Vladimir,

Thanks for the positive comment on my essay. I have just read your paper, although admit I skipped over much of the detail, but got the general thesis. It is a very interesting paper, and I agree that matter is comprised of vortices held together (in part) by gravity. I think you would be interested in my paper where I model electrons and positrons as 3D Electromagnetic standing waves: http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0054v6.pdf

My wave function solutions could work for any mass plugged in - leading to infinite possible particles, except that my suspicion is that only certain masses lead to just the right amount of wave curvature (due to gravitational bending) to allow stable particles to form. Thus only certain particles can exist. So this bending effect of gravity causes certain energy densities to be able to form stable wave function structures. Also I have long suspected that the Universe may have a fractal nature - the repeated application of simple laws building up bigger and bigger structures, but with a similar appearance at different size scales.

Best Regards,

Declan Traill

Declan, in reply, from my essay-thread. ...........

Thanks Declan, your prompt reply is appreciated. It's also good to see that we have some agreements; but I won't dwell on them for now. Instead I want to discuss what looks like (in my opinion) a serious point of disagreement.

Please note that I have no wish to discourage you -- quite the contrary -- because I think you have guts and brains; and perhaps it is me that errs. However:

Imho, what you call "Classical" or "Classical Physics" is not classical at all.

Thus your "reason for the Classical prediction being the blue line is this: Classically each detector has a semicircle of directions where an incident photon will give a + result, and the other semi-circle (of the whole circle) where an incident photon will give a - result."

May I take it that this "classicality" is part of your own theory? Or do you have a source? And can you be more specific, please, and consider your "detector" to be built from a polarizer followed by an analyzer?

For it's true that Bell 1964:(4) uses a similar approach, but only by way of illustration: for I'm not aware of any classical textbook advancing such a theory. What's more I do not see how your idea works for the usual classical demonstrations that are conducted with three 'sandwiched' polarizers: where brightness measurements show good accord with classical theory without allowances for "non-detects"?

You should be able to do the classical textbook calculation [edit: in and EPRB-setting with particles pairwise-correlated by linear-polarization] and see that it yields an expectation of one-half the QM value; which is NOT the blue line: instead it will be one-half the green line.

Then, regarding this next point of yours [with my emphasis]:

"Essentially it seems to me [DT] that you [GW] are saying that the two photons in the experiment have opposite angular momenta, thus conserving angular momentum across the experiment. Yes, there is no doubt of that - but this is not sufficient to assure that detectors A and B have correlated results at different angles, as each detector has a probability of detecting each photon as either + or -. What the EPR experiment reveals is that when the two detectors have nearly the same orientation they have a high degree of correlation despite not knowing where the other detector is. So to build up a high correlation between A and B, each detector would have to register more + results (for photons incident on them from at the same angle) when the other detector is in a certain location; then register more '-' results when the other detector is in a different location, despite not being able to know that other detector's location!"

In reply, with Einstein-locality ensuring that no detector has any 'knowledge' about the other: in EPRB (eg, using Aspect's experiments) the probability of +1/-1 from each detector is 50/50, for all (a, b); so there is no "knowing" required. And the related correlation is twice the classical correlation because pairwise "entangled" photons (ie, in the singlet state) are more highly correlated than pairwise correlated photons (in beams) correlated by linear-polarization only.*

Re the latter, I recommend that you do the classical calculation; re the former I would encourage you to study my essay and ask questions. For I am keen to see where we might disagree and where things might be improved; me noting that the only change I make to modern physics is to take Bohr's "disturbance dictum" seriously.*

* My own dictum: Correlated tests on correlated things produce correlated results without mystery; and correlated tests on more correlated things produce more correlated results without mystery.

PS: The GHZ I mentioned is [14] in my References; you'll see the 4-particle GHSZ variant of EPRB in [13].

HTH, with best regards; Gordon

Gordon Watson More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

Gordon,

It's not just me saying that the Classical prediction is linear, it says so on the Wikipedia page on bells theorem:

See the diagram in the overview section here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

Regards,

Declan

Gordon,

Also see this presentation by Alain Aspect on the EPR experiment:

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/colloq/aspect1/pdf/Aspect1.pdf

Pages 13 and 14 talk about the Classical prediction & also show a linear correlation curve.

Regards,

Declan

  • [deleted]

Declan, referring to my earlier suggestion, and seeking to continue our discussion efficiently, it would help me if you could post your responses on my essay-thread so that I get an alert!

