappropriate math structure onto physical reality with metaphysical consequences. Similar analysis applies to the structure imposed on the Dirac equation, and on other icons of physics.
There is so much in your essay that I will need a few more readings of it.
Congratulations once again on thinking outside the box. I wish you well in this contest.
Edwin Eugene Klingman

Peter Jackson

Thanks Ed, Yes, I've compressed a lot in again, but much is evidence of the veracity of the hypotheses; 'resolving power'.
I find the problem with thinking outside the box is continually finding the bigger boxes (when we actually look) rather like Russian dolls, which is pretty well the 'endlessly many spaces within spaces' Einstein finally got right, except the boundary division is 'different motions' k,k'. Thus the shear planes, which hold the key.
I find the Dirac equation actually correct. What it lacked is the physical mechanistic sequence I identify. But will those with 'wierdness' embedded in their indoctrinated brains see with that clarity? Hmm. I look forward to reading yours, particularly your take on 'entanglement' nonsense, which you may recall I derived last year simply via the 2nd 'momentum' and vector addition, so Alice and Bob can reverse THEIR OWN findings, NOT each others!
Seems much of the interest has gone flat with removal of peer scoring. What do you think.
Very best

John Hodge

To me, your point seems to be that nature/physics is analog and QM, logic(math) is digital. Therefore, QM and logic do not apply to physics.
I agree.

Peter Jackson

Thanks John. Nice to get so much agreement on quite radical hypotheses, but then they are rather self apparent. The REAL problem is how does anyone get physics to actually ADVANCE!?
I've had a first read of yours and will comment there soon.
Peter

John Hodge

That is the prime problem. I suggest to first consider all the experiments, those that support current models and those that are problems for current models. Note "experiments" not models. This is rather difficult because many papers on models have an ingrained model in the data. An example is the galaxy redshift observations. They are called "Doppler shift" which assumes the Doppler effect is the cause. Then note the actual data is different than the papers suggest (one example is they plot the redshift as going through the center of the galaxy - they data does not.) Then you see the periodic redshift which has been noted but is really outside the standard model.
Because your talking with Joh-Erik, the MMX is another example. Just looking at the data analysis (NOT any model) shows something was detected a an experimental significance. Further, that something was not in the equipment because it was independent of the rotation of the apparatus in any one reading sequence. But the modle MM used expected to find an ether wind and the measurement was well below their expectation,they concluded no effect. But they did detect something from a direction they didn't expect. Therefore, science suffers.
Second step, form a model that explains all and that reduces to accepted models. This last is because this incorporates all the experiments that the accepted models explain. This reduces the number of problem data to a relative few. I've addressed most of them in papers of the STOE over the last decade.
Then address experiments that fall between current models and the new one. This is the nature of light and EM. Repeating Biot-Savert experiment found flaws in the reporting and theory of Ampere's law and the meaning of magnetic field (2 types) which addresses many problems resulting from theories using Maxwell's Equation. I've addressed the light issue with a photon model that simulated several experiment (including Afshar's experiment) that reject wave models of light and the earlier "helical" models. I don't know of your model.
Well, anuway that was my approach which yielded a totally different set of initial postulates and a universe more like QSSC than Big Bang.
Hodge

John Hodge

The last problem is how to get anybody to accept, 1 other will do.
It took over 50 years to accept continental drift. I'll be long dead by then and probably forgotten. Evan if my STOE is somewhat better, someone else will get the credit.
Any chance your light model can explain some of the experiments (such as the transparent mask experiment) and the Young's, photoelectric, and Afshar experiments?
If so, I'll change. If not perhaps we radical thinkers can merge.

Peter Jackson

Yes. I've done so before, and all are in one or other paper some in more than one. Indeed the even more tricky 'quantum eraser' and counterfactualitu nonsense was logically re-defined in last years essay (just study the figure carefully')

Branko Zivlak

Dear Peter
I agree with the following your views:
Only '"A is not B" is true.
Studying physical entities afresh it becomes apparent.. that for sizes at observable scalesno two physical entities are identical. ..no two galaxies, planets, trees, people, snowflakes or grains of sand will be found absolutely identical ...at a molecular level.
Now we must think more broadly and ask "Is anything in the universe precisely identical?! Clearly no Cluster, Galaxy, Solar System, Planet, Creature, Snowflake, or particle of anything physical we can observe with our best instruments are absolutely identical!
But should that discourage us from seeking the truth. If you look at Boskovic's force curves that forces are there and therefore energy and masses are scattered between two points, ie they are never above one point, which would result in identical masses. But there are cases in nature where these two points are so close that we can speak of equality, that is, of the constancy of some physical parameter. Thus, for example, two protons by mass differ somewhere at 10 ^ N decimals, where N is a large number. But there are parameters such as Planck values that are limits or mean values but do not exist in nature anywhere. Not even a single photon travels at the same speed as light, but the difference is immeasurably small. There are articles on this. Previously, it did not discourage me, but rather led me to find another such important parameter that I called the fundamental particle. Of course, such a particle does not exist, but all other particles are in relation to it. We cannot say: proton A is identical to proton B, but we can say Planck's mass is identical anywhere in the universe. The same goes for the fundamental particle. In my essay, some predictive formulas obtained using a fundamental particle are shown in relation to Planck's values.
Regards Branko

