Dear Peter

You have a bold idea to explain Bell experiment differenty. But, I did not understand everything. I suggest that you try with a simpler explanations, maybe also with animation. How it is related with hidden varibles?

Otherwise, it seems to me, that your explanation is not simpler and better than the orthodox explanation. I like the orthodox idea that something does not exist if there is not an observer. But, I claim that orthodox explanation of quantum mechanics is not complete. (One argument is that consciousness should also be explained by QM.) Unorthodox theories are useful also as a better visualiziation of an ortodox explanation.

One example, what I think as a better visualisiation, is my explanation of special theory of relativity:

Better visualization of special theory of relativity, PDF, viXra page.

Better visualization of special theory of relativity, viXra page.

But the basic intention of this contest is that we read and comment essays of each other. We do this job for our essays.

Best regards

JK FQXi pdf file

JK FQXi web site

    Hi Peter,

    I just rated your essay. It is entertaining and relevant to the future. Fix physics and one changes the future of humanity. You approach physics very differently than do I. What is not different is that I agree that physics needs fixing. As usual, you showed up well prepared to argue your case. The '1's appear to be in large supply this year. You are weathering that storm very ably. Perhaps it feels something like your yachting story? Congratulations on getting your viewpoint heard. Your hard work and perseverance are admired and respected. If you are correct, I wish you quick success.

    James Putnam

      John,

      Thank you kindly. Your own insights into quantum optics and the real coherent meaning of Minkowski Space-Time are invaluable sections of the foundations of the simple model of 'scattering at c' underlying the discrete field dynamics leading to this discovery.

      Perhaps even one day the Johns Hopkins University Minkowski memorial lecture in honour of your forebear might even be on the subject of this 'discrete field' model (DFM) of 'joined-up-physics'.

      Now if only somebody was 'in charge of' physics it might have some direction. But then it seems that's as likely to be the wrong direction. The current patched up and disjointed 'camel' of a racehorse design which present theory represents surely can't be clung onto by it's riders for much further! It seems weighed down by too many Arabic symbols. Is it a sandstorm or blinkers that stops them seeing the thoroughbred stallion waiting patiently? Was 2020 optimistic?

      Best wishes

      Peter

      • [deleted]

      • Post #64

      Janko,

      Animation would be brilliant. I haven't yet found anyone with the skills who doesn't want a heap of money. The explanation is not just simpler and better but it's the ONLY classical option (including Joy Christians mathematical model which he admits isn't a 'theory').

      Consider this 'in a nutshell' explanation; Surface 'orbital velocity' of a sphere (say Earth) varies with latitude by the cosine of the angle from the equatorial plane. 'Measurement' is transfer of that orbital angular momentum on meeting another body, and 'direction' depends on which hemisphere (the axis can be rotated by rotating the magnetic field to present either north or south hemisphere).

      Now applying that simple and self apparent dynamic geometry reproduces ALL the so called spooky quantum correlations, circumventing Bell's theorem. Of course there is more but that is the core. Is that simpler?

      I think the terms; 'non-/ orthodox' are often a misnomer. Theories may be better termed more or less consistent (or inconsistent - as current) or 'old' or 'doctrinal' and 'hypothesised'. Because most physicist will automatically reject all with the label 'unorthodox'.

      Your SR link sounds on the right track, with 'time dilation', simply Doppler shift, but I'll get logged out if I read it now! It may have to be after reading essays. I started from a more coherent SR, so if you have more time do see my prev essays starting from;

      http://www.academia.edu/3715718/2020_Vision._The_Discrete_Field_Model._ 2011_FQXi_Competition finalist

      I suspect there's much in common. The postulates survive in the DFM, showing most have been looking in the wrong place. Light changes speed to the local c on arrival in the detector system domain, not before.

      Best of luck in the competition.

      Very best wishes.

      Peter

      Damn! it got me anyway. Why does the 'logged in' note at the foot of the page tell mistruths?! - perhaps as it's based on 'orthodox' assumptions?

      Peter

      James,

      Thanks. 'Heard' is one thing. 'Remembered', 'applied' or 'assimilated' are in quite another category. In fact after posting in the arXiv web archive it seems somebody has 'had a word' and now they behave the same as journal editors and academia; put up the shutters.

      It's clear something is VERY seriously wrong in the state of physics if a more coherent falsifiable hypothesis than a present ruling paradigms is entirely excluded and subjugated without study just because it's slightly at variance.

      Doug Singleton is certainly correct, but his words seem no more than that, just words as when tested he appears to step straight back into line and look away (see above and his blog).

      But you know my strategy and time-scale. 2020 may not be entirely realistic but it's a target at least. I always was an optimist! Shame about the billions wasted in the interim when it could be better employed for advancement, and the esteem of science ever slipping, but I'm not sure what else I can do alone.

      I'm very grateful for your support, and that of everybody able to rationalise the logic.

      I didn't get a response from Margaret. I'm resistant to scoring those who don't bother to engage or show respect of those who comment by answering or reading other essays. Particularly for those scoring well it gives the impression of arrogance, which is a big part of the problem. I'll check again.

