Thanks for you very interesting line of thought.

I've added you book to my cart in Amazon. It seems this book is on point for this topic. Because I order books for free shipping in batches, I'll look into other books to order - This book is #4.

What is the web address of your FQXi paper on treating the ``wave medium'' of QM and gravity?

I also tend to view mapping (transformation) formulations with great skepticism. As you demonstrated in examining Bell's theorem, such math can allow many unrecognized assumptions to creep in. I add they also allow many unphysical operations such as division by zero or even division itself. Often the easy way of considering division the inverse of a multiply mapping operation leads to complexity that may be difficult to see the physical unreality of the conclusion. The map may not even represent the territory.

Do instruments that measure objects we do not directly sense (such as an electric field) expand the territory? That is, is the map really math and physics (a human study) combined (human description or words) about the territory of the universe (physical world)? Your text body first paragraph says this I think. But this is slightly different than the abstract.

It seems you introduce the concept of zero and equality as problems in mapping. These are easy when dealing with just counting. But when units of measure are attached, things get trickier. One of the problems I had in undergrad was mixing up the units of measure. I wonder if all of physics has this problem or the allied problem of slightly changing the definition of parameters during the derivation. Is this the issue you're addressing?

Would you're development of \theta also apply the cosmological constant Einstein introduced, also to make the map agree with his assumed physical reality? Could this be argued to question general relativity mapping? Yes, I know later physics has found a use for such a constant. But the later use is the same as the original use - an ad hoc introduction to make agreement.

    Edwin,

    You are correct that the topic is fairly complex. My understanding of the distinction between SG and EPR was that SG established two spin states and that EPR established that distance was not a consideration when considering entanglement. Thank you for any clarification. I've read your essay a second time.

    Your Equation 2 interests me. It looks to me like it is almost a quaternion although you have written it so as to have the gradient multiplied by dx produce a scalar value rather than a vector. I will ask you to consider it in terms of Equation 1 in my essay. When Bell divided by the absolute value of the cosine, it looks like that simply normalizes the cosine over cosine term to be plus or minus one. One of the interesting features of quaternions is that pre-multiplication and post-multiplication have different results. It is also possible to add together conjugates to eliminate the vector term and thereby simplify an expression to be a scalar.

    The energy conservation requirement is something that I understood that Bell had abandoned. My understanding was that Bell allows for energy to be briefly "borrowed" and that is the basis for quantum foam and such things. Perhaps the vacuum also makes car loans? Some things I will probably never understand.

    Regarding a moving apparatus for SG ... Yes, I believe that there would be an effect. I think that the separation distance between the two groups of atoms would be affected. Essentially, I think that spin is the result of absolute motion through the vacuum. I am one of those aether heretics. I simply cannot wrap my mind around action at a distance without some type of intervening medium. I can parrot the words and symbols but I simply don't understand it. I also recognize that experimental proof is required. An aether must add something to Physics. One of the papers that I have posted to viXra discusses this possibility.

    One of the things that I appreciate regarding a forum such as this is the chance to have some of these ideas from modern Physics clarified. I am also glad to have them challenged.

    Best Regards,

    Gary Simpson

    John,

    Thanks for your well thought out comments.

    First: my FQXi paper on QM 'wave medium' and gravity is The Nature of the Wave Function. If I were to rewrite this 2012 paper today a few things would change. At the time I used Tajmar's experiment to assume a very large factor multiplying gravito-magnetism. I have since realized that self-interactive (nonlinear) feedback can yield such large factors, but they are not constant. A graph of the nonlinear behavior is shown on page 6 of my 2013 FQXi Essay: Gravity and the Nature of Information. This is a much better solution than the large constant that no one else had been able to replicate. It also partakes of the nature of iterative self-interactive feedback, which is suggestive of the feedback loops you propose. One conclusion I have reached is that, while I value our intuition very highly, non-linear feedback tends to be outside the bounds of our intuition.

    I certainly agree with you that skepticism is called for when considering mapping (transformation) formulations, and, in the worst case, the induced complexity can lead to difficulty in seeing the physical on reality of the conclusion. My current essay describes a case in point.

    I have reviewed my abstract and first paragraph and I did not see exactly what you're referring to. If you could expand on your comment I would be happy to address it.

