Christi,

We'd be in serious trouble if we all 'agreed' on everything. Understanding would never advance! (I suppose that's why 'agreement' isn't a scoring criteria).

But I should say this is more like 'agreeing or not' to a longish but basic arithmetical equation. Under the rules it's either correct or not. The only thing most should struggle with is the different starting assumptions. Either

A) No hypothesis about the pairs except some unexplained 'superposed' spin states that can't be rotation; 'up or down'.

Which you and all are so familiar with it's become 'intuition' despite it leading to unphysical weird outcome interpretations.

B) Using proven distributions of momenta, orthogonal as Maxwell's, which vary with interaction angle.

So it seems really just a test of intellect over 'intuition', or an individuals ability to overcome cognitive dissonance (or embedded beliefs). Of course I expect most people to stick with A) for some time to come. Maybe forever, even though John Bell stated clearly he knew an equivalent to 'B)' must exist. Is that not simply the human condition?

very best

peter

  • [deleted]

Georgina,

I confess the 'sequence' is longer than we've expected. It's the basic 'rule' that's simple. Like arithmetic as I wrote to Christi above. Once children learn the new rules of ,-,x, angles and squaring it's simply a case of longer strings. Of course if it was short & DEAD simple it'd have been found before! It was nature who made it seem a bit complex not me! But he also used simple rules and gave us brains able to apply them!

Underlying that is the very simplest notion of 'motion', so the the 'spin' of pairs really IS rotation, but not on just ONE of the 3 axes!!!

(Look at the short video again if struggling - the 3D motion is critical)100 sec video

The 'local' UNrealism in QM only comes from Alice's outcome 'apparently' changed by Bob's action. What I SIMPLY show is that does'nt happen. If your detector is set to NORTH, and the particle pole arriving is NORTH you find 'SAME'. The side arriving at Bob is then SOUTH If Bob's is set South he also gets 'SAME'. But if EITHER ONE of you reverses detector pole (so they're the same), you find 'OPPOSITE'!!. Present statistical analysis fails to account for that due to the wrong starting assumption!!

Local reality is then irrefutably recovered. NO weird 'action at a distance' needed.

The little effort to understand and embed it is rewarding.

Very Best

Peter

Peter,

I see what you're doing here :) So you say it's not simply to agree to disagree, because it is intellect vs 'intuition' (i.e. prejudice? bias?). You've got me, I live in superposition on Hilbert Space Ave. and my house is filled with Schrödinger cats, so my intuition is quantum :) So since you put the problem like this, I have no choice but to accept the provocation. I'm kidding, I'm not 5.

If I accept, I think there will be a very long discussion, from which nothing will be gained and no agreement will be reached. But let's say that you will convince me that you are right, then what would you expect? I'm not in the Nobel committee :)

Here are some ideas:

- Find the closest University and discuss your findings with a professor of QM.

- Submit your papers to a peer reviewed journal with IF, and see what the reviewers have to say.

- Hire a physicist who is giving consultations for such things.

Of course, it's your choice, and I told you mine.

Good luck!

Cristi

Georgina, ..Hmm, that was me below -autologged out! here again;

I confess the 'sequence' is longer than we've expected. It's the basic 'rule' that's simple. Like arithmetic as I wrote to Christi above. Once children learn the new rules of ,-,x, angles and squaring it's simply a case of longer strings. Of course if it was short & DEAD simple it'd have been found before! It was nature who made it seem a bit complex not me! But he also used simple rules and gave us brains able to apply them!

Underlying that is the very simplest notion of 'motion', so the the 'spin' of pairs really IS rotation, but not on just ONE of the 3 axes!!!

(Look at the short video again if struggling - the 3D motion is critical)100 sec video

The 'local' UNrealism in QM only comes from Alice's outcome 'apparently' changed by Bob's action. What I SIMPLY show is that does'nt happen. If your detector is set to NORTH, and the particle pole arriving is NORTH you find 'SAME'. The side arriving at Bob is then SOUTH If Bob's is set South he also gets 'SAME'. But if EITHER ONE of you reverses detector pole (so they're the same), you find 'OPPOSITE'!!. Present statistical analysis fails to account for that due to the wrong starting assumption!!

