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

        Peter, thanks for the question.

        I also criticize the Cartesian coordinate system for its long axis and on this basis to reject the special theory of relativity, as it is the basis of the inertial reference system, which prevent each other from moving due to the long axes. I believe that the Cartesian coordinate system takes place only in the infinitesimal sense. The place where we live is infinitely small relative to the entire Universe, so we can mentally use Cartesian 'frame' systems, assuming that space is at rest.

        I wish you success!

        Dizhechko Boris

        Dear Peter Jackson,

        Thank you for your enjoyable and interesting essay. I especially enjoyed your foray into quantum mechanics and the perspective your give on the EPR paradox. We agree on many things that you say and I wonder if you know about Charlie Bennett's work (IBM TJ Watson Research Center, NY) on computational efficiency? In any event I wanted to wish you good luck for the contest and let you know I have rated your essay in the meantime.

        Regards,

        Robert

          Robert,

          Thanks. Few seem to see or understand the fundamental implications. My past essays (and papers) precurse this one. I've contacted many authorities and submitted to journals but of course QM is 'well understood' and there are plenty of 'off piste' views so no 'new understandings' get past the concierge!

          No, I wasn't familiar with Charlie Bennett's work at IBM. Thanks. I'm just finishing listening to his IBM Q as I nistype (that's multi tasking!) He does seem very expert on current theory, interpretation and limitations, and agrees we've not yet "proceeded very far towards a quantum computer" though he still does seem rather 'sold' on it so may not be receptive to fundamental review. i.e. he firmly says Einstein was wrong, but it seems BOTH were largely right!

          The reaction of most academics here is the norm - ignore it and run a mile back to personal beliefs before any critical analysis. John Bells words about professional physicists ring in my ears! If you have any ideas how an approach Charlie or IBM without being 'bounced off' before they even look, or can help, do please advise.

          I hope to read your essay and comment later today.

          Peter

          Dear Peter,

          The interesting thing about Einstein's disdain for quantum concepts is that his objections inspired other leading proponents to make great strides in their work. In any event I agree with you that "BOTH were largely right". As for contacting prospective collaborators, if they are profesional researchers they will be open to new communication. It is what helps us move forward. I will also reply to the comment you left on my forum.

          Regards,

          Peter

          • [deleted]

          Stefan,

          Thanks. Yes I recall these now (from long ago). They are 'quantum eraser' type set ups as I suggested. The findings of ALL these are fully as predicted by Classic QM, simply identifying wrong interpretation and analysis resulting in the flawed conclusions you described. No 'backward causality' or 'non-local communication' is then needed.

          To simplify, just run through each experiment carefully and armed with the classical mechanism (rather than using confused statements like; "..projects the state of photon 2 into a momentum eigenstate"!).

          So here it is; BOTH 'photons' have BOTH momenta and states, and parts go BOTH (secondary) 'paths' (I can explain that more). If one is rotated, reversed or delayed, then when they're 'recombined' (on a board OR statistically!) there will be CONSTRUCTIVE INTERFERENCE so an interference pattern. Don't forget that just one extra reflection can do this by leaves a state INVERTED.

          Now look at say the PR/Nature 2005 review article. Fig 4. As the filter (NDF) is gradually introduced it rotates the state so only DESTRUCTIVE interference results. Though things have moved on in 12yrs there were some interesting comments in the links, i.e; "..many phenomena thought to be due to the quantum nature of light can actually be explained by using a classical electromagnetic field and by assuming that only the processes of absorption and emission are quantized." But then poor interpretation of other findings confounds! The links were then very interesting, thanks.

          Also in there, after designating Bosons unexplained 'spin 1'; "Fermions would behave differently because their quantum state is antisymmetric, as reflected by a negative sign in their initial state. In this case the two amplitudes introduced above interfere constructively and the two particles are always found in separate outputs. Interestingly, this 'fermionic' behaviour can also be observed for two photons if the photons are prepared in an antisymmetric state with respect to their spin." (another way of putting what I explained, that they CAN for most purposes be considered in the same way).

          Once you've read Bill McHarris's essay watch the IBM Q Charlie Bennett video (referred by Robert Groess below) for the latest analysis, far better than the confused stuff in these papers and even more consistent with ClassicQM, but still hitting QM's 'brick wall' and admitting little progress with Quantum Computers.

          best

          Peter

          Peter,

          Let's recapitulate.

          You know the experiment i mentioned in my previous post.

          With your scheme, you can't explain it (if you at all understood the results) and everybody who understood it knows that you can't. Many words do not help here.

          Best wishes,

          Stefan Weckbach