A Fundamental Misunderstanding by Declan Andrew Traill

Declan,

That finding's astounding. A revolution in physics! Classical QM!!! I've checked it and it's correct. I know that because my own essay; 'Absolute Simplicity' gives the full rationale and repeatable experimental protocol (with photographs) proving the very same thing!

I recall a previous essay & cited an earlier paper of yours on the right tracks. I interesting note you also cite some of mine, which also show how the result unifies the description of QM and SR. I'm sure you'll completely understand and like mine.

Many may miss this so for anyone else reading this; YES you CAN believe your own eyes. This is genuine and really important new physics.

Very well done. We must get together on it, though I see we live almost precisely a hemisphere apart!

Very best of luck in the contest.

Peter

Georgina,

I can see your point about 'word count', however this really DOES address the subject more than any (many) I've read so far! What can be more fundamental and revolutionary than finally escaping the weird nonsense of QM and rationalising physics!!??

Declan's finding really DOES do that, and indeed represents the mathematical code for the rationale and simple experiment in mine. Of course all those steeped in the Doctrine of the last 100 years will likely kick, scream, complain and deny, or just ignore, for another 10 years yet.

I know you're not so 'steeped'. Rather you've seemed a bit fearful of QM, so often criticised any essays addressing it, but it really IS MOST fundamentally important for physics to escape the wonderland it's been in.

I think and hope you'll fully understand mine (though a good idea of what needs to be achieved would help) which then also shows how the quantum world becomes fully rational and compatible with Relativity AT LAST! (though both interpretations need slight adjustment)

I'm off to celebrate.

Peter

Declan, you are right there are lots of ways an essay can be presented. Yours was a brief illustrated report.It would, I think, have been helpful if you had explained your approach to the competition topic up front, so that it appears relevant to it. I.e. Rather than 'what is fundamental?' you choose to identify a fundamental problem and address it. It would also have been helpful for me if you had written more to explain the background and walk through the significance. You write " The probability of a non-detect event is proportional to the square of the cosine of the angle between the photon polarization axis and the detector polarization axis -such that the greater the angle difference, the more likely a non-detect will occur." OK, but you don't explain why that is. From what I read, I get the impression that what is going on is various people tinkering with results, including or excluding them to tr and get the kind of relation they are hoping for. That is my impression knowing very little about this kind of work. I'd be interested to know if this kind of analysis has been done before as the problem has been around a long time. Are there any comparable findings from others? I think it will be really good to get feedback from people who can analyse what you have done and agree or disagree on its significance- rather than nice graph or enjoyed your paper.. Good luck with it. Kind regards Georgina

I liked your essay

One nit though. Why is a classical presentation of entanglement the most

foundational aspect of physics?

You make it appear as though this is a TOE in the making

Can you explain more?

Thanks

Andrew

Declan, I am sorry I have caused offense. Georgina

Peter! I made no point about word count. My criticism of essays has nothing to do with a personal fear of QM. What nonsense. I know my limitations that's all. I think your comment was unhelpful. Georgina

Declan

I see that your ideas are very like mine. See my comment above. I therefore suggest that you take a look at my article called Fundamental Errors in Physics.

From _______________ John-Erik

Quantum steering exploits quantum correlations whereby an observer, Alice, can influence, or as it is said to steer, Bob's physical system in a bipartite entanglement with Alice's. This is a nonlocal process inaccessible to classical world. This in turn results in violation of some inequalities. This is employed by some to try to understand how quantum mechanics leads in the large action limit to classical physics. However, it is not in of itself a classical underpinning of quantum mechanics.

I am having a hard time pinning that down in your essay. Computer codes can of course be written to output almost anything. I include the diagram in the attachment to illustrate where quantum steering sits with respect to the various levels of quantum nonlocality.

Cheers LCAttachment #1: levels_of_nonlocality.png

Dear Declan Andrew Traill,

I am in full agreement with you that entanglement, "a nonlocal process inaccessible to the classical world", is a most serious problem facing those who wish a comprehensible universe. Like you, I find it possible to produce a classical model that violates Bell's theorem. In the following I will try to compare our two results, both of which lead to the 'impossible' result.

