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

      Dear John-Erik,

      The light does not suddenly relocate, it is 'squeezed' out sideways as it is traveling.

      In the case of the two slit experiment, for example, the light from each slit interferes with the other beam causing lateral movement as well as forward movement; such that there is no path leading to the dark regions, but multiple paths leading to the bright regions. All of the light moves towards its destination on the screen at speed 'c'.

      Regards,

      Declan

      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.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #35

        John-Eric,

        Good to see you here and active. The logical explanation to the 'cover up' emerges if you study quantum optics, even just on wikipedia. i.e. visualise eliptical polarity, or perhaps turn a disc or plate nearly 'edge on'. Now measure it's chord orthogonally, so on both major and minor axis (which is what the 2 channel photomultiplier does).

        You'll find one at maximum value (i.e. +1) when the other diminished to near zero, so can't trigger the detector. If you turn the plate 90 degrees on the other axis (so now horizontal not vertical) you'll find the precise opposite That's the foundation (and essentially known science).

        There are two other main elements explaining the full experimental findings (and 'predictions' of QM. You'll find those also fully explained and sequenced in my essay, which also reports on a simple experiment (with photo's & protocol) confirming the inverse Cos distributions. (The ontology & mechanism surprisingly also seems to include production of the effects we know as 'Special Relativity'.)

        Note the process works for all 'signals', including electrons (fermions) and neutrons, which certainly do have energy of course. I look forward to getting to your 'information based' option for light shortly.

        Very best

        Peter

        Hi John-Eric that was me, autologged out!

        I look forward to chatting with you on our own strings.

        Very Best

        Peter

        Declan,

        It is good to see some community support for classical arguments that challenge the QM method which requires *entanglement* to explain correlation of events. And I would hope that there is also a level of concern among the Western physics community in pursuing alternative protocols, whether Quantum or Classical, to find some clarifying agency in the phenomenon. In the public domain it is the Chinese whom are claiming real time advances in Quantum State Communications, and whatever the physical reality might turn out to be; success in the "Quantum Experiments at Space Scale" (Quess satellite program) would have an immediate impact on global communications markets. Theatre-wide military application should also be a great concern given that the Chinese are known to have been increasing their conventional forces budget by 10% per year over the past 20 years, and their stated intent is towards a hegemony which would expel democratic interests from their sphere of influence. Hard scientific proof of falsification of the claimed 'unhackable' security of quantum communication, and effective counter-measures, are likely to become as big an industrial investment strategy as has been the decades long quest for the elusive Quantum state. Good Luck, we are all in the brave new world of "Big Science". jrc

          Dear Ajay,

          Than you for your kind comments and positive feedback.

          Entanglement is my main problem with QM due to its illogical behavior and the problems it poses to being able to model the Universe in a rational way. However, I also disagree with the QM interpretation in regards to other aspects of Physics. For example, the interpretation of wave functions as probability amplitudes, although it works, leads us away from a clear picture of what is happening to particles on the microscopic scale. In Classical Physics a wave function describes the position of a test particle at any place/time and thus describes every aspect of a wave structure, the same should be true at the Quantum level. I have determined the wave functions for the electron and positron based on them being 3D wave structures rather than point particles. These are wave functions in the Classical sense rather than probability amplitudes. My paper on this can be found here: http://vixra.org/abs/1507.0054

          Also, there must be real reasons based on Classical Physics for what appear to be random or statistical events, but it is just difficult, if not impossible, to know the minute details of the Physics of a situation to be able to determine these reasons. Similarly there must be short-lived intermediate states between stable states when quantum jumps occur. Some of the time scales at which these changes occur are starting to become possible to probe with recents advances and techniques, but there is a way to go yet.

          These are some of the problems that need to be addressed to unify the QM view of the world with Classical Physics, no doubt there are others too.

          Regards,

          Declan

          Dear John,

          Thank you for your comment.

          A lot of the reporting of advances is just hype around activities that are being undertaken but are not proof or big advances of QM entanglement. There has been talk of Quantum computers for years with very little to show for the millions that has been poured into the area of research. Surely if the theory of operation had merit it would have been achieved by now?

          Regards,

          Declan

          Peter Jackson

          Thanks for your contribution, in favor of entanglement. Of course particles contain energy, but that does not mean that the wave function they generate contains energy. The particle passes one hole but the wave function passes both holes. The wave function can be without energy.

