Dear Jim,

I very much enjoyed your essay and recommend it to others. As you note there is considerable overlap in our views. You are also correct that not everyone recognizes that multiverse maps point to no observed territory, but, on the other hand, quite a number of us do. And yes, for many they are sacred cows.

I'm familiar with Zukov's book (or was in 1979) and, in short, do not require entanglement to realize that everything in the universe is connected. The gravitational field, for example, connects everything in the universe. But as far "instantaneous" connection, as implied by entanglement, my theory rejects this. If you view the figure at the bottom of page 6 in my essay, the difference between Bell's local model [the straight line] and quantum mechanics and experimental results [the cosine curve] is shaded. It is the shaded area that represents 'entanglement'. Bell concluded [based on the failure of his own oversimplified local model] that no local model could produce the cosine curve [mine does, see page 7]. Thus there had to be "something" to explain reality [i.e., the cosine correlation] so entanglement was invented. If my local model produces the cosine curve [it does] then the shaded area vanishes and there is no need for entanglement. I have not yet analyzed photon-based experiments sufficiently to draw the same conclusion, but I expect that will be the case.

The issue of "communication faster than light" in terms of entanglement, is a little more complex, and people argue over the exact meaning of 'communication', but my theory rejects entanglement in the Bell sense, at least where it relates to Stern-Gerlach experiments.

Thanks for reading and commenting, and thanks for entering your excellent essay in the contest.

Best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

I find this a most enlightening response. I am not enthusiastic about the Bell topic, except that I perceive it as an attempt to foist falsehood on the scientific community under the guise of Authority.

I am considering posting my Classical and Quantum poser on a more accessible FQXi forum (still wondering under what forum topic). If I do so, kindly oblige me exactly this same response, then others can pick up the thread from there. Thanks.

Akinbo

Edwin, your essay is excellent and very stimulating to read - it offers a fascinating approach to Bell's theorem and to reclaiming the intuition of locality. I really liked how you gave a fresh analysis while covering all the technical background very informatively. It reminds me in many ways of the style in your other essays and comments. My essay also addresses intuition and "changing the map" via different representations. Also, I discuss how non-locality can instead be understood as the physical manifestation of superposition expressed through alternate universes and invoked from a self-referential operation, and I back this up technically. Your focus was a little different, and I like your take on expanding what otherwise was considered to be restraints in measurement theory - your ideas are very inspiring.

Thoroughly a great contribution to the forum and I rated this very highly, the top. Please take a moment to check out my essay and to rate it as well.

Thanks, Steve

    Hi Steve,

    Thanks for your very kind remarks on my essay.

    I very much enjoyed your essay. While ordinarily I tend to think of coordinates as simply a labeling convention, your discussion of inertia and the fact that "Any mathematical representation still depends on physical assumptions, and changing the mathematical representation changes the physical explanation we use." And, per gravity, changing the physical assumptions changes the mathematical representation of space-time.

    This perspective certainly applies to Bell's theorem. When one changes the physical assumption from "precession in a constant field" to "scattering in a non-constant field" the representation changes from Pauli's provisional binary map to a continuum-based scattering spectrum, with consequent changes in correlation.

    Your treatment of computation is excellent, beginning with "every finitely realizable physical system can be perfectly simulated by a ... computing machine..." My Automatic Theory of Physics explores this point and [page 10 in my essay] I show how the automaton's 'next-state-address' corresponds to the physics 'potential' by linking the canonical automaton to Feynman's QFT kernel.

    Your explanation that undecidability of self-referential statements can be traced to endless loops that destroy causality is excellent. Your further discussion of half pulses, not gates, and your insights for future research are fascinating. Thank you for your essay.

    My best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Alan/Edwin,

    I am sorry to "borrow" your respective essay pages to make the following points (and I sincerely hope it does not affect your ratings adversely).

    Mathematics is our investigation into our own brains (codified in the language of mathematics). It requires great creativity for it to be fruitful. Physics, then, would be the attempt to express (explain) in a "language" (usually mathematics) how things behave in the universe.

    Let's not forget that the referents of "mathematics" and "physics" did not exist prior to human existence. We get to define what those terms mean.

    Much is being made of the success of mathematics (being taken to its logical conclusions) in "predicting" certain results that are later confirmed by experiments (or aligned with physics theory). This should not be a surprise. It is not mathematics alone that derived the said conclusions. The terms (i.e. qualities) at first established to have mathematically valid relationships are just "rehashed" (using mathematics) into new physical relationships. Those physical relationships existed prior to that, and the mathematical "machinations" simply converted the already known relationships into ones that existed in physics, but had not yet been expressed in their new form.