    I certainly agree that the concept of zero and equality are much easier to deal with when just counting. As you noted, the discrete aspects of reality support counting and algebra, while continuity supports geometry. My main point here was that, after introducing "distance" as an easy-to-produce numerical measure (based on simple logic machines), distance = 0 is essentially 'identity', when considering distances between entities of interest.

    My essay focuses on Bell's (hidden) constraints that he imposes due to his choice of the wrong map, given two very similar appearing maps. In reading other essays here it's occurred to me that general relativity may have similar 'hidden' constraints. I plan to think more about this.

    Thanks again for your comments and your essay. I think our basic ideas and goals are very similar, but I'm sure we differ in details.

    My best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Gary,

    I can only thank you for reading my essay a second time. I've always found it necessary to read and reread complex topics, if I wanted to understand them. You are correct that equation 2 in my essay produces a scalar, since (non-relativistic) energy is pure scalar, versus the energy/momentum of relativity. I will think about your eq 1.

    You're also correct that Bell's division of cosine theta by the absolute value of cosine theta produces +1 and -1, which has the effect of supporting the constraints he imposes on the experiment while suppressing all physics associated with theta, as I develop. I am generally familiar (not facile) with quaternions. I have put more effort into Geometric Algebra, and rate it highly.

    Although I don't think that Bell depends much on 'borrowing' from 'quantum foam', I very much appreciate your remark about car loans. I have elsewhere noted that (some) physicists seem to believe in 'unlimited credit' when borrowing energy from the 'vacuum'. Unless one believes in 'long-distance borrowing', I have shown that local borrowing of energy does not produce the amount of energy assumed. Nor does it make sense.

    In many of my essays I have focused on gravito-magnetism as a physical reality that is vastly overlooked. As I mentioned to John Hodges below, the self-interactive nonlinear nature of this field yields unexpected results. The relevance to your comment is that the basic equation, which falls out of general relativity or a simple extension to Newton's equation (actually first made by Maxwell and worked out by Heaviside), produces a circulation in the field (spin) simply from the momentum vector. So I agree with you that spin results from absolute motion through the vacuum.

    On the other hand there is really no empty vacuum if gravity is present everywhere in the universe. I tend to view the gravitational field as the aether, rather than postulate a new physical field. My goal as a physicist is more towards reducing the number of fields in physics, whereas for decades now the trend seems to have been to add a new field whenever a new problem arises. Apparently that's what quantum field theory will do for you, if you're not careful.

    Thanks again for reading and commenting Gary,

    Best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Edwin, When I look up the map and territory metaphor in Wikipedia they link it to the elephant metaphor that I used, so we should have something in common. However as you pointed out in your comment to my essay we actually think in completely the opposite way!

    For you the physical world comes first and is unique while mathematics emerges in its many forms. For me the mathematical world is a unique structure from which many possible physical realities emerge. To you our intuition is to be trusted while for me it is something to fight against.

    Well sometimes it is more useful to read the words of people who see things differently in order to challenge our ideas so I try to imagine seeing things your way. I like your use of cluster analysis to understand the way the emergence works.

    Your arguments concerning Bell are very detailed and complex so I will need more time to take those in.

    It is a well written and thought provoking essay.

      Dear Edwin,

      I like your approach - follow the energy. It is good to see some physics relating to an actual Stern-Gerlach device, having wondered why an *inhomogeneous* magnetic field was required, which you relate to a continuous helicity eigenvalue spectrum. Many discussions on Bell's theorem are purely mathematical, but this really goes to the experimental foundation of Bell's ideas where you have exposed a critical misconception in the formulation of the theorem which constrains outputs to +/-1.

      Your local model really seems appropriate for this problem. This ought to be a very popular topic and I expect you will do well in the contest.

      Best wishes,

      Colin

        Dear Colin,

        You have captured the essence of my essay in five lines, something I wasn't sure was possible. Thanks for reading, understanding, and summarizing my essay so beautifully.

        My best wishes for you, too,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Philip,

        I have yet to participate in an FQXi contest without learning something. If we all saw physics the same way there would be no contest. I too try to see your essay as you do. As I said on your thread, you have a wonderful talent for presenting ideas that I normally reject in such a way as to seem eminently reasonable to me and therefore cause me to think more carefully about what you're saying and about my own approach. That is surely the goal of these essays.

