Stefan,

For consistency stay with polariser/modulators & twin channel photomultipliers (PM's). The important fermions are those of the rotatable polariser FIELD. Remember the main differences between travelling pair fermions and 'photons' is the former take more field interactions to be 'modulated'.

My last post was late Sunday so not as clear as it should have been! But it also seems you didn't check back to the Bob & Alice essay I directed you to. There are clear diagrams and a findings chart (end note). Human brains store visuals easier than numbers so study the figs and sketches. Do Bob & Alice have a future?

What I forgot was I also devised a way for YOU to experiment in 2D. Draw a circle and perimeter cosine number distributions from +1 to -1 between poles, then also in a different colour +1 to -1 orthogonally (so starting at 90o = the equator).

Now draw a smaller circle with radians at say 5o intervals from zero round 360o (so 180 is opposite)o, then cut it out and pin it concentrically on top of the first.

Now wherever 0 happens to be you can choose any angle on the top disc as the RELATIVE angle between Bob and Alice's detector dials. Now for ANY position going in 5o increments plot (z axis) each colour Cos value onto a graph.

The outcome relationship from Bob & Alice's RELATIVE settings will then become clear and self apparent. All we then need to do is add the PM cascade amplification effect (as in QCD), so square the Cos values (which means they now represent the PM 'click' rates) and do the plot again.

Now you've fully reproduced the experimental findings and 'predictions' of QM with a Classical mechanism. Something still considered impossible! What's more you've shown that so called 'superposition' and 'entanglement' effects purely emerge from the orthogonal TWIN momenta and maintained axial relationship between the pairs, NOT anything weird & spooky!

However DOING this is relatively easy compared to the near insurmountable task of getting doctrinal mainstream science to understand, accept and adopt it! But maybe that doesn't matter as (look around you!) we're probably not yet ready for a quantum leap in understanding.

Let me know if you run into problems with the experiments and I'll help.

Peter

Dear Peter,

I perused the paper you got published in the Hadronic Journal and can't find any inconsistencies, although I'm not nearly as familiar with astrophysics as you are. I found it interesting that you peg dark matter down to plasma from quasar jet activity that gathers around a galaxy. If your idea is right then it's no wonder they can't find any on earth since it would be restricted to the halo.

As to your chagrin that it didn't get published by the top mainstream journals I wouldn't feel that way if I were you. It must be difficult if you don't have the appropriate letters next to your name and besides, you got another paper published in arXiv which I would think is quite the accomplishment.

Cheers,

Peter

P.S. I hope your 2nd Minkowski doesn't see my essay.

Peter,

i read your essay ‚'Do Bob and Alice have a future?'.

It seems that both Alice and Bob experiment with electrons and use as 'analysers' Stern-Gerlach magnets. Bob did in fact use polarisers to experiment with electrons and seemingly also used photons with the Stern-Gerlach magnets.

You wrote

"So something was wrong. Whatever he did, half the spin results were identical with the same settings, the other half with opposite settings!"

the figure 5 in that essay shows that there are 4 quadrants, 2 on the left, 2 on the right. The ones at the left are symmetrical to the ones at the right. For a 'Bell believer' this mirrors the classical and non-classical correlations. For a 'Bell denier' this mirrors that every twin pair comes into the experimental setup with a fixed symmetry and a common propagation axis.

But now assume that we first measure the vertical 'spin-component' of the spin half particles. For all particles that have spin 'up', we now measure the horizontal 'spin-component'. Since we now measure an orthogonal variable, the results should arise in the well-known 50:50 manner at both sides. After that, we now measure the particles again orthogonally to the previous measurement. Again there should only arise values in the well-known 50:50 manner.

In other words, whatever we do after the first measurement (vertical component), 'half the spin results were identical with the same settings, the other half with opposite settings!" for every further added measurement station (but now not as the Bell-curve, but linear).

The latter paragraph is not surprising in light of your approach, since you defined an increasing randomness towards the relative angle of 90 degree. What is surprising to me is that doing an analog experiment, not with electrons, but with photons, we can erase the very first measurement (vertical 'spin-component') by superposing the up- and down particles of the vertical measurement after the subsequent horizontal measurement and therefore forcing the twin pair to give always the SAME answers. Interrupting the superposition by blocking one path to its creation, and the 50:50 situation is restored again, independent of what is happening with the other particle. So what one does in one path (locally), does impact what happens in the other path.

You know these experiments. Interference on both sides of an entangled system can locally (on one side) be created or destroyed and subsequently this has an impact on the twin particles' 'behaviour' (it does contribute to interference or not, dependend on what happens on the other side). This cannot be explained by subsets or ensembles, it is a very real correlation of action-at-a-distance, since for interference, the particle has to avoid certain regions more than for non-interference (so the probabilities change for that twin-particle due to what an experimenter does on the other side with the other particles).

