Alan

Whether the tick rate of a timing device is subject to physical influence is another matter, but is irrelevant to time. The device is a device, it 'tells' the time, it is not time.

The same applies to spatial measuring devices. Within the realms of practicality, rulers are made to exacting standards and of material which resists external influence (eg heat). But if a ruler expands with heat we do not presume the reality has altered. That is because, as with timing, the reference for the system is a conceptual constant, in this case a spatial matrix. In timing it is a rate of change.

Paul

Philip,

Thank you for reading my essay. There should certainly be phenomena that differ from orthodox theories. I am currently thinking about some of these issues.

One difference would be in the field of quantum computing, which may be slightly beyond current technology, but not by much. The exponential speedup predicted for QC is the primary driver for research funding. That prediction requires quantum entanglement; without this, the entire approach should fail.

With respect to optical quantum entanglement experiments, I have suggested that a linearly polarized single photon is an oxymoron, that this really represents a 2-photon state. This should be directly observable using an appropriate photon detector with high quantum efficiency that can count simultaneous photons.

In my own research field of superconductivity, the standard BCS theory is based on Cooper pairs, a composite quantum state of two electrons. But in my quantum picture, only primary quantum fields (single electrons, photons, and quarks) are true quantum waves; a Cooper pair wavefunction cannot exist. I have developed an alternative theory for superconductivity that requires coherent phonon oscillations; these should be detectable via inelastic scattering.

In particle physics, recent attention has focused on observations of the Higgs boson, a spin-0 fundamental particle that is believed to be responsible for mass in the weak interaction. But in my picture, all fundamental particles have spin; that is the quantity that is quantized. So I would suggest that the recently detected resonance may instead represent a metastable bound state of two primary particles with opposite spin, rather than the long-sought Higgs.

Finally, cosmologists have recently focused on understanding the implications of dark energy, a mysterious antigravity force that pervades the universe, as inferred from observations of red-shifts of distant supernovae. But the same gravitational model that eliminates black holes also appears to eliminate the need for dark energy. This also has some important implications for the early stages of the Big Bang expansion.

But the point of this theory is not that it makes heretical predictions. Instead, I am proposing a natural, elegant theory that provides a unified foundation for all of modern physics, based on real objects with deterministic continuous dynamics in real space. The physics community should not have discarded these classical concepts quite so blithely.

Alan

  • [deleted]

Dear Alan,

Very interesting easy because I also am on the real spin and real vector field track.

I thought about possible experiments.

I think I could propose an experiment to show a large scale entanglement effect between single silver atoms and their origin evaporation oven content by and alternative double Stern Gerlach experiment.

John S. Bell described his doubts about the Stern Gerlach experiment interpretation in his book: "Speakable and unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics on chapter 16 page 140-141.

Ref, [7].

John Bell argued that there is no logic to be found behind the fact, that there is a so called "absence of smearing" of the particle impact pattern on the screen.

The silver atoms should come out the oven with random orientation, as a consequence Joh Bell argued, the impact on the screen of silver atoms should have a smeared effect.

The proposal for my experiment , is based on the hypothesis that all heated and vaporized silver atoms inside the silver oven are entangled as a whole and that magnetic measurement of one atom travelling outside the oven influences the magnetic polarity of all the other atoms in the oven.

If the oven sends the silver atoms (by shutters) alternately to the two magnets, then the resulting impact pattern on both screens will show an additional BAR in the middle of the original impact pattern. (see figure )

Why? because if the first atom leaves the oven it will have a horizontal spin state perpendicular to the N-S axis of the S_G magnet as left over from the former process of ejection with the entanglement effect on the oven to the opposite 90 degree rotated S-G magnet

See perhaps also: http://vixra.org/pdf/1103.0015v1.pdfAttachment #1: Dual_Stern_Gerlach_experiment.jpg

  • [deleted]

Sorry for my mistake;

I wrote:

Very interesting easy because I also am on the real spin and real vector field track.

It should have been:

Very interesting essay because I also am on the real spin and real vector field track.