Now, to be clear on a significant point of difference in our theorizing: ie, I point out that your theory is not classical.

In your essay you write that Figure-1 shows the "Classical prediction in Blue." From your comments above, I take it that you did not derive that line yourself? And that you have no such derivation?

Here's what I find when I check the two sources that you cite in comments above:

You write: "It's not just me saying that the Classical prediction is linear, it says so on the Wikipedia page on bells theorem: See the diagram in the overview section here:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem"

But, in reply, please note the Wikipedia wording:

"The best possible local realist imitation (red) for the quantum correlation of two spins in the singlet state (blue), insisting on perfect anti-correlation at zero degrees, perfect correlation at 180 degrees. Many other possibilities exist for the classical correlation subject to these side conditions, but all are characterized by sharp peaks (and valleys) at 0, 180, 360 degrees, ..."

The best possible local realist imitation: insisting that it be bound by two points!* Best possible? Imitation? And presumably a naive-realist (see next).

You also write: "Also see this presentation by Alain Aspect on the EPR experiment:

http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/colloq/aspect1/pdf/Aspect1.pdf"

Please note that Aspect's slide is headed: "NAIVE example of LHVT."*

Thus, so far, nowhere do I see a classical calculation delivering your Blue line. (And my comments on the non-classicality of your attempt to MATCH the Green line remain.)

* PS: The benefit of classically deriving one-half the GREEN line, based on polarized particles is that you can see that the tighter correlation under the singlet state in EPRB will deliver an understandably different (but related) correlation, without mystery.

HTH; Gordon Watson More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

Gordon,

I was happy to accept that the linear expectation was already derived by others, and on thinking about it could see how it was derived (as I explained earlier with the hemispheres) so I saw no need to re-derive it in my paper as it is in the Wikipedia page anyhow.

Incidentally Alain Aspects presentation does show how it was calculated on page 13, with the sign() formula for A and B.

Regards,

Declan

Declan, from my essay-thread; GW. -------

Declan, thanks for this:

From you: "I was happy to accept that the linear expectation was already derived by others, and on thinking about it could see how it was derived (as I explained earlier with the hemispheres) so I saw no need to re-derive it in my paper as it is in the Wikipedia page anyhow. Incidentally Alain Aspects presentation does show how it was calculated on page 13, with the sign() formula for A and B."

In reply: But they are not classical derivations. As I said earlier: Bell 1964:(4) uses a similar approach (ie, sgn), but only by way of illustration. Thus we have your Blue line associated with "imitation, naivety, and by way of illustration". Further, had I derived the Blue line in highschool (where we learnt of Malus' Law), it would have been marked 0/10.

That's why I recommend that you drop the straight line: and instead do, and plot, the classical half-Green line calculation. For then (at least via my theory) you are half-way to describing the origin of the Green line, without mystery

Though that would leave you with the claim that the Green line can be replicated classically on two independent computers. I'm out of touch with the latest bets against such, but some were considerable. This is the same challenge that Anthony Garrett issues; but without the $$ I suspect.

I look forward to your comments on my theory.

With my thanks again, and best regards,

Gordon Watson More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

Dear Declan, ...(copied to your and mine)

Thanks for the positive comment on my essay.

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

Vladimir Fedorov

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

Dear Declan

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

A couple of days in and semblance of my essay taking form, however the house bound inactivity was wearing me. I had just the remedy, so took off for a solo sail across the bay. In the lea of cove, I had underestimated the open water wind strengths. My sail area overpowered. Ordinarily I would have reduced sail, but this day I felt differently. My contemplations were on the forces of nature, and I was ventured seaward increasingly amongst them. As the wind and the waves rose, my boat came under strain, but I was exhilarated. All the while I considered, how might I communicate the role of natural forces in understanding of the world around us. For they are surely it's central theme.

Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me in questioning this circumstance?

My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. for if they didn't then nebula gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

My essay is an attempt at something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up an energy potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists, and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond forming activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemical process arose.

By identifying process whereby atomic forces draw a potential from space, we have identified means for their perpetual action, and their ability to deliver perpetual work. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might apply for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

Declan, as foreshadowed above, here's some background on my theory; Gordon

Background to Wholistic Mechanics (WM)

Whereas QM emerged from the UV-catastrophe ca1905, WM emerges from the locality-catastrophe typified by John Bell's dilemma ca1965: ie, seriously ambivalent about AAD, Bell adamantly rejected locality. He later surmised that maybe he and his followers were being rather silly -- correctly; as we show -- for WM is the local theory that resolves Bell's dilemma [there is no AAD] and proves the Bellian silliness.

