Hi Peter,

An interesting answer, which is covered by Marts Liena's essay on the aether (re refractive index).

As for Maxwell's near/far field transition zone, I am with you on that! An interesting program to run is called radiation2D from Prof. Shintake T.

Shintake's Radiation 2D which shows how the transitions occur for a variety of oscillators. (I found this link on the Brookhaven Accelerator Site or Google Shintake Radiation2d - I also have an .exe that I have been using for over a decade)

I too was trolled with a 1. But never mind as I have yet to score the essays I am reading. I hope you found mine entertaining.

Regards

Lockie

Lachlan,

I just get a 'not private' message from the Fermilab link. Any others? I'd like to find something as most don't seem able or willing to comprehend it!.

I did a very simple video years ago. See if you can make sense of this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9KIzLuJlR0

Thanks

Peter

Peter,

Thank you for a wonderful essay. You covered many topics.

What is remarkable is that our current system of mathematic often works for real systems. The idea that our incomplete understanding of the Universe is not just due to an incomplete knowledge base, but also an incomplete knowledge structure is not surprising.

None of this should work; there are more transcendental numbers than well-behaved numbers. Since algebra cannot work with transcendental numbers there is a good chance that all our airplanes have transcendental number measurements and should be falling out of the sky.

One is reminded of Ogden Nash's "Very like a Whale". Metaphor and simile are bad, but they are all we got. A first step would be to try to solve some classical Physics problem with fuzzy logic.

Sincerely,

Jeff Schmitz

Dear Peter,

to pick up and adress the Blond, Brunette and the middle of your perfect essay i suggest finally a one - line - equation pi/pi=pi

How to hack Bitcoin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhYwa0iM8uw

Take care.

Best

Manfred

Sorry Peter,

I mucked that link up. I forgot to add .zip at the end. Grab the link and add .zip and put it in Google. It will then give you a zip download of the program. It will be worth getting. Or you can just Google Radiation2D and then use the Fermilab page.

I will watch your tube video now.

Cheers

Lockie

the .zip failed. I got onto the site and found the 2 link, but that also failed!! I sometimes suspect the aliens are anxious we don't get to close to the truth!!! lol.

P

9 days later

Dear Peter,

Thanks ever so much for your comments on my essay. I searched out the missing link by looking you up on arxiv and found "Resolution of Kantor and Babcock-Bergman Emission Theory Anomalies". Wow, had I known about your work I would have surely referenced you, as I should also do with Israel Perez's Aether work.

It seems as though we are on the same page, but I defer to your much deeper probings. And I feel more confident now that the matter will be decided in the hopefully near future.

I am currently reading your iqbit essay from a few years ago. I admire your ground breaking work!

I am not sure I am qualified enough to comment sensibly on your latest offering, except to say LEM has been on the nose for some time, and maybe some ternary bit computing will drive that home.

Best wishes,

Marts Liena

    Thanks Marts Very kind. I've replied on your string with another goof link.

    Peter

    Dear Peter Jackson!

    Your essay made us very happy. We agree with many of your theses. We also believe that understanding the objective world depends on our subjective logic. Logic is a theoretical device. This device can be improved. Therefore, we propose introducing some new principles for understanding time, which will allow us to understand in a new way both classical logic and set theory.The following definitions are given: 1) there is a set that we call "Time"; 2) this set consists of an infinite number of individual elements, which we call "Moments"; 3) all elements of a given set have a peculiarity: if one element is REAL, all other elements of the set are UNREAL; 4) we will call sets of this type - "AREAL SETS". It was found that the elementary areal relation is a logical law of contradiction: statements A and NOT-A together form an areal set of two elements. Formulating the law of contradiction, Aristotle and all the logicians after him constantly emphasized: there cannot be A and NOT-A in the same respect at the same TIME. We propose to rearrange the emphasis: in our formulation, AREALITY is a special logical relation that can simulate natural Time. The new model defines the time order in the form of definite characters' sequence.

    The proposed ontology is related to the definition and introduction of the digital physics paradigm.

    We hope that our approach will be useful to you.

    Truly yours,

    Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

    Siberian Federal University.

      Peter,

      Thank you for alerting me to your essay. I got in at the last minute and have had the time to look at only a few essays up to now.

      Yours was so unusual and refreshing! Free-thinking, physical physics! What a concept, what concepts!

      I love your compilation:

      "H.A. Lorentz said in 1906 "we can make no progress without some hypothesis that looks somewhat startling at first sight," Feynman echoed that in 1981 saying new solutions first "look wrong" before 'turning out simpler.' Similarly John Bell predicted QM's classical solution will need "radical conceptual renewal".iv [p172] and an imaginative leap that will astonish us [p27]. Solutions often exists, hidden well, in plain sight! We point to one in3 and below. But what IS certain is dismissal and default to embedded beliefs will STOP new solutions emerging. Good science has no place for beliefs, but we can hypothesize."

      And ""(Ψ)..would prove to be a provisional or incomplete description.. It is this possibility, of a homogeneous account of the world, which is for me the chief motivation of the study of the so-called "hidden variable" possibility." J S Bell 1987iv Ch.4

      also believing; "the founding fathers were in fact wrong" iv p171. "

      And your simple attribution of gravity waves: "Motions of matter cause density fluctuations to propagate through the medium."

      Dirac's view that solutions can't be found in "mathematical terms" but need "physical entities."