Local reality is then irrefutably recovered. NO weird 'action at a distance' needed.

The little effort to understand and embed it is rewarding.

Very Best

Peter

Dear Cristinel Stoica,

A FQXi contest requires reading and digesting of most exciting essays too fast. Peter's claims, including re-emission theory, seem indeed somewhat premature, at least to me.

You suggested finding a professor. While I didn't find professors of mathematics who were able to answer my fundamental questions concerning mathematics because I was not a mathemetician, and my last boss, an prolific expert in ground penetrating radar, called an IEEE paper of mine too fundamental, I hoped for serious hints here.

What I got aware of exceptional papers was written by outsider like Tom Phipps, Robert McEachern, and this year Declan Traill, Edwin Klingman, and Alan Kadin.

I didn't mention you for two reasons: I didn't yet read your paper, and I don't expect something very new. Sorry for being blunt.

Since Peter Jackson learned from me to distinguish between near field and far field, he has been trying to discuss belonging issues with me. I refused because I didn't see a serious reason for such distraction from my essay, and I suspect, he didn't even read and understand it.

Eckard Blumschein

Hi Peter, local realism has a particular meaning. Its meaning is not only that something is happening that is local and real but the outcome state or value exist prior to measurement.I.e. not as a superposition of states or in an indefinite condition. The state or value being thought of as a property of the particle alone.

Both you and I recognize that the state found depends partly on behaviour and partly upon the choice of measurement angle. So, the state/value is not merely something about the particle itself. The measurement is forming a relation that enables a determination to be made, rather than it already being definite and just awaiting discovery.

Your mathematics may work but that does not mean that is therefore how the particles are moving. Meant matter of factly not disrespectfully.

Welcome back, Peter. Your entry is quite impressive as usual.

I made it easy for myself by grabbing the definition of fundamental is that which is Essential for existence. You took the weightier tract. Russell's pile of turtles are in keeping with the anatomical "fundus" definition and does seem to orient toward the larger and weightier at the bottom but then of course there are many interpretations of fundamental which you point out. I'm hoping for "the barmaid effect," hoping the slopped-over beer suds do not obfuscate my attempt.

Your essay embarks on a journey of multifaceted interpretations of fundamental, some quite complex. We do want our mysteries to be simplified. You ably prove that fundamental is not a simple theory of everything. Maybe fundamental should be qualified with "more or less." I believe fundamental evolves with discovery and that we must say "more or less" with our discoveries because our understanding always seems to be incomplete. Regarding the "lower reductionist limit of condensed matter," I use the creation of metallic hydrogen as an achievement relating to the evolution of of fundamental through discovery. Hope you get a chance to read mine.

Jim Hoover

    Thanks for your kind comments on my essay Peter.

    I am not of the expertise to assess your essay but enjoyed what I could understand.

    Good luck in the competition,

    Jack

    Cristi,

    I confess. I wanted you to analyse the actual ontology. I hoped that as you'd indicated knowledge of QM. But although John Bells pleaded "never give up trying to find" ..the classical mechanism I'd never blame anyone for doing so. The 3 degrees of freedom and discarding various hypotheses helped make it both tedious and mind bendingly tricky! Nobel?! I don't want, need or do this for money or kudos - saving one cat would be more reward than I'd expect!

    Thanks for the advice, all good ..but already done. You'd see in my bio I still visit at two universities so have good access and I've consulted more widely. Submissions to peer reviewed journals have been rebuffed at first glance. Editors seem scared by major paradigm departure and aren't qualified to judge so no papers have reached peer review.

    Some professors of QM gave similar responses (not surprising) but discussions with a couple who didn't were rewarding. As at last year, though seemingly ~90% sound, the final piece, squaring the modulus, was unproven and outwith the experiment. I'd hoped my identification (see last years essay) of the 'cascade' expansion in photomultiplier (pm) tubes being 3D (so a 'cone' face, squaring amplitudes), might complete it, but that wouldn't resolve. The solution came later last year from stepping back again for overview, and was blindingly obvious. pm interaction momentum exchange is the same as at the polarizer, so the Cos distributions with angle are simply applied again! - note; values between 0 and 1 are of course lower when squared.