    I am only writing this for those who can understand it. Please don't ask me to explain it.

    You cannot have a scientific theory that is based on probability, and expect to derive new physical relationships from there indefinitely. Only deterministic physical theories (i.e. ones that can be taken to logical conclusions without "end") will work in the long run.

    Soon, our garden will melt, and I will be busy interacting with the universe "first hand."

    En

      Dear En Passant,

      You make a very interesting observation:

      "You cannot have a scientific theory that is based on probability, and expect to derive new physical relationships from there indefinitely. Only deterministic physical theories (i.e. ones that can be taken to logical conclusions without "end") will work in the long run."

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear Akinbo,

      I will be happy to respond with the [above] response to any FQXi forum posting you desire. But please alert me to the thread where and when I can so olige you.

      My best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear Edwin,

      Considering your response to my comment, I will "improve" upon my comment.

      If the universe was not what we ordinarily call deterministic, it would have disappeared by now.

      I am sure this will invite many contrary opinions.

      En

      En,

      That sounds true to me but I don't think you can prove it. Wait, where have I heard that before?

      Best Regards,

      Gary Suimpson

      Hi Dr. Klingman--

      A truly excellent essay! Congratulations. I have always loved Korzybski's dictum, "The map is not the territory". I think that you applied it perfectly to the question of the relation between physics and math. Maps are merely tools to aid in our navigation of the terrain. Just so, math is a tool to aid in the navigation of our physical world. In terms of the Big Picture, I align with you.

      As to the issue of Bell's Theorem, I confess that your grasp of quantum mechanics (QM) far exceeds mine. So, permit me to ask the proverbial stupid questions: How does your energy exchange model handle space-like entanglement situations? Do space-like correlations entail more-or-less instantaneous exchanges of energy? If so, how does that work, especially with respect to Special Relativity?

      I suspect that you have already answered these types of question someplace in your ~300 posts and threads (which has to be some sort of record and leaves me overwhelmed!). If so, just point me to the right thread and I'll take it from there.

      Once again, a great essay. I really liked you diagrams, too.

      Best regards,

      Bill.

        Hi Bill,

        Thanks for your very positive comments. I'm glad you enjoyed my essay as much as I did yours.

        As I understand your question, you are interpreting energy-exchange as a global phenomena between remote particles. Instead, it is a local exchange between two modes of the particle: the precession-mode (rotational) energy and the deflection-mode (linear) kinetic energy. [Think of molecules that exchange energy between their own vibrational and rotational energy modes.] As the dipole moment aligns with the field, the precession energy vanishes, while the particle is accelerated up (or down) and this component of kinetic energy increases. This exchange of energy correlates with the output of the Stern-Gerlach experiment; the particle is scattered in an inhomogeneous field. So there is no energy exchange between remote particles, only between modes of each local particle. The amount of energy exchange depends upon the initial spin direction, i.e., upon the angle θ between local spin and local field, hence the output position is θ-dependent. Bell suppresses and does not consider this θ-dependent physics.

        As a result of the θ-dependent physics, the position of the scattered particles varies, and is not +1 or -1 as Bell insists. Thus the correlation between Alice's and Bob's outputs does not yield Bell's straight line, but instead yields the cosine curve -a.b predicted by quantum mechanics and found by experiment.

        Entanglement was invented to explain the difference between Bell's local model and reality (the end-to-end correlation). But my local model does not differ from the real correlation, hence there is no need to either invent or invoke entanglement. Therefore, local energy-exchange between local particle modes and the lack of entanglement for my local model means that there is no 'instantaneous' global (end-to-end) exchange of anything, hence no need for entanglement, hence no special relativity issues.

        The remainder of my essay examines why Bell ignored this θ-physics, and I concluded that, by assuming a precessing particle in a constant field instead of a particle scattered by a non-constant field, he applied the wrong (Pauli's provisional) eigenvalue 'map' to the physics problem. It's complex, and as Jonathan Dickau remarks, a "self-concealing" problem. So most of the analysis of Bell's theorem for 50 years has focused on probability, math, logic, and counterfactualism, and simply accepted that Bell's 'constant field approximation' was correct. But it is not appropriate, and thus one should not draw such hugely non-intuitive conclusions as 'non-locality' from an inappropriate approximation.

        Thanks for putting the effort into understanding a complex essay. [It's not as if your own essay was simple!]

        Best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear Dr. Klingman,

        I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally well written and I do hope that it fares well in the competition.

