Dear Francesco,

Thank you for your kind comment.

Ok, I will try:

Most of Physics can be understood and makes sense in terms of Classical Physics that people can understand and is what is termed "Local and Real". We can 'see' what is going on and can build a model of it.

Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, has some strange counterintuitive aspects, with entanglement being the main one that appears to be "spooky action at a distance" as Einstein famously called it. It asserts that particles can cooperate across vast distances instantaneously as if by magic.

Experiments (usually termed EPR experiments, based on the original thought experiment devised by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen) have been done that appear to confirm that the QM entanglement is actually occurring; however, due to the practical difficulties in performing the experiment there are possible ways that the correlation found in the experiment can be explained Classically, these are called 'loopholes'. Thus entanglement may not be occurring at all.

In order to solve this situation, recently supposed 'loophole-free experiments have been devised in order to settle the answer once and for all. In these experiments, one of the loopholes termed the detection loophole is attempted to be closed by using a Steering Inequality rather than the usual Bell Test or CHSH Inequality that we're used to determine if entanglement is occurring in the original EPR experiments. The Steering Inequality includes non-detects in the statistical calculations so that detector inefficiency cannot be used as a means to explain the experimental result Classically.

My work shows that this loophole has not been closed, and that even when the Steering Inequality is used, the experimental results can be explained Classically. As a result, the main problem with modeling the word in a 'Local and Real' way is overcome, and entanglement is shown not to be occurring. This may then allow the other aspects of QM to be unified with Classical Physics and Relativity.

I hope this answers your question?

Best Regards,

Declan

Dear Declan,

thank you very much. It seems a very important discovery! I will rate it high to raise the curiosity of the specialists.

Best regards and wish you luck!

Francesco D'Isa

Dear Francesco,

Thank you very much, it would be good if it could get looked at by the establishment.

Do you have an essay too?

Best Regards,

Declan

Dear Declan,

you are welcome, it seems like an important discovery who needs some more attention and review!

Yes, I've one about absolute relativism, maybe you could be interested in it, it's a more philosophical point of view in the matter.

bests,

Francesco

Excuse me, the link doesn't work. Anyway it is here:

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3044

Dear Wilhelmus,

Well that is not a problem if you realize and accept that there is no such thing as point particles, but instead every particle is a 3D wave structure that extends to infinity. So by necessity the particle travels through both slots and interferes with itself.

Regards,

Declan

Dear Eckard,

Ok I will try to find it when I get a chance...

Regards,

Declan

Dear Declan

Please note that I have posted a reply to you on my own thread. Some of it is better placed on your thread so here it is ...

I still have a couple of points about your contest paper which I will likely post in your thread. But I have not got to grips with the Steering Inequality yet. The Steering Inequality is a theoretical device (2011 paper) which is not part of the recent experimental results (2015 paper)? The 2015 paper did not mention 'steering' AFAIK and anyway they only had 245 pairs of outcomes. And surely they did not contaminate an experimental finding with results other than +1 or -1? I presume that the steering inequality implies that some data were not detected to be measured for some genuine pairs which would have reduced the correlation absolute size if that data had been detected in the 2015 experiment? Or am I missing something from the 2015 experimental design?

Best

Austin

    Dear Austin,

    When you talk about the 2015 paper, do you mean "Realization of mutually unbiased bases for a qubit with only one wave plate: theory and experiment" that I referenced in my essay?

    If so, I included this reference as it provides information about the detector angles for MUBs where quarter and half wave plates are used (as is the case in the Ref 2 paper).

    In that paper ther are -1,+1 and 0 results recorded and a Steering Inequality is used to analyze the results.

    Regards,

    Declan

    Hi Declan Andrew Traill

    Wonderful work " Quantum Mechanics claims that particles can become entangled such that there is a correlation in the detected results from EPR type experiments that cannot be explained by Classical Physics. This paper shows that the result can be fully explained by Classical Physics, and that the correlation curve for different angles between the two detectors can by reproduced when modeled this way."dear Declan Andrew Traill... you are clearing...a fundamental misunderstanding.............. very nice idea!.... 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

      Declan

      Very sorry for being obscure and wasting some of your time. The 2015 report was on the latest real experiment, that I know of, to try to close the loopholes (which had only 245 pairs of particles):

      https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949

      Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km

      Do you know if this is one of the recent experiments that have used the steering inequality as mentioned in your paragraph following Figure 2?

      Best

      Austin

      Dear Austin,

      Ok, no problem - I will have a look at that paper when I have more time, thanks...

      Regards,

      Declan

      Dear snp,

      Thank you for your kind comment.

      I have had a read of your essay:

      An interesting idea. I also think that the Universe can be modeled using linear equations based on Galilean principles. You might be interested to read my 2012 FQXi essay titled "A Classical Reconstruction of Relativity".

