Dear Edwin,

Your thorough and well-presented technical argument is something I need to spend more time with. But the point of the essay is very interesting and probably worthy of a good deal of discussion. When I began studying mathematics I was most intrigued by, what my teachers often called, counter-intuitive results. I enjoyed the fact that a formalism of our own making could produce these kinds of surprises. There was some non-obvious thing about the relationship between mathematical thought and intuition. This relationship is even more interesting when one recognizes the crucial role mathematical intuition plays in developing mathematics. And so while I very much enjoy the way you use mathematics to bring a physical idea more in line with our intuition, I think I will be slow to accept that the counter-intuitive ideas are incorrect.

I do appreciate your comment on my essay and hope we find opportunities to continue to communicate,

Best,

Joselle

    Dear Edwin,

    Thank you for the answers. Although you provided detailed answers to my questions, I still don't get it. I think I need more details. Could you please show me the formula by which Alice and Bob calculate A(λ,a), and what are the inputs? Then how to calculate from these the expectation value, so we can see if we get the same correlations as QM? Perhaps if you have a concrete example, that would be great. Sorry for not being able to find these myself, I also looked in your references [2,3], but I missed them.

    Best regards,

    Cristi

    Dear Alma,

    As this comment will probably be hidden, I will answer you in a new thread below.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Alma,

    Thank you for the effort you have put into understanding my theory. As you note in your essay

    "Mathematical physics is only as good as physical insight."

    The mathematical physics surrounding Bell is primarily logic-based and is based on very simple physics that leads to a contradiction. You note in a comment that "it's easier to find a certain logical theory - one only needs a brain - than build the LHC - one needs a bit more than a brain."

    Fortunately, answering the physical questions underlying my theory will not require an LHC-size expenditure of money or effort, and, from my perspective, it will have greater payback than LHC has had. The Higgs has been assumed for years, and now supposedly exists, although proving 'zero spin' should be interesting. SUSY has also been assumed for years and apparently doesn't exist. So years-long assumptions in physics do not always imply much for reality. The 50-year long assumption that "local models cannot produce QM correlations" can be overthrown by just one model that does produce QM correlations, as I have shown. But, in the spirit of FQXi, one must ask whether I have just played another mathematical trick on physicists. That is best answered by experiment, which you focus on in your comment.

    As John noted, and as you had correctly qualified in your comment, Stern-Gerlach is based on uncharged particles, as the interaction of charged particles with the magnetic field is so strong as to effectively swamp the signal (deflection) from magnetic moment interactions with the field. Like me, your brain may decouple from your fingers, so that when you thought neutron, your fingers typed neutrino. I mention this because neutrons are uncharged but do possess spin and magnetic moment, the moment deriving from the charged quark constituents. Neutrinos are, as far as we know, fermions with spin but not possessing a dipole moment as they are not constructed from charged constituents. Thus neutrinos perfectly exemplify Dirac's fundamental helicity eigenvalue equation, but Pauli's provisional spin eigenvalue equation, based on the interaction of the moment with the constant field, does not apply at all. Very interesting. If that was a typo, thank you for making the typo.

    Referring to the iconic postcard [p.3] it is obvious that the distribution of deflections [positions on the detector] cannot be characterized as a "point", +1 or -1. But the question is "What causes the distribution?" The assumption, for 90 years, has apparently been that variations in temperature, hence velocity, of the atoms is responsible for the data spread. Thus the key to an experiment to test θ-dependence of deflection is to 'fix' velocity, which should not be overly difficult.

    If, as I assume, and as fits the facts, the spin of the particle exiting the SG-device is aligned with the field, then one can "prepare" a known spin, say 'up' in the z-direction. One must then select particles with very tightly controlled velocity and input such particles to a second Stern-Gerlach apparatus, oriented it angle θ to the z-axis, and obtain precise position measurements from the second SG-device. By varying the angle θ and comparing the deflection observed to that predicted by my theory, it should not be difficult to determine whether my theory is confirmed or not.

