Peter,

since there is no interference pattern if you take a photo plate instead of D2, you are simply wrong. Interference only shows up as two-particle interference, means in the case of coincidence measurements. These interferences cannot be viewed as just correlated by an observer via the proper subsets of some measured (or unmeasured) data.

The two-particle interference is a result of the correlation of particle 1 impinging on D1 with particle 2 impinging only on certain areas of the detector plane D2.

The detector plane was in the case of no interference an area where many particles impinged, is in the case of two-particle interference and area where almost no particles impinge. All measurement devices are at the same positions in both cases. Except D2 is scanning the x-axis for the interference pattern instead of the photo plate scanning this axis all at once.

You can't explain this, even if you refer to D2 as only scanning a subset of what the photo plate does scan. Because if you would, you would contradict what you wrote so far. At D2, the photons must somewhat know that they only belong to interference pattern x, but not to its inverse. They can't know with your mechanism, and you stated that the lenses let them take arbitrary states.

Moreover, you had 10 pages to explain it all in your essay. Instead you wisely switched in your current essay to explain that the reasons why your approach is not capable of meeting reality is due to the readers mind/brain/evolutionary deficits.

"You seem to want it easy Stefan. Research takes time. I can point where to look but I can't do it all for you! All I CAN tell you (in advance of you checking and understanding how) is the findings and implications, which I've done.

I've spent much time answering your questions but you seem entirely unappreciative and unwilling to follow the research trail as needed. That's a shame, but I'm not surprised or upset as it is complex and not an abnormal response in mans' current condition."

You confirmed me. I was not the one who wrote

"OK, that one's real simple." This was you.

You can easily tell your findings and implications, as every other scientist also can. 10 essay pages should be enough to outline all the ingredients and link them physically to each other. You didn't and you didn't also in your previous essays. I showed more willingness than every other participant to understand what you wrote. Regularily refering to what others wrote does not help you. You must give the precise linkages between what you assume to be fomerly overseen physical interactions. You can't blame others to having overseen them, until you lay down the full picture, means, show that *you* at least see it clear. But you don't, you only repeatedly claim it. That's, if at all, is the real shame. Look what i have asked in the above posts and how you camouflaged your answers to precise questions.

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Your paper should win a prize if the referees give credence to the number of posts the essay receives. MY greater connection theory is a longer paper available when you email me for the much longer composition It is; fdmooredds@cox,net

the possibilities of the connections have very large permutations

Particle dynamics are a sector of changing connections

Thanks for your Post of my essay "Proton Three Plane Immersion Connection Theory"

Sincerely,

Francis Duane Moore

    Peter

    A great pleasure in life and these contests is when others understand original consistent derivations. Thank you.

    I suggest we can and must 'self evolve' our intellect, or AI will soon overtake us to maybe fatal effect (Hawking, Gates, Musk etc all suspect fatal). I've experimented and proved it's far from impossible. How? A simple schema;;

    1. First recognise the need, generally and specifically (half the battle!)

    2. Clarify the 2 thought 'modes' (1 low level 'instant', 2 high level rational).

    3. Learn (from school age on) to identify & challenge assumptions not 'cram in facts'.

    4. Cram in 'findings' for reference over a wide range of so called 'specialisms'.

    5. Learn to filter 'data' from 'opinion/interpretation' and clearly categorize.

    6. Practice using mode 2 NOT mode 1 and thinking outside hierarchies of 'boxes'.

    7. Use PDL & top relying on maths as a substitute for unbiased rational analysis!

    My experiment was jumping off the training 'carriage' as the rails took it into the wonderland of Alice and the Mad Hatter. I watched it's progress carefully as I studied how Architects learn to think, qualifying and practicing. Yet I probably researched 10 times the papers etc an average PhD might, across ALL science; cosmology to QM. After 4 decades I found areas of the great pile of ill fitting jigsaw puzzle pieces slotting coherently together, some quite different to doctrine, all informing other areas.

    I'm sure there may be other ways to do it but that methodology seemed quite successful. Of course it's useless unless others keep up! We may only be 10-15 years from AI doing that and deciding it doesn't need confused primates. Elon Musk thinks even with a 'kill switch' they'd kill us before we could throw it! Do you?

    Peter

    7. PDL was 'propositional dynamic logic' (also see my last years essay), and a typo, should read; "stop" relying....

    P

    Stefan,

    "there is no interference pattern if you take a photo plate instead of D2" Maybe I don't understand what you're writing, or maybe you misread what I wrote, but I assure you the above isn't correct for the cases I describe. I've long studied optics and photonics and done the experiments myself. To be clear;

    We find 'self interference' from single photons and a double slit, and ALSO an interference pattern build up (not 'gray scale') on a photo plate from photons passing through a SINGLE slit. All that is quite well established so if I'm right in understanding you're claiming it's wrong, then you're mistaken or confused! I can pass you numerous links on i it. i.e. (at random) SINGLE SLIT DIFFRACTION PATTERN.

