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

        Juan et al,

        Eckard is correct, apparent 'non-locality' only arose from our inability back then to classically explain output. I agree Gordon's essay isn't a complete classical formulation, he doesn't claim that, but it's an important move in that right direction. I've also just read the excellent and far more complete Frohner paper in his references;

        Missing link between probability theory and quantum mechanics: the Riesz-Fejér theorem." Z. Naturforsch. 53a, 637-654. On EPR it concludes; "quantum mechanics looks much like an error propagation (or rather information transmittal) formalism for uncertainty-afflicted physical systems that obey the classical equations of motion"

        My own essay proves exactly that by experiment, logic and applying a different starting assumption to Bohr more consistent with Maxwell, the allowing QAM as 4 state OAM. See also Declan Traill's matching code and plot.

        I recall liking your last essay, shame you didn't get one in this year.

        Do comment or question on those strings

        Very Best

        Peter

        Gordon:

        Thanks for your query.

        I started the STOE development with the idea that Bell's inequality proved that action-at-a-distance (ADD) and local (less than or equal to speed of light ) interactions were impossible. (GW-1a) That is, cause and effect interactions happened at a greater than light speed distance. Many experiments appear at local speed because they are close. For example, an observation which appears to show a photon colliding with other matter is not the model because of the speed of the reaction is so fast as to fool the instruments.

        Start by refering to your paragraph 2.0 (i) The STOE model suggests (postulates) that hods (smallest matter particle causing the gravity effect, one component of the universe) causes the plenum (like Space of GR or ether, etc. another component of the universe) in contact with the hod to deform/warp - the gravity effect. The plenum deformity/warp/wave causes neighboring plenum to deform (like waves in water). The warps cause other hods to move. NO ADD everything is by contact -Hods do not and cannot "touch" (share any common space). GW-1b

        2.0(ii) There is no boundry between differing scale observations. We're in one universe as the STOE takes as fundamental. Better /more efficient to take macro models and apply them to big (cosmolgy) and small (quantum) scales.

        GW-1d, GW3b So, examples of quantum weirdness observation (experiments) are single photon (or very, very low intensity) at a time in a diffraction experiment, entanglement, quantum eraser (no time reversal wave either), van Flander's measuring the direction of gravity and light being such that gravity leads light by 8 minutes, and the Hodge Experiment. The idea Newtonian model also assumes that gravity effects of a planets position in the solar system effected by other planets' instaneously (otherwise, Newtonian mechanics does't work).

        GW-1e The issue becomes to find a model that no experiment rejects (as in my essay). So, "real" or "realism" is not adressed. Real (as most use the term )is a metaphysical/religeous concept. My interest is finding useful models to aid human survival. We don't need to know what is really real, only experimental results. Observable beable (?)

        I started to think about light diffraction experiments because this and Young's experiment are the very fundamental base of all models of the quantum world. The science community had worked on wave models of light and were hung with experments that were weird (too much ad hoc stuff and too many possible alternatives to the Schroedinger equation). I developed the hod/plenum model based on several experiments (vanFlander, Shapiro delay, etc.). The simulation program produced what I initially took to be a problem. The paths of the photons crossed just past the slit. I worked for over a year thinking this was a major error. Then I saw a paper about walking droplet in a diffraction-like experiment. (see Bush, "The new wave of pilot-wave theory", Aug. 2015, Phy Today, p. 47 and references therein - Fig. 5(c)). This suggested the Hodge Experiment which I did. (see photon: http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1603 (paper) and

        Hodge Exp video -12 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A07bogzzMEI )The experiment is easy for an amateur to do.

        BTW If you have access to a Photon counter, repeating the experiment with such equipment would be a step forward.

        Now for some responses to your response not yet covered:

        Not "infinite speeds" , no infinites in the universe. But very fast- 10^7 c.