    That completed the classical mechanism. We now have a consortium producing the paper, which Declan has kindly agreed to join after his computer code, (following the classical ontology precisely), confirmed the exact reproduction of QM's predictions -the first time ever for a classical mechanism! So yes, the ideas you gave did work. Of course the model still may never penetrate the mainstream.

    Thanks for looking and for your kind comments anyway.

    Best of luck with yours.

    Peter

    Georgina,

    You're right, QM did axiomise that initial state affects outcome, but Von Neuman recognized 'the meter is part of the system'. What I've done is identify EXACTLY

    A) WHAT links the pair & carries through ('entangled' quality) and

    B) WHAT changes the interactions effect and outcome values.

    A) Only has to consist of maintained paralell polar axes to produce the apparent effects we call 'nonlocality'.

    B) Is then the non-linear inverse distributions of the linear/curl state pairs identified, changing with (random) attitude and 'detector' (x2) field rotations across all 3 axes.

    QM simply said the couldn't be done! at all.. ever!! Bell disagreed. He just showed it couldn't be done simply with QM's assumptions. It now seems he was right.

    Your last paragraph is wrong & not 'fact' because there is NO MATHEMATICS in my essay and none were used in finding the mechanism! The ontology itself describes the full process and motions (visible as long as you can visualise it). You only have to look at non-linear or quantum optics on wiki to see how particles move and what rotations do to phase. That's what John Wheeler said we should do - work it out first only THEN do the mathematics to match it for the proof.

    But don't worry. Quantum physicists may fear to even look at it! Mind you I've just read Prof McHarris's essay. Spot on! Have a read.

    Very best.

    Peter

    Jim,

    Thanks. I promise I'll get to yours. I've always found them interesting & well written. I agree Hydrogen is the first real 'matter' only one step above my condensed fermion pairs. See you over there soon.

    Peter

    Eckard,

    I'm sure a 'Classic QM' will be found 'somewhat premature' by most!

    I note your comment that I 'learnt to distinguish between near field and far field' from you ..but that's not entirely true. It's nice to find agreement but I had published on the importance of the distinction and TZ well before we ever discussed it, as early as 2010 and including in the HJ, archived here.

    arXiv Resolution of Kantor and Babcock-Bergman Emission Theory Anomalies HJ v5.35 2012.

    I'd hope we'd agree on the role of the TZ as a '2 fluid plasma' with all re-emission at local 'c'(=CSL) but I can't see we do. As for suggesting I 'didn't even read and understand it' (your essay) I'm a little confused. I commented in detail! Yet I'm sure I probably didn't fully understand your underlying thoughts. I tried, but I agree we have to read and digest too many good essays to quickly.

    I thought you may be rather unfair on Christi who's essay I think was rather new and original whether the hypothesis was agreeable or not. Was yours really that much more different to previous efforts than Cristi's?

    Very best

    Peter

    Dear Peter,

    Thank you for the explanations. I understand how it is to have an idea which makes you feel enthusiastic, and to want to communicate it, and how it is to hit that wall when you feel that specialists don't seem to appreciate it. I am happy that you already followed that advice, which I am sure I was not the first one to offer to you. So I will tell you how I do to break that wall, which as I said I have to break it too, and I could break with my first papers not having yet a PhD and at some point also no affiliation. My claims were by no means as revolutionary as yours, but they were still contradicting some dogmas, so I had to do it as rigorous as possible. Without this is impossible. I want to apologize for not being able to invest more time in this, but my situation forces me to have two jobs, and I know from previous experiences that such discussions can be endless. So please decide if you are willing to hear my terms, and if so, please do it. But if you are not, I can't negotiate them, but I hope you will find that are reasonable.

    I will explain what you have to do for the case that you have a classical explanation of the EPR and want to communicate it to the experts. Now that you have a team, this may help you to do it. What I will tell you applies to both the case that you want me to understand your idea, and to the case you want to submit it to a journal, or to present it at a conference. You will have to write a paper which contains the following. Don't get me wrong, I understand that for this contest the essay had to be simple, and not filled with technicalities, but for such a claim you make you have no possibility but to go fully mathematical.

