Dear Gordon Watson,

FQXi.org is clearly seeking to confirm whether Nature is fundamental.

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

NOTE: From first principles, and with the help of others, my work establishes the general validity and utility of (in my terms), Malus' Law, Bayes' Law and Born's Law under the premiss of true local realism (TLR).

It thus opens the way to a "neo-classical" quantum theory (in the same way that special and general relativity are sometimes called 'classical' theories).

My essay is thus a work-in-progress and (with due acknowledgment) I expect that progress to continue via comments and critiques here.

That is, as at ¶12.3 of my essay: I'm seeking to harness the power of the FQXi essay contest and its comment system to advance collaborative partnering.

To that end, I am planning to regularly update my essay by including additional developments and explanatory material, together with a new section: "18 - Reply to criticisms, etc."

Readers interested in that progress may email eprb@me.com --- subject line: FQXi update --- and I will send a PDF of the then current version.

Thanks, and with best regards,

Gordon Watson eprb@me.com

    Dear Gordon Watson, your deep reasoning needs a deep mind. However, the fundamental must be simple and understandable, it must save our thinking, taking into account the limitations of the human resource. In the "skyscraper", about which I write in my essay you live on the top floor, because you do not want to descend to what is the basis of life. Before establishing the intricacies of quantum states with living phenomena, one must know the essence of quantum mechanics. New Cartesian Physics, which I discovered, argues that the cause of quantum phenomena in the existence of the pressure of the universe, which overcomes the space, to begin fluctuations. The physical space, which according to Descartes is matter, serves as the foundation for the birth of life. Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows this principle. Evaluate and leave your comment there. Then I'll give you a rating as the bearer of Descartes' idea. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which wants to be the theory of everything OO.

    Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

    Dear Mr. Watson,

    I agree with you that true local realism is at the heart of physics. And the mathematical structure of quantum entanglement is incompatible with local realism.

    This is particularly important now that quantum computing has become a fashionable field for R&D by governments and corporations, and billions of dollars are being invested. But the predicted power of quantum computing (exponentially massive parallelism) comes directly from quantum entanglement. I predict that the entire quantum computing enterprise will fail within about 5 years. Only then will the mainstream start to question the foundations of quantum mechanics.

    You might be interested in reading my essay, "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics". I argue that both GR and QM have been fundamentally misunderstood, and that something close to classical physics should be restored, reunifying physics that was split in the early 20th century. QM should not be a general theory of nature, but rather a mechanism for creating discrete soliton-like wavepackets from otherwise classical continuous fields. These same quantum wavepackets have a characteristic frequency and wavelength that define local time and space, enabling GR without invoking an abstract curved spacetime.

    Best wishes,

    Alan Kadin

      Gordon,

      Great essay! You identified the same most fundamental area as mine, and certainly found the end of the beginning of the end of what Bell called the "the action at a distance sillyness". I couldn't read all of it as I didn't recognise the symbols but that's probably only due to it not being my first language.

      I hope you'll agree my own essay closely agrees with yours and indeed sorts and finds the end of the middle. as I've specified before, the old & logically problematic 'excluded middle' is replaced the 'Law of the Reducing Middle' which is a Cos2 curve peaking each side produced entirely classically as the Rev Bayes, John Bell and now yourself foretold.

      Now to tackle the 'end'. I suspect this may the trickiest bit as, as Chandra Roychoudhuri describes in his essay, current "sillyness" (J Bell 19__) is so deeply entrenched not only can't the 'see' out but we have to winkle it all out and up against gravity. Might it be a better idea just to bury the lot? Bill McHarris's essay implies more rapid funerals are needed to move on (after Max P) so that may achieve the aim at a stroke. It may take many of us working in unison!

      Very well done, and I look forward to your comments on mine, with particular regard to the maths!

      Best

      Peter

        Dear Gordon Watson,

        Your horrible formalism will deter less qualified readers like me. Nonetheless, I intend putting you on top of the community list for the moment, because I am unhappy with lacking readiness to fundamentally clarify the issue of entanglement.

        Kadin predicted the end of quantum computing. Szangelois mentioned DQC1 as a quantum computer that doesn't need entanglement at all.

        I also appreciate your hint to the more easily readable paper by Fröhner: Missing Link Between Probability Theory and Quantum Mechanics: the Riesz-Fejér Theorem.

