Rescuing Reality

You objectivity is important Eckard,I like read your posts always concrete about our physics.I have seen that a lot of people confounded spirituality and measures.We can have an universal faith and in the same time we can respect our foundamental irreversible laws of God.Some persons try to insert a mysticism but the real relevance is to calculate correctly thisphysicality.It is a main problem in the sciences community, it is the same with hidden variables.Civil Engineers for me are the most skillings in science,they know well the maths and of course it is important for our towns and nuclear systems for example.The calcuations muts be precise simply.Don't stop never to be rational, we need that on FQXi also Eckard.

Regards

Boy these are hard questions. Action by standard physics is the integral of energy difference, the lagrangian, over either time or space or spacetime. Time and space are therefore implicit in action and are just another way to keep track of action.

We can count the spin periods of an electron as a sequence of actions, which is what we do and we call that counting time. That is how time emerges from action and likewise space emerges from the charge radius of the electron. We know that matter is a part of the universe and how matter distributes affects action and so we also like to keep track of matter. The charge radius is an intrinsic measure that allows us to keep track of matter as space or volume. That is how space emerges from matter and action.

This approach gets rid of all of the pesky infinities that plague space and time. Any 1/r2 force has a singularity at r=0 and the indivisibility of space is a tough nut to crack. In an discrete aether universe of discrete action, the problems of space and time are simply artifacts.

Rational and irrational numbers are a way that we keep track of space and time because for discrete aether and action, whole numbers are all that one needs. However, carrying around 1e39th digits is real silly since most action only needs a percent or so of precision for prediction. So we carry around a convenient number system that helps us predict action.

In the aether universe, all energy and momentum are equivalent to mass changes just like for all matter-energy equivalence. Therefore aether is fully compatible with relativity's MEE, but aether does not really have event horizons or light cones. The decay of the universe is what defines the speed of light and that means that all event horizons are where they belong in defining the edge of the universe.

This does mean that as matter decays, force and the speed of light increase, but that simply is the way the universe works. The galaxy red shift is real but due mostly to the slow speed of light in the early universe and therefore the weak charge and gravity forces as well...but there was more matter in the early universe.

The units for time and space are both dimensionless counts of spin periods and charge radii. We then assign those dimensions any convenient metric just like we do with wavefunctions, which are also dimensionless.

...oh yes, the question about absolute phase is also a good one. Since phase coherence decay is what differentiates a quantum and classical universe, the question of an absolute quantum phase comes up.

The phase of a photon resonance between an observer and a source is another way to define distance or separation and the only object that is the same distance from anywhere in the universe is the CMB creation. Anyone in the universe can measure the CMB distance and therefore know the size of the universe and that size is equivalent to an absolute phase.

That is how to measure absolute phase...

Hello Mr Agnew, I like your generality.That said I don't understand why you insist on this luminiferous aether.I can understand that like all you imrpove your works and it is difficult to change the line of reasoning.But you could extrapolate with the gravitational aether, it is more logic simply and more general.You can do it Jedi of the Sphere :)

Here is a link to the d'Espagnat article in Scientific American, noted above: The Quantum Theory and Reality The quote is from page 166.

Rob McEachern

There was a neural impulse that told me the universe was an impulse of matter and the Fourier transform of a impulse of matter is a matter spectrum that shows the amounts of matter as a function of mass as kg. The universe matter spectrum has electrons, protons, neutrons, photons, people, planets, stars, galaxies, and so on, but is absolutely dominated by a very large number, 1.2e125 of very small particles, 8.7e-69 kg, called aether. I also call this particle gaekron as a tribute to matter and time, but really to honor Newton and Einstein and all of the old guys, aether is a more appropriate term.

The ancients almost always have had some kind of an aether; the Chinese dao called it qi and still does call it qi; the Japanese alchemy, kami, is the spirit of all objects; the jinn of the middle east is spirit; and the western term aether became distinct from spirit about the time of Newton. Modern science disdains the term aether as too mystical, but aether has snuck back into science as vacuum oscillators and quantum foam and Higg's field.

It is about time...or is it about action?...that science restores the discrete aether to its rightful place as one of the two founding principles and axioms. Discrete aether along with quantum action come together to make the universe.