        I've experience as a turn-around division manager. I'm thinking and writing a book suggesting a 3rd US Constitution. some is on my web page. I think the framers of the 2nd (current) Constitution get a lot correct - they rejected the Bill of Rights. But had no provisions to allow the bill of rights or other abuses of the uninformed electorate.

        Mutual progesss - Agree. That is why I'm writing an essay about your comments so long as experiment guides the way.

        Van Flandern- I use his experiment results, only. I don't know what "van Flander local" or "Einstein local" means. All observations are a result of actions occuring through a plenum which have speed >>> speed of light. The Shapiro observation suggest speed of light change for differing plenum densities rather then time dilation. I reject van Flandern' idea of creation and demise of the stuff (hods and plenum) of our universe. I noted in my essay that all observation we know about have a source of energy entering a process that the provides energy to another process. Stack the processes end to end to reach an source of stuff into the universe and an sink (thermodynmic terms) of enegy from our universe. Our universe cannot be adiabatic - no process in the universe is totally adiabatic.

        GW-2a, GW-2b quotes because others use the term that is, to me, meaningless. All actions involve a plenum, therefore, plenum speed.

        GR-2c published replecations. That is a problem. So, do the experiment yourself. I have difficulty thinking that even if another did the experiment with photon detectors, they would not publish because it would be too disturbing to the status quo - hence, their career like Halton Arp's career would be ruined (book - "Seeing red").

        GW-3d Each paper topic has its own math. Hodge, J.C., 2014a, Universe according to the STOE, IntellectualArchive,

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

        http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648 . has the overall observation math.

        Hodge, J.C., 2016a, STOE assumptions that model particle diffraction

        and that replaces QM, IntellectualArchive, Vol.5, No. 3, 2014,

        http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1719 . has the latest postulates. My goal has been to use existing (with the exception of the predicted Hodge Experiment) to determine the fundamental characteristics of the plenum and hod to produce ALL the obseration of our universe.

        Hodge

        Dear Gordon, I read your essay again. Remembered the Law of Bayes, with which I worked 10 years ago and the Law of Malus. Tell me what other law I need to remember to understand your essay. Probably, I'll have to read it again 5 times, such a deep meaning. But I have an offer to you as to mechanics to forget about the Law of Bayes and to look at the wave function as a rotation. This is possible, given that an imaginary unit turns a vector and any time argument with its participation creates a rotation.

        Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

        Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

          Thanks Juan [= JA below]. Welcoming your comments, some seeming ambiguities [or maybe typos] need to be resolved before we properly focus on technical issues. Let's see what preliminary agreements we can come to:

          JA-1: "I do not see any derivation of "quantum theory" [QT] in this work."

          GW-1: Under the classicality of true local realism (TLR) -- and without mystery -- we find the Laws of Malus, Bayes and Born; plus real dynamic functions in 3-space that the Bell-literature does not. All of this from TLR and EPRB, totally absent any nonlocality [NL] -- see your next.

          Without recourse to Born, TLR also provides the correct answers for Aspect's experiments, GHZ, GHSZ, etc. Thus TLR links to QT at the most fundamental level by using Malus' and Bayes' Laws in quantum contexts. We can then validate Born's Law in these experiments; THEN continue on to similar validation in double-slit experiments [DSE], etc.

          See Fröhner in my references for ongoing (deeper) connections to QT. Thus, from such links, do you not now see QT derived classically? If your answer is in anyway in the negative, how come?

          JA-2: "It must be recalled that quantum theory is nonlocal and this nonlocality [NL] is well established in experiment.

          GW-2: ?? To recall NL I would need to recall conflicted interpretations, typically associated with the colloquialism "collapse of the wavefunction". There is no such collapse in my work, hence no such NL. So what does your claim mean? Where is the NL in QT (as opposed to interpretations)? And what experiments are you referring to, please? And what, in them, do you define as NL?

          JA-3: "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."

          GW-3: ??? How do you define locality AND NL? How do YOU clarify matters for people with such "confusions" please?