        I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

        All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

        Joe Fisher

          Hi Dr. Klingman--

          Yes, you correctly interpreted my question. Thank you for taking the time to provide an answer. It was very clear. I wish you all the best.

          Bill.

          5 days later

          Ed, referring to my two questions (unanswered) above:

          Please: In what sense is your model realistic?

          Thanks; Gordon

          EEK,

          Well researched worthy of scientific publication. Addresses a thorn in everyone's side i.e. non-locality.

          - You integrated well a few FQXI questions in the body of your discourse.

          - My take on bell's experiment; Once one addresses a single photon polarization, this polarization becomes a quantum number which, under the constraint of the analyzer (measurement) must assume only discrete values: 0 or 90 degrees... Other values are to be rounded off to these two values... My understanding of QM.

          very good job,

          Marcel,

            Dear Joe Fisher,

            Thank you for your kind remarks. I have responded as you asked on your essay page.

            Best Regards,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Marcel,

            Thanks for reading my essay and commenting so graciously. As you imply, most Bell-type experiments are performed with photons, which I've not yet analyzed in equivalent detail. But Bell's basic model was based on the Stern-Gerlach experiment on particles in a magnetic field, and all references that I've seen in the literature state that "no local model" can yield the quantum correlation. Thus, while I've not yet analyzed photon experiments, I have shown that the general statement about local realism in the physics literature is incorrect. One might hope this would cause physicists to ask why they have been wrong for 50 years about particles, and perhaps not be so absolutely certain about photon-based experiments. That doesn't seem to be happening.

            I still consider your essay on the logic of the substantial universe to be one of the best ever.

            My best regards,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Doc,

            I'm taking a bit of a break, I have a low saturation point, but look in on a few things. Analysis of Aspect type 'photon' experiments opens the classical vs. Quantum can of worms, and either way is structured on the premise that the Planck quanta is indivisibly a fundamental energy action quantity, and a lot of times theoretically taken only as the energy term instead of erg sec.

            Constantinos Ragazas presents strong arguments to support the case that the 'quanta' itself is in reality an empirical experimentally derived; least observable average. I haven't digested it enough to comment ontologically, but at present think it must go to co-incidence of the hyberbolic function Minkowski identified with Lorentz and the parabolic function of the natural exponential function, which is observed when the EM wave is 'stopped' in an absorption event with a relative rest entity in the atomic structure on a detection device. His conclusions are quite disruptive of both Classical and Quantum, because he shows that it is the rapidity trigometrically in any wave that distinguishes the frequency in a continuous flow of energy and that a range of energy content can be carried in any given frequency, which averaged over is what theoretically we ascribe to a 'photon' experimentally.

            So without a rational waveform that we can differentiate as a single wave of specific energy/frequency, and without reliance on the 'quanta' as a matter of expedience lacking source rationale, as we now do with the post hoc/proctor hoc assumption of the quantum leap, Aspect experiments have to be treated with a skepticism you'd find in any towny bar. It's a trick bulb. Now, cutting a deck to pull an Ace, IS simple physics!

            If you have time, you (and others) might like to take a look at a Master's Thesis on Rubidium experiments, cited by Steven Sax, by Amir Waxman which can be found at: http://www.bgu.ac.il/atomchip/Theses/Amir_Waxman_MSc_2007.pdf

            What is found is that staged half-pulses of laser light produce a discretized photon result in the target Rubidium atom. But what may be of interest in your arguments and to distinguish measure systems between Q & C, is that in their protocols the Waxman group specifies 'free precession' but which in the co-ordinate system called 'spin', the axis of precession intersects with the intersection origin of the orthogonal. That does not allow +1,-1 antipodes on the sphere surface to float as is observable in free precession of the wobble of the N&S magnetic poles of the earth, which tracks an ideal axis that does not intersect 'dead sphere center'. Natural precession in a particle can not be constrained to a hypothetical symmetry of an abstract measurement scheme.

            The sun just came out, I'm going to do some messy yard work so I can focus on something that doesn't need much, and so I won't get in the way of what's floating around in my head. I need the well-being of being physical, too. best-jrc

            Edwin Klingman,

            Your essay does a good job addressing the subject and of suggesting experiments that could contradict Bell's theorem. There is ample reason to question the long standing reign of Bell's conclusion. I do have a question which I will post in responce to your comments on my essay.

            Sherman Jenkins

              Dear Sherman Jenkins,

              Thank you for reading my essay and responding as you have. I have responded further on your essay page.

              My best wishes for you,

              Edwin Eugene Klingman