    When so called statistical 'correlation' is done (normally a histogram) against the D1 data we can, as I explained, get a whole RANGE of findings subject to how the diffraction pattern data is 'superposed' on the histogram. Remember this is NOT the 'which path' information current doctrine assumes it is!

    There are then a number of ways to 'slide' the superposed wave patterns across each other to get constructive or destructive interference (build or cancel the pattern). One is by changing the distance between the slit plane and D2. That's because the photon of energy is REQUANTIZED' at the slit plane, and the (Huygens construction) energy density (just simplify it to a wave works fine) changes with range.

    It really was very simple Stefan. It seems to be your cognitive dissonance that struggles to allow anything different past. That, as the first half of my essay was dedicated to explaining, is the more important issue in allowing advancement of understanding. The essay topic was about the mind NOT just about QM!

    Now of course there a lot more subtleties, which would take a whole book to explore, but if you still disagree with any of the above please identify precisely what and I'll post some links. If I've misundersood what you wrote, again please identify precisely where. I did find your last post difficult to unravel.

    Peter

    PS; Please DO read Bill McHarris's essay and watch the IBM Q video which it seems clear you haven't yet, like a student who clearly didn't do his homework! I think they may be important 'mind openers' for anyone with older doctrine embedded.

    Peter,

    „Maybe I don't understand what you're writing, or maybe you misread what I wrote, but I assure you the above isn't correct for the cases I describe. I've long studied optics and photonics and done the experiments myself. To be clear;"

    You still not yet communicated what ‚cases you describe'. Wouldn't it be helpful having done that?

    Zeilinger surely has also long studied optics and photonics and done experiments. In the paper i gave you (http://qudev.ethz.ch/content/courses/phys4/studentspresentations/epr/zeilinger.pdf) he states

    "We note that the distribution of photons behind the double slit without registration of the other photon is just an incoherent sum of probabilities having passed through either slit and, as shown in the experiment, no interference pattern arises if one does not look at the other photon."

    Your link to the single slit diffraction pattern is irrelevant here.

    Best wishes,

    Stefan Weckbach

    Dear Peter

    I have taken James Putnams advice to read your essay, and although I havent finished, the opening is certainly very interesting. I will read on and return here with comment.

    My essay has only received 8 ratings, which is two short of the ten required for prospectively qualifying finals, with few days till close. Would you be willing to review my essay opening, with a view to read on if it should capture your interest please? James seems to think you might find it of interest. It is certainly a unique and novel perspective, I can promise you this much.

    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2890

    Thank you for your consideration

    Kind Regards

    Steven Andresen

    Stefan,

    The 'cases' I identified were those in the two experimental diagrams in your link as discussed, then I further clarified; "consider the so called 'scanning slit' as if it were backboard. It's position and/or distance from the 2 slits dictates the state interacting at that plane (and slit). If D2 were now ANOTHER backboard the pattern can be whatever you want (full or zero etc) entirely controlled by the position of the single slit plane. though I did mean controlled by the longitudinal position (so 'distance') as clarified afterwards.

    You then asked what would happen if we "install a photo plate instead of Detector 2" Note that I referred to BOTH planes ('scanning slit' and D2) then you specified just D2, for a photographic plate. I answered clearly that we'd find an interference pattern, (also pointing out the pattern varies with distance).

    Now you cite Zeilinger (whose confirmation bias in the Weihs 'rotational invariance' adjustment can be forgiven but none the less happens and is critical!) who refers to the "distribution of photons behind the double slit", note NOT the distribution behind the SINGLE slit (so not at D2)!! He's also discussing the statistical 'correlation probabilities' NOT any pattern on a photoplate in path 2!

    So you interpreted wrongly, so compared chalk with cheese (blaming me for the error!) Admittedly Zeilingers poor description misled you so the error was easily made and indeed common. I agree he may have been perfectly correct for the case HE was considering, the statistical correlation (so one order 'removed') but that is not the case you specified, and he didn't actually PUT a photoplate 'behind the twin slits' to distinguish.

    So just to confirm; you only have to consider normal twin slit refraction to realise that however photons or electrons are treated or (Stern/Gerlach or PDC etc) 'split', ANY impinging on a photographic plate after twin slits have always produced fringe shifts. But remember that is NOT the same case as pre-splitting and (post D2) statistical 're-combination'.

    I stress the confusion stems from the assumption that experiments consider 'which way' information, as assume 'weak measurement' can find states without affecting them. Experiments then remained unable to confirm Zeilingers statement applies prior to 'correlation'. i.e.; arxiv.org/pdf/0706.3966.pdf.

    To explain more in 'barmaids' terms; To get interference we must 'recombine' two fluctuations. But without (or after) recombination the is nothing to interfere with!