        Your second paragraph is a pretty accurate summary of the difference of our approaches. And we have independently converged in some areas such as symmetry. In The Chromodynamics War in 2009 I wrote a chapter: "Conservation or Symmetry?" My point was that while we have been brought up being told that symmetry yields conservation, the fact is that conservation was the primary (physical) entity, and only after our mathematical sophistication crossed a threshold did 'symmetry' enter the picture. Probably what first caught my attention is that almost all (all?) symmetries are approximate, even iso-spin. And recall that since superpartners have not been observed at the same masses as SM particles, supersymmetry (SUSY) cannot be an exact symmetry. I decided that every conservation law necessarily implies a symmetry, but every symmetry does not necessarily imply a conservation law of physics. I also decided that one reason so many physicists believe in symmetry (not sure 'believe in' is the right word) is that all symmetry groups have matrix representations. In short, just as I discuss in my essay, I believe symmetry is too simple. And I'm glad that we've arrived in much the same place, re symmetry, starting from our quite distinct theoretical perspectives.

        Thanks again for reading and commenting. I hope you do find the time to digest it. Many of my previous essays have covered theories that I have but that I have not worked out in sufficient detail to convince others. I hope this essay convinces some others.

        Best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        RE: your paper ``The Nature of the Wave''. I'll look again, but I don't see coherence except that a single particle is self--coherent. Interference in the double slit requires coherence in several particles' waves. I suppose you are having the wave travel much faster than the particle so the wave through the slits is basically redial. A thermal light source near a double slit does not produce interference (not coherent). Such light needs to pass through a slit or travel a long distance to become coherent. Further, if a photon causes a wave before reaching the mask, the field cannot self direct. Other photons are needed, as Newton suggested, to cause the wave field. This leads to having to satisfy Afshar's low intensity (singe photon in the experiment) observation. To satisfy the coherence observations, I concluded a single photon must cause several coherent waves. Too bad I became interested in FQXi to late for this discussion. All you needed was to have a physical medium in which the wave oscillates where the large--scale gradient produces gravity.

        The ``physics'' (a study field of humans) is linked to territory in the abstract. Physics seems more like a map to me. In the text, this is changed to physical reality. Yes I know -picky, picky. Apologies.

        Edwin,

        I have been thinking quite a bit more regarding your Equation 2 and the text in general. Please bear with me.

        Should the second term on the right-hand side be integrated? I'm thinking that F dx = dE.

        Equation 2 reminds me of the Lorentz Force Equation but the silver atoms of the SG experiment are of course neutral. Is there any chance that the gradient term is a cross product between the two vectors?

        Does the following expression have any physical meaning?

        ((vector mu)dot(vector B)(vector mu)cross(vector B))/((length mu)(length B))

        Are observers Alice and Bob considered to be entangled after the experiment? They each absorbed a different part of the entangled wave-function.

        The entanglement is created by the experimenter in his/her frame of reference. The measurements are made in the experimenter's reference frame. I think the entanglement only exists in the experimenter's reference frame. Has an experiment been done where one or both of the two observers are moving with respect to the source of the entangled particles?

        Many Thanks,

        Gary Simpson

          Gary,

          I neglected to answer one of your points in your previous comment that is relevant to your latest comment so I will do so now. You ask for clarification of "the distinction between SG and EPR was that SG established two spin states and that EPR established that distance was not a consideration when considering entanglement."

          Consider the Stern-Gerlach experiment in 1922, three years before Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck proposed that the intrinsic angular momentum or position-independent spin was half integral. The SG experiment has a twofold character by splitting a beam. Since it's unlikely that the inhomogeneous field could be exactly represented, the specifics of interaction of spin with the local magnetic field was of lesser concern. What counted was the two-fold splitting of the beam of silver atoms, attributed now to spin.

          In SG, the gross nature of this two-fold splitting is sufficient. But the EPR experiment, based on comparison and correlation of two SG experiments performed on a singlet state can be treated as a discrete (binary) problem in physics or as a continuous classical physics problem. Bell's gross model requiring binary measurements effectively erases all of the "hidden variable" information of the classical local model. A much finer resolution of the physics of the particle in the heterogeneous field is required to match the predicted quantum mechanical correlation. That is a key point in my essay.

          I propose theoretical and experimental exploration of unconstrained and constrained models of EPR. But the fact that my unconstrained model violates Bell's theorem has led to conflict with the simple binary SG model, and consequently quantum mechanical questions, which I answer in the essay in terms of eigenvalues maps.