I must admit that I have never found any best general description of Bell's theorem. Since Bell did not do any real spectroscopic analyses, it is impossible for me to derive anything meaningful Bell's theorem. Somehow quantum transitions are these magical entities according to Bell and many others that have instantaneous correlations and there is never any mention of the very important property of quantum phase coherence.

Look...many very smart people unnecessarily complexify the simplest notions of the universe ostensibly to make some kind of point. Bell's theorem, in my humble opinion, is simply a complexification of a rather simple reality: Quantum phase coherence exists.

Until science can agree that classical observers do not measure phase and that quantum observers do measure phase, there is really no need for discourse. Without spectrometers, science cannot observe sources. With spectrometers, science either measure quantum phase or not measure it.

If the spectrometer does not measure quantum phase, that is fine, but do not try to argue that that is reality. Just try to get by. If the spectrometer measures quantum phase, then you have a shot at the pleasure of discovery of how the universe really works.

The d'Espagnat article is simply incomplete and has a host of all the regular hidden assumptions. It does not deal with time or space, it never mentions phase coherence or its decay, and this article is exactly what is wrong with much of the current quantum phase coherence discourse.

What we need are essays that discuss the nature of quantum phase coherence and what it means. Instantaneous quantum jumps are fine little approximations, but there is a time and phase dependence to all quantum action. Classical action also works quite well for most of gravity action except for dark matter, dark energy, and black holes. Then it needs serious fixin...

To the author,

I don't think it is interesting path of investigation to assume that nature behaves in absurd ways. We just haven't got all the necessary information about nature yet, to understand the extreme logic behind its functionalities. It only justifies absurd explanations,but brings no new insights to the table. It's basically a case of human self-overestimation. Experimental evidence comes with human interpretation and the latter has limitations.

Summarized : " In the reference frame of the unknown, everything is logical. "

Reality doesn't need to be rescued...just properly understood and experimented with.

T. van Flandern calculated the speed of a gravity wave in a continuous medium (an aether) > 10^6 c . If so, the entanglement and double slit/diffraction experiment can be explained using photons (particles). The affronts to intuition are unnecessary.

Photon Diffraction

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k )summarizes several development papers and an experiment that rejects wave models of light. Yet, the model is based on Newtonian world observations which result in intuitive models.

In all case, I did not know This thinker Mr Van Flandern,I see on wiki and others that he was very relevant.I beleive the same about this gravitation and particles correlated.I see that he is dead in 2009,unfortunately.He was general and very relevant,of course like all there are hypothesis also in the works of people,researchers.I don't agree of course with his speculation for example about the picture on mars from extraterrestrial intelligence.But he was a dreamer and an imaginative generalist.His soul travels Inside the sphere, he is like my parents dead on an other planet :) we are after all jedis of the sphere :)

ps I am curious to see his method of calculation to find this 10^6 c ? Do you know more Mr Hodge please?

Regards

Steve:

Thanks for your query.

My You Tube video referenced above provides references for my Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE).

T. van Flanderin use to publish "Meta Research Bulitin" which I think is no longer available. You may have to purchse his paper Van Flandern, T (1998). "The speed of gravity ? What the experiments say". Physics Letters A. 250 (1-3): 1. Bibcode:1998PhLA..250....1V. doi:10.1016/S0375-9601(98)00650-1 . or https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/tom-van-flandern-the-speed-of-gravity-what-the-experiments-say/ .

discusses some measurements most that say speed of gravity ~ c have flaws. http://milesmathis.com/fland.pdf discusses some measurements most that say speed of gravity ~ c have flaws.

This YouTube video is helpful https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NMozwMcN58 by searchin for Dr. Tom van Flandern.

The STOE suggests the particles are limited to c , Gravity is the divergence of a non-matter substance l like an aether that I call the plenum. Van Flanders's video discusses some of the problems of the rubber sheet view of gravity including the ability of he medium of gravity to transfer energy.

He also discusses the need for an intuitive concept which is in line with the present topic. I think to have a gravity wave, the plenum must have an inertia but no gravitational mass like particles.

I like the sun light vs sun gravity .

