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]

      • Post #27

      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

        Peter,

        Thank you for your comments. I will read your essay carefully. Regarding Community Ratings, I have been keeping track of the individual ratings on my essay, and the distribution is bimodal - 1 and 2 alternating with much higher numbers. I suspect that the low scores may come from people who do not read past the unconventional assertions in the abstract.

        Alan

        Dear Alan,

        I think it is important to look for a consistent picture of Quantum Mechanics, in particular of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), how do you do it. But I think, too, that every attempt to solve the wave-particle duality in favor of a wave-like or particle-like picture does not work.

        You may be successful to a certain degree but at the end you will be faced with unsolvable problems, because wave-particle duality is a semi-fundamental feature of reality, which reflects a deeper still unseen logical duality of the ultimate foundational background (i.e. the quantum vacuum).

        As QED is a theory in that special relativity is built into each of its equations, special relativity is one of its crucial points. Einstein's theory determines essentially our view and understanding of Lorentz symmetry.

        But if we go back to the time when Einstein formulated special relativity, we can see, he tried to explain away the wave-particle duality that was already touched by this theory.

        According to A. Pais it is indeed a very striking characteristic of Einstein's early scientific writing that he left relativity theory separate from quantum theory, even on occasions where it would have been natural and straightforward to connect them. This separation is already evident in his paper on special relativity. It contains the transformation law for the energy E of a light beam, which Einstein commented in an unusual way: 'It is remarkable that the energy and the frequency of a light complex vary with the state of motion of the observer in accordance with the same law.'

        This statement is unusual insofar as Einstein had completed his light quantum paper concerning just this issue three months earlier. It was thus a good opportunity to refer to the quantum relation between energy and frequency of light, which must have been quite fresh in his mind. But Einstein did not use this opportunity...

        But there is an aspect in special relativity that has been overlooked since 1905 - an aspect, that is of fundamental importantce. If light is really of dual nature, one would expect, that the speed of light c is also of dual nature, which means, the speed of light c should exist in a wave-like and in a particle-like way - an assumption which I am calling the "Dual Parametrization of c".

        But if we consider special relativity, in particular its second postulate, we can easily see, in Einstein's theory the speed of light c is only defined in a wave-like manner - without any (explicit) reference to a particle-like supplement.

        And just this dual nature of c can be expressed in a "space-time-picture" whose Lorentz symmetry differs significantly from the relativistic version.

        I am convinced that this new space-time-picture allows us to avoid many problems caused by the usual Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics.

        Though you are explicitly relating to the relativistic spacetime, your picture of a rotating vector field could possibly be a part of this new dualistic space-time-picture. Actually it is composed of a circle (= wave-like part of c) and a square (= particle-like part of c). In other words: It looks very much like a MANDALA, which is in its essence a specific vectorfield.

        Helmut,

        I appreciate your comments, and I agree that prior attempts to resolve wave-particle duality were unsuccessful. However, my essay shows explicitly how macroscopic particle trajectories may be derived from microscopic quantum waves, even including relativistic time effects. This approach avoids the conventional quantum indeterminacy which is incompatible with general relativity. There are no point particles; on a microscopic level, everything consists of distributed relativistic rotating vector fields with quantized spin. These can be fully visualized in real space; there is no mysterious nonlocal quantum entanglement. Yes, this is quite unconventional, but appears to be consistent with the real physical foundations of both quantum mechanics and relativity. This could have been proposed in the early days of QM, but apparently never was.

        Alan

        12 days later

        Dear Alan M. Kadin

        You've found our common problems : "The foundations of modern physics are neither consistent nor unified".But if the conclusion is : "The New Quantum Paradigm provides a logically consistent foundation for all of physics,and reestablishes the classical guiding principles of local reality and determinism."can be enough for us to solve all the problems of the theory on reality platform?what is the specific answers for problems on our topics ?

        http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

          7 days later

          Dear Alan,

          Nice to see such an original approach. Away from the contest I utilise geometry to explain spin and quantum entanglement as hidden fixed constants, so appreciated something along the lines which you work.

          Also, despite my essay concluding differently, I like that you are one of the few who opt for Bit from It, as I feel too many assume the opposite.

          Refreshing read!

          Best wishes,

          Antony

            Alan

            What do you thinking about variation rest mass of proton and electron?

            http://vixra.org/pdf/1212.0080v3.pdf

            Regards

            Yuri

              Yuri,

              With regard to the rest masses of elementary particles, I am suggesting that these decrease in a gravitational field, at least as far as their long-range gravitational influence outside the field. However, because of the slowing of the local clocks inside the field, any local measurements will obtain the standard unmodified values of the rest masses. That is a subtle but important distinction.

              Alan

              Antony,

              Thank you for your comments. From general principles, I am convinced that information needs to be based on something physical, a real representation in the real world. That was certainly the case with classical physics, and I believe that the more modern efforts at giving quantum mechanics magical and mysterious properties divorced from real pictures was unnecessary and misleading.

              Alan

              Hoang,

              This is the final sentence in the Conclusion of my Essay:

              In response to the essay question: "It from Bit, or Bit from It? ", this essay comes down decisively in support of the latter; all physical information flows from real objects in real space.

              Alan

              4 days later

              Alan,

              If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

              Jim

              Dear Alan,

              It was interesting to read about your NQP. Could you kindly point me to some of your work that contains the mathematics of NQP - I would be interested in reading about it.

              Do you find any parallels between NQP and Bohmian mechanics?

              One issue is not clear to me: if I understood you right, you make a distinction between elementary and composite objects, and you say that microscopic composites do not exhibit Schrodinger cat states. Now we know that experiments do show double slit interference for composites such as atoms, fullerenes and even heavier molecules. Now the interference pattern does not `know' whether the incoming particles are elementary or composite. Qualitatively, the pattern is the same in both cases. If I understand you right, if the incoming particles are electrons you use superposition to explain interference. But if these are composites, you use an explanation other than superposition. I wonder why this should be so, and what this different explanation is. All this is explained in your essay I think - I haven't grasped it though.

              Regards,

              Tejinder