A Fundamental Misunderstanding by Declan Andrew Traill

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

Yes, Declan, I invite you to read my essay .

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

[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

Dear Declan,

Here we are again all together. I enjoyed reading your contribution, which of course is worthy of the highest praise.

"This paper shows that the result can be fully explained by Classical Physics". Great!

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Dear Declan,

Your wrote a very interesting and provocative Essay.

Classical and quantum are strongly connected with the issues of determinism and uncertainty. This discussion goes beyond physics as far as the fields of philosophy. It has also profound implications in the framework of unifications of theories. From a historical point of view, Einstein believed that, in the path to unification of theories, Quantum Mechanics had to be subjected to a more general deterministic theory, which he called Generalized Theory of Gravitation, but he did not obtain the final equations of such a theory. At present, this point of view is partially retrieved by some theorists, starting from the Nobel Laureate G. 't Hooft. I agree with both of Einstein and 't Hooft. Hence, I strongly appreciated your Essay and I hope that it could be the starting point of a more general discussion.

In any case, you wrote a nice and entertaining Essay, deserving my highest score.

Maybe you could be interested in my Essay, where I discuss a way to remove a fundamental uncertainty in quantum gravity... with Albert Einstein!

Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Dear Declan,

As a fellow Aussie, I give top marks to all those (from anywhere) who have-a-good-go. It is thus, for me, so good to see you having-a-real-good-go to understand reality -- via your many publications -- and to find that we share this interest: "in re-constructing ... Quantum Mechanics into a Classical framework that can be understood and visualized using a universal set of principles." So I am certainly here to appreciate and encourage your work in that direction: even in the hope that we might collaborate. [nb: the principles that my theory advances are validated experimentally.]

It also seems that we agree on this, though we offer different solutions: that many physicists, philosophers and mathematicians "claim 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."

Alas though: perhaps due to my own misunderstandings, there appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding in your research. Thus, perhaps I misunderstand your claim: "This paper shows that the result can be fully explained by Classical Physics [sic: what happened to classical energy conservation in each and every interaction?], and that the correlation curve for different angles between the two detectors can by reproduced when modelled this way." ?

In my view, energy conservation holds in each and every interaction (quantum or classical), and formalism beats modelism. So some questions follow:

1. In Figure-1 you claim the blue line to be the classical prediction. But isn't the classical prediction simply one-half of the green line?*

* 2. In other words, if we seek to model Aspect's experiments (or EPRB), and we allow only that the paired-particles are weakly correlated via their polarisation: then the consequent correlation (perfectly classical) delivers one-half the correct correlation. Thus, in that the blue line in Figure-1 is not supported by any classical model known to me: please, what is your basis for it?

* 2a. Do you see that the EPRB particle-correlation (via the pairwise conservation of Ang. Momentum), thus delivers twice the correlation of simple classical model offered in Q.2?

3. You are correct, in Figure-2, that the QM correlation can be modelled by means of non-detect events (which can be quite ubiquitous). But is it not the case that your model must reproduce the QM result repeatedly, as the non-detect events diminish with improved detectors, etc?

4. Further, in GHZ, would it not be the case that one complete 3-particle detection would be a counterexample to your modelling?

5. Are you aware of the history of the use of the "non-detection loophole"?**

** As I recall, the "non-detection loophole" emerges early in the history of Bell's theorem (BT): and was properly dismissed then. I suspect that the late Caroline Thompson (from Wales) might have documented this history, and attempted to advance it. Alas, in her case, she believed BT would be vindicated experimentally.

In conclusion, at the risk of it being my understanding: I currently reject your Conclusion on the grounds that you are using the "non-detection loophole" -- when no loophole of any kind is required.

To support my tentative conclusion, I would welcome you comments on my own theory. More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.***

*** My essay has a serious defect: I expected my readers to follow some elementary math and draw some interesting conclusions without prompting. [nb: to partially remedy my defect, and to help you, I will add a brief BACKGROUND note to my thread. I'll let you know when it's up.] You might also be interested in my comments on Luca Valeri Zimmermann's and Ken Wharton's essays.

Also: have you seen the "two computer" challenge that Anthony Garrett puts to Peter Jackson? [When you have programmed two unconnected computers to reproduce those stats in a situation where the question put to each computer is from a random number generator, let me know!] My theory refutes such challenges; including this next one from Anthony Garrett: "Bell's theorem is about logic, not quantum mechanics; would you tell me where that same logic fails in its application to the interrogation of two persons in adjacent rooms, please, and the inference that they must have been overhearing each other's interrogation when answering their own questions?"

PS: Declan, if/when you reply to my post, please copy it to my essay-thread so that I'm alerted to it. I will do likewise. Which (if/when) then gives a final question: Please, will you let me know what in my theory you disagree with?

Many thanks; Gordon More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.