    (1) An introduction, in which you state the problem you want to solve. It has to be clear that you know exactly what the problem is, so for this you'll have to explain it. For the EPR, you will have to explain EPR, so describe the initial state, which is a singlet, and describe the evolution of this state when goes to Alice and Bob, and how Alice and Bob are free to choose the orientations of their Stern-Gerlach devices. With equations. It is OK to use as model the description of the experiment in a standard book like this one. But it is essential that (i) you understand everything, (ii) you show it in your text.

    (2) I advise you to avoid expressions that trigger the reader, such as "quantum mechanics is a so called 'pillar'" etc. This would trigger the reader into believing that you are biased against quantum mechanics, and they will consider you unprofessional or even crackpot. Just use a neutral language.

    (3) You have to do what you did at (1) for Bell's theorem: that is, to explain it rigorously. Hints: like any theorem, it has a hypothesis, a proof, and a conclusion. Bell's argument is that since the conclusion is violated in the real world, then the hypothesis must be wrong. The hypothesis contains two assumptions: (locality) and 9statistical independence). Since the conclusion is violated, one or both of the assumptions have to be violated.

    (4) Now your model. You have to describe your model for the electron's spin. If you think it is like a classical tennis ball, you have to state this, but also give the relevant equations. Then describe what is a singlet state. Then describe what happens in your model with the electron, when it is measured by Alice or Bob. What exactly is the mechanism that makes it become aligned along the axis Alice choose, either in one sense or the other.

    (5) Now, that you have a model of the initial singlet state, and of the measurement, apply it to two measurements done independently by Alice and Bob. Compute the correlations.

    If your model is local, once the electrons are separated and heading towards Alice and Bob, they are not allowed to exchange information or anything. Also Alice's and Bob's devices are not allowed to communicate. See if you obtain the correlations. You can also draw the results, you can use the javascript code I wrote in 2011 and modify it at will, or Florin's version based on my code, but I suggest you to attach it to the manuscript or to give a link to your code, so that the reader can check it.

    Note that there is a simple case when the classical correlations become the same as the quantum, namely when Alice and Bob measure along the same direction. So if your two tennis balls rotate along the same axis in opposite directions, and the axis chosen by both Alice and Bob is common and not perpendicular to the spinning axis of the two tennis balls, you will get it. Reproducing the quantum correlations classically for this case is not enough, because everybody knows that in this case they are the same with the classical ones. You need to make this work for the general case, when Alice and Bob are free to choose different axes.

    (6) Physical interpretation and conclusions. This should contain a honest description of the limits of your model, if there are any, and the open problems. Also the implications. Go back to Bell's theorem and explain how your model works around it. Is there an error in Bell's proof? Prove it. Is your model violating one of the two assumptions in the hypothesis? Show which of them, and how by violating it you get the violation of Bell's inequality.

    (7) I will make a separate point for this, because it is essential: all the steps have to be derived rigorously, and it is not enough to give explanation using words and pictures, calculations have to be there to prove each and every claim you made.

    (0) You have to be prepared for the possibility that by the end of the above steps you may change your mind. This is common, and no matter how much it hurts, it may happen.

    You may think that your model is ridiculously simple and there's no need to go through all this effort, but I will repeat that this is the only way to make it convincing for other researchers. I'm sorry, but I think that without these done there will be no way somebody will even understand what you mean. I hope this helps.

    Best wishes,

    Cristi

    Hi Peter Jackson

    Your words "However 'condensation' of massive particle pairs with discrete rotations may occupy a non-arbitrary position in a sequence with no known smallest possible scale" are really wonderful dear Peter Jackson, why don't you have look in my essay also where energy to mass transformation is predicted.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope 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

      snp

      Thank you. I recall your model, much in which agrees with the discrete field model but also much doesn't. As a quick check;

      1-5; I agree. 'Collisions' are interactions and common (but not galaxy growth by collision). 'Black Holes' exist but as Active Nuclei, quite different from early theory still often assumed and including a larger scale fractal version as a 'big whoosh' recycling process not bang. No 'worm holes', but all matter is re-ionised and used again with other freshly condensed - so maybe a similar result!