    One assumes that, using 2015 technology, it will be possible to obtain much better results than did Stern-Gerlach in 1922. There is anecdotal evidence that it was Stern's cheap cigar whose sulfides were responsible for oxidizing the silver atoms and making them visible. We could probably do it today without the cheap cigar.

    As you mention Alice and Bob, I should clarify that only one spin is needed to prove θ-dependence, whereas two (anti-correlated) spins are required for the EPR correlation test. Thus my experiment requires one SG-device to prepare the known spin, a filter to restrict velocity input to the second SG-device and a sensitive detector of position.

    Alma, your bio implies that you are a non-physicist. It is fascinating to me (and very admirable) that you could work through my essay several times, and all comments above, and obtain the understanding you evidence in your comment. Contrast this with world-class experts some of whom are participating as authors in this contest who apparently will not look, let alone comment. This speaks to the social control of the established institutions, who control funding, and publications, and do not like rocking boats.

    Your third paragraph in your 10:22 comment above is very well stated and proves that you clearly understand my theory. I would modify only the statement that "the spin is not necessarily quantized" [which is correct] to state that spin is a vector with magnitude and direction. The magnitude is quantized, but the direction is not. In a constant field the projection of spin on the field axis is also quantized, but this changes in an inhomogeneous field.

    Your second question is the harder of the two to answer. There are very many quantum textbooks available, most of which present the classical Bell picture of precessing particles described by Pauli's eigenvalue equation and then generate the simple qubit eigenvalue equation, [see my endnotes, page 11] and go from there. In my references [2] and [4] I include more specific references. I think you might either start with my reference [2] or perhaps with, JR Stenson, 2005, "Representations for Understanding the Stern-Gerlach Effect", thesis BYU, both of which are available online free.

    Let me repeat how pleased I am that a non-professional-physicist can read my essay, understand it, summarize it in a brief paragraph, ask intelligent and relevant questions that had not been asked before, and look for further information. That has brightened my day.

    My very best regards

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear Joselle,

      Thank you for reading my essay closely. As you state in your essay,

      "Statistics is not only intuitive, but part of our intuition. Biologically, the brain seems to be good at a kind of statistical calculation."

      As I indicated, this is quite compatible with my own understanding of the brain and consciousness. But you state specifically that when you began studying mathematics you were most intrigued that your intuitive grasp of mathematics could lead to counter-intuitive results. Thus you think you "will be slow to accept that the counter-intuitive ideas are incorrect."

      I think perhaps I should state more clearly that I am not opposed to all non-intuitive results of math and physics, only those that do violence to such powerful intuition as local realism. This is the most basic intuition of nature.

      On the other hand I am thoroughly convinced that quantum physicists and other physicists are missing some fascinating physics exactly because non-linearity is non-intuitive and thus few can employ their intuition to profitably exploit non-linear phenomena. This is, perhaps, a matter of degree, but it is still significant from the aspect of physics. For an example of this, I refer you to the figure on page 4 of my 2013 FQXi essay: Gravity and the Nature of Information. The curve becomes almost 'straight up' at a certain point. This does not happen with linearity, for which our intuition is finely tuned.

      So I highly value non-intuitive non-linearity and hope to extract real gold from this field. At the same time I reject non-locality for the physics reasons I describe in my essay. I hope this makes you a bit more comfortable with my approach to intuition.

      Thank you sincerely for reading and communicating,

      Best wishes,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear Alma,

      There are so many interesting questions and comments, for all of which I am grateful, that I believe I missed a key question in your Mar 17@11:15 comment.

      You first look for new revisions of the SG-experiment and have not had much better luck than I in finding such. It appears that from Aspect's 1982 experiment on, most, if not all experiments have been photon-based, which is another can of worms that I have not yet analyzed, as there are very significant physical differences despite the simplistic +1 and -1 logic applied. Binary counters subsume the θ-information that is quite evident in the Stern-Gerlach position-based results.

      But you also mention

      "Serial SG where particles are prepared in one spin position, then go through a second field and still end up in both upper and lower half planes."

      You are very astute to catch this. You ask if I know whether that experiment has been performed and what is the result?