        Was Dirac possibly wrong when he believed "that this concept of the probability amplitude is perhaps the most fundamental concept of quantum theory"?

        If my doubt is justified, then it is even more fundamental.

        Eckard Blumschein

          Dear Alan,

          1. Many thanks for this: "I agree with you that true local realism is at the heart of physics." For it's on this foundation that I hope we (with others) might build a productive collaboration.

          2. My thanks too for this: "And the mathematical structure of quantum entanglement is incompatible with local realism." But here I'm more cautious: my little qualifier "true" is missing, and I suspect we might presently differ re the nature of entanglement and its definition [see my essay]. However, given the quality of your own work, I very much look forward to discussing this -- confident that agreement is likely.

          3. As for quantum computing: and the mainstream one-day starting to question the foundations of quantum mechanics? In that Bell's "theorem" didn't lead more to water, I doubt much else will lead them through a change of religion to a refreshing drink!

          4. And you certainly got this right: "You might be interested in reading my essay, "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics". I look forward to discussing prevalence waves, wavepackets, and physical waves where -- bypassing probability and all its confusions [eg, see Qbism] -- I have here used my preferred term. Thus I seek to understand objective prevalence waves [say, simple cos2] via a theory of prevalence amplitudes and wavepackets.

          5. As for GR, I am still in the basement, cleaning up the more elementary foundations. But (at the risk of being misunderstood), I am bold enough to suggest that we can together strengthen your position, as follows:

          5a. You say: "something close to classical physics should be restored, reunifying physics that was split in the early 20th century."

          5b. I'm inclined to say, respecting its outstanding history: classical physics itself should be restored. Thus, for me:

          (i) Planck's quantum of action is classical. For, as EPR made clear, [from ¶3.1) in my essay], (iii) "The elements of physical reality ... must be found by an appeal to the results of experiments and measurements [the latter, in our terms, often better described as tests]."

          (ii) Bohr's "disturbance insight" is classical. As per EPR above: Malus (c1810) taught us that classical light-beams are disturbed by interactions.

          (iii) And so on: special relativity is classical; and from my essay, what I call Malus' Law, Bayes' Law, Born's Law are classical; in short, true local realism is wholly classical.

          (iv) What more might our opponents require of classical mechanics and its modern developments?

          PS: Though I cautiously use scare-quotes -- [I call it "neo-classical" -- hoping those who think about such matters will see my stubborn code for classical -- your work [almost; it's early days] inclines me to join you under the neoclassical banner. Certainly it's food for thought.

          6. You say: "QM should not be a general theory of nature, but rather a mechanism for creating discrete soliton-like wavepackets from otherwise classical continuous fields. These same quantum wavepackets have a characteristic frequency and wavelength that define local time and space, enabling GR without invoking an abstract curved spacetime."

          I say: please see Fröhner; LINK via #17 in my References. The R-F theorem there says that periodic angular distributions entail discrete angular-momentum distributions, hence discrete outcomes of spin tests: the classical rules for linear and angular momentum holding, not just on average but case by case (as in EPRB). See also the spinor wavefunction in his eqn (69).

          PS: Hoping this helps, I'll post it on your essay-site too.

          With my thanks again; Gordon

          I take the opposite approach. Quantum entanglement and quantum eraser experiments suggest a plenum (space, ether) wave speed much greater than light as found by T. van Flandern.

          The STOE model and Hodge diffraction experiment (see references in my essay) suggest plenum wave speed much greater than light. Experiments!!

          Therefore, there is no "local" effects. All experiments are non-local.

          Therefore , our macro-scale is an analogy of the nano-scale and the Quantum weirdness is more simply explained.

            Thanks Peter,

            It's good to see that we're on the same map when it comes to resolving Bell's "action-at-a-distance" dilemma and related matters. My "neo-classical" foundations are intended to support fundamental classically-based research like yours. For -- under an old mantra of mine -- reality makes sense and we can understand it. However, let's now see if we can get onto the same course to the same safe harbour.

            You write: "I couldn't read all of [your essay] as I didn't recognise the symbols ...."

            O Captain, my captain: eqns (1)-(3) chart the stormy waters, with ¶¶4.1-4.2 written expressly for keen sailor's like you. (And here be no dragons! Rather, here we come to my comment about "the mathematics".)

