If seeking the truth is the purpose of this FQXi $160,000 grant, why not use a fraction of this to confirm or refute the experiment Eric Reiter did showing gamma rays are not particles? While wishing Joseph Emerson well, I am eager for Eric Reiter's experiment to be confined to dustbin or otherwise.

Regards,

Akinbo

It does not follow that because quantum theory needs tweaking that relativity can withstand tweaking. If some tweaking of quantum theory falsifies relativity -- now, that would be news. I'm not holding my breath.

    Welding Quantum theory and Einstein's relativity together has so far being unworkable. One reason being that Quantum theory seems to accept that at the smallest of scales, space (or spacetime as some insist) is discrete. While Relativity says it is continuous. Therefore, if experiment and tweaking confirms the discreteness, then it follows that Relativity is merely an approximation that will ultimately breakdown and hopefully Tom this will not seize your breath. I pray not.

    Akinbo

    Tom,

    "It does not follow that...relativity can withstand tweaking. If some tweaking of quantum theory falsifies relativity -- now, that would be news." I've suggested 'tweaking' the postulates not "falsifying relativity" matches a tweaked QM.

    and Akinbo; "Welding Quantum theory and Einstein's relativity together has so far being unworkable." True, but you haven't falsified my identification of how to successfully do so;

    It the 'exciting' result of boring rationalism. In it's simplest form; If Atomic scattering (absorption and re-emission) re-emits at speed 'c' in the emitting particles rest frame, and it's spin axis harmonics (PMD) influence refraction, than we can find a common coherent description of SR and QM.

    The scattering to local 'c' explains the CSL found in all observations involving interactions (i.e. all but trigonometrically), and the re-emissions with spin orientated on the propagation axis (so 'INVERSELY RELATED' when 'split' and sent off at 180 degrees) then logically produce the 'relative detector electron spin angle' correlations we presently ascribe to spooky 'non-locality' (as well as the intervening cosine distribution).

    OK it certainly may be that the derivation isn't fully understood, either as it hasn't been studies or as I haven't simply enough explained it, but it's then still not true to say that convergence has; "so far being unworkable", only that it "has not yet been fully understood" by most! A little more effort will overcome that. Are we all just too lazy to bother?

    By the way, final result 2:2 draw. Einstein's Postulates agree with Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation. Propagation at max 'c' is confirmed, as is Heisenburg's uncertainty at the hyperfine; 'next quantum gauge down'. Even the ref wins!; Bell's anticipation of how his 'theorem' would be circumvented is also proved correct (prev. posted Quotes available).

    Best wishes

    Peter

    James Franson - "It is good to repeat the experiment with particles that have mass; that might change the results."

    Assuming that there is no mass at any moment in the emission pulse of a photon. jrc

    " ... if experiment and tweaking confirms the discreteness, then it follows that Relativity is merely an approximation that will ultimately breakdown and hopefully Tom this will not seize your breath. I pray not."

    Oh yeah? I think you protest and pray too much.

    It does not follow that relativity is an approximation to a hypothetical quantum foundation -- because one cannot derive a continuous function of correlated events from discrete probabilistic measures, without ad hoc assumptions. The converse holds, however -- one can derive discrete correlations from continuous functions, complete and without ad hoc assumptions.

    9 days later

    Repeating the same experiment over and over again and expecting a different result is some kind of definition of insanity.

    Look, we know how light and matter interferometers work and they are quite useful for lots of cool stuff. What we do not need is yet another version of quantum entanglement to mess with people's classical minds.

    How about an earth-moon gravity beamsplitter a the Lagrange point? Now, that would be a novel device and would help the poor gravitologists see the light of quantumology...or the other way around.

    gravity beamsplitter

      "How about an earth-moon gravity beamsplitter a the Lagrange point? Now, that would be a novel device and would help the poor gravitologists see the light of quantumology...or the other way around."

      I actually suggested such a thing in one FQXi essay. I'm afraid the theory and evidence is in favor of "gravitology."

      I liked your multidimensional time...but only up to two time dimensions. Time with greater than four dimensions seems like a stretch. But having a proper time along with an atomic time does seem to work.

      I did not actually see you mention that coherent particles might coexist in at the earth moon lagrange point, but you did seem to use phase coherence in your approach. Therefore you can't be that devout of a gravitologist after all.

      I think this experiment would show the integration of GR and QM because of the earth-moon orbital decay and both would win. There will be variations in the earth moon decay that will be due to matter waves in the galaxy, like the 11.4 yr solar cycle and any magnetar activity as well as supernovas and so on. A Lagrange gravity interferometer should be extremely sensitive to such things.

      a month later

      Any who don't believe in spooks may like this more down-to-Earth way of explaining 'QM's predictions'. The same skills required for self assembling a wardrobe are needed (but without locking yourself in or falling asleep inside). All components and step by step instructions are here under test. Do please just post any questions, comments or apparent falsifications here.

      The model (developing my 2014 essay) suggests Joseph Emerson's view (as Einstein and Bell) is correct in that there's "a different way of understanding the quantum world that allows for truth to exist independent of our experiments."

      In this case the 'existent truth' is the findings of a blindfolded observer asked to touch a spinning sphere with his finger and record if the spin is; 'up or down' and; 'clockwise or anticlockwise' each on a scale of 1-10.

      The prediction is that whatever point on the sphere his finger touches he'll find each quality varies inversely with the other. An analysis of the momentum transferred at each touch (surface speed) will violate the Bell inequalities by producing a distribution varying with 'latitude' by the square of the cosine of the angle from the pole (and inversely from the equatorial plane) reversing at 90o in each case. So when Alice flips her modulator field direction setting at the last instant, it's HER result that 'reverses', not Bob's non-local' one!

      Apply with care.

      Quasi-classical Entanglement, Superposition and Bell Inequalities.

      An additional figure showing the Cos2 distribution derived from surface momentum exchanged on an interaction ('measurement or not) is attached, also explaining Malus' law. (Note that while causality is recovered absolute determinism at higher orders is not).

      For those who like formulation we seem to have a joint probability distribution in standard notation something like; p(A1 B1 |a,b, l b,a, l) = p(A2 B2 |a,b, l b,a, l) = p(A1 B2 |a,a, l b,b l) = p(A2 B1 |a,a, l b,b l) = 1. If that's complete nonsense do please let me know.

      Thanks, and Best wishes.

      Peter JacksonAttachment #1: 1_Latitudinal_Cosines..jpg

      Write a Reply...