          I will take look at your article.

          Regards ___________________ John-Erik Persson

          Hi Declan,

          What about the experiments where only ONE photon at a time is sent to the two slits and even then appears the wave picture ?

          regards

          Wilhelmus

          Hi Declan,

          Your essay gives a very interesting conclusion. The two feet on the floor again.

          But there are some things that I don't understand, sorry for that I have no programmation background.

          You are concluding that non-detect events are the reason that the classical model can again be the explanation of "entanglement". In my own primitive thinking this means that "What we don't see is the reason that our "perceptions and its explanations" are wrong, just because we can generate an output of this "unseen" that proves it.Am I understanding this right or am I just wrong, if so help me.

          I can agree with the three-dimensional wave perception of particle experience (like in Peter Jackson's essay's), what I don't understand that if it is so simple to explain "entanglement" in a "classical way" that this was not found before, there are a lot of scientists (like Joy Christian) who are seriously researching this subject.

          And after three times reading your essay I still do not understand in the classical way entanglement, thank you for making me think again. I hope that you also may have a look at my essay : Foundational Quantum Reality Loops , it may not be your cup of tea, but I hope that it contains also thoughts that in turn make you think.

          best regards

          Wilhelmus de Wilde

            Dear Wilhelmus,

            Thank you for your comment and questions.

            Yes, essentially the correlation that is interpreted as being due to entanglement can be explained due to what is not detected, but is dependent on the angle difference between the photon's polarization axis and that of the detector. This means that a specific region of possible orientations there is a higher chance of not getting a detection.

            Prior to the loophole-free experiments, there was already acknowledged the possibility of what was termed the 'detection loophole' where detection efficiency (i.e. not every photon is detected) could bias the result set and falsely cause the correlation to appear to be entanglement.

            The use of a Steering Inequality was supposed to account for that by including Alice's non-detects in the statistical calculation that determines the degree of correlation. However, as I have demonstrated, if the two functions I have shown (for Alice and Bob) are used, and the Steering Inequality is calculated on a the result set, there is still violation and the supposed QM 'entanglement' correlation curve is obtained.

            I hope this helps you understand my explanation in regards to the explanation for entanglement using Classical Physics.

            I will have a look at your essay too...

            Best Regards,

            Declan

            Dear Stephen,

            Thank you, I'm glad you liked it and understood it.

            Best Regards,

            Declan

            Declan

            Have you seen an R language computer simulation of Pearle's (1970) model for the EPR-Bohm correlations by Richard Gill in July 2015 at http://rpubs.com/gill1109/pearle2 ?

            The third graph shows that data are less likely to be gathered at theta = 90 and 270 degree.

            The model uses a particular function to decide on whether data are excluded and this is the relevant part of the R code:

            U

              Declan

              My last post must have fallen foul of special symbols in the text, so I am trying again.

              Have you seen an R language computer simulation of Pearle's (1970) model for the EPR-Bohm correlations by Richard Gill in July 2015 at http://rpubs.com/gill1109/pearle2 ?

              The third graph shows that data are less likely to be gathered at theta = 90 and 270 degree.

              The model uses a particular function to decide on whether data are excluded and this is the relevant part of the R code:

              U is uniformly distributed

              s i given by (2/sqrt(3*U+1)) - 1

              where Pearle's "r" is arc cosine of "s"; divided by pi/2

              this seems to be similar to your method of excluding data but I am not sure how close it is. Does your model give a curve which asymptotically approach the cosine curve as the number of pairs of particles emitted increases? The points plotted in your Figure 2 do not look like an exact match but that could be caused by a small sample? If your function is different, which gives the better fit to the cosine curve?

              Best wishes

              Austin

              Dear Austin,

              Thank you for bringing that to my attention, I have not seen it before and it is great supporting evidence. The exact shape of the correlation curve can be tweaked by changing the algorithm for non-detects, and there may be different algorithms for different types of detectors. In my last graph the Steering Inequality is modeled so some of the non-detects (Alice's) are admitted as valid results. Thus has the effect of changing the correlation curve away from a perfect cosine, primarily as perfect correlation and anti-correlation cannot be achieved at 0 and 180 degrees in such a model (as non-detects are included in the data).

              Regards,

              Declan