Rescuing Reality

Dear Teenu,

Einstein was not an inventor, he was an incredibly inept theoretical physicist. His complex equations concerning abstract amounts of invisible mass and finite light constantly speeding through an invisible vacuum tube have absolutely nothing to do with the simplicity of the real observed Universe. Infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light must be empowered by manifest infinite energy.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Fede Benedictus, the managing editor of The Foundation Of Physics Journal has rejected my splendid essay. THE SIMPLEST UNIVERSE on the grounds that I did not apparently produce any reliable research statistics. It is truly pathetic. I am rewriting my essay in order to submit it in an essay contest being ran by the Creative Nonfiction organization.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Hi Joe, it sounds like a suitable place where you might get published if you present 'your true story' well and in the right way. I see that they are currently looking for new (general) submissions, perhaps you could write about the difficulty of being taken seriously as an independent thinker and the growing collection of rejections. I did notice that in the "The dialogue between science and religion" submission information it says- "Please note that while our interests are broad and inclusive, narratives should focus strongly on science and religion. We discourage submissions that focus on secondary issues such as bioethics; ecology, the environment, and sustainability; and pseudoscience." It looks like with that 'venue', unless you use the right tack, you might find you are still barred under the pseudoscience category.

Dear Georgina,

I have a pretty fair vocabulary. I do not have any words in my vocabulary to clearly express my gratitude to you for your sublimely gracious comment. I hope you will submit your own essay into the Creative Nonfiction contest.

Joe Fisher, Realist

So far this year, Leicester City has won the English Premier League title after 132 years. The Irish Rugby Union team has beaten the New Zealand All Blacks Rugby Union team for the first time in 111 years, and of course, the Chicago Cubs won its first World Series in 108 years. Perhaps my sublime essay, THE SIMPLEST OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE will get published in a valid scientific journal, and its refutation of Einstein will cause the Theory of Relativity: Special and General to be abandoned after 107 years. I hope so.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Yes, this is also my view of how quantum theory is best understood without any conflict with Einstein's two theories of relativity SR and GR and without the need for a global preferred frame of reference and without even the need for configuration space when particles are entangled as shown by Roderick Sutherland.

Could someone please explain why they like a backwards in time influence rather than the older faster than light collapse (influence) of the entangled state that was preferred by von Neumann and many others.

Extremely simple. I am surprised Stan that still puzzles you since Huw Price, Ken Wharton, Rod Sutherland explain why clearly.

FTL violates relativity.

Back From The Future does not.

PS FTL does not explain why the quantum correlations do not depend on the spacetime separations between the final strong measurements of the entangled particles. The local retrocausal Costa-de Beauregard zig-zag does explain it easily. In other words the spacetime separation need not be spacelike. It can be timelike. Therefore, FTL influence is not a satisfactory explanation.

Jack Sarfatti,

Hi jack,

"In other words the spacetime separation need not be spacelike. It can be timelike."

What is your idea about what time is? Is it a measure of object activity that can be reversed. Or, is it a unique fundamental property that exists independently of object activity? If so, what empirical evidence do you know of that shows that unique fundamental, independent of object activity, time suffers effects? Is there a controlled specimen of this unique fundamental time held in a laboratory that you know of? Which kind of time is involved in your view of 'timelike'? In case there is any uncertainty about what I mean by 'unique fundamental time', it is not a measure of object activity. The unit of second does not measure it. The unit of second is a measure of object activity. It is defined as such. My reason for asking this question is that I find physicists' claims that a measure of object activity is the property of time, empirically unsupportable. The empirical evidence for object activity contains an indefinable property of time as part of its basis. What time is your time?

James Putnam

If we take the CPT symmetry.And that we extrapolate with groups for the spinal groups, we can even extrapolate with geometrical algeberas of Lie and Clifford and insert all what we want.We have always a time irreversible.We arrive so at how we interpret the Tools and their mathematical propoerties.If we utilise the anti matter for example and the mirrors ,so indeed how can we really interpret the associativities, commutativities,....the vectors an operators, the series finite or infinite,.....

and what about the invariances of Lorentz and the meric of Minkowski?Energy E and impulsion p and their newtonian proportions alwars are respected in all referentials.The same logic is for the photon of mass considered like near 0.The Mirror properties and the reversibilities must be always relative if I can say.At my knowledge the CPT symmetry is a postulate, a foundamental.