    Has that helped clarify the confusion?

    Peter

    Dear Peter,

    your essay is quite dense -- a direct consequence of your Bio! -- and, I believe, assumes familiarity with many concepts that you mention rather quickly, without finding space for more patient introductions. As a result, the reading for me was not as smooth as in a previous essay of yours (I seem to remember...). You wrote in my page that our approaches are compatible and complementary, but I could not (readily) find contact points that would trigger some meaningful reaction on my side. You expand on AI, and I can see the relation with the aims and intentions topic, but that's an aspect of the Essay Theme that I no not dare discussing about... except for a question:

    You claim (Conclusion 2) that it is possible to model algorithmic mechanisms implementing intentionality in an AI architecture, but a computer as complex as a biological brain may be required. When do you think this type of computer will be available (if ever)? I have been recently surprised to hear a reknown computer scientist (and Turing Award winner) declare that this is not going to happen...

    Regards

    Tommaso

    PS

    I usually avoid mentioning scoring. I'm making an exception here, telling you that I am not going to rate your text (not that you need my score! :-)

      Dear Peter,

      My answer for your question on AI & Kant could be found in my blog space " Kantian answers "

      Respectfully

      Michael

      Peter,

      thanks for your reply.

      there is no interference pattern behind the double-slit nor is there a diffraction pattern behind the single-slit in this experiment.

      The interference pattern only arises when there is a coincidence measurement of the two-photon system.

      For the case of such a coincidence measurement (and by interference pattern i mean a double-slit interference pattern, not a single slit diffraction pattern), only one Detector has to move in its plane, namely D2 for particles 2 to scan this plane.

      The *distances* of the devices for particle 2 stay the same, regardless of which part of the experiment is executed.

      The experiment demonstrates the difference between

      1) a single particle, going through a single slit and

      2) a single particle, being part of an entangled two-particle system, going through a double-slit and then a single-slit

      "He's also discussing the statistical 'correlation probabilities' NOT any pattern on a photoplate in path 2!".

      Zeilinger knows what he will see if installing a photoplate instead of D2. I know what Zeilingers theory (quantum mechanics) says about his own experiment. But i wanted to know what your theory predicts for this case!

      "Now you cite Zeilinger (whose confirmation bias in the Weihs 'rotational invariance' adjustment can be forgiven but none the less happens and is critical!) who refers to the "distribution of photons behind the double slit..."

      Of course, since Zeilinger knows that he does not measure a single-slit diffraction pattern in this experiment, since there is none, neither during coincidence measurements nor during only measuring photons 2 with a photo plate! I remind you of the text of figure 2 in the link you gave (page 232) --> http://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/Aspelm_Happy_centenary_photon.pdf

      Best wishes,

      Stefan Weckbach

      hi peter,

      a very accessible essay, which is great. some notes as i'm reading...

      interesting to learn that training as an architect teaches how to think of the "what if's". of course it would need to be so, because of the cascading complexities of making sure that a building stays upright!

      abandoning classical mechanisms... hmmm... i would disagree with that. dr randell mills demonstrates that the hypothesis that classical mechanisms are a dead-end is false. quantum mechanics is effectively a fourier analysis: mills uses fourier analysis *where needed* as opposed to moving the *entire* exercise into the frequency domain. it's a very very important distinction that is getting a lot of physicists into a lot of trouble.

      howeever... ultimately... *both* approaches are going to have to agree. one approach will show the other what the "intractable" problems' solution(s) are.

      i do find it very very interesting that you point out that the "3 concepts" could even push things beyond the limits of even the most eminent modern scientists' brain. that explains a *lot*.

      section 9, you've just described *EXACTLY* the conditions which i outline in some of my recent papers. i'm currently exploring Jones Vectors and have encountered Castillo's work which i believe to be crucial.

      .... ha! i love the conclusion - based as it is on a "catch 22" scenario, thus pointing out that it's humans who need to evolve...

      i get the impression that you had to leave quite a lot out from this essay, i see hints of things that are not explored fully but you've clearly thought about a great deal.

      yeah. interesting essay, peter. thank you.

        Peter

        I very much enjoyed reading your essay. They are complex views of a complex subject matter, I had to read very slowly to attempt follow the lesson you would teach. I feel that for the most part I understood what was being shared, but understanding a theme and being able to verify it in ones mind, are two different things. I would need to rationalize a large body of your work before I could have a useful opinion on its correctness, even if I do already generally agree the conclusions. Because I too do not believe in magic, and the quantum confusion will one day yield to a sensible resolution given with a compete set of the variables, non remaining hidden. This is part of what you claim to have done, and I will be delighted to learn this is what you have achieved.

        You make the point of peoples ability to process visual information better that text. This is how I would appreciate being introduced to your ideas, as Henry has done in the following video. Will you consider preparing something like this?

