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

    Declan Traill:

    Here is another support for your model:

    (1) superluminal signal of waves in my plenum

    (2) all interaction is Bell's non-local - matter warps plenum, plenum divergence directs matter (like in GR)

    (3) therefore, quantum weirdness unnecessary, classical scale descriptions work.

    photon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k

    photon: http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1603

    and

    STOE assumptions that model particle diffraction and that replaces QM

    IntellectualArchive, Vol.5, No. 3, P.1 , ISSN 1929-4700, Toronto, Jan. 2014

    http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1719

    Therefore, single photon at a time experiment explained, may also explain entanglement and quantum eraser.

    My plenum is (like zero point energy or "space" in GR) is like your Theta field (higher density=>slower light speed from Shapiro delay observation).

    Universe according to the STOE

    IntellectualArchive, Vol.4, No. 6, P.6 , ISSN 1929-4700, Toronto, Jan. 2014

    http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648

    "Even when presented with these experimental proofs, many people have

    great difficulty believing that the effects actually occur." from your gsj paper

    I'll be studing your papers on gsj.

      Dear John,

      Thanks for your supporting comments.

      I will take a look at your work when I get a chance.

      Thanks for showing an interest in mine. I also have some papers on ViXra here:

      http://vixra.org/author/declan_traill

      Regards,

      Declan

      • [deleted]

      • Post #79

      Declan

      Sorry, only saw your reply right now about the methodology of the experiment. With only 245 approved pairs there may have been a lot of 'excluded' singleton measurements. I was sceptical of how many exclusions there might have been in total if they only used 245 pairs. Their S statistic is, from memory, about 2.4 which is not equivalent to an exact cosine curve which would need 2.8. If the experiment is repeated for larger numbers I would like to see the ratio of excluded to included data and whether an improved S value required a larger ratio.

      Good luck in the contest. I gave you a very good rating a week ago.

      Austin

      Dear Declan,

      Very interesting essay in the spirit of a deep Cartesian doubt. You give new ideas and important conclusions that are aimed at overcoming the crisis of understanding in the basis of fundamental science. Successes in the Contest!

      Yours faithfully,

      Vladimir

        Dear Vladimir,

        Thank you for your kind words and support; I am glad you see the importance of this his work.

        Do you have an essay in the contest?

        Regards,

        Declan

        Hi Dear Andrew

        I have read your work with huge interest. The matter is I am also has come to deep convince long ago in the possibility to interpret as QM laws and events, as well as the relativity in whole, issuing from the causality principle (i.e. in the same principle and fundaments as the classical physics are constructed!)

        The problem only is in that, we loss the opportunity of direct observations (measuring) how working these causal-classical relations in the level of particle physics, as well as in case of near to light velocities (that is why we invented a "new kind of natural laws" - QM, ST & GR.)

        Meanime, I has felt some complicaton with the QM entanglement that I can not understund how need to solve with classical viewpoint. That is why I am just happy to find your article!

        So, I can only very welcame your partisipation in the contest and wish you succeses (meantime, not so much peouple will be with us!) Be well my dear!

        Best Regards

        Dear Andrew,

        I am just shocked with this:

        //The wave functions presented here describe particles with all the correct properties for an Electron and a Positron and satisfy the requirements of both the Classical and Quantum Mechanical interpretations.// And with the "The rotating vectors" - that is the one effective greatest method! (Most of theorists never using this, but electrical engineers well know it!)

        My dear I am just saying the same that you says! What ever you have don that is very right! I no need even to check up all your formulas to say this because your formulas derive from ideas that are out of doubt for me.

        Just let me say you some important thing - You have still used the "elementary charge" and with this the electrical and magnetic constants. We must be free of them to be explain everything by el.mag field only. It is possible do by understanding the essence and hugest cognitive significance of alpha (1/137). Then everything will become for you clean as spring water! Please look my works (from reference in the end) there you can find what is alpha, then I believe you can finalized your works and bring it to the very comprehensive level to everybody. Why you - because I am not so well with math, also with English, and also I am not so young!

        Best wishes!

          Declan,

          I've just pointed Harri Tianen to yours, you should see his, (very consistent from a different viewpoint) and our discussions.

          Did you see Roychouri, & Bollinger? & comment on Gordon Watson's partial algorithm?

          Very best

          Peter

            Peter,

            I don't have much time at the moment, but I have had a quick scan through those - some interesting work... I have added a comment & links to my work too.

            Regards,

            Declan

            Dear Declan Andrew Traill,

            Having read your Essay, I agree that Einstein was right when he did not agree with the EPR experiment conclusions and had said, "spooky action at a distance" cannot occur and that, "God does not play dice". Please read Linear Polarization http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0174v5.pdf

            QM claims that an electron can be both spin-up and spin-down at the same time. In my conceptual physics Essay on Electron Spin, I have proved that this is not true. Please read: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3.pdf

            Kamal Rajpal

              Meanwhile Szangelios replied.

              You might also be interested in comments by Bollinger elsewhere.

              Eckard

              Dear Kamal,

              Thanks for your comment. I had a look at your Linear Polarization paper, however I cannot see how you get your area percentages from the diagrams on page 12? For the examples given in the diagrams, I calculated the areas as shown below, but this is a linear curve, not a cosine squared curve:

              0 degrees: 48/48 = 100%

              15 degrees: 40/48 = 83.33%

              22.5 degrees: 36/48 = 75%

              30 degrees: 32/48 = 66.66%

              45 degrees: 24/48 = 50%

              60 degrees: 16/48 = 33.33%

              67.5 degrees: 12/48 = 25%

              75 degrees: 8/48 = 16.66%

              90 degrees: 0/48 = 0%

              Regards,

              Declan

              Dear George,

              Thanks you for your kind comments. Yes, you are quite right, the charge could be further simplified in terms of something more fundamental. In my solutions the charge parameter just gives the correct amplitude to the wave function. My main concern was to build a model of electrons/positrons that works and can be fully understood in terms of Classical Physics. We know the solutions MUST be stable wave forms as they are solutions to the Schrodinger and Classical wave equations.

              Regards,

              Declan