I am happy to be having this conversation...

I like your alternative ending to the CQ story. CSL stands for Continuous Spontaneous Localization, and it is a logical endpoint of statevector reduction theory, by combining automatic reduction with gravity (i.e. - reduction by gravitation). I do agree that Copenhagen deserves a place on the compass, with the antipode being the notion that the fundamentals of QM and how a result is arrived at having equal relevance to 'shut up and calculate.'

Beyond this; the idea of reduction being induced by gravitation may be seen to imply entropy or an entropic force associated with gravity. I presented a poster at FFP10 championing the idea of a common basis for thermodynamic entropy and non-local effects in QM, extending the ideas of spreading and sharing of energy as an entropy metaphor to include information.

I based these assumptions largely on what I was learning about decoherence theory, but it turned out the pure formulation was ill-equipped to deal with dissipative phenomena or processes. On the other hand; I later learned Sandu Popescu was formulating a very similar picture in the same timeframe (2009) so I was actually more on-target than I imagined at the time.

More later,

Jonathan

Dear John,

Thank you for this essay, I was pleased to read it! I didn't know about enhanced quantization so far, but it seems to me that it fixes some problems already, and that even more significant results will probably follow. It seems more natural than the canonical quantization, and much better connected with the classical systems that are quantized. Maybe some of the developments will shed more light not only to QFT, but also to the problem of emergence of a classical world from the quantum one, and to the problems related to quantum gravity. I will follow with interest your work.

Best wishes,

Cristi

    CS

    Thanks for the nice words, and they came on my birthday as well! Yes, I believe that Enhanced Quantization is a novel way to connect quantum and classical systems and removes some fuzzy parts of canonical quantization. There is a book entitled Enhanced Quantization published by World Scientific in 2015 that covers many of its benefits.

    JK

    Dear John Rider Klauder ,

    Thank you very much for nice observation, that is one of the Dynamic Universe Model predictions came true

    There were some recent experiments that showed velocities higher than that of light are achieved... in Europe as I remember. You can check in Wikipedia. Please see my paper on Velocities more than light for a more elaborate discussion ....

    https://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

    Waiting for more questions....

    Best Regards

    =snp

    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 must consist 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

    Dear John,

    You Essay is impressive. I came to it based on a suggestion of a friend of mine. I did not know your approach of Enhanced Quantization, but it seems consistent. Your Essay is well written and seems mathematically correct. Maybe I will try to use it in a quantum gravity framework in the future.

    In any case, it has been a pleasant reading for me. You deserves the highest score.

    Maybe an expert of quantum theory like you could be interested in my Essay, where I discuss a Bohr-like approach to the "gravitational atom" with... Albert Einstein!

    Congrats again and good luck in the Contest.

    Cheers, Ch.

    4 days later

    I must commend you John,

    You have given us a powerful tool and insights that will fuel the progress of fundamental Physics. So I must give you high marks on both the idea presented and its clarity of presentation. I admire that you are able to incorporate mathematical expressions into your sentences so seamlessly, and that every time you leave a reader with questions about what the Math means you follow up in the next sentence or two with an explanation of the how or why. It gets pretty Math-intensive in places, but the clarity is nearly transparent.

    I could not give you full credit for weaving your subject into the theme of the contest - in terms of showing why this new approach advances fundamental Physics in your essay. But after seeing your talk at FFP15, that piece is obvious. I'm glad to see Cristi Stoica concurs that you not only expand your core topic, but give us insights "also to the problem of emergence of a classical world from the quantum one, and to the problems related to quantum gravity." I am so happy you clearly explain why "the special role played by Cartesian coordinates in canonical quantization is essential," which I had not understood before Orihuela, and how varying the target surface leads to enhanced quantization.

    I am of the opinion that yours is the correct methodology, but I have doubts about the approach taken by Carroll and Singh - which lacks a well-defined target space entirely. If you have read their essay; I'd like to know your opinion.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

    12 days later

    JK

    That looks quite brilliant, but the details were a little beyond me as I'm no mathematician (though scored top on Wigner with red/green lined socks in 2015!)

