Dear Jonathan

"Zeilinger raised one of your points at a conference and cited Albert's own comment in the page leaf to a colleague about doubts"

Can you recall which doubts specifically and whether Zeillinger felt they were answered?

Here is a more detailed explanation of why I think Bell's Theorem is built on false assumptions: Take two entangled particles or photons A and B, sensed by two far-flung sensors S1 and S2 respectively.

CASE 1: In an ideal and totally deterministic world the correlation between readings S1A and S1B will be 1

CASE 2: In a world where A and B are never random from start to finish, but wherre the state of the sensors is random, S1A and S2B will correlate to 1/2 (I think!?)

CASE 3: In Bell's Theoretical world, both A and B as well as S1 and S2 are random.

I feel the error is in assuming it is case 3 applies while using the experimetal results of CASE 2. Does this make any sense? No dice?

Of course an open mind is necessary, but in my situation I need to gather all my scattered energies to finish the task I set myself to complete and simulate the model I have started, Beautiful Universe. In that model there is no time dimension (so much for spacetime as well as Steve'smatter-time unification) - my fqxi essay this year represents burning my bridges to concentrate on the task ahead! Eric Reiter's experiments fit in perfectly with my model, hence my approbation. Of course I may be totally deluded, but let me have my fun! And time to hear some Robeson! Its a privilage to know someone who has been in the same recording studio!

Be well, dear friend,

Vladimir

Thank you James

I have responded and rated to your interesting essay earlier.

Best wishes

Vladimir

Thank you Gary

I have looked at your essay, but as I have expressed elsewhere my brain seems to function visually and geometrically and after everything is understood that way do I resort - under protest - to algebraic formulation!

Having said that your five-dimensional world based on quatrenons seems to confirm the Kaluza-Klein approach. I like that because it presents the possibility of having the nodes of my cellular automata approach as that fifth dimension.

Best wishes,

Vladimir

Dear Tom I posted this on your page - thanks again.

(sorry I kept addressing you as Ray!)

Thank you for your commisseration- so far so good!

I have read your defence of Einstein and fear it is lost on me I have capacity only for understanding one world-system at a time!

The distinction you make between a distant information source and local experience, each emitted or absorbed at different rates is too foreign to my mindset and the model I have adopted. In that model everything is connected through the 'clockwork' of the lattice. Motion at A is transmitted node to node to B, whether B is sentient, living, or neither. Another way of thinking of it is to expand the reference frame to include all of the Universe and within that frame everything is absolute and classical. It is only when an observer is introduced, by no means necessary for example when two black hokes interact that relativistic effects kick in ... for that observer only!

Do not mind me - best wishes in your work. Be well.

Vkadimir

ERRATA in my comment above

I goofed CASE 3 which should be rephrased as follows:

Does Bell assumes A and B are random but that S1A and S2B are classical?. The correlation will be identical to CASE 2 ie 1/2 (or whatever it is). There is no way to tell if QM is at work or just normal classical correlations!

2 months later

There is a rather ridiculous claim in my paper that "Einstein's greatest contribution to physics was the idea that gravity is equivalent to gravitation." This mistake and a few other typos were corrected in an updated edition of the paper posted on viXra, ResearchGate and Academia. It should of course have read "the idea that gravity is equivalent to acceleration". Here is the revised version .

Write a Reply...