      Best of luck in the coming stormy run for home!

      Peter

      Peter,

      Please find at my discussion thread what I can say about the cosine transformation. In your essay, I didn't find the word cosine in combination with cosine transformation.

      It is not my style to be excited about vaguely alluded or claimed things that could possibly fit to my own premature ideas. That's why in particular the too many details in your Figs. 2 and 3 are difficult to read for me.

      I wonder why you didn't at all mention what I consider crucial to Einstein's relativity: his synchronization. Weren't my Figs. 1 and 2 easily readable?

      Eckard

      peter

      I appreciate your essay , very philodophical but also with a specific techological demonstartion.

      Only question what type of humans would Bob and Alice be in their future timeline.

      Best

      Giorgio

        Dear Peter,

        i read your essay and the previous comments.

        There you make a strong claim against Bell's theorem (Bell-type theorems).

        You claim your model reproduces all quantum correlations:

        "Now applying that simple and self apparent dynamic geometry reproduces ALL the so called spooky quantum correlations, circumventing Bell's theorem."

        I have a question:

        How can your model reproduce these experiments with double-apertures:

        http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.64.2495

        http://www.univie.ac.at/qfp/publications3/pdffiles/1985-03.pdf

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1986.tb12449.x/abstract;jsessionid=CDA764C3755620AD75B273323974B124.d03t01

        Looking forward to read from you.

        Stefan Weckbach

          Peter,

          Thanks for your comments on my essay. Some people seem to be putting up a good argument for dealing with intellectual shortcomings by having a cull, including by their actions! (I'm sure you know to whom I refer). Rather like quantum theory; the most effective solution is the least acceptable and vice versa.

          I've been somewhat shocked by the state of intellectual application and ethics but some shine out like beacons, including yourself. Congratulations at your 3rd position. Perhaps more understand that you feared. A ray of light through the murk to help steer the way?

          Judy

          Georgio,

          Thank you. They would be more rounded I suspect, but entangled on multiple levels. Perhaps the important question is; Could they help steer mankind when the very concept seems like herding cats.

          P

          • [deleted]

          • Post #72

          Stefan,

          I show circumvention rather than disproof. The difference is that his logic stands as a sound tautology for the scenario he set out. He recognised a number of ways around it (5?), including the 'so what' option which I invoke. To do so I use a different (hidden) starting assumption; that rather than QAM being "reducible" to a singlet state it retains BOTH states but we can only 'measure' one at a time.

          For this to work requires a few more effects, principally

          a) Propagation on spin axis (implicit as a 'particle' may also be an analogy of gauged wavefront helical fluctuations) so each 'half' is led by a different 'pole'. (I don't get too technical about wave interferance in the essay).

          b) Electron spin flip. Taken direct from the QO shelf to fit a big gap in QM - i.e. the detector field/electron spin flips with magnetic field direction.

          c) Measurement as exchange of OAM. Again 'off the shelf' with Malus' Law.

          d) Non mirror symmetry of spin, ditto. (opposite and not 'monople' rotation).

          Simply; Angular momentum as orbital speed at different latitudes then precisely reproduces the cosine curves (Inequality violations), including each with multiple spheres and with all degrees of freedom of axial rotation (cos^2). (Nearby harmonic resonance at

          Dear Peter

          I enjoyed reading your A&B adventure. As you might know, your clear and visual description is not very likely to be considered by a system feeding on a conjecture without, not only visual, mathematical or logical, but without any interpretation :) The fearless truth wants to be asked anything, because the fearless truth wants to draw everything. On the other hand, the Standard model is all about how to avoid being questioned. Einstein's definition of insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again and expecting different results... Although invented by thinkers, nowadays Standard model turned into repetition of a repetition, falling into a loop of being purpose of itself struggling for its own existence... Anyone who can visualise does not except explanations which cannot be visualized. Anyone who is sane, and who has the slightest idea about fractals, concludes that the Big Show of searching for the smallest division in nature is flourishing of non-alive technology but degeneration of living thought. It is the expensive game of big toys for little boys, sending as a very special message...

          As written by the Nobel Prize winner, Leon Lederman, the age of reaching for the truth purely by thinking of the phenomenon, drawing geometry on sand, the time of Tales, Pythagoras or Archimedes is an issue of some distant and in scientific terms more primitive past... Nowadays, says Lederman the truth is revealed by machines... In other words, exclude the creative thinking and switch on the accelerator... and if you cannot afford it, tuff luck, you are too primitive to be a scientist :)

          Regards

          andrej

            Andrej,

            A very perceptive analysis. I couldn't draw my geometry on the sand anyway as there are now too many heads in it. I did ask them last year, while they were there, to see if they could find two identical grains, they couldn't. Now I fear they fear what they may see by looking elsewhere.

            I still pin my hopes on an inlet by 2020 (as my 2011 essay). I feel we must retain some optimism. In the meantime I'll go sailing.

