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

            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

            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

            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

            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

            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.

            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

            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?

            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

            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')

            Hi Peter, good to meet again in this contest.

            Congratulations with your qubit approach of expressions that were only validated with yes or no. Indeed there is as I said before in one of my writings an infinity of colours between black and white.

            The comment of Edwin Klingman covers most of my remarks on your essay.

            I hope you will also find some time to read and comment on my essay.

            Of course again the best of luck in this contest, you were able to receive the highest score several times so it must be no problem (but still no member of FQXi, maybe this time...)

            best regards

            Wilhelmus de Wilde

            https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3411

              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

              Peter

              You are right. Your article is long and I have read it just once.

              Regards from _________________ John-Erik

              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