      What you are describing is the scheme invented by Richard Feynman and used to develop spin-based quantum mechanics in his 1964 Lectures in Physics, vol III. It is also used to introduce quantum mechanics in JJ Sakurai's Modern Quantum Mechanics and more recently by John Townsend in A Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics, wherein he states, on page 7 that this "modified SG device" was "introduced as a thought experiment" by Richard Feynman.

      It is my belief that this is still only a "thought experiment". Moreover, Feynman often stated that the fundamental mystery of QM is captured in the "two-slit" interference experiment, and he was apparently trying to construct a spin-based analog of the two-slit interference experiment. Therefore, in my opinion, Feynman assumed that the quantum mechanical treatment of spin paralleled the two-slit quantum mechanics and proceeded to present this modified SG device as if it were true!

      I have recently begun questioning this in terms of my theory, and am currently developing a simulation based on energy-exchange physics to try to model this.

      I consider it entirely possible that Feynman just got carried away with his analogy and made up this physics which has been accepted as gospel for lo these 50 years. [You read it here first!] I believe it may be possible to actually perform a version of this experiment, and, although it's too early for me to be sure, I rather expect his physics to fail.

      Feynman was such a genius, and so sharp-witted and sharp tongued, that I'm sure no one called him on this, as the analogy is almost perfect. But is it true? Stay tuned.

      Thanks again for your exceedingly valuable questions.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Hello Edwin,

      As far as the testing of Bell's theorem, you clearly have more intricate knowledge than me. I only know the old school IAAAD arguments of Bell, Bohm and Vigier etc. However, it strikes me that you are claiming the eliminating the +/- 1 eigenvalue restriction allows a local theory to explain the results of Aspect and other related experiments. This does not rule out that it may still be a non-local quantum potential that also explains the results. It may just be that Bell's inequalities are no longer able to determine whether interactions are local or non-local. I am quite prepared to believe that.

      Congratulations on a very thought provoking essay.

      Regards

      Neal

        Dear Cristi,

        I am grateful that you are making the effort to understand my theory, and will try hard to assist you. It is only people like you who can actually end up accepting my theory.

        Before describing the local deflection formula, let's discuss the inputs. Alice will input a, representing the orientation of her Stern-Gerlach magnetic field axis, and Bob will input b, the orientation of his device. The spins input to each are assumed to be random, and denoted by λ for Alice and the anti-correlated spin -λ for Bob.

        ALL of these parameters, a, b, and λ are generated as random unit vectors in a Bloch sphere.

        As you now understand, the local angle θ = (λ,a) between the local spin and Alice's (any) local SG device initially precesses, then aligns with the field, and the energy of precession is exchanged with (converted to) a vertical component of velocity, hence kinetic energy. The vertical deflection is shown to be proportional to θ, with a contribution x = X(1-cos θ) as given in my equation (4).

        Now consider that the maximum force of the gradient on the dipole occurs when the dipole is aligned with the field, and this can be shown to be X where X is the first term in parentheses in equation (4). This occurs when θ = 0. So the maximum deflection will occur if the particle enters the device aligned with the field and will be X. If the particle is initially not aligned, then the deflection will be less than maximum by the amount x (eqn 4). Thus the maximum minus the θ-dependent contribution is

        X - X(1-cos θ) = X cos θ.

        This is the θ-dependent deflection Bob and Alice will calculate according to my energy-exchange theory. [ Noting that Alice's angle θ = (λ,a) is different from Bob's angle θ = (-λ,b)].

        This formula yields a number, essentially, X cos θ, which will be sent to the statistical unit which accepts Alice's number A(λ,a) [and similarly Bob's number B(-λ,b)] and stores them as a pair for later statistical processing. As I emphasized in my previous answer, although the number was "derived from" a and λ it does not contain a or λ and therefore Alice's a and Bob's b are never present in one place, as they are in the quantum mechanical calculation of the expectation value. Thus the model is truly local.

        So Alice's A output and Bob's B output, neither of which are +1 or -1 as Bell requires, are multiplied to obtain the number AB, and we ask what is the 'average' or 'expectation value' of the ABs?

