A Fundamental Misunderstanding by Declan Andrew Traill

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.

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

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

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

[NOTE: I inadvertently placed my assessment of your essay under your comment on my essay, so I suspect you have not even seen this yet (and I apologize in advance if you've already seen this and just did not choose to comment). Please also pardon the genuinely spontaneous "argh"s, as I actually quite impressed your essay. Finally, I inserted a rather long justification for how "primary causal frame SR" models can exactly the same results as traditional fully symmetric SR model. My reason to bother was that your model appears to fall into that category; I suspect you are using the term "classical" to mean much the same thing.]

Declan,

Argh! Dang it! I was all ready to dismiss your 2012 essay out-of-hand as "obviously and immediately geometrically self-contradictory"... and then realized you've created a genuinely clever and self-consistent world with this idea, even if I'm still not convinced of it being the same world we live in.

If I'm reading your idea rightly, what you have created is a rigid, isotropic 3D universe in which gravity becomes something very much like optical density in a gigantic cube of optical glass. In fact, for photons I'm not seeing much difference at all between the variable-index glass cube model and your model. Light would curve near a star because the optical density of the glass would increase near the star, and so forth for all other gravity fields. That's about as close of a match between a model and what is being modeled that you can get.

But your truly innovative addition to such model is the idea that since matter has a quantum wave length, it is also subject to the same velocity and wavelength shifts in higher-optical-density space as are photons. Photon wavelengths shorten as the photons slow in denser glass, and similarly, so do your mass waves. But mass and total energy depends on these wavelengths, so you are using these changes to implement relativistic masses.

Once again, that sounds like it should be an immediate contradiction with the extremely well-proven results of SR... except that it is not. You have to compare any two frames relative to each other, not to your "primary" frame of the giant optical glass cube, and that should still give you self-consistent and SR-consistent results.

To make matters worse, even though you have clearly designated one inertial frame as being in some way "special", that does not necessarily and absolutely mean that your model necessarily contradicts the enormous body of experimental observations that on the exact equivalence of physics across all inertial frames.

Alas, the problem is not that simple, since it is most definitely possible to create asymmetric frame models that fully preserve SR. You just have to take more of a computer modeling perspective to understand how it works.

I think I've already noted elsewhere in these 2017 postings that from a computer modeling perspective it's not even all that difficult to create a model in which one inertial frame becomes the "primary" or "physical" inertial frame in which all causality is determined. All other inertial frames then become virtual frames that move within that primary frame. Causality self-consistency is maintained within such virtual frames via asymmetric early ("it already happened") and late ("the event has not yet occurred") binding of causality along their axes of motion relative to the primary frame. Speed of light constraints prevent anyone within such a frame from being aware of any causal asymmetry, since by the time the outcomes of both early (past) and late (future) binding events reach them, both are guaranteed to have occurred by information of the events reach the observer.

Incidentally, one of the most delightful implications of asymmetric causality binding in virtual frames is the answer it produces for the ancient question of whether out futures are predetermined or "free will". The exceedingly unexpected answer is both, depending on what direction you are facing! For us, if one plausibly assumes that the CMB frame is the primary frame, the axis of predestination versus free will is determined by whether the philosopher is facing toward or away from a particular star in the constellation Pisces, though I don't recall off hand which is which. Direction-dependent philosophy for one of the most profound questions of the universe, I love it!

Even better is the fact that no one in any of the frames, primary or virtual, can tell by any known test that can do whether they are or are not in the primary frame. Special relativity thus is beautifully maintained, yet at the same time having a single physical frame hugely simplifies causality self-consistency.

Bottom line: I can't even fault your idea for its use of what is clearly just such a singular frame, because I know that having such a singular frame can very beautifully support every detail of SR. Ouch!

So, ARGH! Your 2012 model is a lot harder to disprove than I was expecting... and please recall the goal in science is always to destroy your own models to prove that they really, truly can pass muster.

Well. Wow. I can't rate your 2012 contest model, which I think makes me happy because it would take me a lot of closer examination of your model to comment on it and feel confident. You have a lot of equations and equation specificity there.

But it's late so I'm calling this a wrap. I won't forget your model. And the key defense you might want to keep in mind, since I'm sure your earlier attempt got tossed out for violating SR, is simply this: Having a primary frame in a physics model is not a sufficient reason to dismiss it because there exist single-frame models can be made fully consistent with all known results of special relativity. Given that such models are possible, any attempt to eliminate a model solely on that criterion is a bogus dismissal. You have to find a true contradiction with SR, one that flatly contradicts known results, rather than just offending people philosophically for making SR more like a computer model and less like an absolutely pristine mathematical symmetry. It's not the beauty of the symmetry that counts in the end, it's whether your model matches with and perfectly predicts observed reality, that is, whether it is Kolmogorov in nature (see my essay again).

Thank you for helping me tear my hair out in frustration!... :)

(Actually, seriously: Good work! But still... argh!)

Terry

Fundamental as Fewer Bits by Terry Bollinger (Essay 3099)

Essayist's Rating Pledge by Terry Bollinger