            With every pointed critical comment most welcome, my [cough] lovely notation is meant to be physically significant and to helpfully include every relevant beable and every relevant interaction. Even to the point of charting the dynamics of interactions (see the little arrows). Thus a polariser is represented by a "delta" denoting "change" -- akin to a delta-function -- its orientation and output channels identified. Even an analyser (often a multiplier) is represented by a multiplication (a scalar-product). How about q for qon, a quantum particle? [Just kidding?] Have a look again (sometime) at ¶4.1 and the little exercise there for diligent sailors; knowing that we're on a steady heading to a safe haven and more conventional representations -- see eqn (21).

            So that's why I'm keen to see: (i) your representation of the beables in your work; (ii) the interactions; (iii) the outcomes; (iv) all wrapped up (eventually) in some math (by you or some shipmates, mate).

            As for working in unison: I'm up for that, but tend to be a bit of a Lone Sailor given my current solo focus on showing how TLR (true local realism) takes us all-the-way to Shangri-La.

            In response to this from you -- "Very well done, and I look forward to your comments on mine, with particular regard to the maths!" -- I'll also put this as a comment on your essay-site. I'll also read the essays that you mention.

            With my thanks again; Gordon

            NB: This post was formatted correctly in preview. I've reported it for correction.

            Gordon

            Errare humanum est. I have to apologize for misspelling Szangolies and Del Santos.

            However, I was perhaps not wrong when I supported Gordon Watson's and Fröhner's contribution.

            So far, I cannot finally judge John Hodge's "opposite approach" because I didn't yet read his essay. While I tend to agree with van Flandern's criticism of Poincaré "desynchronization", I am sure that in reality there is no supersonic acoustic wave speed greater than the speed of sound. According to my knowledge, the propagation of light in vacuum was also never measured to exceed c.

            I am of course well familiar with frequencies in excess of a resonance frequeny in an electric circuit. Propagation is different.

            Let me reiterate that I hope for a clarification: Joy Christian, Rob McEachern, and now Traill, Peter Jackson, and Alan Kadin are questioning well established tenets that relate to entanglement. Del Santos and Szangolies are taking the opposite point of view. If I understand Gordon Watson correctly, he shares the intention and the approach of Fröhner to find a mathematical solution. I consider my own suspicion much more radical and invite all of you to show in what I am wrong.

            Eckard Blumschein

            I do not see any derivation of "quantum theory" in this work.

            It must be recalled that quantum theory is nonlocal and this nonlocality is well established in experiment. The idea that nonlocality must violate special relativity because it implies superluminal propagation of influences is a common confusion. The nonlocality of quantum mechanics is fully equivalent with special relativity and its causal structure. So not only attempts to derive "quantum theory from the premiss of true local realism" are incorrect, but they are not really needed, because there is no contradiction.

            Bohr's idea that properties of physical systems may vary due to interactions during a measurement are often associated with some kind of weird quantum mechanical behavior, but such variations already exist in classical measurements. Indeed when I use a mercury thermometer I am reading the temperature of the system after it has been modified by thermal interactions with the measurement apparatus. The thermometer does not read the temperature of the system before the measurement, except in the special case when the thermometer and the system were in thermal equilibrium before the measurement.

            Entanglement implies the existence of a correlation between systems. And correlation is a function of interaction. I am not going to write here explicitly the full expression for the correlation g because it is relatively complex and latex script here is broken, but it is a function of the interaction Hamiltonian V: g ~ V|Psi> higher order terms in V.

              Dear Boris, I'm replying here because your comment is currently missing.

              NB: if you saw me in the penthouse of Towerblock-101, that's because I am the Chief Maintenance Mechanic there, 24/7. The basement, where the foundations are exposed, is where "I live, move and have my being" -- even sleeping there beneath my desk.

              Thus, relatedly, my essay begins with two axioms and a consequent premiss: true local realism. I then study EPRB, identifying beables and interactions in a related notation.

              There follows --- from first principles, in my "neo-classical" terms and concretely --- the Laws of Malus, Bayes, and Born (the last thanks to Fourier and the R-F theorem).

              Though not shown (for space reasons, and from any good textbook), the consequent confirmatory QM-style application of Born's Law (now concretely established, as above; and without mystery) to EPRB and DSE (+++) is immediate.

              Reproducing the correct results -- without mystery -- you can thus see that we are well on our way to reformulating QM ++ from elementary fundaments, absent mystery.

              With thanks for your comment, more may follow on its return; I write here from recall.

