Dear Anton,

I may have given you 'too much information' above (after all, we've just met) but nevertheless I hope you will read my current essay and comment if you find it interesting.

Thanks for your kind attention.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

5 days later

Hi Anthony John Garrett,

Your words "looking at quantum theory that promotes progress and matches Einstein's scepticism about God playing dice with the universe. Nothing could be more fundamental. We can predict properties of the electron to one part in a billion today, but we cannot predict its motion in an inhomogeneous magnetic field inside apparatus designed a century ago." are really wonderful dear Anthony John Garrett............... very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.

I request you please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

4 days later

Anthony,

..."If you reckon that no truly loophole-free experimental Bell test has actually taken place,.." Not at all. Shockingly that's what I've modelled classically, with Declans code to confirm the predictions. I'm not sure if you know the nicities of QM but the big job is getting S CHSH violation of >2, then to close the detection loopholes also needs a 'steering inequality' of >1. Which Declan shows the model produces. Sure the sequance is a bit complex, that's why is wasn't discovered before.

Did you know QM ignored Maxwell inverse state momenta pairs and just 'assumed' spin up/down states? It's adding those back in brings back the sense. Or do you think Maxwell was wrong?? I'd advise you not to lay to much money on it!

Best

Peter

Ultimately I don't care about QM. I can phease my demo of nonlocality enrirely in terms of the observed stats of which detector rings. That QM may or may not predict this correctly isn't relevant. When you have programmed two ujnconnected computers to reproduce those stats in a situation where the question put to each computer is from a random number generator, let me know!

Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

9 days later

Dear Neo,

How wonderful to see that you've met my "spooky" 2G Grandfather, Thomas "Nino" Watson, born 1834 Sussex! Missing since 19 October 1900 after a wild party at Max Planck's home, this is the message that he whispers to thoughtful dreamers:

'Ponder how to reconcile the success of many predictions which treat systems as isolated with the supposed nonlocality and acausality revealed in Bell tests, in which separation in spacetime is of no consequence. Never be put off, for only seekers find. By doing this you become part of a great project.'

PS: Since my FQXi is playing up, I'll keep this short (and will be back). Please have a look at:

More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss

Anton, appreciating your essay, and with best regards; Gordon Watson (hoping to link with you and 2G-Gpa as part of that great project).

    Thank you, Anton, for posting this enjoyable and thought-provoking essay. I too enjoyed the comment "Never be put off, for only seekers find. By doing this you become part of a great project.". Seekers should not be satisfied. We should be able to understand either how to predict what a single electron will do in an SG apparatus, or why such a prediction is not possible.

    You know my take on this. I believe that there is an underlying model that can explain what we can and cannot predict and how to make such predictions. I will keep Seeking...

    9 days later

    Dear Anton,

    I welcome your essay and our many shared interests: eg, with my emphasis throughout, we are both for hidden variables at a deeper level of ontology. I'm guessing that we differ re this next? In my essay, I claim to have found them.

    However, surprised by our differing approaches, please note that I here (as elsewhere) a receptive seeker for evidence that counters my classical views; firm, not aggressive. Thus:

    Q-A: Nino, p.7: "Never be put off, for only seekers find. By doing this you become part of a great project."

    From your 1990 FOOP essay, and your comments above: am I right in thinking that part of your part in that great project is to defend Bell's theorem and nonlocality?

    Q-B: Neo, p.2: "Suppose that the result of measuring some variable for a particle is determined by the value of a variable that is internal to the particle - a hidden variable. I am being careful not to say that the particle 'had' the value of the variable that was measured; that is a stronger statement. The result of the measurement on the particle tells us something about the value of its internal variable. Suppose this particle is correlated with another - for example, if the pair had zero combined angular momentum when they were in contact previously. That correlation now tells you something about the internal variable of the second particle. ... ." [See my related comments on my FQXi essay-site.]

    So, do you agree with this next statement? It follows that you and I can logically infer (from one result) to a correlated property of the other (twinned) particle.

    Q-C: So why does our modern friend Neo infer to nonlocality?

    Neo, p.2 continues: " ...In situations like this a man called Bell derived an inequality. You can't do better than an inequality because of the openness about how the internal variables govern the outcome of measurements. Bell's inequality is violated by observations on many pairs of particles, whose statistics are predicted correctly by quantum mechanics. The only physical assumption involved in the reasoning is that the result of a measurement on a particle is determined by the value of a variable internal to it - locality, in other words. So a measurement made on one particle alters what would have been seen if a measurement had been made on its partner. That's the operative meaning of nonlocality."

    Q-D: In my essay, More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss, at p.5, I derive the EPRB-expectation classically. At p.8, I advance a classical refutation of Bell's theorem.

    So Neo might disagree, but how do you respond, please?

    Q-E: We both like Mermin's version of GHZ. Would you like to see that result derived classically?

    With best regards, and enough for now,

    Gordon Watson

    More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

      Anton,

      Interesting. Have you read the essay (is it Phillips?) identifying that the Cos curve distributions are ubiquitous in all of nature?

      Can you pass me a link to your finding/paper?

      Mine shows non-locality isn't required in the case of Bob & Alice correlations, so on the face of it one or other may be flawed, or maybe not. Lets study each others. I'd like you to spot the flaw in mine if there is one. Plenty have tried but most aren't as well qualified as you may be.

      Very best

      Peter

      Dear Anthony,

      I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand.

      It is so close to me. «Regard all strange outworkings of quantum mechanics as information about the hidden variables. Purported no-hidden-v ariables theorems that are consistent with quantum mechanics must contain extra assumptions or axioms, so put such theorems to work by arranging that your research violates those assumptions». «Never be put off, for only seekers find. By doing this you become part of a great project».

      I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

      Vladimir Fedorov

      https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

      21 days later

      Dear Anton; further to my earlier comments, please: Since we cannot both be right, would you mind commenting on my half-page refutation of Bell's theorem?

      See ¶13 in More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

      NB: I clarify Bell's 1964-(1) functions by allowing that, pairwise, the HV (λ) heading toward Alice need no be the same as that (μ) heading toward Bob; ie, it is sufficient that they are highly correlated via the pairwise conservation of total angular momentum. Thus, consistent with Bell's 1964-(12) normalization condition:

      [math]\int\!d\boldsymbol{\lambda}\:\rho(\boldsymbol{\lambda})=\int\!d\boldsymbol{\mu}\:\rho(\boldsymbol{\mu})=1.\;\;\;(1)[/math]

      Further, in my analysis: after leaving the source, each pristine particle remains pristine until its interaction with a polarizer. Then, in that I allow for perturbative interactions, my use of delta-functions represents the perturbative impact of each such interaction.

      My equation (26) then represents the distribution of perturbed particles proceeding to Alice's analyzer. Thus (with b and μ similarly for Bob):

      [math]\int\!d\lambda\;\rho(\lambda)_{Alice}=\tfrac{1}{2}\int\!d\;\lambda[\delta\,(\lambda\sim a^{+})+\delta\,(\lambda\sim a^{-})]=1.\;\;\;(2)[/math]

      PS: Bridging the continuous and the discrete -- and thus Bell's related indifference -- integrals are used here by me for generality. Then, since the arguments of Bell's 1964-(1) functions include a continuous variable λ, ρ(λ) in Bell 1964-(2) must include delta-functions. Thus, under Bell's terms, my refutation is both mathematically and physically significant.

      PLEASE: When you reply -- or if you will not -- please drop a note on my essay-thread so that I receive an alert. Many thanks; Gordon

      Current FQXi essay

      Write a Reply...