Dear Sir, After reading the abstract, I was expecting this to be a joke. Then after reading it that opinion was confirmed.

    Dear Harry Hamlin Ricker III,

    Thanks for reading my essay and now being part of 'the joke'.

    PS: Harry, I recall that one of your many essays refutes Einstein's theory of relativity on 12 grounds (based on maths, physics, philosophy and experiments). Alas, as you've seen, the essence of 'my joke' is that it is not so easily refuted.

    Thanks again; Gordon

    Dear Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan,

    Welcoming your comment, I returned to your Essay, thinking that I had missed your reference to, or discussion of "exact definitive questions of Universal Truth".

    I found the word "Truth" in the title of your essay, but nowhere else: thus I found no combination "Universal Truth".

    So, if you would clarify MY "deviating from the exact definitive questions of Universal Truth," I would be very happy to respond. For I continue to maintain that my essay represents a true picture of four important experiments and thus: the true connection between the mathematics and the physics therein.

    Sincerely; Gordon

    As far as you did not understand the meaning of "Universal Truth" you will "deviate from the definitive questions and my paper as well."

    - Regards,

    Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

    Dear Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan,

    If you would be so kind as to provide "the exact definitive questions of Universal Truth", I will be pleased to respond re any deviations.

    For example, noting that such questions are not provided in your essay: We might then productively discuss my "deviating from your paper" in the context of "those exact definitive questions".

    Thanks, Gordon

    You say my essay doesn't convey the "Universal Truth" the foundation questions of the cosmological evolution; it clearly states that you "did not get the purport of my essay."

    I have made various mentions in footnotes : U can explore more about the subject since everything is not possible to explain in this comment box.

    Your doubts or questions will be simplified there.

    - Sincerely,

    Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

    Gordon,

    While reading your essay, I found a piece of unused space (white space). It is at the bottom of page 5, right under section 3.6. Surely you could have mercifully inserted a few words of plain English in there - even if you had to wedge it in edgewise. It would provide a much needed respite among the hieroglyphics (admittedly, section 3.6 already provides a few seconds to catch one's breath).

    Well, that is my take on it. And yeah, we likely agree on "Universal Truth" (you would probably say that "that's not even a proposition").

    My rating will exceed what you have "enjoyed" from the readers so far, but it could have been higher. Please have mercy and consider the reader.

    En

    UNIVERSAL TRUTH

    how do you explain that in your essay?

    The supposedly phrased man "exact definitive questions of Universal truth"

    You're quite offensive in the forum discussion, no doubt about that!

    - Sincerely,

    Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

    You say my essay doesn't convey the "Universal Truth" the foundation questions of the cosmological evolution; it clearly states that you "did not get the purport of my essay."

    Tell me what foundational questions does my essay lack Mr.Supposedly "exact definitive man"?

    - Sincerely,

    Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

    Dear Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan,

    A: In relation to our exchanges: Please note that my comments arise from my seeking to understand YOUR opening response to my essay. Let me repeat your response here:

    You are deviating from the exact definitive questions of Universal Truth. (MSJ)

    So I'll be pleased to defend my essay as soon as you (i) clarify for me these exact definitive questions of Universal Truth, or (ii) rephrase your objection so that it makes sense to me.

    B: In relation to the comments on your Essay-Forum, you introduced the truism: ... everything is not possible to explain in this comment box. But these comment boxes are surely large enough for you to provide at least one of the "exact definitive questions of Universal Truth" that you say my essay does not address. Further, if you need additional space, simply open another comment box!

    PS: Since the four experiments that I analyse yield truths, such will not conflict with any Truth that you care to offer. And since my essay is essentially written at the level of undergraduate maths and logic (given that I will happily answer, at that level, any technical questions), why not pinpoint an error in my work and link it to one of those exact definitive questions of Universal Truth of yours? In this way we might both learn something.

    Sincerely; Gordon Watson

    En,

    Thanks for your comments and the spirit in which they are offered. Those 11 pages of unused white-space in your own essay would certainly have come in handy! Nevertheless, I thought my limited use of white-space was justified given that: (i) My essay had to begin with precise definitions of its terms and symbols. (ii) It is expansively written at the level of undergraduate maths and logic. (iii) With its heavy mathematical content, it's meant to be read critically!

    Moreover, my theory was not developed for fun. Rather, it arose in response to widely-recognized difficulties associated with John Bell and "nonlocality". Further, it is not without some signs of progress: for we now find many Bellians (and prior avoiders) back-peddling from their earlier positions.

    En, given the similarity of our conclusions and the rarity of such challenges* to Wigner's position, I'd welcome any deeper and more critical analysis of my work.

    * For easy comparison, here's a conclusion from my essay (p.5; the piece that you cite):

    3.6. We therefore close with a happy snapshot of Wigner's (1960:14) views and our own:

    ... "The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve."

    ... Nature speaks in many ways, from big bangs to whispers [like the whisper of an apple falling], but just one grammar, beautiful mathematics, governs all her languages: thus all her laws.

