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

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

Der Peter,

any invariants in your theory?

best,

Heinz

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

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

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.

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

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,

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

There are identical particles in QM.

LC

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

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.