    Alan,

    I may have bit off more than I could eschew!

    • [deleted]

    GPS might not actually be operating 'correctly' and in fact might be dragging things around unnecessarily due to indirect couplings over the internet and geolocation IP databases...

    Stephen

    You may or may not be correct. But attempting to 'solve' The GPS 'issue' misses the point. Timing devices are not time, they tell the time. Physicaal existence (as knowable to us-and this is science not religion) can only occur in a sequence of discrete existent states with no form of indfiniteness or alteration therein. So the issue becomes how does that work in practice and how does this impact on certain well known 'theories'.

    Paul

    5 days later

    Hi Alan,

    In my opinion this is the best essay in this edition, congratulations. It is nice to finally meet someone who prefers physical intuition rather than pure abstract formalism. Nowadays that approach is very rare.

    You claim that "NQP provides a unified basis for classical and modern physics on all scales. All matter and energy are comprised of primary relativistic vector fields (electrons, photons, quarks, etc.) which form into coherent wave packets in real space, similar to solitons." I have never used the soliton notion but only a more general wavepacket. The reason is that the soliton is to restricted e.g it will never merge. Moreover I start from GR and not SR (I do not need the Einstein equations but the idea that a force field is a manifestation of spacetime geometry) and try to apply that idea to all known fundamental "forces".

    Despite the differences I could not criticize your essay because generally it supports mine and vice versa. The idea of real wave instead of an abstract one is the base. Your "true quantum waves are only present at the bottom of the hierarchy" (taken from your publication http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.5794) comes together with "Quantum waves are not universal aspects of all particles, but rather provide a way to quantize the primary fields". If I understand well the outcome may mean e.g. that gravity is not a fundamental but emergent force?

    Our ideas have a lot of important issues in common e.g. no need for dark matter or energy, no wave-particle duality, no Copenhagen interpretation and the most important scale invariance. However in my case the scale invariance means an universal metric (that I am looking for and it is not FLRW or Einstein metric as they are not really universal).

    The Schrödinger's and Einstein's ideas of true waves were similar but they were too early in history and their visions were burdened with the yoke of the ether and another initial problems and eventually destroyed for barely 90 years.

    In my essay I have tried to focus more on the contest subject so I have not described fully my concept and it can be found in references. I have created the prediction and the experiment proposal based on the spacetime geometry.

    As I have mentioned I understand that our ideas are far from identical but as Einstein said "fundamental ideas play the most essential role in forming a physical theory. Books on physics are full of complicated mathematical formulae. But thought and ideas, not formulae, are the beginning of every physical theory. The ideas must later take the mathematical form of a quantitative theory, to make possible the comparison with experiment."

    I have rated your essay 10 so you shall take the first place at the moment (with Community Rating 7)! Congratulations.

      I have rated you with 10, but you do not have 7 and only 5,3. Probably the method of rating calculation is more complicated?

      Jacek,

      Thank you for your comments and your rating (which I think should be kept confidential!).

      In terms of the role of physical intuition vs. abstract formalism, Einstein also commented, "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. "

      Alan

      Leo,

      Thank you for your interest and your comments. I will review your proposal related to the Stern-Gerlach experiment.

      Alan

      Alan,

      It's good to see you present another perspective on your theory. We agree in many particulars, but not all. I found your discussion of linearly polarized single photons intriguing. You say:

      "This linearly polarized light beam is attenuated until the very low count rate corresponds to discrete single photons. But can one really distinguish that from counterrotating photon pairs?"

      Are you ignoring the 'herald' photons, or are you suggesting that, even with the herald's trigger, another photon accompanies the heralded photon?

      Best,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      I am sorry Alan, the rating should be kept confidential. I was too enthusiastic.

      Edwin,

      Thank you for pointing out the importance of "heralded photons" in single-photon experiments. For those unfamiliar with this, many modern single-photon experiments (including those that address quantum entanglement and Bell's inequalities) are actually done using a source that emits a correlated pair of photons at the same time, in different directions. One member of this pair is used as a trigger, while the other is used in the measurement of interest. This increases the signal-to-noise ratio.