        The definition of this expectation value is

        < AB > = Sum [ p(AB) * (AB) ] over all i

        where the sum is over all ABs. [I calculate this expectation value based on 10,000 random spins for every pair of settings a and b.]

        Now the AB values are easy - they are computed by simply taking Alice's deflection reading and Bob's and multiplying the two together to obtain AB. But what is the probability distribution of these ABs? As the 10,000 spins per pair (a,b) are generated randomly, the AB values cannot be calculated by a closed form analytic formula, but they are very easily grouped into bins in the manner of multichannel analyzer measurements, and from the distribution of the numbers in the bins, a probability distribution is easily generated. This is the p(AB) for a given AB over all ABs, 10,000 per (a,b) in the case shown in figure 7. This is done for 300 different values of the angle (a,b) which is labeled θ in the figure.

        To summarize: if all spins entered the SG device aligned with the local field, the gradient-based force would be maximum, and the deflections would all go to the same point on the screen, normalized to +1 or -1. This is what Bell assumes. From this simple model Bell is unable to derive quantum correlations.

        But the spins do not enter aligned. They enter with a random orientation, so the deflection is not maximum, X, but is proportional to the angle between the spin and the axis, and is X cos θ. This, not +1 or -1, is the deflection A (or B) sent by Alice (or Bob) to the statistical unit. For a given pair of settings (a,b) 10,000 spins are calculated, and 10,000 numbers AB are generated, and plugged into the sum, weighted by their probability p(AB). This entirely numerical procedure produces the correlation shown, -a.b, which Bell claims to be impossible.

        It is a very simple classical model, which produces the quantum correlation, based on the 'real' physics of the inhomogeneous field (i.e., nonzero gradient) instead of Bell's 'unreal' constant field model which does fail to produce the quantum correlation.

        Let me thank you once again for giving my theory this much attention. I am honored.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Hi Neal,

        Thanks for your comment on my essay. I have analyzed Bell's model extensively. Bohm's model was essentially spin-less, and his 'quantum potential' would seem to go against your position on fields. As I indicate on page 9 of my essay, it is important to keep in mind that the linear momentum |p> and the intrinsic angular momentum |s> are connected only by a tensor product, which is just a trick for keeping them operationally separate while appearing to be 'joined at the hip' into one state vector |ps>.

        My position is that Bell's inequalities are meaningless, as they are derived based on a simple physical model that begins with a contradiction, and goes downhill from there. If your theory is correct, then the entire universe is "non-local" (IAAAD) so Bell is small potatoes. Else, Bell is non-local in an otherwise local universe.

        Thanks for reading and commenting, and thanks for your response to my questions on your thread.

        Best wishes,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear Edwin,

        Thank you for your detailed explanations, and for taking time to guide me in your theory. You said that "the AB values cannot be calculated by a closed form analytic formula", which is something that I did not expect. Since I don't have the algorithm by which you do this, I can't say more.

        On the other hand, I am thinking at a way to test your theory against standard Quantum Mechanics.

        If I understand well your explanations, to calculate A(λ,a) you only need to know the angle θ = (λ,a), and to calculate B(-λ,b) you only need the angle θ' = (-λ,b). This suggests the following experiment.

        Suppose that Alice is in Vienna, and Bob at MIT. Consider that Alice has a particle prepared in λ, and Bob one in -λ, which are not entangled (I understand that you don't accept entanglement). Alice chooses the vector a, and Bob the vector b. What does your theory predict? Will they obtain the same correlations -a.b? Because if they will do, this would be different from the predictions of Quantum Mechanics, and this would be an experimentum crucis. What do you think?

        Thank you for your patience to explain me all these.