      The creation of Matter by light passing close to atomic nuclei is known to occur - pair production - but this is due to the strong electric field around, for example, a lead nucleus. Likewise electrons and positrons can mutually anihilate to produce gamma rays (light). There is a balance between both these types of events.

      I think you have 'Red shifted' and 'Blue shifted' around the wrong way in you equations 32 and 33. A higher frequency would be a blue shift and a lower frequency would be a red shift.

      Regards,

      Declan

      Dear Fellow Essayists

      This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

      FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.

      Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

      All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist 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.

      Only the truth can set you free.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      Thank you Dear Declan Andrew Traill

      .................Your words............

      An interesting idea. I also think that the Universe can be modeled using linear equations based on Galilean principles. You might be interested to read my 2012 FQXi essay titled "A Classical Reconstruction of Relativity".

      The creation of Matter by light passing close to atomic nuclei is known to occur - pair production - but this is due to the strong electric field around, for example, a lead nucleus. Likewise electrons and positrons can mutually anihilate to produce gamma rays (light). There is a balance between both these types of events.

      ...........Reply......

      Thank you, can you please send me a copy of paper and more details of pair production ...

      ............your words..................

      I think you have 'Red shifted' and 'Blue shifted' around the wrong way in you equations 32 and 33. A higher frequency would be a blue shift and a lower frequency would be a red shift.

      ..........Reply............

      I noticed it. By mistake I sent older essay. FQXi puts older essay only.I put a corrected abstract, please see...

      Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 21:58 GMT

      Best regards

      =snp

      Dear snp,

      Here is a link to my 2012 FQXi essay:

      https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1363

      And here is a link to the Wikipedia page on pair production:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

      Regards,

      Declan

      Dear Austin,

      I have previously looked at that paper. They don't use a Steering Inequality, but claim to have closed the detection loophole by using an event-ready signal to indicate valid sharing of entangled photons. The problem is that the detectors are still not perfect, so they won't get 100% detection at both A and B even though the event ready signal says OK. So there can still be a detection bias dependent on angle. How do they handle results where either (or both) A or B don't record a detected result? The paper doesn't say anything about that as far as I can see.

      Thus the 245 trials that were recorded are for double detection events, which could well be a selection of the angles giving the violation.

      Regards,

      Declan

      5 days later

      Hello Declan,

      As I understand it your essay explores the boundary between classical and quantum via the concept of 'steering inequality'. Or is it that it explores non-locality via that concept, and that leads you to question whether there exists difference between quantum and classical at the foundational level?

      in any case it seems like understanding both local and non-local entanglement more clearly could be helpful.

      The boundary of a quantum system is defined by the phase coherence of its constituents. Every quantum system is 'self-entangled', phase coherent. Phase information is lost when the wavefunction collapses, when the little oscillator comes apart, leaving the observable amplitude in the form of a lump of energy. Phase is relative, not a single measurement observable.

      As I understand it, this is the difference between quantum and classical. In quantum one inevitably perturbs the wavefunction one wishes to study, and observes not the wavefunction but rather the change one excites, that lump of energy. In classical there exists the independent observer. Perturb all you want, measure amplitude and phase measurements of the transfer function again and again, nobody will notice.

      Quantum is classical without the independent observer.

      So where sits nonlocality in this? A little known and understood fact is that the potentials involved in non-locality are inverse square, an 'anomalous' potential. These potentials cannot do work, cannot communicate information, but rather only quantum phase, not a single measurement observable. The resulting direction of motion is perpendicular to the applied force.

      Those of us who think in terms of amplitude and phase and transfer function measurements can understand this in terms of impedance, that which governs the amplitude and phase of the flow of energy. Inverse square potentials correspond to scale invariant impedances - quantum Hall of the vector Lorentz force, chiral, centrifugal (as classical as one can get), Coriolis, three body,... Forces associated with invariant impedances cannot be shielded. Exception is the photon, which is unique in having both scale invariant far field and scale dependent near field impedances. Near field permits it to transfer energy, and far field permits it to maintain entanglement in for instance the entangled pair that emerges from electron-positron annihilation.

      Once this is understood there is no problem with violating causality of special relativity, no information communicated instantaneously,...

      So there

        Declan - to be clear re entangled photons, the scale invariant far field impedance that connects them is what communicates the superposition. The phase of neither is defined until it is measured, and they share that single superposed/entangled wavefunction phase when entangled via the invariant impedance. The phase determines the angular momentum orientation generated by the flow of energy between E and B fields. When that phase is defined at the one via measurement it is no longer superposed, and it's partner wherever she may be likewise has relative phase of her fields defined to conserve angular momentum.

        Dear Declan Andrew Traill

        Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.

        My essay is titled

        "Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin". It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.

        Thank you & kind regards

        Steven Andresen