Peter Jackson

Hi Branko,
Glad you agree. No of COURSE it shouldn't "discourage us from seeking the truth", indeed I hope I show it can represent a REVOLUTION and finally help REVEAL the truth in wide previously poorly related areas! You don't comment on any of those key consequences. Did you read it all? It seems perhaps not.
I get the impression you 'fundamental particle' is a metaphysical concept so I'll be interested to see how it related back the the physical universe.
I will read it all.
Best,
Peter

John-Erik Persson

Peter
Thank you for this contribution. It was very interesting to read. It demonstrates the distance between our symbolic language and reality. Our binary thinking in the western world creates polarization as demonstrated in politics in US.
I had much fun reading your article, and hope you will take a look at mine.
With best regards from _____________________ John-Erik

Peter Jackson

Thanks JE.
We'll continue the discussions elsewhere, though it does seem you may need another, slower, read to remember the important key points. They are packed in rather tightly!
Best
Peter

John-Erik Persson

Peter
You are right. Your article is long and I have read it just once.
Regards from _________________ John-Erik

John-Erik Persson

Peter
I have had a second look at your long paper. I notice that we agree on an important question that we must regard natural laws as absolute consistent internally, but nevertheless approximations in relation to nature.
I will read your article again, but I am not qualified in philosophy although I regard the subject very important for physics.
I am an engineer, and not a scientist. So, I have deep knowledge only in very small region around SRT. Science is more like a hobby to me. So this time you cannot expect much respons on your article although I regard your article as very important.
With best regards from _______________________ John-Erik

John-Erik Persson

Do you think that it was OK when Euclid defined parallelism by a point that does not exist?

Peter Jackson

The word 'point' here is interchangeable with 'position' which (like 'speed') is an entirely relative concept, so in the context of 2D geometry is valid. Of course nature is NOT 2D! so geometry is already only an abstracted and incomplete 'representation' of reality, so steps into the 'metaphysics' bracket with Boolean (binary) logic to create the 'mathematical approximations of nature' they spawn there.
Here the 'position' can be defined and may be in many possible places. The concept of a 'point' 'not existing' is similar to a 'line' having no thickness, so more about zero dimensions having NO PHYSICAL existence. Again emphasizing the important physical / METAphysical divide I identify.
Does that make sense, and is that the point' you meant (lol).
p

John-Erik Persson

Peter
Changing to position means an infinite distance. So, is it possible to use infinite concepts in a definition?
John-Erik

Peter Jackson

JE
I'm not sure what "Changing to position means an infinite distance." means, but yes, I think we should loose our hatred and fear of infinities and accept them as inevitable but at ever less consequential higher orders, or "turtles all the way down".
I wrote that we should face them and simply always define what order of accuracy we're discussing. At the 'tiny' end the fractals can go well below the Planck scale valid for 'matter'. Wheels within wheels within wheels...
At the BIG end our universe will be cyclic and growing each time, as galaxies do, so we can trace it back to 'something moved'. But it still may be just one of countless similar bodies in a greater cosmos, itself cyclic! We can't know, but don't need to to far better understand our own universe.
Is that reasonable?
P

James Hoover

Peter,
Good to see you back. Your title is catchy and appropriately identifies your thinking on the topic. You aptly describe the ambiguous state of science and math and solutions. Even your identification of the fundamental problem, that Greek laws are valid for metaphysics but are only approximations for nature invites questions re realism and idealism in philosophy. I like your conclusion which made me realize how we are still impacted by a non-GR frame of reference clouding our thinking and affecting our assessment of a new physics. I had to re-imagine how I say some of the same things in my essay. Your arguments help to reset one's thinking away from the foundational, embracing new discoveries in the quantum and gravitational.
Jim Hoover

Peter Jackson

Thanks Jim,
Nice to hear from those who haven't just skimmed over it and can see it's import. I'll get to yours before long.
Best
Peter

Lawrence Crowell

There are identical particles in QM.
LC

Peter Jackson

Yes, but each one of conjugate pair is assumed OPPOSITE! And there's the error. They just have opposite orientation. (= 'Entanglement'!) If Alice Flips her DETECTOR angle (electrons) her OUTCOME reverses.
THEN QM BECOMES SENSIBLE AND CLASSICAL, AS JOHN BELL PREDICTED!
Or is physics buried to deep in the mire of nonsense it can never escape?

Next Page »