    Here's yours: "There is no mystery. Whenever you find a consistent (repeatable) observation, it automatically means that you can use math to make utilitarian sense of it."

    There is no mystery. [...] inserted for clarity. Thanks again; Gordon

      Hello Gordon

      I skimmed your paper with great interest, happy to see local realism defended (I think) in such a technical way. I say "I think" because my brain has no capacity to go through all the impressive-looking logical equations and statements you have used to buttress your conclusions. In this contest Edwin Klingman shows how Bell made a basic mistake in his Theorem. In my essay I argue that local causal discrete realism prevails at the micro structure of the Universe where physics and mathematics essentially coalesce into the smallest most basic building blocks of everything. I base these ideas on my Beautiful Universe Theory - I value your feedback.

      With best wishes,

      Vladimir

        Dear Gary,

        Addressing your key comments (some seeming typos fixed):

        1. Essay (AB|CQ) = 1 was profoundly sublime. I had to read it several times of course. I'm still digesting it. The formalisms are challenging but comprehensible.

        Please see #4 below as added motivation to check the physics in detail. Please ask questions as the need arises (privately if you wish); no matter how simple or daft.

        2. If I had named the essay, I would have titled it "Bell's Inequality, revision 2.0 - The Missing Pieces".

        I could have done with that improvement at essay-closing time! But the version here is a Draft and v2. has this new working title: "Nature's mathematics settles the physics in Bell-v-Einstein." I look forward to the day when we have: GA settles the physics in Bell-v-Einstein.

        Reason: Reading many of the essays here, I see the need for terms like GA or Nature's mathematics in many places. We need, in my view, the ultimate mathematics for realists: having no irrelevant abstractions and all relevant laws satisfied continuously. See #4 again; noting, of course, that our work with relevant abstractions is just fine for man-made gadgets from submarines, through LHCs and skyscrapers, to rockets.

        3. I assume that you have read Dr. Klingman's essay. If not, you should - no, you MUST. You and he are on exactly the same page.

        Yes, thank you; many times. Alas, at the moment, I suspect we are not in the same library. But I hope that will change; hopefully helped along by work such as yours. Note that Ed's model could not address the simple test proposed by Cristi Stoica (a leading essayist here); nor Aspect's results; and how is Ed's 'realism' defined; etc.

        4. Geometric Algebra is peeking its head out regarding the beables and their local values.

        I am so glad that you see that! Please be the first to help that shy, beautiful (and sometimes tricky) GA out of the closet and work with her in the unified "BT" context proposed in my essay. For I'd love to see elementary GA taught in primary schools: with GA on its way to becoming Nature's local realistic Mathematics.

        5. Re GA.

        How is your work received within the GA community? Have you any rejections from journals? If so, what do they say? (Write to me privately if you wish.) Are you familiar with Elio Conte's efforts? For example: Conte, E. (2001). Biquaternion Quantum Mechanics. Bologna, Pitagora Editrice? (Alas, he supports nonlocality!) How about this Caves, Fuchs, Schack essay [arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0104088v1.pdf] and the view that amplitudes should be complex numbers rather than reals or quaternions?

        With best regards, and looking forward to spending time with your ideas; Gordon

        FYI:My Essay 2408 error corrections @

        Chicago Section AAPT

        Spring Meeting 2015 - Glenbrook South High School

        April 11, 2015

        8:15-8:45

        Registration and Continental Breakfast

        8:50-9:00

        Welcome and Introductions - John Lewis - Host

        9:00 -9:15

        Dimensionless Dualities

        Ted Erikson - R/E UnLtd. - sdog1@sbcglobal.net

        Thanks Jonathan; I very much appreciate your interest. My work it is indeed intended to be serious. A local-realistic unification and examination of four experiments: challenging Bell's views and his conclusions re nonlocality ...

        ... all in the context of Trick or truth: the [as supposed] mysterious connection between physics and mathematics.

        So I hope you'll be back soon with some questions! For I'd welcome the chance to show you that: (i) the maths is little more than high-school stuff; (ii) the defining of new things is little more than my ensuring that all definitions are cleaned-up mathematically.

        In this way I'd expect you to find that long conversations might be reserved for areas of common interest; like the benefit of videos/lecture/pictures/animations. Which all sounds more like your department and some near-future co-operation.

        To that end, my immediate goal is to invite serious critiques of my work so that it is clear what I must fix/improve. The point being that the four unified experiments do deliver the results that I claim: for all my results are consistent with actual experiments; or consistent with accepted quantum theory where experiments have not yet been done.

        With my thanks again; Gordon

        Gordon,

        Since you already posted your comment on both of our pages, there wasn't anything of value I could still bring over here from my page.

        I think you are looking for a logical challenge to your arguments. I doubt you will get that here. Not that some of these people aren't capable of following your logic. It's just that in their opinion the investment of time and effort necessary to follow your arguments is greater (in some sort of subjective valuation system) than the expected benefit. Most people (as you well know) have already accepted the tenets of QM, and are prejudiced against views that challenge "the establishment."