              Gordon

              ADDENDUM: in-part prompted by the last line of your [Boris'] essay.

              Dear Boris, captured by your opening paragraph and your Cartesian emphasis (and being, as you know, a Maintenance-Mechanic specialising in FOUNDATIONS) -- [oops, caps = Freudian slip] -- I was delighted to see you using [see my essay] Born's Law on your p.6. And more intrigued when I saw your closing line: "Physical space is the body of God in which we exist and in which wander on the way to it."

              For this line triggered a corrective recollection from my years of teenage rationalism (as yet undiminished)! Though, at that time, I was not aware of (and therefore was independently following, in my terms) Descartes' Dictum (DD):

              "Never accept anything for true which you do not clearly know to be such; that is to say, carefully avoid precipitancy and prejudice, and bring nothing more to your judgment than what is presented to your mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all ground of doubt."

              For I immediately recalled, from the KJV English Bible --- Acts 17:28 --- For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

              My own translation, from the Greek [so keen was I to understand such things] was: "In God we live, emote, and develop [our will and intellect]."

              And when I looked for those poets, I found a related verse from an invocation to Zeus! As google now tells me: Zeus, in ancient Greek religion, chief deity of the pantheon, a sky and weather god who was identical with the Roman god Jupiter. His name clearly comes from that of the sky god Dyaus of the ancient Hindu Rigveda. Zeus was regarded as the sender of thunder and lightning, rain, and winds, and his traditional weapon was [electromagnetic] the thunderbolt. He was called the father (i.e., the ruler and protector) of both gods and men.

              Thus, in this way, we arrive at a true fundament; in my view suited to the rationalist and the religious alike. It goes something like this: "God: in whom we live, emote, and develop our will and intellect; and, as a certain poet has said, From whom we are all related."

              I look forward to your comments on this joint enterprise.

              As for your ideas re Descartes ideas, I must (at the moment, subordinating space and mass to God) invoke DD.

              With my thanks and best regards,

              Gordon

              Dear Juan Ramón González Álvarez,

              Looking for "Juan Ramón González Álvarez", I only found a contribution to the bit/it issue in 2013. Apparently you didn't contribute to the current contest.

              Why?

              Is there really compelling evidence for immediate nonlocality? As an EE, I share the idea that the ideal electrostatic field of the charge of a sphere is to be imagined as endlessly extended in space. Does this mean nonlocality? Perhaps you published in viXra and Academia?

              Eckard Blumschein

              Dear Gordon Watson,

              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

              I look forward to your comments.

              Kamal Rajpal

                Thank you Eckard, hope this helps:

                EB: Your horrible formalism will deter less qualified readers like me.

                GW: With every pointed critical comment most welcome, I will whole-heartedly welcome your suggestions.

                nb: my preliminary notation is meant to be physically significant and to helpfully include every relevant beable and every relevant interaction. Even to the point of charting the dynamics of interactions (see the little arrows). [ps: I've lived with such since 1989 when I first read about Bell's theorem, thanks to Mermin (1998); old habits die hard.]

                Thus a polariser is represented by a "delta" denoting "change" -- akin to a delta-function -- its orientation and output channels identified. Even an analyser (often a multiplier) is represented by a multiplication (a scalar-product). How about what's yet to come: a fancy-q for qon, a quantum particle; saving 4 syllables? A fancy-P denoting probability (subjective) and/or prevalence (objective) -- to thus rescue "probability" from much modern nonsense, eg, Fuch's QBism? (At the same time leaving ordinary P and q unchanged in ordinary physics.)

                Thank you Eckard, hope this helps:

                EB: Your horrible formalism will deter less qualified readers like me.

                GW: With every pointed critical comment most welcome, I will whole-heartedly welcome your suggestions.

                nb: my preliminary notation is meant to be physically significant and to helpfully include every relevant beable and every relevant interaction. Even to the point of charting the dynamics of interactions (see the little arrows). [ps: I've lived with such since 1989 when I first read about Bell's theorem, thanks to Mermin (1998); old habits die hard.]

                Thus a polariser is represented by a "delta" denoting "change" -- akin to a delta-function -- its orientation and output channels identified. Even an analyser (often a multiplier) is represented by a multiplication (a scalar-product). How about what's yet to come: a fancy-q for qon, a quantum particle; saving 4 syllables? A fancy-P denoting probability (subjective) and/or prevalence (objective) -- to thus rescue "probability" from much modern nonsense, eg, Fuch's QBism? (At the same time leaving ordinary P and q unchanged in ordinary physics.)

