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

          Dear Professor Peter Jackson,

          thanks for remembering me once again.

          you nicely described about equality in your essay.....A 'Heap' is a vague predicate, yet we can have 2 or more separable heaps. One grain of sand is not a 'heap', but adding one at a time makes it so. But when?! Taking grains away does the inverse. For maths we assume 2 heaps of sand can be equal, which is our first approximation.But can't we weigh them? or even count the grains to be sure? Of course, but just more approximations. It would take an infinite supply of 'final grain' sizes to ensure weight equality. The irony then is that of course each grain is different, so abstraction to equalnumbers also won't give us equal heaps!........ Mathematically and philosophically correct.

          When we weigh in grams or measure in liters.... they are not equal....

          None of my papers are TALL claims, all are correct, you can see all these individual papers from my blog. we can discuss.......

          They were nice interactions in earlier contests, please check mail

          Best wishes for your paper

          =snp.gupta

            Thanks Wilhelmus, I'm glad we agree on some clear & critical truths. But top scoring among free thinkers seems quite different to ANY recognition by narrow thinking doctrinal physics. Now not even admitting peer scores reveals the poor attitude causing the standstill in theoretical advancement!

            I've now read & commented on yours.

            Very best

            Peter