You propose an angle-dependent detection probability. If all hits are detected, then all hits count as +1 or -1 (in the QM theory). If certain hits are missed, this effectively lowers the 'average' reading (for that angle) to a number below +1 (or above -1). This lowering of the average value is effected by the cos(a.b) term.

The +1 and -1 come from Bell's very first statement defining the problem, and reflects the consensus interpretation of the quantum mechanics of spin as a half integral "nonclassical" phenomenon. Your essentially classical model seems to accept the QM interpretation of spin as a two-state entity, which is generally true from spin statistics and magnetic fields, but has never been proved or experimentally demonstrated for single spins in magnetic-field-free space.

In my classical model the 'hidden variable' is simply the 3D nature of spin which yields an angle-dependent deflection that matches the Stern-Gerlach data which has the well-known 'lip' pattern. My Stern-Gerlach-based model assumes 'perfect' detection since none of the atoms are lost; all atoms reach the target. But the registered spin component is less than +1, dependent on the initial angle the spin makes with the magnetic field. This yields exactly the cos(a.b) curve that Bell claims is impossible to achieve classically. It's only impossible when one forces all projections of atoms through the Stern-Gerlach apparatus to be maximum or minimum. Of course, the data shows that the atoms are deflected over a range of angles, but why be picky about experimental data that doesn't match a theory? Better to assume experimental error or some type of 'noise'.

Finally, a key problem in Bell tests derives from the fact that Bell's initial analysis (and the Stern-Gerlach experiment) are based on neutral atoms, while all Bell tests are based on photon detection, which, as you point out, are not perfect. I have some ideas about how to translate from atomic phenomena (SG) to photonic phenomena (Bell tests) but your approach is physically reasonable, and may actually be correct for photons. Thanks for a very interesting essay.

I hope you will read my current essay and comment. It challenges another belief based not on math but on physical interpretation.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Declan Andrew Traill,

Are you aware of R. McEachern's paper I just pointed to in the thread 31426 (by Flavio Del Santo)?

I feel enlighted by Edwin Eugene Klingman's proficient detailed comments.

See also Alan Kadin's current essay.

Best regards,

Eckard

Edwin,

Nice analysis, initially as mine, but Declan's code doesn't just achieve your cos(a.b) curve (good but not quite complete) it produces the paired offset Cos2 curves of Bell, of Born's rule ('Law'), and indeed Malus's Law (Intensity = the square).!!

While it looks to simply use 2 spin states it's one step more complex than that, as I show in my own essay which explanation & experiment underpins Declan's code.

One state is 'curl' (max at poles) but that goes to zero at the equator and has inverse values (complementarity) with the LINEAR left/right (or up/down) over 180o momentum at the EQUATOR. So which is also then zero at poles. Both change by cos theta as my full explanation why.

I also show how just then adding 'c' in the electrons local centre of mass frame for re-emissions unifies the mechanism with Einsteins final ('52) explanation of SR!! I suspect we really may be on the verge of a revolution in physics!

Peter

Dear Declan,

I read your paper with great interest, being somewhat familiar with the issues of photon entanglement experiments. As you know, these have been difficult experiments, subject to measurement and interpretation bias, which claim to prove that entanglement is real.

I understand that you assume an angle-dependent detection efficiency, which may be reasonable. This could be an important result. But for completeness, the analysis should also indicate how sensitively the agreement depends on the particular selection of parameters.

On a more general note, entanglement is central to quantum mechanics, and should not be all that hard to prove. The difficulties suggest that something is seriously wrong.

Furthermore, entanglement is central to the power of not only quantum communications, but also quantum computing. Quantum computing in particular has become a major research engine internationally, with both major corporations and governments investing billions of dollars. Skeptics are being ignored and suppressed.

Given all this investment, I predict that this entire enterprise will fail within about 5 years. Only after that occurs will the mainstream be willing to consider alternatives - namely, that entanglement is an illusion, and the foundations of quantum mechanics are built on quicksand.

I address some similar issues in my own essay, "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics".

Best Wishes,

Alan Kadin

Correction:

De Santo's thread is 3017.