Peter Jackson

A physical mechanical sequence is proposed representing measurement interactions ‘hidden' within QM's proverbial ‘black box'. Our ‘beam splitter' pairs share a polar angle, but head in opposite directions, so ‘led' by opposite (+ or −) hemisphere rotations. For orbital ‘ellipticity', we use the inverse value momentum ‘pairs' of Maxwell's ‘linear' and ‘curl' momenta, seen as vectors on the Poincare spherical surface. Values change inversely from 0 to 1 over 90 degrees, then ± inverts. (‘Linear' goes to 0 at each pole, where ‘curl' is + or − 1). Detector polarising screens consist of electrons with the same vector distributions, but polar angles set independently by A & B. The absorption/re-emission interaction process is modelled as surface vector additions at the angle of polar latitude of each interaction. This ‘collapse' of characteristic ‘wave values' is really then simply ‘re-polarisation', with new ellipticity. We then obtain the relation Cosθ at polarisers. We may simplify this to new ellipses with major/minor axis values. Considering as spherical orbital angular momentum (OAM) rotation we invoke the unique quality of spheres to rotate concurrently on three axes! Rotating on y or z axes concurrent with x axis spin can return surface points to starting positions with non-integer x axis rotations, from half to infinity! (i.e. adding one 180° y or z axis rotation to a 180° x axis rotation produces ‘spin half'). Second interactions at photomultiplier/ analysers are identical but at two orthogonal ‘channels'. Vector addition interactions at BOTH channel orientations normally produce a vector value of adequate amplitude to give a *click* from the MAJOR axis direction. At the ‘crossover' points at near circular polarity the orthogonal ‘certainty' is ~ 50:50, so both or neither channels may produce a ‘click'. The apparently unphysical but proved ‘Malus' law' relation; Cos2θ emerges physically from the 2nd set of interactions. The main departure from QM's assumptions are; That the original pair members each actually possessed two inverse momenta sets; ‘curl' and ‘linear'. Also that complex ‘vector additions' of those pairs occurs. Vector quantities allow A & B to reverse their OWN finding by reversing dial setting, reproducing experimental outputs without problematic ‘non-locality'.

Kantor's 1962 interferometer result supporting the emission theory of light was tested by Babcock and Bergman (B&B) in 1964, but with rotating glass plates placed in a vacuum. The result was different and consistent with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (STR). Two anomalies remained “not fully understood”; A 0.02 fringe shift was still found (Kantor found 2.9), and the kinetic fringe shift with rotating plates was far smaller than the shift with the plates static. The results falsified the theory that light passing out of the glass continued at c+v in the lab frame, but the anomalies were not resolved. We review these alongside related and poorly understood effects including kinetic reverse refraction and non-linear optics. We also consider advances in science and astrophysics and find and describe a theoretical resolution. We find that Kantor's finding may also be 'apparent' without violating the postulates of the STR or invoking an absolute 'ether' frame. Relationships between Maxwell's near field transition zone, photo-ionization, non-linear optics and the surface electro/magneto-optic Kerr effects emerge, building an ontological construction which we describe and quantify. Proper Time is found to be required for Proper speed. A relativistic theoretical model is built from a diffractive mechanism, as used by the US Naval Observatory for accuracy in the AA2010 aberration declination model, but now with a “consistent relativistic theory” to support it. We show how the inconsistency between Michelson's 1924 finding supporting ether and his famous 'null' result may arise from systemic '...asymmetry of crossing counts. The quantum mechanisms of Raman (and coherent forward) scattering, optical axis rotation and CMB frames last scattered are shown to directly derive the STR postulates. Some further experiments are suggested.

Kantor's 1962 interferometer result supporting the emission theory of light was tested by Babcock and Bergman in 1964 but with rotating glass plates placed in a vacuum. The results falsified the theory that light passing out of the glass continued at greater than c in the lab frame, but the anomalies were not resolved. We review these anomalies as well as related and poorly understood effects including kinetic reverse refraction and non-linear optics. We also consider advances in science and astrophysics and find and describe a theoretical resolution. We find that Kantor's finding may also be apparent without violating the postulates of Special Relativity or invoking an absolute 'ether' frame. Relationships between Maxwell's near field transition zone, photo-ionization, non-linear optics and the surface electro/magneto-optic Kerr effects emerge, building an ontological construction which we describe and quantify. Proper time is found to be required for proper spe...

We propose that the persistent anomalies of Earth's inertial frame with respect to transitions from the barycentric frame and Laser Lunar ranging findings are due to over simplification. Applying the two inertial system rest frames, representing the orbiting and rotating frames, is proposed as being more consistent with findings and able to remove anomalies. Earth's plasmasphere and ionosphere, essentially a single kinetic system of particles, does not rotate but orbits the sun with the planet at 370kps. The dense 'two-fluid' plasma bow shock and magnetotail are the distinctive features of the non rotating system or Earth Centred Inertial (ECI) Frame. Inside this system and across the stratospheres, a zone referred to as the 'ignorosphere' due to our limited exploration, lies the rotating Earth Centred Reference Frame (ECRF) which includes Earth's atmosphere. The 'scattering surface' system mixing zones at the frame transitions, particularly the b...

The maximum possible density of conjugate ionized pairs produced by photo-ionization is defined as the optical breakdown (OB) density, which may be considered in terms of minimum wavelength (l) as gamma. Applying Raman atomic scattering to the shocks and transition zones treated as two-fluid plasmas we identify the effects of approaching gamma on the absorption and re-emission process. We theoretically describe how the maximum density and related minimum wavelength limit produce the increasing resistance to electromagnetic (EM) wave permeability at propagation velocities approaching c. The increased ionization with increase speed through the quantum vacuum is found analogous to the Unruh effect and not in conflict with the postulates of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (SR). Heat and sound is produced as density and resistance increases to the ion density limit 1021/cm-3. The effect at OB provides a mechanism to implement the Lorentz Transformation (LT) by producing the &...