        Best regards,

        Cristi

        Dear Edwin,

        A pleasure to read your answer! Thank you for your very kind and encouraging words :) I was just as happy as you that I was able to follow through the argument; otherwise I would have been in a delicate position when it came to commenting, haha

        It's very true that I sometimes type something else than I had in mind, and usually a word that's similar to the one I want still in this case the neutrino was a joke; I chose it because it's uncharged but similar to the electron in that SG doesn't work for either, (or at least not with the effect intended by the experiment because they are elementary particles) since neutrinos oscillate between flavors in magnetic fields, disoriented. If I read between the lines correctly, you're thinking of differentiating between Dirac and Pauli spin with neutrino physics? I'm not necessarily expecting an answer here because I realize you might want to keep the idea to yourself instead of making it public before having the chance to work on it. I certainly hope to read it at some point, even if neutrino experiments are difficult to implement right now.

        Thank you for describing your SG model! Is the distance between the devices important in implementing it? I mean obviously it wouldn't be a kilometer, but you probably considered an optimal distance for the setup and how it changes the expected landing spots.

        "The magnitude is quantized, but the direction is not." Thank you for the clarification, as to me it's another confirmation that I managed to understand the theory. It's what I had in mind when I referred quantization because it's obvious from your treatment that it's the direction that you discuss and not the interaction strength. I also realize that I presented SG and Alice and Bob experiments a bit like they are the same thing; in your work it's adamant that they are not. It's my effort to try and save space that is to blame.

        "...the scheme invented by Richard Feynman and used to develop spin-based quantum mechanics.... It is my belief that this is still only a thought experiment". That's exactly why I asked. It wasn't clear to me (and couldn't find any reference) that the setup ever went beyond a gedankenexperiment. It would be very interesting to see it done (and to see how the local theory behaves versus the canonical one), all the more that the experiment is, as you remark, not awfully expensive and SG type experiments are such rarae aves.

        Thank you for the references as well! The internet is both a blessing and a curse because there is so much information available online but so difficult to decide a place to start.

        Yes, Feynman was quite the character and quite the genius and the one who said that no one understands qm. To a character such as Feynman, that must have been such a romantic idea, isn't it? A very human thing to do. Just like today's experts who, trapped between fighting for grants and raising children and achieving their yearly publication quota, raised themselves by their schools in the spirit of Kelvin's rigor, are less open to novelty than they once were.

        Warm regards,

        Alma

        Dear Alma,

        After I posted my last reply I re-read your comment and saw that you said "worst-case scenarios, I was thinking neutrinos..." which implies that neutrinos was not a typo. But it was too late to change my remarks. I continue to like your brand of humor.

        You ask if the distance between the devices (an experimental test of my theory) is important. I don't think so. Distance traveled can amplify the apparent deflection, but I am assuming strong enough magnetic fields that this should not be needed.

        I very much appreciated your bringing up Feynman's gedankenexperiment, as I am cautiously optimistic that this may be a significant difference between QM and the classical local model, and, as such, a very important test. As I noted, I will first try to simulate it.

        Your final sentence correctly uses the word "trapped". Fortunately, I have been independent for long enough that I am not trapped, and therefore can afford to break taboos.

        Finally, I do not expect to convince many people that Bell is wrong with my essay. My hope is that I will convince a number of people that Bell may be wrong, based on my analysis. This would represent a very significant change from today's situation, in which Bell's [erroneous, imo] conclusions are stated as fact. I believe that time and effort spent on understanding my theory will call Bell's physical assumptions into question and I have faith that once the questioning begins, the right answer will be forthcoming.

        My best wishes,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Cristi,

        I suspected that the lack of a closed form solution would come as a surprise. There are two aspects to this. First, bringing A(λ,a) and B(-λ,b) into one expression technically makes the solution 'non-local', as there is no physically real local situation where both a and b are known. This is a major part of the definition of the problem, i.e., Bob and Alice have free will (~random) and do not share information about settings.

        Second, since λ is inherently random, I do not believe it is possible to calculate the probability p(AB) in closed form, although I may be mistaken on this point. It is definitely not the simple 1/(4*pi) that describes the random λ weighting factor.

        I believe, if one possessed very well calibrated Stern-Gerlach devices, that the experiment you propose would work. But I think an easier test is the one I describe below at 20:32 on March 17 in my reply to Alma. This involves only one particle, prepared by one SG device and fed into a second device oriented at an angle θ from the first device. The output from the second device should vary with θ as my theory suggests. This is different than quantum mechanics, as quantum mechanics cannot predict individual outputs, and different from Bell as he claims no θ-dependence exists. I intend to pursue this experiment, and I'm searching for other differences to explore and test.