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Stefan,

I confess I'll have to read my own essay again to understand your commentary! Things have also evolved of course. One BIG No No in your description relates for instance to;

" we first measure the vertical 'spin-component' of the spin half particles. For all particles that have spin 'up', we now measure the horizontal 'spin-component'." We famously can't do so, indeed it's a philosophical problem that Bell goes into that we can't 'check on' the state of a particle 'on the way' to compare it's state on arrival. Indeed even individual 'time resolved' particle comparisons have been tricky as the theory was only ever based on 'streams'. As I wrote, the analysis isn't really correlating what it's assumed it is, indeed the whole concept of applying mass statistics to individual occurrences is highly dubious anyway.

It would be very helpful to read Prof William McHarris's essay which I've just read, which agrees and quite brilliantly explains the background, set ups, limitations and issues in QM.

I also don't know what you mean by 'Bell deniers'. I don't know any exist! His theorem is undeniable. I certainly agree it.

Finally I can't see what you refer to in your last paragraph as it's incorrect, unless you're referring to so called 'delayed choice' type interferometer experiments which use the same flawed starting assumptions so end up with the same 'spooky' inferences. There is NO case where 'action at a distance' is required to explain the findings.

I can explain the quantum eraser etc but it takes some space. A key is, in the definitive experimental set-ups count how many mirrors (so state reversals and delays) there are on each side of the system! If your brain is locked in to the Classic QM mechanism (which I can see it mostly isn't yet) the solution may fall out.

The 'concentric circle' experiment I described above should let you prove it conclusively to yourself. But do read the McHarris paper first.

Best

Peter

Dear Peter

Quite interesting your essay - at least at the point I could follow it. And lots of common viewpoints.

Interesting to know that John Wheelers said "Never make a calculation until you know the answer". When in a research work, I have similar rule: "never use an equation unless I am able to replace it by plain text"; or, in the other words, "I always have to know more than equations".

Other important statement is "We aim for 'the scientific method' but

tend to use default response mode, so reject anything unfamiliar, which precludes advancement. Deciding truth on a who not what basis is a similar default error. Teaching only mathematical physics can't help expand capacity to 'understand'. Your "default response mode" is basically my "mind search-engine" and what you say here is exactly what I think, although I have not mentioned it in my essay because it was not about the mind.

After around section 7, I began to feel lost because of my limitations (and also my methodology). It's a pity because it seems to be very interesting, but we have to choose our fields of concern, isn't it? I am not qualified to follow your reasoning there. However, both your ideas and your writing style captured me until then.

Concerning your question about the role of gravity in promoting the ever larger connections between entities, surely it has a fundamental role; however, I would not say that its role is more important that any other - even the psychological ones, because without our social tendency the human society would not be possible.

Yet, if you want to know if there is one property responsible by all this, I would say "yes". However, that property is behind all we know - behind matter, radiation, fields. We still conceive the universe as having "particles" and a "vacuum", both with properties but being two different entities. We cannot model the universe differently. Yet, we begin to understand that particles shall be some sort of perturbation of the medium we call vacuum. We are just grasping this conception of the universe but it is only there that we can find a common cause for everything we know.

I want to thank your nice words about by essay. I am happy to know that it pleased you.

Good luck for the contest!

Alfredo

    Peter,

    Yours is a very interesting essay. I am not going to pretend that I understood everything that you suggested in it, but I do see how you drew the conclusions given at the end of the paper.

    I know there are many ways to interpret the contest theme; however, I am surprised at how many essays, including yours, try to develop direct links between the mathematical laws and higher brain functions and higher intelligence. I realize that that is a valid approach to the theme, but it seems like a very difficult undertaking.

    As you know, in my essay, I suggest that when DNA can cause something in its favor to happen rather than have to live at the mercy of its environment, it has exhibited intent. Therefore, by merely offering a step from inert matter to that of DNA (and RNA), it seems the question of how the mathematical laws give rise to aims and intentions is fundamentally addressed (although I am not saying that I did a good job of addressing it). As living entities evolve into systems of higher complexity; of course, the sophistication of the aims and intentions grows.

    Perhaps, in this situation, an incremental approach to ultimately understanding how the laws relate to higher intelligence is more useful than trying to eat the elephant all in one bite. Maybe we need to learn arithmetic and algebra before we tackle calculus and differential equations. I suspect, given the breadth of knowledge displayed in the essays submitted; we could probably come up with a good model of the initial jump from inert matter, driven by its surroundings, to living systems, manipulating their surroundings.

    At any rate, good luck to you,

    William.