So WM begins by bringing just one change to modern physics: rejecting naive-realism, true realism insists that some beables change interactively, after Bohr's disturbance-dictum. Thus recognising the minimum-action associated with Planck's constant, WM then recognises the maximum speed associated with light: for true locality insists that no influence propagates superluminally, after Einstein.

The union of these two classical principles -- the foundation of WM -- is true local realism (TLR). Under TLR, EPR's naive criterion for "an element of physical reality" is corrected, then the Laws of Malus and Bayes are validated in the quantum world. Then, via the R-F theorem ca1915, Born's Law is seen to derive from elementary Fourier theory. This in turn allows us to understand the physical significance of Dirac's notation; etc. Thus, beginning with these elementary natural principles, WM's universe-of-discourse focuses on beables in spacetime: with mathematics taken to be our best logic.

NB: Formulated in 1989 in response to a challenging article by David Mermin (1988), many leading Bellian physicists and philosophers have committed to review the foundations of WM and its early results. Since no such review has ever been delivered, I am not yet aware of any defect in the theory. Further, WM provides many ways to refute Bell's theorem (BT): one such is provided on p.8 of my essay.

PS: To those who dismiss my essay due to an alleged typo in the heading, I follow C. S. Peirce (absent his severity): "It is entirely contrary to good English usage to spell premiss, 'premise,' and this spelling ... simply betrays ignorance of the history of logic."

Assuring you that critical comments are most welcome,

Gordon Watson More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

    Gordon,

    As I already showed you in my email correspondence including the correlation graph and model code, modeling the EPR experiment using Malus's law does not give the correct correlation curve.

    So whatever your maths shows, if you cannot model it and get the correct correlation curve then it is wrong.

    Regards,

    Declan Traill

    Declan, re the correlation graph that you sent me: please post the graph as an attachment on my essay-thread. I would like to reply in detail with reference to that context. Thanks; Gordon

      Declan, this is from my essay thread, in reply to the graph that you emailed me. GW ...............

      Declan, thanks for attaching that strange (red-spotted) graph that you emailed to me. From your emails it appears you think it correct and that (somehow) my suggested remedy won't work. I'm hoping what follows (and further discussions, if necessary) may convince you otherwise.

      I'm also hoping that you will now quickly spot the source of "the twist" in your graph -- when corrected, it will mirror one-half the Green line -- so that you can then offer it as remedy to the many world-wide fallacies that attach to that misleading straight-line. Of course, as discussed, I would also encourage you to revert to formalism NOT modelism in this area: where the former is simpler (and far less misleading; see the equations below).

      In a fairly obvious notation: α denotes Aspect's (2004) experiment (s = 1). β denotes EPRB (s = 1/2). Subscript c denotes a classical variant of the quantum experiments: ie, classically, the particle-pairs are correlated under linear-polarisation only. Thus, classically under c, and from my theory under "entanglement" -- see my essay -- we find:

      [math]E(a,b|\alpha_c)=P(AB=1|\alpha_c)-P(AB=-1|\alpha_c)=\tfrac{1}{2}cos2(a,b).\;\;QED.\;\;(1)[/math]

      [math]E(a,b|\alpha)=P(AB=1|\alpha)-P(AB=-1|\alpha)\;\;(2)[/math]

      [math]=cos^{2}(a,b)-sin^{2}(a,b)=cos2(a,b).\;\;QED.\;\;(3)[/math]

      [math]E(a,b|\beta_c)=P(AB=1|\beta_c)-P(AB=-1|\beta_c)=-\tfrac{1}{2}a.b.\;\;QED.\;\;(4)[/math]

      [math]E(a,b|\beta)=P(AB=1|\beta)-P(AB=-1|\beta)\;\;(5)[/math]

      [math]=sin^{2}\tfrac{1}{2}(a,b)-cos^{2}\tfrac{1}{2}(a,b)=-a.b.\;\;QED.\;\;(6)[/math]

      The superiority of formalism over modelism then becomes clear. A physicist (thanks to Bohm), comparing (1) with (3) -- or (4) with (6) -- sees that the superior correlation of the quantum-source gives superior results, without mystery (compared to the weaker correlation provided by the "classical" source). In other words, pairwise correlation under linear-polarisation is weak compared to pairwise correlation under the conservation of total angular momentum.