          Gordon: to be continued.

          Gordon to Juan; continuing:

          JA-4: "So not only attempts to derive "quantum theory from the premiss of true local realism [TLR]" are incorrect, but they are not really needed, because there is no contradiction."

          GW-4a: "Incorrect"? Please: what are the errors? And as for your claim re "no contradiction" -- please -- be sure that your answer to GW-3: is clear.

          I agree with the thrust of your comment re "Bohr's idea ... " and "Entanglement implies the existence of a correlation between systems." But, since the implications go far beyond that: GW-4b: How do you define entanglement in technical terms?

          JA-5: "And correlation is a function of interaction."

          GW-5: ?? Is this a typo? Why is the primary twinned-pairwise-correlation in EPRB not already existing as the PRISTINE particles leave the source: ie, existing before any interaction?

          JA-6:[/b ] "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."

          GW-6: LaTeX is working again, so I'd welcome the full expression; or attach it.

          HTH. With my thanks again, and best regards; Gordon

          PS: FQXi -- note formatting errors; no bold, and see JA-6: [/b ]

          Responding to Peter Jackson (above) -- with thanks -- re:

          "Juan et al,

          Eckard is correct, apparent 'non-locality' only arose from our inability back then to classically explain output. I agree Gordon's essay isn't a complete classical formulation, he doesn't claim that, but it's an important move in that right direction. ... ."

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

          PJ, imho, Eckard has it wholly correctly and your are partially correct. That is, in relation to my work, I often talk in terms of my "neo-classical" approach: but that's because many others see QT (with its quantum) as a non-classical theory. However, in my terms: my theory is wholly classical.

          Background to this engineer: I hold fast to three classical mantras:

          (i) Reality makes sense and we can understand it.

          (ii) Correlated tests on correlated things produce correlated outcomes without mystery.

          (iii) Only the impossible is impossible.

          Background to my theory: Wholistic Mechanics (abbreviation WM; logo w@m, pronounced wham) began in 1989: against Mermin's "Spooky action at a distance; mysteries of the quantum theory" (Britannica's GBWW 1988).

          WM is a wholly classical theory that brings QM into the classical family of physical theories: WM = unification = {classical mechanics, QM, special relativity, general relativity}.

          As for the logo (poorly rendered here) its origin is this:

          [math]A*\leftarrow$w_i\,@\,m_i$\rightarrow\,B*[/math]

          Preparing for my initial phone-call to David Mermin, I pictured two separating particles 'wi' and 'mi' and used the analogy of entangled twinned "worms" separating -- wi (womanly, heading toward womanly Alice's locale A*) and mi (manly, heading toward manly Bob's locale B*) -- ie, heading in opposite directions from their common source, a one-off twin-producing worm-egg @ [see its spin]. Thus each twinned-pair is correlated by their common DNA and anti-correlated via their sex.

          And while most analogies are unsuccessful in explaining entanglement, those with a nod to mysteries have difficulty rebutting the arguments with our worms. Thus, if Alice finds pristine 'wi' to be a female, is it any wonder [whatsoever] that she knows Bob will find a male if he does the related test. Likewise, if Bob tests pristine 'mi' for its DNA, is it any wonder [whatsoever] that he knows the DNA Alice will find if she does the related test; and so on! Of course, QM with its entanglements entails many more correlated relations: and GHZ worm-eggs produce triplets; GHSZ worm-eggs produce quads; etc.

          Now, to be clear: I see my role at this stage to be the one advocating for CLASSICAL approaches (like yours; against all others who use non-classical approaches) to understand and reformulate QM, without mystery.

          [ps: Alan Kadin uses the term neoclassical; perhaps like I have used "neo-classical". I believe that Alan (with many others on this path to reformulation) will deliver a classical theory if he is successful. Moreover, I do not see WM's basic classical principles being negated by such. Comments welcome.]

          Cheers; Gordon