    I hope you can help. It looks to me as if you have an algorithmic solution to non-linear classical 'quantum' interactions. That's of great interest as my essay describes a full ontology (and scaled up experiment) achieving what I think is 'impossible', a geometrical solution for the same problem, reproducing QM's predictions free of weirdness. You'll be one of a few here qualified to check it. I Analyse 'OAM/QAM' more closely & in essence do the following;

    Assume pairs retain anti-parallel polar axes but random x,y,z for each pair.

    Assume physical particle OR wavefront/fermion interaction as absorption & momentum exchange at some tangent point on the Bloch sphere.

    Start the pairs with Maxwell's FOUR states, inc. 'curl' (polar N/S) AND equatorial (0 curl but max +/- linear) momentum. QAM is then just spherical rotation.

    Identify from Geophysics that the momentum distribution of both pairs is inverse and by Cos latitude (as 'surface speed' but for any diameter within the field fermion (theta set by A,B)

    Take polarised/modulated 'requantized' Cos values (also now theta dependent) to the (2 channel) photomultiplier fields for further orthogonal interactions and 2nd requantization, squaring the Cos values (Borns Law).

    Working with all 3 degrees of freedom and detections only above a certain energy threshold at each angle (subject to phase) the mechanism provides the outputs which (when collated and misunderstood statistically!) fully reproduce QM's predictions! Actually just as John Bell predicted, and a Bayesian distribution.

    Few can grasp the ontology. Declan Traill's short essay provides the computer code and plot supporting the mechanism, including meeting CHSH >2 and the 'Steering Inequality' >1 test closing the 'detector loophole'.

    Non-integer spins emerge from y,z rotations and non-locality isn't required!

    What I'm unable to do (simple incompetence I think) is find the Hamiltonian. I'll also of course be unable to convince the academic community it's no joke.

    I'd greatly appreciate your advice and perhaps help.

    Thanks for your own inspiring insights which I'm sure are connected.

    Very best

    Peter J

      John,

      Thanks for your nice comments on mine. As my conclusions were a logical consequence of the classical reproduction of the Cos[su]2 curve can you identify what you thought was missing from the mechanism, or logically 'wrong' in the conclusions?

      The finding is very important if correct, though I know varies a little from your prior views, but I suspect I may not have described the ontological sequence in a way to allow it to be kept all in mind at once.

      If not I need to identify any error you saw.

      Many thanks

      Peter

      John,.. .. (Thanks for your reply red the Dirac Eq. this copied from mine);

      I really appreciate your reply. I agree, in fact more than 'a stretch'! such a "new way of seeing things will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us. In any case it seems that the quantum mechanical description will be superseded." JB p.27.

      It followed from Majorana, (e it's own antiparticle) also; "..a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal." p.172.

      We know the underside of Maxwell's left hand has opposite (right) polar spin. My table top experiment, (photo's in text, protocol in end notes) confirmed the two inverse orthogonal momenta pairs with Cos theta (latitude) distribution for EACH particle!!, that's for ALL spheres at ALL radii (so 'through coloured').

      I also thought Diracs handing must be 2 particles but he's only describing ONE each time then correlating so that fails logically! A,B have one each. Lets split a sphere spinning on any axis and send half each way, each still has BOTH poles. A,B polariser electrons are the same & can be flipped independently. So B reverses his dial & 'opposite' becomes 'same'!

      Not detects are explained by the phase difference at measurement angles. The solution hits the steering violation to close the detection loophole (as Traills essay). Born's (Malus') 'law' also then emerges with the second nonlinear Cos momentum transfer at the photomultiplier field. The statistics then don't represent what Bohr & statisticians assume. (Prof. Phillips Bell curve essay helps explain).

      Of course ANY classical way to reproduce CHSH >2 was though impossible so needs checking out. It's a small collaboration but the problem is no top PR journal will overcome cognitive dissonance and accept it without a more authoritative figure such as yourself involved -??

      Peter

      PS

      For the spherical momenta see figs 1 & 2 in last yrs essay here;

      http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2755

      equivalent to the Dr Bertlemann 'reversible lined sock' solution in my top scored 2015 essay om Wigners statement here; The Red/Green Sock Trick

      Did you see the 100 sec video? - deriving non integer spins from the same insight;

      https://youtu.be/WKTXNvbkhhI.

      John

      WOW! & check out the "Poincare sphere; --..complex superposition of two orthogonal polarisation states"

      It's been there all along and ignored!

      [link:books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=1107006341 ]https://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=1107006341 /link]

      Peter