      It follows that the so-called "classical straight line" -- from all your sources -- is misleading: and the related flawed analyses do not support profound claims. Which is not to discourage you -- it is rather to redirect you from a popular dead-end to some real-physic; perhaps beginning with you challenging and correcting the hard-straight-liners; including Aspect.

      To that end -- since my theory reflects the end that you (and many others) are seeking; with just one commonsense refinement to modern physics -- I look forward to discussing where I too might be on the wrong track.

      With best regards;

      Gordon Watson More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

      Declan, I've replied below, showing how Malus does give the correct result: and sure that you will spot your simple mistake when you see my equations. Cheers; Gordon

      Hello Declan,

      Pasting in from a thread with Peter Jackson in the comments of essay by Michaele Suisse and myself. Want to wade thru comments on your essay, then come back to offer more:

      Peter,

      Looked again a couple times at Traill's essay. Perhaps starting to get the connection Terry Bollinger was trying to point out.

      From perspective of the geometric wavefunction interaction (GWI) model Michaele and I are working with two essential points relevant to Declan's essay seem to stand out.

      1. There exist two different varieties of quantized impedances - scale invariant and scale dependent. Forces associated with invariant impedances can do no work, cannot share energy/information. Resulting motion is perpendicular to direction of applied force. These are the conduits of non-locality. They communicate only the quantum phase of entanglement, not a single measurement observable. Here the GWI approach appears to be in harmony with what Declan shows.

      2. What distinguishes quantum from classical is quantum phase. Once one accounts for the fact that phase is not a single measurement observable, from the perspective of our synthesis of geometric wavefunction interactions with quantized impedance networks QM appears 'classical', again in agreement with Declan's conclusion.

      Having arrived at this, now feel ready to take a look at Watson, and then yours again. Tho we're not math folks here, Poincare sphere is only slightly familiar to me from Penrose's road to reality.

      Dear Declan Andrew Traill,

      The tables on page 10 and 12 are similar.

      The page 10 table has been arrived at using 7 squares as below:

      No. Fig. Angle Area

      1 15c 00 100

      2 14c 15 093

      3 13c 30 075

      4 12c 45 050

      5 11c 60 025

      6 10c 75 007

      7 09c 90 000

      The table on page 12 has been arrived at using 9 squares and the precision is to the first decimal place.

      Kamal Rajpal

      Dear Declan Andrew Traill,

      2D space can be filled up with squares but not with circles. See figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 on pages 4, 5 and 6. You are calculating the area inside the circle only. I am doing it inside the square. This was the mistake made in 1935. See paragraph 1 on page 11.

      The tables on page 10 and 12 are similar.

      The page 10 table has been arrived at using 7 squares as below:

      No. Fig. Angle Area

      1 15c 00 100

      2 14c 15 093

      3 13c 30 075

      4 12c 45 050

      5 11c 60 025

      6 10c 75 007

      7 09c 90 000

      The table on page 12 has been arrived at using 9 squares and the precision is to the first decimal place.

      Kamal Rajpal

      Declan,

      Does your code completely fit the mechanism in Peter Jacksons essay? It took me some time to familiarise myself with it as it includes a number of fresh views and elements, all rather better evidenced and more logical than the original. I hope we're in for that revolution and hope to see you keep working together! I suspect only a strong collaboration will penetrate established views.

      I'm giving you top marks for yours as, like Peter's, it's so fundamentally important. I wish I could help as it looks like there's some detailed mathematical or algorithmic back up still needed, unfortunately not my specialism.

      Very best of luck in the judging, though from what I've seen in the past it's a bit of an 'old pals' or community benefit excercise, rather opposite to the point of fqXi!

      Very well done anyway.

      Rich

        Declan, Richard

        I explained the fit to Richard. It's been interesting how few have or have bothered to follow the mechanism. I set out a way ahead on my blog in answer to Gordon. Hope you two can reach agreement.

        Andrew Beckwith complains he's been multi 1 bombed as I know you have so do read & support his if you haven't yet.

        Very best

        P

        Hi,

        Have you tried to put it on a Bloch sphere? The slope is important. Is it intermediate?

        Ulla Mattfolk