Blondes, Brunettes & the Flaw of the Excluded Middle by Peter Jackson

There are identical particles in QM.

LC

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.

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

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

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

Peter I enjoyed your essay and I agree that there are flaws in the currently accepted foundations of physics. I set aside the current assumptions, proposed impossibles and limitations of physics and was able to go to a more fundamental level and develop a different mathematical model that includes the creation of "our" multiverse that includes the visible universe. The model has a new beginning, a different process and predicts a different ending. I would appreciate your comments on my essay. John D Crowell

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your comments on my essay, a copy from the answer hereby.

Dear Peter,

I am NOT AT ALL a fan of Everetts MWI, on the contrary, I introduce a NEW Interpretation, the Total Simultaneity Interpretation (TSI).

In TSI there are no more split-ups. ONE line is proceeding and te other from the split is turning back into Total Simultaneity.

Perhaps it was a mistake to say that ALL future and past split-ups are ONE entity TS. It was just comparing Now we don't have any more split-up material realities to explain quantum physics...

I hope you can understand it better now because this is really the essence of my thinking.

There are more authors who don't understand this subject, so I think I will prepare an addendum and sent it to the participants of the contest. On the other side I don't know if they see it as "publicity" for my essay, so...

Thanks for your attention

Wilhelmus.