        Cristi thanks again for treating this theory seriously. I do not believe I have made any mistakes in logic, physics, or math, in which case Bell was simply wrong in his assumptions and therefore in his conclusions. I know I have a long way to go to convince the physics community, but it begins with being taken seriously and with discussion of the theory and potential experiments. I do not expect to convince many people that Bell is wrong with my essay. My hope is that I will convince a number of people that Bell may be wrong, based on my analysis. This would represent a very significant change from today's situation, in which Bell's [erroneous, IMO] conclusions are stated as fact.

        Thanks again for your time and effort and my best wishes to you.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear Edwin,

        Thank you for your patience with which you answered my questions.

        You wrote "I know I have a long way to go to convince the physics community, but it begins with being taken seriously and with discussion of the theory and potential experiments."

        I think you should be the one to make the effort to explain and prove your theory, and I think I know what you should do. Without doing at least some of these steps, I think you will not convince me or others.

        1. I think that your calculation of the angles and the correlations can be done in a small number of pages, and you will have even room to give concrete examples. Unfortunately, you use most of the space in your papers, including the one of 134 pages, to argue against Bell and others, rather than showing clearly what you did.

        2. So make very clear the formula for the angle calculated from the initial values for spin and the orientation of the SG.

        3. Make very clear how you calculate the correlations. You say there is no formula, and you did not show an algorithm, but you claim you obtain the same correlations as Bell. Nobody will believe you without this, and not because they are biased.

        4. Be prepared to be asked to explain how you get the correlations for other tests of the EPR, which are not using the Stern-Gerlach device, for example those with photons.

        5. Be prepared to be asked to explain quantum teleportation, quantum time travel, various results in quantum computing, and other applications of the Bell states, which are entangled.

        6. Be prepared to be asked to explain why the atom is so well described by quantum mechanics, given that electrons can be in entangled states in the atom. So be prepared to provide an alternative explanation of the atoms.

        7. Bell's theorem is correct, stop saying the opposite, because everybody who read it knows. What you may want to say is that although it is correct, it is incorrect to apply it to the Stern-Gerlach experiment, because (you claim that) the spin values are not restricted to +1 and -1. You know that it was not Bell who invented the idea that outcomes of measurements are eigenvalues of some Hermitian operators, this goes back to the foundations of Quantum Mechanics, to Dirac and von Newmann. You should address the conflict between your theory and the measurement theory in QM.

        8. You propose an experiment, which should distinguish between a world with entanglement, and a world in which your theory is true. You claim that if the particles sent through the SG have the same initial state, they will end up in the same spot on the screen, and not a distribution like that on the postcard. You say that this is never observed because the initial states are different in spin and velocity. I think it is easy to solve this issue. Just make a hole in a certain place in the screen, and all particles that pass through that hole, will have the same spin and velocity. So you then let them go through another Stern-Gerlach device, and see if they arrive in just one spot. So I solved your technical problem with the preparation of identical particles, and your experiment is easier to be done.

        9. I proposed another experiment to distinguish your theory from the standard one. Alice and Bob start with two particles of opposite spins, one in Vienna, and one at MIT, and measure their spins. Your theory predicts the same correlations as Bell's for entangled states, while QM predicts that, since the particles are separated, the correlations will be the straight line which Bell attributes to local models. So it is easy to distinguish again between the two.

        10. You may think that I ask these steps because I am biased towards Bell and I want to make the task impossible for you. But why don't you contact researchers that work at hidden variables theories? They may be less biased. If you convince some of them, they will convince others, and it will be a real progress for your theory.

        Best wishes,

        Cristi Stoica

          • [deleted]

          • Post #271

          Cristi,

          You've been more than fair in critiquing the work that generally goes against your beliefs, which is admirable. I will respond to your points below.