We propose a 'sub-matter' scale 'Higgs condensate' from which pair production and 'action-at-a-distance', inherent in Electromagnetism and Gravity, emerge. Disturbances cause larger, fermion scale, rotations which can only then couple with Electromagnetic scale field fluctuations. Re-emissions at c in each fermion's centre-of-mass rest frame, give local c at all electron/positron 'fine structure' (/plasma n = 1). Fermion translation in backgrounds increases condensation and rotates optical axes producing aberration of light as Kinetic Reverse Refraction. The Higgs condensate cannot 'couple with' electromagnetic waves, like water waves of particles, so is not 'luminiferous aether'. It has mobility, but energy density variations disappear at large scales, where no matter exists, or after polarity 'annihilations'. It's consistent with 'dark matter', the Casimir force, and 'curled-up' dimensions. Charge alignment 'standing waves' provide Faraday's electromagnetic field interactions. Density distribution around condensed matter maintains pressure gradient at the inverse-square of distance reproducing 'gravity'. Other anomalous effects logically resolve.

The deepest foundations of Philosophy, Logic, Maths & Physics, the 3 'Laws of Thought', are flawed. Updated laws can aid decidability, computability, and predictability, also help rationalise much of physics, and inform the paradox problems of Logic & Philosophy. The Greeks A=A is wrong in two ways. Aristotle = Aristotle is false because there is only ONE unique entity; 'Aristotle'. Also that 'prediction' needs 'time', so at higher orders Aristotle isn't even identical to himself a moment later. Similarly flawed are Logics 'excluded middle', and binary maths.
Divisible Atoms also need new foundations, which we offer and test. Chaos theory & Godels 'Fuzzy' Sets help suggest coherent answers in; Relativity, QM & Cosmology. The 'Action at a distance' of EM and Gravity emerge from setting Diracs maths 'cut-off' between lowest EM 'coupling' scale; fermion pairs and a 'Higgs Condensate' scale. Dirac was also correct that answers can't emerge in "mathematical terms" but need "physical entities", We should now act on that.

We suggest it's entirely reasonable that mathematics is a useful tool for describing physical entities and their evolution. We consider mathematics as fundamentally digitised geometry, so well able to approximate natures 'non-linearity'. As Galileo pointed out; " He who undertakes to deal with questions of natural sciences without the help of geometry is attempting the infeasible. " Mathematics can seemingly predict any findings to some finite limit. However, we argue that algorithms do not automatically model natures mechanisms, and that assuming it does so hampers improved understanding of nature. We cite various tricks which mislead us, not the fault of mathematics itself but of it's poor application due to our limited conceptual understanding. Reliance on mathematics as the 'language of physics' became pragmatic necessity when we were unable to classically rationalise findings. Many now believe no classical rationale is possible at quantum scales. John Bell describing that view as 'sleepwalking.' We suggest problems increase as improved data gathering has produced 'information overload', physics is divided into increasingly disparate specialisms and quantum computers are still theory. We consider if there's a greater potential for complex problem solving using other methods and the organic computational systems in our heads with abilities different to computers. We identify that better mathematical formalisms may also emerge. We show by example using a pair of 2-ply red and green socks and the '3-filter' anomaly how we can be tricked. Brackets and 'bracketing' are cited to illustrate the problem and a solution.

We identify an observer frame error which influenced physics at a critical time. Refraction due to relative media motion was considered from the incorrect inertial frame for Stellar Aberration by Lodge (1893) after Michelson's null result, giving a light path 'dragged' from the refractive plane normal by the incident medium.[1]  But in the frame of the new medium (Earth) the light path refracts back towards the normal. Jones's (1970) spinning glass disk experiment inherited that wrong observer frame.[2] We find that using correct rotating observer frames is consistent with Special Relativity (SR) and that the error erroneously falsified the Stokes/Fresnel frame 'drag' theory supported by Michelsons finding, producing incorrect assumptions and paradox. We extend Young's experiment and consider the Huygens-Fresnel Principle,[3] wave/particle coupling, extinction, and shocks, finding quantum vacuum field implications. SR's postulates are confirmed but important domain limits emerge at Maxwell's near/far field transition zone.  A quantum mechanism giving mutually exclusive hierarchical inertial systems derives SR. We find extra predictive powers, symmetries and the ability to resolve perceived paradox and anomalies. New perspectives on Stokes, Raman and beyond arise from a local reality model using Einstein's 1952 view that 'space' is actually;  "infinitely many spaces in relative motion."

"Scientists are concerned about scepticism and public respect. Aside from climate change, do scientists mostly deserve public trust and respect? We look into the core, at theoretical physics, to see how well the ‘scientific method’ is used and respected.
Einstein said, ‘We don’t yet understand 1,000th of 1% of what nature has revealed to us’, so we’re not testing or judging knowledge, but skills and honesty from naïve but intelligent overview. Einstein also said, in pre-’PC’ days, that ‘Physics should be explainable to a barmaid’, and can be termed as the search for simplicity from apparent complexity.
Was he right? Are we really doing the best we can? Have superluminal neutrinos proved Einstein’s theories wrong? History has taught us that most
current theory will be proved wrong. Neutrinos have only brought a starting postulate of Special Relativity (SR) into question, and much money is on the finding being a mistake."