      Mathematics. "There are, at present, fundamental problems in theoretical physics...(which)...will require a more drastic revision of our fundamental concepts than any that have gone before. ...these changes will be...beyond the power of human intelligence to get... by...mathematical terms. (and we must try to find and) ...interpret...in terms of physical entities." Paul Dirac. (PRS 1931 A133,60);

      And your simple attribution of gravity waves: "Motions of matter cause density fluctuations to propagate through the medium." What? No need to squirrel gravitation-as-geometry into quantum physics???

      Thank you for thinking about physics.

      Jim

        Thanks Guys,

        Very interesting I've responded to yours on your topic.

        Peter

        Peter,

        I promised a reply to your thoughtful paper. You alread read my essay.

        You mentioned a deep problem: does nature follow our logic? In the last century we learned that there are more logic systems, among them intuitistic logic with an excluding middle. We (my co-author Jerzy and I) found also interesting relations between this kind of logic and QM (but also 4-manifold topology).

        You also wrote about matter (as a kind of vortex). Maybe you will find my paper about the relation between braids and particles interesting

        paper

        Finally I vote for your nice essay

        Best wishes

        Torsten

        Dear Peter,

        Glad to read your work again.

        Thank you for evaluating my work: "I found your essay well written and informative, adding to my perception and understanding of how De Broglie Pilot waves can work".

        I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

        While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: "Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus", due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 "Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability".

        I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

        Warm Regards, `

        Vladimir

          Dear Peter,

          Thank you for your valuable comments on my essay. I read your essay and I am greatly impressed by the depth and width of your knowledge and thoughts. The title of your essay is most attractive and eye catching of all. Questioning binary logic is very promising, there is stuff called quantum logic. Noticing that laws of ancient Greeks are valid for metaphysical but not for nature is brilliant. You correctly see that applying fuzzy logic is the way and that should be standard for the future. I wish you very fruitful research along these lines.

          Best regards,

          Irek

            Dear Peter,

            Your essay presents an interesting way of looking at things, but I can't really evaluate if there are any "holes" in it. You seem to be saying that if we first assume that a 3D Higgs condensate/ ether underlies everything, then a lot of physics including gravity could be explained via the vortices and pressure densities etc caused by movements in the ether, if something first moves to start the system moving. Does this movement in the ether dampen and dissipate, continually requiring new movements, e.g. new flappings of butterfly wings, to "top-up" the system?

            Re "The critical first step is to rigorously distinguish strictly PHYSICAL entities from the META-PHYSIAL; concepts, abstractions, attributes & thoughts, which INCLUDES symbols and numbers":

            What about law of nature relationships? They are not exactly physical (measurable) entities; they represent the behaviour of the physical entities, and they can only be represented via symbols and numbers. For that matter, people can never avoid using symbols if they want to communicate with other people: written and spoken words are symbols; also you need to use symbols and numbers to represent vortices and pressure densities.

            Re "The law of the excluded middle":

            "Hair", as opposed to "a flower", is true or false; "blonde" or "brunette" is not so much true or false; but if you somehow measure the colour and assign a number to it, then the colour equating to that number is true or false.

            Regards,

            Lorraine

              Irek,

              Thanks for you appreciation, it's multidisciplinary scope does stretch the expertise of most but I suspected you'd see it's value. Yes, I discussed 'modal' quantum logic in an earlier essay (the one peer scored top in 2015 I think) and the consistent 'brackets rule' I apply for logic AND inertial systems is it's uniquely consistent epitome.

              Many thanks

              Peter

              Lorraine,

              Thanks. It's range leaves many 'holes' but filled by the references, and all should see there are no holes in the logic and rationale.

              "Does this movement in the ether dampen and dissipate, continually requiring new movements..?"

              It doesn't 'require' more motions as much as 'provide' them! The original "instability" gives the first vortex pair. Their motions then each propagate TWO more, so the Reproduction (R) number is 2, and thus the universe develops, grows AND recycles! Old cosmology, which we now know has big inconsistencies, will suggest that's 'wrong', BECAUSE it's consistent!

              What is the "law of nature relationships?". There truly isn't one! Just mathematical approximations, i.e. QM. I show that QM can be RATIONAL!! Again; quantum physicist will deny it's possible because nature is illogical! I show it isn't. Can YOU decide if the equator of a sphere is rotating clockwise() or anti..(-)? Or if the poles are moving up or down? No. Those TWO momenta types change inversely by Cos Theta Latitude, and invert past 90 degrees. Bohr missed that second momentum! (i.e. Maxwell's 'curl', shown on the Poincare sphere) as he focused just on maths, so invented 'quantum spin' to confound us, and logic. I gave that mechanism last year. NOBODY has found any holes, but the specialist just turn & run away screaming to hide from it!

              And I haven't suggested maths is useless at all. It's an essential 'best approximation' tool for accounting, but needs keeping in it's place. Accountants are essential, but making them CEO's is usually a companies death knell!

              Your 'number' for a 'colour' proves the point. The colour spectrum is made of smooth curves with 'names' assigned to certain areas. 'RED' is a wide part of that. IR Spectroscopy tells us there are as many different 'reds' as the instruments resolution allows, many thousand! Rephrasing the question to; "Am I blonde" allows a truth value assignment, but shows it's a bout 'degrees' so there's NO "excluded middle" except for the 'convenient generalisation' we're familiar with. I found only going beyond that starts to revel the nature of nature itself!

              It is a quite new way of looking at the familiar.

              Peter