          1. If by "calculation of the angles" you mean "derivation of the formula", I agree. As for the hundred and 34 page reference, I wrote this after understanding the physics of energy exchange, but before I built a model and realized that it is Bell's unrealistic constraints that are the real problem.

          2. Yes. I had assumed these details were to be part of a peer review paper and my FQXi results would be accepted as shown in the figures, while most of the essay should explain Bell's reasoning.

          3. No. I didn't say there is no formula. The expectation value is the correlation formula, i.e., the sum of all terms weighted by their probability distribution. I have not seen how to derive a "local" formula in closed form for the probability distribution but it is easily determined from simple "frequentist" approach to probabilities. If one of the AB values shows up 10% of the time it's probability is 0.1, and this is done for all of the values calculated for a fixed (a,b). That is how p(AB) is obtained. I have been very surprised that this seems not to be understood.

          4. I do not agree that to show Bell's Stern-Gerlach model is oversimplified and unjustified, I must also be able to explain the physics of photons. Very desirable, yes; necessary, no. Simply exhibiting a local model that produces quantum correlations should be enough to gain real interest.

          Two points:

          1.) The θ-dependence is not as obviously available in the test results, which are photon counts, not deflections. I have not analyzed photons as thoroughly as I have analyzed Stern-Gerlach.

          2.) Zeilinger says photons (like particles) align with the last filter they go through. This is a key similarity to SG, but I don't yet see the 'hidden θ' for photons.

          5. Teleportation is a misnomer. I do not believe in "quantum time travel", and I distinguish between "entanglement" in the Bell sense of non-locality versus the simple fact that interacting particles become correlated in the classical sense due to conservation of energy/momentum. I'm not convinced that if I present a theory and back it with experimental proof, that I'm required to explain all the rest of the (mostly photon-based) universe. Again, nice, but not necessary. My immediate goal is to present the Stern-Gerlach local model. Hopefully that would inspire some photon experts to re-analyze their situation.

          6. The key to atoms is the fact that |ps> = |p> x |s> where x represents tensor product. I am treating |s> = spin states here, and most of the atomic properties derive from the wave aspects of linear momentum |p>. I can explain this, but I think it best to focus on spin, as this is the basis of Bell's theorem and is responsible for much of the 'weirdness' of QM.

          7. I'm not sure why it is important to insist that Bell's theorem, if it is based on a faulty physical model of Stern-Gerlach, is "correct", but I do accept your advice that it is problematical for me to say otherwise. I've already begun to address the issue that Pauli's approach to QM spin is based on constant fields and that is why the precession-based quantized projection on the z-axis works. For inhomogeneous fields, the qubit approach is oversimplified. Dirac is different, and deals with helicity (see reference [4]). Quantum mechanics is a wonderful statistical theory, which I do not deny or in any way oppose. I love QM. But it is incomplete.

          8. The experiment you propose is essentially the same as that I propose (see Mar 17 @ 20:32 above). This experiment should be eminently doable. You appear to be saying you would find such an experiment (performed competently) convincing, which is good. I actually met with someone today who may be interested in doing this experiment.

          9. I agree with you.

          10. No. I think you have been more than fair. We are all biased, but that does not prevent a fair and rational discussion of issues. I've been discussing my model with local physicists (Bell-believers, all) for six months, and was waiting to see what kind of feedback I got from FQXi. Yours is definitely some of the most valuable feedback I have received, for which I thank you again. Yesterday I had also written my first email to the authors of a recent Phys Rev Letters paper dealing with hidden variables. I would appreciate any suggestions you might have for whom I should contact.

          Cristi, as I have noted, two generations of physicists have been so ingrained with Bell's theorem that, despite that his model does not produce the correct correlations, it is considered a fact that his model is valid. If my essay and other work will only get people to question his physical model (in favor of an energy exchange model) then that is progress.

          My best to you,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Hello Ed,

          I had to think for a while, before I could answer the deep questions you asked on my essay page, but I finally replied briefly and I copy my reply below, as it is a self-contained unit.