        In other words, most people expect your logic to have a failing somewhere, and even if it didn't, they believe that the conclusions would not be somehow valid or substantive enough to truly challenge accepted interpretations of QM.

        I am used to thinking in English, simultaneously accompanied by a visual imagery of the thing under consideration (they happen seamlessly together). I don't recognize a single "symbol" in your essay. For me to learn those symbols would take too long (the way such things work is that if you work with symbols for some years, your mind fluidly treats them as meaningful language), and since I don't expect to be doing this kind of thinking in the future, it would not be an optimal use of my time.

        Because of my jobs in finance, I had to become proficient in MS Excel, and I will admit to being able to "program" logical statements that run into thousands of characters and still be able to "keep the logic" in my conscious working memory (so to speak). Over time, Lotus 123 and MS Excel varied their capability of handling formulas of certain lengths, as well as the number of nested "if" statements, so sometimes it had to be broken up into several cells that (in combination) resulted in the formula I needed. But this does not guarantee that I could do what you do with your symbols. I think you have a unique gift.

        But your problem is that you aren't getting the right people to spend the time learning to understand the logic of your arguments. Worse still, because of that, they do not realize the consequences (or, rather, they prefer to not acknowledge them). If you want to make a difference (and not just have a chat), then you need to get your work reviewed by the right people. It won't be easy. They have jobs, reputations, funding, and peers to consider.

        I think you get the drift.

        En

        Thanks En; some good points, and much appreciated. But this one is strange: I don't recognize a single "symbol" in your essay.

        Please, En: Probability P is defined in Table A3 of my essay. Surely, in top-level Finance, P is in play every day?

        PS: To be clear, the concrete and abstract elements of the unified experiment (particles, detectors, etc) are given in Table A1.

        Gordon

        Hello Vladimir,

        And, Yes: I defend local realism in a technical but very elementary way. Further, from reading your essays, I'm sure that your brain is quite capable of understanding my "logical equations and statements" for they involve little more than high-school maths and logic.

        Moreover, if you want to study my work in detail, I am happy to hold your hand and answer any questions. In this way we might see the extent to which your beautiful graphics could be applied to important local-realistic results which are proven experimentally and/or consistent with accepted quantum formalisms: though my work refutes any claims or interpretations invoking nonlocality in Bell-test experiments.

        As for your essay in your link above: I've sent you some personal comments on your notation there. I'll comment further on your current essay on your forum. It is clear that your work is beautifully presented and much more adventurous than my own.

        PS: Regarding Ed Klingman's work, I am satisfied that it is nonsense! Apart from my own analysis (some of it lodged in his forum), you will see that he cannot address Cristi Stoica's elementary challenge (Cristi being a highly-ranked essayist here). Further, under David Mermin's well-known examples of Bell-tests with Red and Green lights, Aspect's experiments are essentially isomorphic to Bell (1964), etc. Yet, again, Ed has no answer!

        With best regards; Gordon

        • [deleted]

        • Post #39

        I liked the quotation at the bottom of the last page of the essay:

        "On one supposition we absolutely hold fast; that of local/Einstein causality: 'The real factual situation of the system S2 is independent of what is done with the system S1, which is spatially separated from the former,' after Einstein (1949:85)"

        What people don't realise is that the problem with local-realism is due to insisting on the "realism" of counterfactuals. Which by definition are things which might have happened but didn't. Might have been real, but weren't realised.

        You have to realise that not all elements of mathematical models are necessarily parts of the "real factual situation". What people call "realism" is actually idealism. The realists assume also the existence in reality of items which don't have to be there. Hidden variables. They're not just hidden - they are mathematical fictions! The wave function itself was the first hidden variable of hidden variables theory. It's there in the mathematics. You can hide it in various ways, or express it in different terms (density matrix, geometric algebra, ...). But why do people want it to be there in reality as well as among the symbols we write on paper and manipulate algebraically?

        Of course, quantum physics is consistent with locality: it is a sensible theory. It passes the first sanity test: It predicts that the real factual situation of S2 is independent of what is done with system S1.

        This sanity test has been expressed in a much stronger form than was often done in the past in a wonderful but difficult paper by Pawlowski et al (Nature, 2009)

        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7267/abs/nature08400.html

        You can find a "free" version of this paper on arXiv, http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2292

        The authors introduce the principle of information causality, which roughly speaking says that if Alice sends n bits of information to Bob, and Bob and Alice are at the same time doing measurements on stuff in their labs, then Bob only gains at most n bits of information which he didn't already have at his place. The case n = 0 is "no action at a distance". They show that information causality implies the Tsirelson bound 2 sqrt 2 (this is the bound which QM can attain, higher than the local realism bound of 2 of the CHSH inequality).

        Thus QM passes the sanity test with flying colours. In fact, among all sane theories, it allows the strongest possible pattern of correlations of measurements done at distant places.

          Sorry, anonymous was me ... somehow I got logged out by mistake