      Peter,

      i think the experiment i spoke of was first meant as a thought experiment, figured out by Zeilinger and Mike Horne in 1985 and then presented at a conference in 1987, as far as i remember. It indeed was not a quantum eraser experiment, since i confused it with another experiment. So here it is:

      Take a source that produces twin-particles which propagate in opposite directions. At each direction from the source, place a double-slit barrrier. The source and the distances between two slits on a barrier is such that at the measurement screen behind each double-slit, there does not appear an interference pattern, but a homogenous gray.

      Say, the twin-particle propagating to the left is called A, the other, propagating to the right, is called B.

      Scanning the detection plane (with a detector B) of particle B (from left to right or vice versa) gives a random pattern of impacts which lead to the homogenous gray.

      But repeat the experiment with the difference that now we also install a detector (photomultiplier or such) in the detection plane for particle A at a specific place. Now repeat the experiment by measuring the relative frequencies of impacts at the measurement plane B (while detector A is always at the same location) by again moving it (from right to left or vice versa). Now you get non-random relative frequencies of the impacts, they form an interference pattern.

      For the relevant coincidence counts, detectors A and B together produce an intererence pattern in the plane of particle B. One can also once more change the relative frequencies of impacts at the detection plane of particle B by slightly shifting detector A. One can do this until the maxima and minima at side B for the placement of detector A in the first run and in the second run (the latter the one with the slightly shifted detector position) build up together a totally washed out 'interference pattern'.

      The fact that a detector is used at side A alters the relative frequencies of impacts on side B, irrespectively of how large the distances between the two detector planes are. Since nothing has changed at the source and at side B, one is forced to correlate the initial change of patterns with the use of detector A. But how can the use of detector A influence what detector B measures...

      My term 'Bell deniers' is confusing. I should have written entanglement deniers, since you accept Bell's theorem, but do not think that spooky-action-at-a-distance is reality, but only a misunderstanding. In a certain sense i do so, because i do not think that there is really an action at a distance in space and time. But i rationally think that there is a reason for the above described behaviour, although maybe not tracable with our usual notion of causality.

      The above experiment was conducted and confirmed. In this experiment one can neglect the particles which did not hit the detectors or did not hit the double slits.

      Best wishes,

      Stefan Weckbach

      Alfredo

      And thanks for your kind words about mine. I'm not surprised at anybody struggling with QM, but that's why I produced the video, to explain the simpler 3D classical dynamics that even Einsteins barmaids could understand! I hope you have time to look; Classic QM or even at the 100sec glimpse here.

      I suspect we must still advance in simple steps and the condensate is still a long way off!

      Best

      Peter

      Thanks Jeffrey. Yes it does demand a slow 'rationalisation' read to extract it's ontology and embedded value after a first glance over.

      Peter

      Thanks guys

      I'm inspired by Dan Schechtman, discovered of quasicrystals. He was ignored and decried by the elite and mass of journeymen professors, called a 'quasiscientist', lost his job and struggled for 40 years. Then finally got a Nobel! I don't want a Nobel, just to help advance understanding, but I see the task as similar to his. His advice?;

      "Ignore those who point out new science isn't 'in the book', Keep going. make like a Rottweiler, bite and don't let go." Hmm. 99% perspiration then!

      William

      Thank you kindly. Having studied many thousands of findings, papers (and essays) over many years the data points to describe that proverbial elephant finally allowed the 3D jigsaw puzzle to fit together. So I now have an elephant in the room, but still invisible to almost all! But wise words. I'm trying to describe it incrementally in bite size chunks. Of course it's still dismissed as it's nose is ridiculously long and ears are stupidly big, nothing like the backwardly causal mathematical quarkmonster of doctrine! Perhaps just bites of elephantburger for now then so as not to shock!

      Very best

      Peter

      Stefan,

      I know most of Zeilingers experiments but I've never seen that one. Can you provide a link? The starting assumption of a completely 'homogenous gray' from ANY configuration of two slits seems contrary to actual findings, and I struggle to believe that it was confirmed exactly as as conceived/described so need to look closely. Remember Zeilinger, though a top authority, was earlier part of the Weihs experimental team who, like Aspect, rather blithely just subtracted the inconsistent 'rotational variance' from their (electro-optic) modulator output data! (at least they quite properly admitted doing so in the paper).

      I've studied many such experiments and ALL I've found are classically resolvable. (Mind you there IS another far more local and interesting similar effect in tomography often assigned to the same 'entanglement' interpretation). I don't 'deny' entanglement by the way, the particle pair certainly do conserve the initial relationship, I just identify a different interpretation not requiring spookyness but removing the fundamental incompatibility with relativity.

      One of his latest findings at Vienna is well confirmed and is counter to most assumptions and rational analysis with most theory; Light having interacted with a polarizer has NO MEMORY of it's previous state (see his website). You'll recognise that as precisely what I derived from either 'photon'/electron or electron/fermion field interactions.