You are welcome Mr Hedge,

His works seem very interesting.Your plenum also, I consider also a gravitational aether instead of a luminiferous aether.You make me think about the inertia and the quantity of motions with a kind of lagrangian with potential and kinetic energy and my equation intuitive but not complete or in the error I beleive about the constant mlosV=constant with the 3 motions of 3D spherical volumes.1/2 mv² is always relevant and if we correlate with my seccond equation E=mc²+ml² with l proportional with the spherical cosmological volumes of BH in logic but I am not sure if mlosV is correct, I beleive that yes for gravitation, but not for electromagnetic forces in fact.It is not easy in fat.l is not constant like c.It is intriguing and complex when we consider that number decreases towrads physical singularities but tends to infinity for the particles correlated for fields.Like at this cosmologial Scale.Your plenum seems tending to infinity entropially speaking.Thanks for sharing in all case.Best Regards

Mr Hodge sorry not Hedge :) I write too quickly without rereading.Sorry still

I have a recent paper on vixra: Correlation of - Cos θ Between Measurements in a Bell's Inequality Experiment Simulation Calculated Using Local Hidden Variables

http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0327

In the paper I take Susskind's example of how QM breaks a Bell's Inequality and make a computer simulation using local hidden variables of artificial particles. I obtain exactly (by the dot product projections onto the detector vectors) the same QM values for the proportions which break the inequality as calculated by Susskind. Clearly, my simulation is finding fractional projection proportions of exact unit particle vectors onto exact detector vectors. QM gets the same proportions without knowing the individual particle vectors. But as the answers are the same, the QM proportions are statistically estimated fractional projection values onto exact detector vectors. And these break the inequality.

Having established that the QM proportions breaking the inequality are, or at least match in value, fractional projections onto exact detector vectors, I then calculated the quantum correlation using a similar, local method. Knowing the exact particle vectors allows the fractional projection on each detector for each particle separately, and these fractional values can be correlated. They give the disattenuated quantum correlation (i.e 0.707 for 45 degrees) rather than the mundane, truncated, Bell-limited correlation (0.5). It is also a standard formula that a correlation between two exact vectors is cos theta where cos 45 degrees = 0.707. So my simulation has used proportions on exact detector vectors, and correlations on similar proportions to break the inequality for both proportions and correlations.

All the above is based on real, local, hidden variables of the particles. The particles' exact vectors need to be known for the simulations, whereas QM can estimate the proportions without knowing the hidden variables. And it is great that QM can do this. But unfortunately QM cannot cope with the two dimensional nature of a correlation. QM cannot derive the quantum correlation between exact detector vectors that I have simulated.

For me that should be end-of-game as my simulations show there is nothing spooky about breaking Bell's Inequality using exact fractional values on exact vectors. But QM cannot do the same for correlations on exact vectors, and it must be shown that QM can do this job. So instead ..... CHSH theory bases its calculation on the correlations between fuzzy vectors-on-a-hemisphere! Alice's and Bob's measurements are fuzzy vectors on a hemisphere as they have compactified the rich data of the particle's directions into binary outcomes where +1 represents one hemisphere and -1 represents the the complementary hemisphere. This loss of information in going from exact to fuzzy vectors is a form of loss of precision in measurement. The loss of precision is a loss of reliability of measurement. Loss of reliability of measurement is well known to attenuate a correlation, eg from 0.707 down to 0.5. But QM must be shown to have the power to calculate the disattenuated quantum correlation direct, so here is where the spooky non-locality enters the picture through trying to correlate two fuzzy vectors in order to get the same correlation as one gets between the two exact vectors.

I am currently writing a further vixra paper on the topic of CHSH results. I have simulated a CHSH S = 2.5 statistic by starting with a CHSH S = 2 statistic involving 16*8 measurements of A and B in total. Then maliciously (rather than randomly) tweaking just 4 of the 128 measurements by reversing their signs, sends S from 2 to 2.5. A 2015 real experiment reports S = 2.4 where they are aiming for 2.818 and trying to rise above 2.0.

" it is action that defines what we call time. "

A perfect circularity - or an implied re-definition of the word'action', the new meaning of which you haven't supplied.

Speaking of retrocausality, maybe someone good with Fourier Transformations could discover if the authorization of the travel ban executive order is on the signature of Donald Trump or a Fourier Transform of GOP polygraphs.

Certainly, "Rescuing Reality" is a fair description of the task now facing the Republicans in Congress.

Hi Matt,

I am impressed you breadth and imaginativeness.

I think you will be interested in "Reality Re-Envisaged", which also looks at how future possibilities affect present events, through the agency of minds.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2754

best regards, ...george...Attachment #1: Reality_ReEnvisaged_G_Simpson_12_Feb_2017.pdf