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.

          Hi Gene,

          Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. As you note, novelty is often suspect. That's actually a good thing, as there are far more novel ideas than there are good or correct novel ideas. We would not want mankind chasing off after every new idea, as some of them lead straight over the cliff. That's why the patent examiners tried to shoot down every one of your patents, if they were doing their job.

          That's a different problem from when novelty is opposed simply because it affects an industry of people quite successfully living off doing things the old way.

          You answered my question well about the origin of your numerical code. Setting out to 'reverse engineer' the best particle data we have seems quite reasonable to me. The standard model came about from looking at patterns in the data. You said "All I can say is "it works"." There are much worse things than that! It's a great place to start.

          Best,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Hello Edwin. In your essay, I am mostly in agreement with your opinion, "Bell's 50 year old proof of the non-local nature of the Universe is an over-simplified solution to a complex problem. As this is generally considered the basis for 'entanglement', it suggests that reappraisal of much of current physics is in order." Bell's proof might be oversimplified or wrong, but I am not sure that Bell's proof can ever be refuted EVEN IF IT IS WRONG. The problem is that the string landscape can be formulated within a conceptual framework in which Bell's theorem is valid, and by means of clever D-brane adjustments the string landscape might be able to provide models of any plausible (or implausible) physics. In any case, my guess is that Bell's theorem shall always be regarded as great. According to Dirac, "The measure of greatness in a scientific idea is the extent to which it stimulates thought and opens up new lines of research."

          Regards, David Brown

            • [deleted]

            • Post #30

            Hi Eugene,

            Thank you for looking at my essay on Solving the mystery.

            I wanted to comment on your essay but my difficulty is a lack of depth in understanding the details.

            I would like to talk about Bell's theorem and the issue of whether physical effects are local or non-local and see how this relates to your position on the subject.

            For my reference I include the definition of nonlocality from Wikipedia.

            In physics, nonlocality or action at a distance is the direct interaction of two objects that are separated in space with no perceivable intermediate agency or mechanism.

            Bell' theorem: No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.

            Looking at the problem from the perspective of the Spacetime Wave theory, it is necessary to accept that the behaviour of physical objects is non-local. I clarify this by saying that the progression of waves in spacetime is always local (at speed c) but it is the interaction of, for example, a photon with an electron which can be non-local at the interaction itself.

            Making the assumption that it is a real physical wave passing through an interference experiment requires that it is a dispersed physical wave arriving at the detection screen and interacting with an atom at the screen in a probabilistic way affected by the magnitude of the wave at each point of possible detection. This must in turn mean that there is action at a distance happening at the point of detection so that a detection at point A prevents a detection at another point B.

            The non-local effect at detection can be considered to be instantaneous in the frame of reference of light propagation and the mechanism of delivery of the non-local effect is spacetime itself. I had understood that the results of the EPR experiment showed that entangled photons must be transmitting information instantaneously at the time of first measurement.

            So looking at the compatibility of Bell's theorem with the spacetime wave theory (ref: solving the mystery): The spacetime wave theory does propose a description which puts waves in spacetime as the underlying mechanism for the effects described by quantum theory and so could be considered a hidden variable description. However, my contention is that interactions are non-local at the point of measurement so no violation of Bell's theorem is occurring.

            As I understand your excellent paper, you have shown that a local theory has matched one of the predictions of QM but I don't think this makes Bell's theorem false.

            With best regards

            Richard

              Hi Edwin,

              Apologies for sending the previous post as anonymous. I must have been logged out.

              Regards

              Richard Lewis

              Klingman

              Thanks for reply on my site. I'd like to propose a task.

              Links to my effort my effort.

              The book I am thinking of getting is ``The Gene Man Theory''. I didn't find it on Amazon and $100 seems a bit tough.

              Do you have any papers on the web? I looked in academia.edu, found 3 on Bell and spin in viXra. None on arXiv.

              A decade ago I had one in New Astronomy as I was getting my feet in cosmology.

              Then I started to deviate from the status quo but arXiv still accepted a few until I started to really deviate. Academia.edu has some. Today I publish mostly in Intellectual archive. Arp, Gibbs, and others are correct. I'm thinking of updating my book the Theory of Everything.

              My story on QM in grad school is fairly typical. I am conceptually oriented. I asked the prof for a conceptual view of QM. His reply was Feynman's reply.

              After thinking I had a handle on cosmology, I attacked the small with photon interference. The idea is to use classical methods (stay away from all the assumptions of QM where the map fuzzies the issues). I had some success. The view of the single photon interference was to say a laser doesn't produce just one at a time. For the last year + I've been attempting a simulation with only one photon in the experiment at a time. No joy.

              Then this contest and your paper happened.

              The contest crystallized my view of math and physics and the skepticism of transformations. With Bohm the EPR and Bell's inequality are irreverent. All that needs done is to invoke some aspect of Bohm and Bell goes away.

              I noticed you have some facility with QM. Let me propose a task to interpret the Schrödinger equation in a classical form (not a Hamiltonian) complete with classical interpretation (F=ma type). This is back to grad school for me, but you know the calculations now. My approach has been to start with the Diffusion equation (you may note I use the version of the heat equation in my previous papers) and V is calculated from masses in my \rho field, \nabla \rho produces the force on the particle, and the \Psi is a real (my plenum) field (density field in the diffusion equation).

              Could you add to this to produce a QM Schrödinger equation with real waves?

              Of interest?

                "http://myplace.frontier.com/~jchodge/">my effort

                Hi Edwin,

                I am following up on your question regarding the 13.8 MeV quark in the neutron/proton model. The PDG standard model masses and designations follow:

                The quarks are not independently observed and standard model correlations are based on protons and neutrons that may have transitioned over time to lower energy states. I studied and correlated meson and baron observations. All except the proton decay and almost all of them decay to intermediate states consisting of lower energy mesons and baryons. The following diagram is from viXra: 1307.0133. The decay paths all conserve energy in their intermediate states, i.e. a high energy quark becomes a lower energy quark plus kinetic energy. For example, the 13.8 MeV quark in your note becomes a 1.87 MeV quark plus 11.93 MeV of orbital kinetic energy.

                I detail how the neutron decays to a proton in viXra:1307.0082.

                I could bore you to death with the details of meson and baryon decays but pairs of quarks eventually annihilate one another ending up as kinetic energy, electrons and neutrinos. BTW, I went far enough with the meson and baryon studies to understand them and then lost interest. It was very time consuming.

                Unfortunately the diagrams would go through.