          JJD

          Jonathan said:

          You give me quite a lot to think about. I think the biggest determiner of what (Math) fundaments find expression in Physics is that structures must be consistent both internally and externally, both globally and locally. That is; a form must agree with itself, and also with the space or universe it inhabits, including any fields the space or its forms might contain.

          I see self-agreement of this type and the self-similarity in fractals to be harmonious concepts. There is an internal symmetry to the star-like sunburst shapes, for example, but they conform at the periphery to the surrounding space. This reflects a similar sensibility to your comments, as what is observed from the macro scale is always an inexact symmetry, but asymptotic to an exact and ideal symmetry at the core.

          All the Best,

          Jonathan

          Dear Edwin,

          Following further thoughts and the light thrown on the subject, I will be posting a follow up where I left off above.

          I may also be posting on a more public forum for others to comment, but not sure about that yet.

          Regards,

          Akinbo

            Following further thoughts...

            If we now proceed to carry out a Quantum version of my Classical Black and White ball experiment thus:

            A hydrogen atom consists of a single negatively charged electron and a positively charged proton. Given, a quantity of hydrogen atoms, if we split an atom one at a time and send the resulting particles one to Alice on Venus and the other to Bob on Mars. On receipt, armed with positive and negative charge detectors, Alice is to write parcel 1 = Positive or Negative as the case may be; parcel 2 = Positive or Negative as the case may be, etc up to parcel 12. Bob on Mars armed also with positive and negative charge detectors is to do the same. After the expedition they report back to you on Earth with their findings what will be the expected correlation in the results?

            Following, what you said earlier I expect a 100% correlation in their results. Am I correct? That is when Alice detects an electron, Bob detects a proton and vice-versa.

            *Detection of charge can be made by approaching the particle with a known charge, if repelled then it is of Same charge, if attracted then it is Oppositely charged. Now take note that these particles are foisted with a quantum mechanical property called "spin".

            Inferences:

            1. When electric charge is used, there can be 100% correlation and a locally realistic outcome in Quantum physics.

            2. If using spin therefore results in a lack of correlation, it makes sense that either

            (a). We don't know as much as we claim about the property called spin.

            (b). We don't know enough about how spin is measured by an equipment.

            3. Entanglement, wave function collapse is a result of our inadequate understanding of the invented property called spin and not a result of any mystery on the quantum scale that is absent on the classical scale.

            4. Use of SPIN, SOCKS, DIRECTION OF AXIS OF ROTATION depend on the position of the observer. For example, what is to Alice's left depends on whether Bob is facing or backing Alice. Orientation is key and can cause misunderstanding. This is not the case for a negative or a positive charge. Thus, any non-correlation is a result of orientation inconsistencies.

            Regards,

            Akinbo

            Hi Ed,

            I am re-posting this entry from the general contest forum here, because my reply to Sylvain Poirier relates directly to your essay, and I speak in defense of your ideas. More broadly speaking; this also offers support to Michael Goodband's contest essay and some of the ideas expressed by J. Christian, but I felt the comment I'm replying to was overly dismissive. Briefly; he claimed that both you and Kadin are in denial because "local deterministic realism has been refuted."

            Regards,

            Jonathan

            Jonathan J. Dickau said:

            There is a sensitive dependence..

            Precise definitions of 'local' and 'realistic' are required, and must be applied consistently throughout, because points that are close initially or appear identical, diverge later as any line of reasoning is followed. This could allow two different conclusions, with no logical missteps, because the bounding surface is a chaotic attractor.

            Did you grasp that Ed Klingman is using Dirac's criterion Sylvain, instead of Pauli's? If you accept Dirac's formula, it naturally follows that Pauli's criterion in QM has a restricted codomain - which is only reasonable if the Physics of the experimental setup demand it. This is what Edwin Klingman calls into question, and changes the outcome if all other logical steps are the same.

            So while, in some limited sense, local deterministic realism has been refuted, this does not speak to all of the subtle questions raised by EPR, and only applies if we use precisely the same definition used by Bell. I do not question that you may be correct; but I am universally skeptical of claims that various principles are decisively proved or refuted, and I look for further evidence that affirms or calls these claims into question.

            Regards,

            Jonathan