                Please have another look at ¶4.1 and the exercise there; knowing that we're on a steady heading to more conventional representations -- see eqn (21). And please make critical suggestions for improvement.

                EB: I am unhappy with the lacking readiness to fundamentally clarify the issue of entanglement.

                GW: Yes, me too, so thanks for this. Entanglement is nothing mysterious. Under the R-F theorem [and what I call Born's Law: see the law of eponymy], the probability interpretation of QM needs to be more clearly understood. The entanglement brought about by angular-momentum conservation (with the added information that the sum for the two particles is zero), is a physical (and therefore a logical) constraint on all probabilities and observations. This has nothing to do with AAD [nonlocality], nor remote piloting, etc. Rather, if the total angular-momentum is zero in EPRB, then λi = μi pair-wise.

                An arbitrarily-oriented polarising interaction with one pristine twin yields thus, by logical inference, a related equivalence-class for the other pristine twin. (And this conclusion, tested any time, always gives the expected result.) There is thus no need to invoke anything mysterious: rather, an understanding of entanglement is crucial to any non-mysterious understanding of EPRB, Aspect's experiments, QM, and our world in general.

                EB: Was Dirac possibly wrong when he believed "that this concept of the probability amplitude is perhaps the most fundamental concept of quantum theory"? If my doubt is justified, then it [the Fourier-based R-F theorem; RFT] is even more fundamental.

                GW: Not to diminish Dirac, but to acknowledge R and F: for me, RFT is a more soundly-based argument, with applications beyond QM. For those who see mystery in the superposition of states, or in the preparation of superimposed states, RFT demonstrates this: the superposition principle is a mathematical tool (thus logical constraint), valid for all none-negative distributions; whether of probability, mass, charge, etc.

                nb: under TLR, Planck's a quantum-of-action is not mysterious either. It is required for the description of extended particles (in contrast to mathematical points).

                EB: Errare humanum est.

                GW: And to our friends: Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum.

                EB: I cannot finally judge John Hodge's "opposite approach" because I didn't yet read his essay. ... I am sure that in reality there is no supersonic acoustic wave speed greater than the speed of sound. According to my knowledge, the propagation of light in vacuum was also never measured to exceed c.

                GW: I expect to respond to John Hodge tomorrow.

                EB: [Edited, as my response] If I understand Gordon Watson correctly, he [with Fröhner] is aligned with the power, centrality and generality of the RFT.

                GW: Yes.

                EB: I consider my own suspicion much more radical and invite all of you to show in what I am wrong.

                GW: I will comment soon, but make this point now: I agree with the second sentence in your essay, but would ask you to reconsider some of your positions in the light of RFT; for many other statements in your pristine essay resonate-in-harmony [verschränkt = entangled] with mine.

                PS: With my thanks again, and hoping to be helpful, I will post this on your site too.

                Gordon

                Dear Gordon, I worked as a fitter for 20 years, but only on measuring instruments, then I became an engineer. Now I'm a Russian pensioner. I had a tractor. I was happy when in the spring and autumn people plowed the land. Recently I have stolen a tractor and to forget about it I decided to actively participate in the contest FQXi, but my activity here is not welcome. My comments have been removed not only from your page, but also from the pages of other participants. There is a conspiracy of ignoring against me here. This I now need to go through.

                When I was young, under the influence of Descartes, I realized that space is matter and, if we take equal volumes of my body and empty space, as it seems to us, then matter in both cases will be the same. I believed this and did not take seriously other theories.

                You, probably, to satisfy your thirst for knowledge of the world, began to read various modern theories and filled your brain with new speculative concepts and now you try to build from them your idea of ​​the world. In this representation there is no identity of space and matter of Descartes. When the head is crammed with modern theories, it is very difficult to agree that space is matter. It needs to be done at a young age like me.

                We met with you that matter is space, and space is the body of God. And for this you can put both you and me 10.

                If the believer ask, where is God? He will answer - in heaven. When you look into an infinite space and think that this is the body of God, then the question should arise, but how does it work? The answer is simple, all the changes around and our mass are the result of its action. The space contains information about changing the world.

                I wish you success! Boris

                Gordon,

                I still consider your essay deserving maximal attention as amonition against mysteries.