      Have you done the concentric circle experiment yet? It's an eye opener and quite conclusive. But don't forget to use the +/- values and 180o opposite Cos value reading of the disc for one (either A or B) detector.

      Do also read Bill McHarris's important essay.

      Peter

      Hi Peter thank you for updated comment on my page. The links still do not work. This is an old problem with fqxi - I found that when formatting, you must strip http:// from any url you add after link: try it in the preview it should work.

      Best

      Vladimir

        Peter,

        the experiment is described in Zeilingers book ‚Einsteins Schleier'; i don't know if there is an english version available on the market. I will google the paper and send you the link if i find that paper.

        The starting 'assumption' of the homogenous gray is due to heisenbergs uncertainty. If you could use a twin-source to produce (at the left side, say) an interference pattern and conclude with the particle on the right side which slit the particle on the left took, you had circumvented the path/interference complementarity. Only a source of a certain size does produce the homogenous gray. Think of it here classically. The source must be approximately in size of the distance between two slits. This is analogous to a very small source which produces the interference pattern, but if slightly moved a little bit, the interference pattern on the screen will also move so that the moved and the unmoved patterns are inverse and result in the homogenous gray.

        But by using a very small source, the twin-particles do not anymore propagate in exactly the opposite directions (but more or less randomly), what means that one cannot anymore conclude from the right side which slit the particle on the left side took. For a bigger source this is the case and therefore even by using a double-slit the result will be the homogenous gray. Remember, we use here a twin-source, not a stream (like for example coherent laser light) of photons onto the double-slit.

        Only if you also install a double-slit for the idler and measure the impacts in the way i described before, you get the relative frequencies i spoke of, which are the signature of interference. I know, this is all spooky in light of your own approach. Could you send me the link to the Weihs paper where the group admitted to have substracted that 'rotational variance' data?

        Best wishes,

        Stefan Weckbach

        Dear Peter,

        Bravo, good work. The work, setting thinking and continue the analysis of the offered thoughts. The work which will be for my part highly estimated.

        To tell the truth, I don't carry myself to the big experts in the area of physics of consciousness, more likely on the contrary, but in my opinion the consciousness has other, thinner nature. Certainly, I don't deny physics (more precisely - biophysics) of brain structure, but I'm almost assured that a brain it is simple a highly organized antenna realizing information interchange between individual intelligence (as the mechanism of implementing of the consciousness of an individuum), and a noosphere (as a "global information field" - prof. Vernadsky). All residual body of each person (also of all other live beings) is thought up only for this purpose, to provide optimum performance of this aerial (brain) in certain environment.

        Believing that my thought, most likely is not new, I carry myself to supporters of those who denies possibility of the creation of artificial consciousness. The intelligence can be (possibly) to some extent simulated and realized.

        Best regards and good luck in the contest!

        Vladimir

          Piter, I have read all the laudatory comments about your essay and, therefore, expect the best. It is obvious that the authors wanted to get high scores to improve your ranking.

          Most of the essays in the contest is 'Much Ado about Nothing', However, is their great work, and I can't give them low scores when they visited my topic and found out that there are New Cartesian Physic.

          Peter, you have a talent to combine a lot of good words and a lot of writing. That you attract the attention of others. I do not exclude that you can be among the winners.

          I ask you to remember the existence of the New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the identity of space and matter.

          I wish you success!

          Dizhechko Boris

          Vladimir.

          Thanks. I think you understood better than the auto-translate understood you! Perhaps there's much room for improvement in the artificial intelligence of translators. But I did understand your meaning, and thank you.

          Peter

          Peter,

          here are three papers, addressing the experiment.

          The first was presented at the conference 1985:

          http://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/1985-03.pdf

          Another paper from 1999, so more in a popular scientific style, is this (page 232):

          https://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/Aspelm_Happy_centenary_photon.pdf

          Another more technical paper is this (page 289):

          http://qudev.ethz.ch/content/courses/phys4/studentspresentations/epr/zeilinger.pdf

          A doctoral thesis with another realization of the scheme can be found here (also only in german language):

          https://people.isy.liu.se/jalar/kurser/QF/assignments/Dopfer1998.pdf

          Note that it even does not need a second double-slit to produce interference at both detectors, denpending on what happens with the other detector.

          Hope that helps.

          Best wishes,

          Stefan Weckbach

          Boris,

          Thank you. I admire all who write science in a foreign language and make it valuable and comprehensible. I imagine what nonsense mine would be if I tried to write in Russian!

          One question, (I'll post on both strings); I suggest that in reality Cartesian 'frame' systems are unreal so help confound much of science, and we need solid 'material', forming 3D geometrical shapes to then make proper sense of nature.

          Thoughts?

          Peter