A Fundamental Misunderstanding by Declan Andrew Traill

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.

Dear Declan,

Unfortunately, this time, McEachern told us having decided not to submit an essay. Perhaps he is deeply disappointed.

I merely read his first viXra paper which seems to be similar to your essay:

- A Classical System for Producing "Quantum Correlations"- (1609.0129).

Because De Santos didn't find it, maybe, this number is wrong. My eyes are not reliable.

A newer paper by McEachern is

- What Went Wrong with the "Interpretation" of Quantum Theory?- (1707.0162)

While discussions on Joy Christian's arguments were seemingly endless on the FQXi forum, McEachern was almost ignored.

Best,

Eckard

Dear Declan Andrew Traill,

I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical 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.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Dear Declan,

The FQXi team added the missing references of my essay.

Hopefully you got aware of my correction to the link to Eachern's first paper.

I am also curious how Jochen Szangelios will answer my question concerning DQC1.

Best,

Eckard

Declan Traill

Regarding your 'explanation' to destructive superposition that you expressed on my article page:

How do you explain that energy suddenly can disappear somewhere and later pop up in very different point??????

With regards from ________________ John-Erik Persson

Declan

You have only invented a 'cover up'. To me this represents no logical explanation. However, if you assume light to contain information without energy, you can find a much better explanation.

We can explain bound electrons to generate thermal radiation without having to do the jumping. The bound electron produces only information, or POTENTIAL force that becomes REAL when radiation is hitting the electron that we use as a detector. At that moment the energy comes from the ether, and therefore the emitting electron does not have to loose energy. We do not need quantum jumping.

Best regards from ___________________ John-Erik

Hello Traill,

Well written essay. I am amazed by your way of presenting problems and its solution, in a computational way.

But I have got a feeling that you think entanglement as an illusion. Well, you have presented things clear in the paper. But I am confused if you consider a quantum phenomenon as an illusion if not defined by classical mechanics. Can you give me more viewpoints?

You are welcomed to my essay: Is Mathematics Fundamental where I discuss if mathematics and patterns can be fundamental.