Regards

The spherical volumes could imrpove the standard model in ranking the forces.The CPT ofcourse being generalised.That can be imrpoved with the rotations spinal and orbital.The senses of rotations more the angles and the volumes could really help in respecting the CPT symmetry.If we consider quantum BHs more far than nuclear forces with gluons and that we consider also particles of gravitation, spherons with weaker forces than photons and lectromagnetism.So we have the standard model encircled by this matter not baryonic.Like the cosmological scale simply.We have so a paradox , this weakest quantum forces is in the same time the strongest force due to these quantum BHs implying stronger forces than nuclear forces.The relevance is that we can respect the invariances of Lorentz and schodinger's works in inseing this matter not baryonic.The relevance is that in logic these particles and correlated waves can pass c because they are not bosonic and baryonic if I can say.

The real observable Universe must be constructed in the simplest fashion naturally allowable. There must only be one unified, visible, infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. When one uses the word "is," one implies a finite state of being arising from a previous identifiable finite state best described by the word "was". The word "am" is truly descriptive of a state of infinity. (simple) Reality need not be rescued. (complex) theoretical physics as published in this silly article needs to be suppressed.

Joe Fisher, Realist

That special preparation of the particles that gives an 'entangled' pair means that any same first tests will give same outcomes because of the (imparted during preparation) similarity of the particles properties. Not because they are carrying the outcomes or are in communication with each other.The second particle of the pair does not instantly have the same (outcome) property, upon measurement of the first, because interaction with the apparatus is needed to produce it. The second particle does not require communication from the first but same treatment as the first.The outcome can be known because of the knowledge that the particle pair have had special preparation that will cause the particles to respond in the same way to the same first test.

The problem arises, when one does different tests on each member of the entangled pair, rather than the same test.

Rob McEachern

There isn't a problem The results are correlated only of the same tests are done as that preserves the realtionship formed at their production as a pair. The second particle isn't instantly becoming the corresponding output when the first is measured but the second particle responds to the provocation of the test it is given. There is no correlation between the different orientations of spin so knowing the spin of the first particle will not predict the spin of the second for a different orientation.

It is an observed fact, that the Correlation Results differ, at different detector angles.

See my link at the top of this page, for the explanation why this happens.

Rob McEachern

Jack,

I tend to agree with your trusted expert opinion, though I struggle with Sutherland's definition of "realism". He says:

"My research is concerned with the interpretation of quantum theory and such issues as Bell's non-locality, the quantum measurement problem and the nature of interference. In particular, I am interested in mathematical extensions to both quantum mechanics and quantum field theory that reinstate realism explicitly.

"By realism here I mean the assumption that an underlying physical reality exists in the absence of measurement. Surprisingly, maintaining this assumption in conjunction with quantum mechanics leads (via Bell's theorem plus certain reasonable assumptions) to either a clash with special relativity or to the existence of backwards-in-time effects. Since the experimental success of relativity and the theory's attractiveness in my eyes make me wary of abandoning it too hastily (even at a 'hidden' level), my research is focused on possible models involving backwards causation. In particular, I have constructed a time-symmetric formalism in which events are determined by both initial and final boundary conditions. A second model of this type is presently being formulated." http://sydney.edu.au/time/people/sutherland.htm

I don't think an "underlying physical reality" is necessary to assure local realism. I agree with Sutherland's time-symmetric determinism, with the proviso that the entropy generated by past and future events is identical. Entropy hides its origin (information from the future is as likely as information from the past), so entropy is a good candidate for the 'hidden variable'. Initial and final boundary conditions then have a common source, eliminating the boundary between classical and quantum physics.

Hello Mr Sarfatti,I see that you are on LinkedIn also,If it is with baryonic bosonic photonic thermodynamical particles, FTL is not possible.The special relativity if it is broken must be with particles which are not relativistic, nor baryonic.We cannot travel in time and we cannot pass c with baryons.Best Regards