      All than agreed rejected up to 'dark' matter (but only n=1 fermion plasma) and dark energy (condensate) which do exist.

      No multiverses but all the complex CMB anisotropies emerge in detail from the 'AGN' type recycling model.

      Then; NO accelerating expansion required to explain redshit, Newton incomplete, linear 'absolute' time, ...then often qualified support for most of the rest.

      By all means raise any item and I'll explain my comments. All in all not a bad model but still inconsistent and with a couple of major conflicting assumptions. None I can see that are fatal, but it looks to me like more solid foundations are still needed.

      I'll post this on yours and have your essay on my list.

      Very Best

      Peter

        Christi,

        We used Florins code (with consent) but didn't know it was based on yours. Well done and thanks. Your contribution is recognised!

        Yes I agree the full mathematics must be included to be accepted by most, though the paper won't be completely mathematical. I suggest Georgina's point was a good one and the ontological mechanism should lead.

        I agree your points are all very good. As for (0) {10} yes I've been there a few times! - but took John Bells advice to; "..never stop..". Finally it all clicked into place.

        We'd hoped here any remaining flaws or incomplete aspects may be identified. None yet but maybe not from many exploring the model itself!

        Very best

        Peter

        Dear Peter,

        You wrote an interesting, provocative and entertaining Essay which deserves the highest score.

        It is strange that John Bell's comment on Bohr et al's assumption that no classical QM derivation could exist seems the opposite of the result of his famous theorem.

        I have a question: Are your statements that

        "the apparently most ridiculously simple of concepts can resolve and unite incomplete and incompatible theories. That simple concept is relative motion"

        connected with general covariance?

        Concerning your statement that

        "Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, often seen as fundamental, may share a single derivation"

        maybe you could be interested in my Essay, where I discuss physics unification from another point of view with... Albert Einstein!

        Congrats again and good luck in the Contest.

        Cheers, Ch.

          Peter Jackson

          I like your article very much, but there is one exception, and that is your explanation to destructive superposition. I have written that reservation on my own page also. In my opinion your explanation is not logically consistent. The same can be said regarding your explanation to the disappearance of your comment.

          With the best regards from ______________ John-Erik Persson

            Christian,

            Thank you kindly. John Bell was very consistent, as usual we've taken his 'theorem' alone and ignored what he knew and said it proved; that "The founding fathers were in fact wrong". & "..quantum mechanics is at best incomplete"

            Q; Connection with "general covariance"? Not directly. Indeed I found it a rather woolly concept and have looked closer. A better definition does emerge. Sure, 'Laws' don't often change, but much else does.

            One example of a law the DOES change is Snell's Law of refraction. It fails at the (Maxwell, Lorentz, DFM etc) near/far field transformation zone TZ. We then find 'Fraunhofer' radiation, as familiar as it is poorly understood to date but clearly derived in the new model. Also look at 'kinetic reverse refraction', which appears with the co-motion CREATING the TZ and for which there's NO law (I must get round to that!) as nobody else yet understands it! (fancy helping, so it'd be the JC law?)

            I greatly look forward to reading yours.

            Best wishes

            Peter

            John Eric. Thanks. But consider this;

            I show you a spinning sphere. I ask you to touch it and judge the clockwise or anti-clockwise rotation. You touch the south pole and clearly say 'Clockwise'.

            Now I can make your result disappear to ZERO without removing the spinning sphere!

            I simply rotate the sphere half a turn on either the y OR z axis. You find 0!

            Now stay there and start again. I ask you if it's spin UP or DOWN. Easy! But then rotate 90 degrees and THAT ALSO goes to zero! (there's no up/down or left/right momentum at the equator) We can rotate either the sphere or just YOU! (and at 180 degrees you find the opposite).

            The energy does not disappear! The spinning sphere is still there. It's all about at what angle we measure things. It's then entirely logically consistent once you use the correct starting assumptions. Exactly like QM in fact! Remember a two channel photomultiplier has orthogonal channels.

            Peter