            Thank you and best wishes

            Peter

            Peter,

            Certainly one of the more serious entries this year. Even if the establishment wants to find fault, the ideas surely deserve a fair hearing with all the hard work that has gone into this. Its something to read again and again although my interest in this area is currently not high. I posted on the 'Ripping Einstein Apart' blog about what you wrote on the Michelson-Gale experiment. I think you should do a short and focused critique of that MGP experiment and post somewhere on the web for posterity. When I say focused and short, not with a view to sell your pet DFM, of which understandably you are the No.1 salesman! :)

            All the best

            Akinbo

            Dear Peter,

            thank you for your comments.

            Another question:

            Is the total angular momentum of your twin-particle-system conserved (means momentum conservation)?

            Stefan

              Stefan,

              The total momentum is conserved but I'm not sure about the total 'angular' momentum as some may be converted and also there are too many gauges. We may need to know how far away infinity is. The model (as last years 'IQbit' proof) anyway says we can only ever 'approximate' anything (as Godel, Chaos, Fractals etc).

              To visualise; take two spinning gyro's/spheres (donuts will do) and keep touching them against each other while turning each axis through both (360^o) 'degrees of rotational freedom'. Whatever the relative orientations the change in OAM transfer should be by the cosine^2 of the rotation angle, an extraordinary finding I suspect. Of course it's still only a model of a more complex resonance process.

              Of course the photomultiplyers may also be sinks, and some of the energy is converted into sound ('click!').

              Have you ever considered how to account for the energy of dark energy when it condenses fermion pairs through the Higgs process (not to mention the photoelectric effect/ photoionization, Unruh effect etc.) and then annihilates (over the Debye length). I'm not at all sure we could keep up!

              Does any of that sound the slightest bit sensible? Or similar to doctrine? If we could make it look a bit more like doctrine do you think we might slip it in unnoticed for a health check while their guard's down?

              Best wishes

              Peter

              Peter,

              I finally have got around to reading your essay. I rsoon ealized that I do indeed need to brush up on my physics. Too may years spent explaining to the big world in what feels like, a totally different language.

              Your "new ways to think" comment perked me up. But is your message simply that nothing can be done till humanity understands nature better? or till Bob and Alice do finally get 'entangled'.

              But, maybe, all you are really saying is that humanity has the time before it must do something to get the future it desires: estimated 200 years from the 1850s i.e. 2050 or so. If so, I'm taking a long overdue vacation.

              Thanks for the humor to lighten up the physics.

              Looking forward to your comments on my comments and my essay here

              - Ajay

              Ajay,

              Message 1) is that understanding must be improved to progress. Message 2) is that a new 'non Earth-centric' way to think is needed to achieve that progress, and it's possible now. I tried to show 2 in a more subliminal way, showing the hidden importance of there being "no UP in space" and the power of that next 'Copernican' step away from how we use our on-board quantum computers.

              The demonstration of that is the entirely classical reproduction of 'QM correlations', circumventing Bell's theorem. It uses 'joined-up-physics' by applying various important elements (i.e. electron 'spin flip') to expose a coherent geometrical solution to the EPR paradox. No spookyness or FTL nonsense required.

              It's a fundamental breakthrough because the same mechanism also applies to SR (light speed changes to local c on arrival and interaction not before!) which allows complete harmonious unification of SR and QM, in 'absolute' time, but with Doppler shiftable 'signals' once emitted (see my prev essays from '2020 Vision in 2011). For that reason it'll probably never be countenanced by any who can't think beyond current doctrine. Unfortunately that seems to be very few so far. I think you caught a first glimpse, far clearer than the established language? A 2nd read often seems necessary.

              I'll read you essay asap.

              Thanks for the comments.

              Peter

                Hi Peter

                I just read your work, which I found very creative, imaginative and well organized. I had to read it twice to grasp the details. I was about to ask you the connection with the main topic of this contest because you slightly touch it in your essay, but I realized that Ajay had a similar doubt. So, just by reading your reply to him I understand better the philosophy behind your work.

                There is a widespread belief, perhaps promoted by popular science books, that there is a conflict between SR and QM, in particular with the case of entanglement. In a recent article published by Susskind and Maldacena (arxiv: 1306.0533v2) they discuss that neither wormholes nor entanglement can be used to send signals faster than light, meaning that there is no violation of causality (no spooky action at a distance).

                I have studied the case of entanglement, spin and other quantum mechanical phenomena. You may know that there are many versions of QM. At least I'm aware of 5 of them. Among this I found Bohmian mechanics the most consistent, although due to the additional pilot-equation is not well accepted by the physics community. You may wish to take a look at the advantages over conventional QM in wikipedia. Some authors have suggested that there is a 4 dimension to explain the 720 degrees rotation. In the four dimension this is seen as a regular rotation. Unfortunately, at this moment I don't remember the reference, but it is not difficult to find it in the web.

                I see that you are getting good rating and I think your works deserves it. I wish you good luck in the contest!

                Best Regards

                Israel