Dear Alan,

As a fellow conscientious local realist I very much enjoyed reading your essay. In many ways I thought it might serve as a nice prelude to my own.

However we differ seriously on at least one important point, which unfortunately suggests that we differ on crucial details: For I am certain that the view expressed in your Figure 4 is false.

Certainly the related text has two related typos: in the second paragraph, p.6 of your essay, cos2θ should read cos2(θ/2); sin2θ should read sin2(θ/2); for we need to take into account the spin s= 1/2 of the subject spin-half particles. Otherwise you are discussing the isomorphic photon experiment (spin s = 1); see next para.

Let us agree that the proposed experiment has not yet been conducted. Nevertheless the proposed experiment is isomorphic with one that E-L Malus conducted with beams of photons circa 1812; whence Malus' Law for light. Further, the proposed experiment is equivalent to one-half of the experiment C1/2 in my own essay.

In my essay you will see that the proposed experiment can be expressed and addressed in wholly classical terms, devoid of any reference to excited or ground states: ie, in your proposed experiment, the spin-half particles leaving SG1, en route to SG2, are all polarised spin-up. It is therefore certain that the outcomes will be distributed as follows: Detector 1 will record cos2(θ/2) and Detector 2 will record sin2(θ/2) of the outcomes; spin-up and spin-down respectively.

Note that my "certainty" is not based on dogma; rather it is based on (i) the unified boson/fermion experiment Ω considered in my essay, (ii) classical considerations alone (since the SG1 outputs are accepted as given), (iii) local-realism alone!

Hoping these remarks might lead you to reconsider your position in the "local realistic" spectrum, I really would welcome your critical comments on my own essay; especially as many find it difficult to understand -- (eg, see recent valid comments by Richard Gill and Peter Jackson; following an earlier one by Akinbo Ojo) -- and I'm working on improvements.

With best regards; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.

Dear Alan,

As you may know, I am rather skeptical of your theory. However, I do laud your effort to formulate a testable prediction and sincerely hope that someone will take up the opportunity to try to test it.

In case you have not already thought of it yourself, may I suggest the possibility of crowdfunding an experiment that would be carried out by a disinterested third party, preferably an experienced and well-respected experimental physicist in this area. This is one of the most certain areas to help attract attention if you do turn out to be right.

Best wishes,

Armin

    Dear Armin,

    I expect skepticism to my theory, but you focus quite correctly on the issue of experimental tests. Indeed, as the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued, only a theory that can be disproven experimentally (falsifiable) is truly scientific. Your idea of trying to crowdfund an experimental test is interesting.

    On another subject, I noticed that there seemed to be a large number of strategic downratings on the last day of Community voting. For my own essay, there were a series of 3 '1's given on the last day, one of these in the last hour. I wonder whether these voters really read the essay at all.

    But I hope that despite these last-minute changes, both of us will make it into the finals.

    Alan

    Dear Alan,

    On your last point, yes, the incentives are set up so that voting reflects game theoretic patterns instead of merits of content. The same happened to me as well, but what I find much more disturbing is that the pattern of telling people how one has rated their essays has become much more prevalent among the participants than in previous contests and now also infected comments by serious scientists. And then there is all the stuff going on behind the scenes, in which participants send each other emails and agree to collude. I did not believe this was happening until I received some unwelcome solicitations myself.

    It is really too bad that a wonderful idea like having a series of essay contests on the foundations of physics is marred by such idiotic execution.

    Armin

    3 months later

    "Not A Pilot-wave"

    Hi Alan,

    I support you in the argument to take off the blinders. Although I was never told to shut up and just accept the math, I was told that maybe I couldn't understand it. Fair enough, but I remember staying up all night throwing forks and spoons up in the air and pretending I was in an elevator so that I could understand the equation that I knew would be on the exam next day. I passed and Jimmy Haight my best physics teacher allowed me on the ski team where I learned more about gravity.

    I agree that as you say "a more natural way out of this dilemma is to dispense with the point particle entirely, and obtain the discrete particle nature from purely wave phenomena".

    That is what I did when I considered there might be a model of matter that explains both relativity and quantum mechanics. It is a rotating wave similar to your "helically rotating electric field vector corresponding to a circularly polarized (CP) electromagnetic wave". I have attached the general picture with the planar wave fronts arrayed around the axis of rotation which is in the forward (translational) motion of the rotating wave.

    Note how the planar wave fronts incline in accordance with EM (wave front and electric + magnetic fields must be perpendicular to motion of wave). That exhibits phenomenae described in the Special Theory of Relativity (Lorentz invariance) and furthermore when accelerated exhibits phenomenae described in the General Theory of Relativity.

    Of course when one considers the rotating wave (or field), then it logically explains gravity with required binding energy plus expansion of the universe and slowing of time. There is no need for the cosmological constant. I'm pretty sure I got the math right now on the Gkl derivation from the rotating wave.

    The inclined planar wave fronts of the rotating wave (or field) look similar to a propeller (or vanes of a jet engine). If you fly a plane in a tight circle and the propeller spins only ½ the way, then it looks upside down. It will take the plane two trips around to get the spinor propeller back into the original state. I suspect that is a valid reinterpretation of the "Balinese Dance" or "Feynman Plate Trick" and the helical rotation would thus be an inherent requirement.

    Good math makes good physics. I get a thrill of ah ha when the equation suggests a physical model and the physical models speaks back. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If one can dream up many dimensions, then one can look at alternative models, but certainly through the eyes of trained physics and math. My suggestion is to develop a special forum on the classically rotating wave (or field). It would be a work in progress with various specialists examining various attributes. There is also the technical application as well. I think there is already a patent application on the EM Propellor.

    I got to go for my jog and think. That "mysterious angular momentum of spin" and "dark energy / dark matter" are beckoning. I'd love to one day run past Einstein's house in Princeton and then maybe go on to Greece. I bet Dirac would enjoy your article.

    Bill ChristieAttachment #1: Rotating_Wave_picture_close_up.pdf

    Write a Reply...