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

    Howdy Peter,

    I've come to pay my respects. I enjoyed the essay and I may come back for a longer review later. First off; I agree with your opening statements about logic, and some of the same items have peeved me. I think the middle is often falsely excluded, when it should be fleshed out in shades of gray. Or a false dilemma is invoked because of an incorrect and improper use of the excluded middle law. My Physics mentor chided me for not recognizing and properly treating either/or questions, but I think he missed the point sometimes, though he was both smarter and wiser than I.

    My Logic professor in College was a Harvard PhD who recruited me for that school, but I failed to complete the application process on a technicality (unpaid library fine). Later he became an outcast or victim of conscience. Search the term "Les Sachs American in exile" to learn more. But it was an honors level course and I learned a few things. The Higgs condensate idea sounds interesting. I downloaded the paper. I'm familiar with Chapline and Laughlin's emergent Relativity and also bosonic condensation. A 0-mode massive graviton can be Higgs-like and form a condensate, in some theories.

    More reading now, more comments later.

    Jonathan

      Dear Peter,

      Thank you for the very interesting essay.

      I have given it a single read, but it will take more because it rapidly ramps-up with ideas coming at the reader at a fast and furious pace.

      I have some concerns that have me thinking (always a good thing, so thank you!).

      The three laws you look at are laws that apply to logical propositions, not objects. And I would worry about anyone seriously trying to apply them to objects. One should not expect them to apply to objects, as you deftly point out.

      Incidentally, this is an issue in quantum mechanics where we implicitly (and wrongly) expect our logic of propositions to apply to experimental setups. In quantum mechanics, we quantify experimental setups (which is the terminology that Ariel Caticha has used), or measurement sequences (favored by my past co-author Philip Goyal), with two numbers. One can derive that the mathematics of this pair is equivalent to that of complex numbers, which we refer to as quantum amplitudes.

      We assign amplitudes to experimental setups, and we use the relationships among experimental setups to calculate the amplitudes for more complex experiments via the Feynman rules. With the Born rule in hand, one can then calculate the probability associated with that setup (or measurement sequence).

      In short, we use two types of measures in quantum mechanics, each operating in a separate space. In the space of experimental setups, or equivalently measurement sequences, we use complex amplitudes. These amplitudes quantify the relationships among experimental setups via the Feynman rules. The Born rule maps the resulting complex amplitude to a probability, which lives in the space of logical propositions about these experiments. Two different measures (quantifications), each with its own algebra and calculus, applied to two different, but coupled, spaces.

      It is the lack of recognition that these two quantifications (complex amplitudes and probabilities) live in and quantify elements in two different spaces that have led people to claim that quantum mechanics does not obey Boolean algebra.

      Well, what do you mean by quantum mechanics when you say that? Because quantum mechanics is a theory that works in two different, but coupled, spaces. Of course the theory is not Boolean! Only the space of propositions is Boolean! There is NO SINGLE ALGEBRA of QM. The whole thing results from confusion about what we are really doing.

      And the way I am thinking about your three laws is that they do not apply to objects. I don't really see a need to rework things. But I do see a need to take more care!

      I hope these comments make some sense. I would be happy to engage in a dialogue if you have any questions.

      Thank you again for a thought-provoking essay!

      Cheers

      Kevin

        Peter,

        Thanks for your last post on my page. I would like to share my particle theory with you sometime, if and when you have recovered from all the essay readings. I think we have a lot of ideas in common, and mine haven't been put to the test of any real review (except once 15 years ago). Where can I find your email address? Mine is lcress#rfprobes.com.au

        On another topic I have noticed a lot of troll voting (1's, 2's, and 3's) after the supposed deadline. I took a snapshot at midnight (GMT) on the 18th, and then again now. Lots of changes! I think it's only proper to offer support or criticism via the posts, not by voting 1 without explaining why. I think the voting is counterproductive in many ways.

        This is my first foray into FQXI and it has taught me a lot. What a fabulous resource to have available to the world, whith so many excellent ideas. I'm certain future breakthroughs in physics will have been discussed at some level in these essays. I am excited because my other special topic is time, and there is a whole comp of essays to read!!