                I wrote: ... Dirac possibly ... believed "that this concept of the probability amplitude is perhaps the most fundamental concept of quantum theory"? If my doubt is justified, then it is even more fundamental.

                You added in parentheses [the Fourier-based R-F theorem; RFT] after "it".

                I agree on that the R-F theorem shows that probability is just a mathematically equivalent option of interpretation.

                However, my "it" referred to a much more radical doubt that I tried to express in my essay.

                Eckard

                • [deleted]

                • Post #22

                Thank you, John [John C Hodge = JH below]. I appreciate your pointed comments, all the more so for bringing your essay to my attention.

                Reading your essay, it seems that our personal philosophies differ little, especially as we seek to understand the nature of Nature (by which I mean reality). I'd thus welcome the details behind your use of "the Reality principle" -- I recall only Freud's version. [As an aside, re your next-world-order: as a management consultant, specialising in fixing sick organisations for free, I practice and recommend benign-dictatorships: where overthrow is a vote-based and happy (because evolutionary) occasion.]

                Thus, for me, it's truly good that you are taking the opposite approach to that which I take in my studies. Since, from such a position, we cannot both be right, I see here a chance to make real mutual progress. Thus, welcoming a clearer explanation of your position (and wondering if you endorse "infinite-speeds" sometimes associated with van Flandern), your claims give rise to several preliminary questions.

                [I hesitate to say more right now. In relation to your comments here, let's first eliminate misunderstandings and ambiguities before embarking on trickier conceptual questions.]

                ............................

                JH-1: "I take the opposite approach. Quantum entanglement and quantum eraser experiments suggest a plenum (space, ether) wave speed much greater than light as found by T. van Flandern."

                GW-1a: If we take "your opposite approach" -- ie, accepting that "quantum entanglement and quantum eraser experiments suggest a plenum (space, ether) wave speed much greater than light as found by T. van Flandern" -- how does that make things non-local?

                GW-1b: Why wouldn't we call such events "van Flandern-Local"?

                GW-1c: As I recall, van Flandern himself held: "(i) EVERY effect has an antecedent, proximate cause; (ii) there is NO true action at a distance"; eg, see Wikipedia, from his seven principles. Since, unless I'm missing something, I could endorse the van Flandern position given here: please, how do I reconcile your position here vs. van Flandern?

                GW-1d: In saying that an experiment "suggests" superluminal speeds, on what interpretative assumptions do you personally rely?

                GW-1e: Relatedly, what is your definition of "realism".

                GW-1f: If I understand you correctly, we could solve many of our differences by substituting van Flandern-Locality for Einstein-Locality. Since all my ideas are subject to development in the light of sound experimental outcomes, could you elaborate, please: which results of my essay [thus far] would not hold under van Flandern-Locality?

                ...............

                JH-2: "The STOE model and Hodge diffraction experiment (see references in my essay) suggest plenum wave speed much greater than light. Experiments!! Therefore, there is no "local" effects. All experiments are non-local."

                GW-2a: You use "local" in scare-quotes (for effects) but the non-local (for experiments) is not? Does 'local' have different meanings here?

                GW-2b: In what way do you say that experiments are non-local? (See also vF in GW-1c: above.)

                GW-2c: "Experiments!!" Where might I find independent replications, please? From what you write, you are heading in a Nobel direction.

                GW-2d: Wouldn't van Flandern himself say that your results are still van Flandern-Local?

                GW-2e: Do I take it that your experiments find QM and QT unsatisfactory?

                [To be clear: Since, in my experience to-date, I find Einstein-locality to be currently better supported experimentally than van Flandern-locality, you have here the basis for my current 'locality' choice.]

                ..................

                JH-3: "Therefore, our macro-scale is an analogy of the nano-scale and the Quantum weirdness is more simply explained."

                GW-3a: Yes, we seem to agree: In my theory, I do not render the micro different to the macro; you seem to disagree?

                GW-3b: Again, seeking to be clear: What does "the Quantum weirdness" entail for you; with examples to help me please?

                GW-3c:: As mentioned above, I'd welcome the details behind "the Reality principle".

                GW-3d:: Please, which of your essays give me your latest mathematical analyses?

                ............................

                PS: John, with my thanks again, I will post this on your site too, hoping it will be helpful when I comment there, on your essay.

                With best regards; Gordon Watson