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...

24 days later

  • [deleted]

  • Post #105

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.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #107

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.

    Hello,

    It is interesting, could you tell us more please Mr Hodge?

    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

    a month later

    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.

    11 days later

    " 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.

    11 days later

    • [deleted]

    • Post #115

    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.

      6 days later

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

      5 days later

      • [deleted]

      • Post #117

      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

      21 days later

      • [deleted]

      • Post #118

      Very little is needed to rescue reality from the clutches of quantum weirdness. T. van Flandern (Physics Letters A,250, 1 (1998) measured gravity speed much greater than the speed of light. This gives entanglement if matter has a characteristic frequency distribution. The gravity wave travel to matter with similar characteristic and resonate.

      If photons cause waves in the space (gravitational aether) and these waves reflect off atoms, we get photon diffraction and a predicted experiment that rejects the Huygens wave model. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k )

      Further, Bohm's Interpretation has a source for its pilot wave. The Transcriptional Interpretation (\Psi*) is the reflected wave that is how matter reacts ("senses") to objects (masks, etc) before the matter gets here. This explains the quantum eraser.

      All the quantum hocus-pocus (weirdness) become classical.

      Hodge

        Hi John,

        Actually that should be the Transactional Interpretation of QM, you are speaking about in your final paragraph. I also like the Bohmian approach, though I think maybe DeBroglie had some things right that didn't end up in Bohm's model. While the whole implicate/explicate thing is what got me interested; I now agree with Sarfatti that Bohm went off the rails with dependency on that topic. Decoherence theory also insists on dealing with both advanced and retarded components of the wavefunction, so is similar.

        I am familiar with the dual speed limit concept and its champion. But while I didn't agree on every point he presented; I knew Tom van Flanderen, for a brief while before his passing, and I admired his independent thinking. I even have a copy of his "Dark Matter, Missing Planets.." book on my shelf, though it has seldom been cracked open. There was a debate about the relevance of speed of light vs speed of gravity measurements at CCC-2.

        It is not broadly accepted. But this sort of thing also arises in some bimetric and braneworld formulations of gravity, where the speed of light varies according to scale. One can talk about propagations along vs across the brane moving at different speeds. More recent measurements would constrain some of van Flanderen's claims, but the idea that light and gravity propagate differently is not yet decisively disproved. On the other hand, it is not proved yet either.

        All the Best,

        Jonathan

        9 days later

        I am aware of an everyday phenomenon that is comparable to the quantum probability curve. It is something anybody can test for themselves with no effort whats so ever.

        Are people aware that the weight transition of a pole in a gravitational field, beginning from a zero weight while balanced on its end at 90 degrees to the ground, then incremental increases in weight as the pole is laid over onto the ground. The weight transition of the pole models the quantum probability curve.

        As you lean the pole over in a gravitational field, the weight transition begins disproportionately little at 66 degrees when the pole is still expressing a balance, then normalizes before then transitioning to disproportionately greater weight at 22 degrees from the ground. You can easily feel this yourself by picking up a fence post or some other pole laying around the yard. If you place scales under the pole as I did, you can chart the weight curve that matches the probability curve shown here.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#/media/File:Bell.svg

        This leads to a very interesting consideration of hidden variable, a classical system which models a quantum probability curve. In the case of the pole, the considerations are of the poles angle of leverage to fight against the force applied to it by a gravitational field. So could be stated as a poles ability to resist changes to its current state of angle, and gravity has to apply a force to overcome the poles current state of angle. The poles ability to resist force applied to it by gravity. So conceptually, it is not hard to imagine a photon being in possession of an ability to resist changes in state of angle, and that the polarization filter applies a force to the photon to alter its state of angle. The results of the interaction between photon and polarizer might then be an issue of angled leverage. The hidden variable would need to make an account of the polarization filters influence on the results of the probabilities.

        I am going to pause there and see if I cannot get somebodies interest with this observation? Although I do have a good deal more to say on the subject.

        Steve

        My questions about a highly rated essay are left unanswered so, I submit my own answers: For interested readers, Darwin did not explain how species were improved. He assumed that variety of change would include changes that were improvements. Change is the whole game! That is where all the 'magic' resides. He did not acknowledge the existence of purpose in the evolution of life. However, he presented evidence that could be revealing evidence of purpose. He did not acknowledge purpose and referred to those examples as being only "curious". They were certainly 'curious'!! More importantly for this forum, theoretical physics does not predict nor explain the existence of intelligence. Darwin, to his great credit, was careful to not say anything about the evolution of intelligence. [Darwin's Origin of Species and Descent of Man.]

        James Putnam

        a month later

        • [deleted]

        • Post #122

        From the perspective of field theory, the only difference that arises between time and space is the tensor of energy continuously 'becoming' as a result of the tension between a straight line and a curved line containing a unitary field in a spherical boundary when that energy would have a propensity towards filling out into perfectly flat space existing at light velocity. Along any vector that tension would be an evolution from a nil rest state, progressing up to a light velocity state, and suggests that a leap-frog type of condition would obtain in any junction of what could be described as either a time or space component of the tensor.

        In a block interpretation universe everything happens at once. But in a Quantum interpretation universe of unitary fields, the arrow of time is measurable as a compendium of many unitary times composing a chosen observable locality. So PERHAPS the retrocausality hypothesis is not so far fetched if at some ratio of length of curve and length of straight line; the time component parameter would leap-frog towards extinction rather than progressing toward light velocity which would allow in measured real time of observability, a very brief but physically real moment of time reversal inherent to that unitary extinction event in the greater compendium of uni-directional 'Time'.

        Write a Reply...