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

          8 days later

          Hi Peter,

          Nice essay. Thanks.

          Revised laws can release a flood of new coherent & unified physical interpretations across all Physics and Cosmology and inform Logic & Philosophy.

          A new understanding will be about the limit of limits, and our own, and thus how fine we can understand something. First we have a gross view and more and more details come next. It takes a long time for general understanding to come from strict matter to ?????? an ever increasing unknown map of details and so also of possible interpretations and possibilities for application. And with it will come more and more the question: 'What do I understand anyway and how?'

          The included middle gives way to crossing borders and the joy of connection but also to infinite tiny islands of specific viewpoints each with an own interpretation. And all will be true.

          We´re on the brink of a new time. AI and biotech will shovel all old paradigms into the waste bin.

          We will make some leaps. In quantum and quality.

          Exciting

          Bests,

          Jos

            Hi Peter,

            A very interesting essay with a lot of things discussed and extrapolated. I d like to have some explainations how you see really these foundamental objects first of all ? and why in deeper explainations you consider superluminal velocities ? and about this quantum gravitation, could you develop a Little bit please ?

            I d like to know also if you can your general philosophy correlated with these foundamental objects, why they are and why they create our physicality.What is the source, the main field or the main cause. And also do you consider that we are an accident due to probabilities and maths or that we come from a kind of infinite eternal consciousness beyond this physicality transforming this energy with codes, informations or fields , this eternal infinite consciousness for me is a thing that we cannot define. What are also your ideas about this DM and DE, I am curious lol , regards

            ps like I liked your essay, I have shared it on facebook