      I have suggested that a state identified as a linearly polarized single photon may actually be a simultaneous overlapping pair of circularly polarized (CP) photons. For heralded photons, the source would need to produce two such CP pairs, one of which is used as a trigger and the other for the measurement. I am not (yet) asserting that this will explain all of the experimental results that point to quantum entanglement, but this may represent a new "loophole" in the interpretation that has not yet been closed. Further, there is a new class of single-photon detectors that can accurately measure the energy of an absorbed photon, and such a detector could clearly distinguish the absorption of a single photon from that of two photons at the same time.

      Alan

        Alan,

        I did not know about the new detector capabilities. It will be fascinating to see if they measure two photons. I hope you are correct, as I too prefer only circular polarization.

        Best,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        .Alan, I can agree with much that you write, I have raised a simple information-relativity paradox hoping that it will become equally legendary as the 20th century paradoxes in physics.

        Recent results in quantum communication, i.e. entangled photons, are in fact an embarrassment to the relativists. You must also remember sitting in an enclosed elevator ones view becomes rather incestuous. I am looking forward to exiting change in science it will come one way or another.

        13 days later

        Alan, nice essay. I'd just like to point out that current technology is capable of determining whether black holes are possible. Unless there is something seriously wrong with the scientific establishment, there should be some resolution to the question of black holes by the end of the decade. The missions proposed will be as historic as Eddington's nearly a century ago, whatever the outcome. We live in interesting times.

        For example, the Laser Astrometric Test Of Relativity (LATOR) would be capable of duplicating Eddington's measurement of deflection of starlight due to the Sun except with much greater accuracy using laser interferometry. The predicted accuracy is enough to measure the second order term in the expansion of your equation (5) which would be negative in the case of general relativity, and positive with twice the magnitude for the metric in your essay. Yet another choice is the exponential metric which has a positive second order term equal in magnitude to that of general relativity and is an approach I think you would find interesting. In my last year's essay there is a novel derivation based on a modern reformulation of Newtonian gravitational potential energy. -Colin

          Colin,

          You make an excellent point. What distinguishes science from pure philosophy is that science is subject to experimental or observational tests that may contradict a theory or interpretation. However, showing that a particular theory is consistent with the given evidence does not prove that the theory will be correct in other regimes. As new evidence becomes available, we should be prepared for surprises that may alter our understanding of the universe.

          Alan

          4 days later
          • [deleted]

          Dear Alan,

          You wrote "the concept of absolute Newtonian time is contrary to physical evidence". While I am inclined to again appreciate some of your heretical thoughts, I would like to know what evidence you referred to.

          It happens I share Paul's view: We may blame Einstein for adopting from Poincaré or perhaps his teacher Alfred Potier a principle of synchronization that was only correct on condition there is no relative motion between emitter A and reflector B. Otherwise it destroys the symmetry and synchrony between A and B. Einstein made the next mistake when he calculated with c+v and c-v and arrived at the unfounded conclusion that two events that are simultaneous if seen from one coordinate system must not be considered simultaneous if seen from a coordinate system in relative motion to it. Actually, it is only reasonable to attribute the velocity of light to the distance between the position of the emitter at the moment of emission and the position of the detector at the moment of detection divided by the time of flight.

          Regards,

          Eckard

          10 days later

          Alan,

          A very enjoyable read, not just as it's well written and argued but because I agree with not only your thesis but most of the detail. In may ways our essays firmly support each other as they have many basics in common, founded on the power of orbital angular momentum (OAM).

          Your approach is well balanced between the theoretic and physical. If anything mine errs more to the physical and experimental proofs, but also delves into some more fundamental limits on mathematical applications to QM. I think you may understand and like my 'test' of OAM and the principles discussed for resolving power in the EPR paradox. I suspect and fear the resolution may be beyond the power of many others to follow. I greatly look forward to your comments.

          Best of luck in the contest. I think the essay certainly deserves a much higher score that it so far carries. A sad indictment on something or other!

          Best wishes

          Peter Jackson