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adrCLSTn9mI&t=3s

        You have a highly rated essay and I will contribute. I wish you through to the finals.

        Steve

          Steven

          Thanks. Yes there IS a video showing the visual dynamics Classic QM Video.

          I've posted the link many times here but clearly should do it more. I hope you'll be delighted! My essays in 2014 and last year are helpful in precursing this, but only this year did I identify the final piece solving the puzzle; Interaction Cascades squaring the cos values in fields, consistent with QCD.

          I watched Henry's video. Very professional graphics. He's largely right but missed identifying exactly what John Bell did, and didn't prove! (which recognized identified and stated!) He did NOT exclude a classical solution, in fact he pointed to it without being able to tie it down. He only excluded normal 'local hidden variable' theories, which ClassicQM is NOT!.

          The problem is most beliefs about Bell are heresay (and ignoring the heresay is heresey!) Few have actually read the compilation of his works so it's widely poorly and 'mis'understood.

          After seeing the video read the 2nd half of the essay again and it should all come to light. Let me know.

          Best

          Peter

          Peter

          Francis,

          Thanks. But judging doesn't consider post numbers any more than community scores, or even apparently than originality, importance, amount or quality of content. A very good piece in the APS journal recently identified that; 'who' you are, how close to doctrine your work is and how close to the reviewers opinions your hypothesis is what most influence judgement.

          The 'Scientific Method' exists to theoretically aspire to rather than employ, the first half of my essay explains why. Daniel Shecktman's interview in the last issue confirms that (rejected by the foolish for 40 years then given a Nobel). The judges here have ideal opportunity to disprove that thesis or change things but haven't yet taken it. That gives important insight to human nature and our current evolutionary state.

          Yes, please do send me the link or pdf. Thanks

          Best

          Peter

          dear Peter,

          thanks for voting (I also gave you a 10 but you don't need it).

          About QM, I have to write you but I need more time.

          Best Torsten

          Dear Peter,

          thanks for stopping by at my page. I think I mostly agree with the general views expressed in the early sections of your essay. In later sections I'd probably need some more explanations before I could add something valuable - if at all. In Sec. 6 you write that "to adopt QM we must abandon causal logic" and that QM is "'spooky' and incompatible with Special Relativity (SR)". I'm not sure I understand that. QM is non-local in a sense, but to the best of my knowledge not at variance with SR (no signaling). Marrying QM with SR, I think, has led to relativistic quantum field theory, which is not only one of the best-tested theories but also causal. Can you relieve my confusion?

          Cheers, Stefan

            Stefan,

            QM and SR were never comaptible, right from the big row between Bohr and Einstein at Solvay in 1927, leading to the EPR paradox issue etc. Penrose recently reminded us they use totally different concepts of time! No. They certainly haven't been unified or 'married' yet, and so called 'relativistic QFT' is not only not a solution but is still highly untested and unproven despite the odd (very odd!, even desperate!) claim! Penrose recently called unification the 'Holy Grail'. 'Spooky' was Einsteins word!

            Did you spot the 2nd (Maxwell) momenta on a spinning sphere that Bohr missed off in formulating QM? If not, do read the last bit carefully, and watch the Classic QM on Vimeo. video;

            best

            Peter

            Dear Peter,

            I found your essay to be interesting, well written, and you seem to make a good case for a missing OAM state. Is your idea refutable; have you spoken to appropriate theoreticians and experimenters for their various opinions about it?

            But I would query what you say about (so called) "Artificial Intelligence". Because, despite all the advances in what is misleadingly called "machine learning" and "AI", the highest-level decision making processes they contain are written by human beings. The controlling algorithms control other higher-level human-written rules and make (so called) "AI" and "machine learning" possible. The human-written highest-level algorithm ensures that there is a pre-decided type of response to every possible "learning" input the program allows; and if it doesn't ensure a response, then the program will just sit there and produce no response. You could hit it with an axe and it wouldn't respond, unless it was programmed to detect and avoid attack.

            "AIs" and computer programs are pre-thought-out artefacts: they didn't just happen - they require a pre-existing conscious intelligence to consider, at a higher level, how to handle, in a general way or a specific way, every possible pertinent type of input that might occur in the future. This is why algorithms can have no counterpart in nature: instead there are law-of-nature rules.

            When it comes to living things, or even particles atoms or molecules, there are quantum, multiple choice aspects to seemingly every outcome, as well as the deterministic aspects due to laws-of-nature. And while there is information and constraints to possibility provided by molecules, cells, organs and body structure, and constraints provided by the environment, the constraints themselves cannot do any choosing of single outcomes from multiple possible outcomes, and the constraints themselves cannot narrow the possibility to one, despite what the brave, new emergenteers might imagine.

            Best wishes,

            Lorraine