          As for entanglement, it is represented in the figure at the bottom right of page 6 in my essay. Entanglement is the shaded area between the cosine curve ( -a.b ) and Bell's linear curve ( -1 2 theta / pi). Bell claimed that local realism could not match measured reality, i.e., the -a.b correlation, because his model failed to do so. I view his model as too simple, and focus on the constraints he imposes on the models.

          If a local model, with or without constraints, can exceed Bell's linear prediction, then entanglement will be diminished. And if a local model actually accomplishes the -a.b correlation, then the rationale for entanglement disappears. As you observe in the figure at top of page 7, my local model does produce the required correlation, -a.b.

          Entanglement, is weird, mysterious, poorly defined, and, according even to those experimenters who made their reputation showing -a.b, it is "difficult to swallow". My model yields the cosine curve, so there is no shaded area, that is, no entanglement, so that's the answer to your last two paragraphs in the above comment.

          Entanglement was invented to explain how correlation could occur that no classical model could produce. If a local classical model can produce the correlation, then entanglement is unnecessary. I say good riddance.

          I will look at your equation above, and if I have anything sensible to say will comment again.

          Thanks for your continuing interest in this problem.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          John,

          Not at all sure that the linear momentum model you reference will not behave properly in the two-slit experiment, nor that two particles cannot interact in coherent fashion. I simply have not yet modeled these phenomena to that extent. My goal is to model reality with wave-inducing local particles and see how far it can be pushed. I think it will go quite far, but I can't prove it. As I imply in my essay, the spin (angular momentum) eigenfunction and the linear momentum eigenfunction, connected by a tensor product, are essentially separable, so I have focused most recently on developing the local model of spin. I plan to return to the linear momentum eigenfunction and develop it further after I put spin to bed. Most (but not all) of the weirdness in quantum mechanics is associated with spin.

          As for a particle-plus-wave model in the two-slit experiment you might wish to look at 'Measurement in the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation: Double-slit, Stern-Gerlach, and EPR-B' by Gondran and Gondran [arXiv:1309.4757v3].

          I now understand your question of "physics" versus "physical reality". In the context of my essay I assume 'math' to be the map and 'physics' to be the territory, so I've let 'physics' stand for physical reality. You are letting 'physics' (as theoretical models) be the map and physical reality be the territory. I agree with you about physics being a map, but I have a different usage here, primarily to accomodate the essay theme. (Also, I grew up around the corner from Hodges Street, which is probably why I inadvertently misspelled your name in an above comment.)

          Best,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Edwin,

          Many thanks. You have given me a "Eureka" moment and I now better understand the distinction regarding SG vs EPR and the significance of your essay.

          Regarding the above relationship, I simple used vectors mu and B to produce Euler's Equation. It might occur somewhere as part of the solution to a differential equation.

          Best Regards,

          Gary Simpson

          Dear Edwin

          I like the Korzybski's idea of math like a map and the physical world like the territory; it is the kernel of mathematical physics.

          If I understand, you see the knowledge like a pattern recognition through a neural network.

          If I understand clearly, you say that an oversimplification of the Bell's equation in quantum mechanics can give the non-locality interpretation.

          I must read more carefully the whole essay, but the quality is excellent.

          Best

          Domenico Oricchio

            Gibb's comment above notes the two popular views of math and physics.

            I suppose I may not have explained the concept well in the introduction.

            For me the math and physics emerge together and are the same physical reality. Therefore, properties of math can be used to suggest the physics of reality. The difficult things of math can also imply things that don't exist in physical reality such as mapping math and infinity. So the quantum math (not real) of Bell is incorrect which is shown by the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation that suggests the ``hidden variables'' exist. There are few papers written on this. Your paper uses this to highlight how this works. Didn't Bell question his inequality when he heard of the Bohm papers?

            For me the prime thing to understand is the double--slit experiment with the Afshar's experiments of which--way and single photon interference. This experiment is the key to understanding the world of the small. That was the subject of my previous paper on photon interference and current effort on the single photon interference. Newtonian mechanics must apply to create the wave (Bohm's weakness) and direct the particle.

              Dear Domenico,

              Thanks for reading and responding, and thanks for your kind comment. You have understood correctly the points you mention. I would add that the pattern recognition process is essentially an algorithmic process which can be implemented in any logic machine, especially including neural networks.