        Best wishes

        Lockie Cresswell

          Lockie,

          I agree. The cut off was ET (USA) not GMT, and 1 scores go right to the end. I've suggested a clause saying clear tactical voting such as multiple very low scores with no posts, and on 'neighbouring' essays, will be monitored and may be removed and applied on the scorers essay! That should cut it down! This IS a good resource but well short of what it could be.

          My Email is pj.ukc.edu@physics.org. Send it through. Also check out my work on; https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Jackson22/research to identify commonality.

          very best

          Peter

          Kevin,

          Thanks, but it clearly DOES "apply to objects"! Galaxies down to snowflakes, grains of sand & atoms, so not so easily dismissed! You must keep Booleing at higher orders! I also agree the 2nd 'Born rule' case, and please now sit down and prepare to be shocked; describe a physical interaction sequence that produces BOTH complex amplitudes!!. You can't dismiss that either (though most run away) as it's entirely self apparent, just a bit complex to first follow! You just have to try. (the 'fast & furious' solutions are just derivatives of this!); I'll outline it now;

          Consider absorption/re-emission by polariser and photomultiplier electrons as momentum exchange at some tangent point on a sphere with and angle of 'Latitude' (0-90 degrees) from a pole. 'Entanglement' is just a common spin axis orientation to each PAIR.

          Now look at electron (etc) OAM for 'exchange' (on absorption/re-emission); it has TWO momenta sets!;; Polar CURL, 0 at the equator, and LINEAR, 0 at the poles. What's more these change non linearly, AND INVERSELY! by the cosine of the tan point latitude angle.

          So the RE-EMISSION POLARITY and 'ELLIPTICITY' are changed at the polariser, by CosTheta. Now we have the Photomultiplier electrons to interact with. (if the hairs on the back of your neck aren't starting to stand up read the above gain!)

          The cos value amplitude is then changed by the LOCAL cos value 'vector addition' again, giving Malus' Law, or the 'Born rule'!! In the 2 channel/magnet case best think of it as elliptical polarity, where only the major axis amplitude can trip the *click* counter.

          Now all that was in my essay last year but your brain rejected it (as most, due to cognitive dissonance.). It's been independently verified as violating Bells inequalities by computer code & plot I refer to. And it does NOT REQUIRE 'NON-LOCALITY'! Bob changes only his own state by rotating his dial (electrons).

          You may need to read & visualise that 'DFM' sequence carefully 3-5 times before it displaces the old embedded nonsense beliefs about QM.

          Nature Physics have been wrestling with the shock and a decision on a joint paper for a few weeks. I expect it to be among the 99.9% they reject, but it may need a professor who can understand it to join the collaboration. Will you be the first?!

          My Email is pj.ukc.edu@physics.org

          Very best

          Peter

          Jonathen,

          Thank you kindly. Yes, a universe where all entities differ is 'shades of grey' down to maybe Woolframs 10[sup-93! But either/or answers can still be given as all things are conditional. Let me know your thoughts on the gravitational Higgs Condensate paper. Tejinder has just now written something consistent with it.

          Thanks Vladimir. I appreciate such discussions over the shocking poor attitude and apparent arrogance of some entrants.

          Best

          Peter

          Thanks for your kind words James. Nice to find someone left with vision.

          James,

          Sorry I didn't comment on your v2. No time! Glad my comments helped it. I did score it (an 8). Well done.

          Very best.

          Peter

          Probably impossible if you're not a member. It may have been in John Templetons remit but reality differs. Just post a link, or get something published!

          Best of luck

          Peter

          Hi Peter,

          I thought you might like to see this image, after the comment you left on the page about dark flow. Now appears closed to comments. But if you look at the half outline of the Mandelbrot Set facing the other way from how it is seen normally; it shows a clear resemblance to the outline seen in some bounce cosmologies. It most resembles the graph I saw from Ram Gopal Vishwakarma who was a student of Narlikar. Very nice man. Anyhow; we are in the round section, about 1/4 of the way around - if I have bracketed my timeline correctly.

          Enjoy,

          JoanthanAttachment #1: HalfMandelRotaBW.png

          4 months later

          Joe,

          I very much doubt I'll be considered credentialed, particularly now officially retired so with no accreditation. Sorry.

          Peter

          Write a Reply...