              My best regards,

              Edwin Eugene Klingman

              John,

              In general I agree with your second paragraph in that physics (as the physical world) entails relations (math) in its (emergent) existence. Once the complexity of the physical world reaches neuronal levels, then math goes far beyond counting and geometry to include the many mathematical inventions of the mind. Unlike Platonic-oriented physicists, I do not view all math as either pre-existing or somehow existing 'outside of' the physical universe although if there is or was an intelligent designer, I grant that He understood math exquisitely well. If physical reality just 'pop'ed into being, then math (as geometry) came into being at the same time.

              These are awkward concepts, but I believe in a unitary, self-consistent world, not infinite possibilities all disconnected and potential. I do so because of my experience and my intuition. As I believe logic is a property of physical reality, I do not see physical reality either derived from or emerging from logic. Nor, I suspect, did Godel.

              I agree with you that the two-slit experiment is key and must be explained by a classical model if classical physics is to have relevance at the microlevel. I considered non-locality a worse problem so I've been working hardest in that domain.

              Edwin Eugene Klingman

              Edwin,

              Sorry for the late response.

              I think locality is a given in that operations that generate a measurement must be local, but our concept of reality is not. More specifically, that while there is an appearance of objects that are physically separable, which we interpret as real objects, these are outcome dependent on local operations. The notion of non-locality is a horrible interpretational problem that has been allowed to diffuse through the physics community at large. The fact that we see quantum correlations in test of Bell theorems does not mean the universe is non-local; there was no non-local operation that generate the correlation. What the measurement did was provide some perceived definiteness to a local observer.

              Hope that helps,

              Best

              Harlan

              Harlan,

              As best I can tell we are pretty much in agreement on this topic. You note that the notion of non-locality is a horrible interpretation problem based on Bell's belief that "there was no non-local operation that generates the correlation." I hope that you got from my essay that there is now a local operation (as outlined in my essay) that exactly generates the correlation, thereby negating Bell's conclusion about non-locality. It's local all the way.

              This has real consequences for the idea of entanglement, such as Susskind's treatment of information loss and the firewall problem, as well as other current ideas about entanglement. If you missed this aspect of my essay, I invite you to look at it again.

              I've read your essay and responded to it, and I thank you again for reading mine and for your response.

              Best regards,

              Edwin Eugene Klingman

              Hi Edwin,

              I read your essay and admire your attention to detail in EPR. I am also impressed with your contribution to intellectual property. I had only about a dozen US patents and am not as educated or recognized as you. However we have a lot in common because we are innovators. I'm afraid that most of the people we deal with now don't understand innovation. In their view, different is wrong. I used to know my gatekeepers but where are they (kind of reminds me of the wizard of OZ)? Later in my career I hired and managed people, some were PhD's. I depended on young less well educated engineers for the innovation we needed. Their scholarly peers loved to consult with their college professors and we funded their studies, but they were so enamored with the science they learned that they could not "trash" what didn't work and ask the innovation question "what do we need to know that we do not now know to solve the problem?" We were perhaps the first to use computers as a powerful scientific tool.

              Now the problems at hand: Do we need to list them? For you, why would anyone not listen to a new view of troubling findings if it leads to deeper understanding? In my case, why would anyone not listen to innovation when they don't know what time or space is?

              I approached my deep need to understand by trying to "reverse engineer" nature. I took the best fundamental particle data I could find and correlated it. The result was the logarithmic "code" I presented. I wish, as you requested, that I could find the origin. In arXiv 3701.0090, I suggested that that it started with 90 and separated into four parts of 22.5 each because E=2.02e-5*exp(22.5) is close to data for the Higgs particle energy. I noted the extensive use of ln(3/e) that underlies the electromagnetic field and information. I have been working with the information code for about 30 years and applied it to most processes in nature. All I can say is "it works". My recent interest has been quantum gravity. The scholarly university products of the last 25 years have worked on the problem but in my view that didn't question the basic tenant....the Planck scale. They fell in "love" with a relationship that contains Planck's constant, C and G in what is considered a defining relationship. I don't care how many dimensions you use, the general theory of relativity is not quantum if it is the curvature of large scale space time. I question the view and can calculate the gravitational constant from the proton model. Yes, BTW, the neutron decays in the model exactly produces the proton, electron and expected neutrino.

              Thanks, lets continue the discussion.