Dear Gordon, I forgot to translate in English

For me there is a difficulty of translation. The third time I read your essay and now i say that it is deep and heavy. Only now I realized what conversation are you and where are you taking me. The problem that I always avoided. In New Cartesian Physics it is not, as it is the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle transformed into a principle of definiteness of points of space and the wave function used to describe its rotations and vibrations. Application in physics, dimensionless relative quantities, such as the Lorentz factor, and probability of quantum States due to the existence in it of the limits: the speed of light and Planck's constant. You can apply your expertise to the consideration of physical space, which is matter.

I wish you success! Boris.

Hi Gordon Watson

Very nice discussion...."What is fundamental? ...... The truth of our premiss (its consequents agree with quantum theory and observation) advances modern science (and common sense) by exposing more realistic fundamentals....." Best wishes...

I hope you will not mind that I am not following main stream physics...

By the way...Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... I highly appreciate hope your essay ....You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

    Dear Boris,

    As I understand Descartes' theory of matter: matter is defined by the amount of space that it occupies; so all space is matter; thus empty space does not exist; hence the space between planets is occupied by an invisible fluid (an ether) and vortices therein drive the planets around the Sun.

    To my modern mind (though it be no match for Descartes), I prefer to talk in terms of beables [existents, things which exist]. So I would talk of planets [as matter] and spacetime, with planetary motion driven by the latter AND matter (which, as against Descartes, is not far distant from him saying that the planets are driven by the matter of space).

    Thus, for me -- in giving beable-status to "space" and its consequents --- Descartes was ahead of his time: as we all waited for another genius, called Einstein.

    Cheers; Gordon

    Dear Boris,

    Please note the the fundamental originality in my theory is to replace "realism -- which, even in physics, is naive-realism -- by true realism: "true realism insists that some existents may change interactively."

    You then see that this elementary foundation (with true locality) already provides a classical basis for much of modern physics.

    Thus -- as I have just replied to you (above) -- when I "put my mind to the consideration of physical space" I arrive at this::

    As I understand Descartes' theory of matter: matter is defined by the amount of space that it occupies; so all space is matter; thus empty space does not exist; hence the space between planets is occupied by an invisible fluid (an ether) and vortices therein drive the planets around the Sun.

    To my modern mind (though it be no match for Descartes), I prefer to talk in terms of beables [existents, things which exist]. So I would talk of planets [as matter] and spacetime, with planetary motion driven by the latter AND matter (which, as against Descartes, is not far distant from him saying that the planets are driven by the matter of space).

    Thus, for me -- in giving beable-status to "space" and its consequents --- Descartes was ahead of his time: as we all waited for another genius, called Einstein.

    Question: Do you accept true locality and true realism; eg, see ¶1.4 in my essay?

    Cheers; Gordon

    Dear Gordan,

    Thanks for your email. I enjoyed reading your essay. Please read my essay on wave-particle and electron spin at: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3.pdf

    Best Regards,

    Kamal

      Eckard, [for completeness, this is the reply from your essay-thread]

      Reading your -- "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" --

      I took the "it" to refer to Dirac's opinion about the probability amplitude. Hence my comment in the context of the more fundamental R-F theorem.

      I see now (and somewhat surprised by your accompanying doubt), that your "it" here "referred to a much more radical doubt that I tried to express in my essay."

      Please, what is that radical doubt? I did not see such a thought in your essay; perhaps I am a less-doubting radical?

      Thus: there is so much that I agree with in your essay, I truly wonder where your doubt arises. Are you referring to this: "Therefore, some putative pillars of science are suspected to be just semi-fundamental constructs on a shaky basis. Judge yourself." ??

      I (see my essay) would strengthen you claim to this (and without doubt): "Some supposed pillars of science are false. Judge for yourself. See how far we advance by rejecting the ubiquitous and unqualified (but primitive) notion of REALISM in physics (it is NAIVE REALISM). That is: simply replace NAIVE REALISM by TRUE REALISM* (the insistence that some existents may change interactively), and see quantum theory derived classically." [Then, relatedly, there is Bell's theorem; as in my essay's Appendix!]

      * With such true realism known to me since the age of two, with a photo for proof (me with my rail-spike-for-a-hammer beside a newly-fitted but now smashed porcelain toilet bowl), me having imitated the plumber who (10 minutes earlier) had gently tapped the bowl into the fresh cement with his own steel hammer! dink-dink-dink, I can still hear it! [Me, as ever, trying to make sure things are right ... kaboom.]

      This story for you: some light-relief as to why you should, today,** NOT be tense and NOT harbour any doubt, radical or otherwise!

      ** Given your own analyses, with my essay.

      PS: You say, "There is one reality." In agreement, I add, "Reality makes sense and we can understand it." Against Bell, I add, "Correlated tests on correlated things produce correlated results without mystery." To you, I say, "Only the impossible is impossible."

      HTH; and loving your very deep essay,

      Gordon

      Thank you, Hodge,

      Q1. What do you mean by, and how do you use, "the Reality principle"?

      Q2. Is something missing where I have inserted [.....?] below? Because otherwise your qualifying phrase is "impossible" (at the end of the sentence).

      "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."

      Q3. And elsewhere (as I recall) you wrote that experiments should guide the mathematics. Do you have such mathematics for the Hodge experiment that you show on youtube?

      Q4. Without such math, see Q3, why do you believe that conventional math will not deliver your results? [Let me assure you that they will.]

      Q5. You write, "All experiments are non-local." Since you did not put non-local in quotes, what do you mean here?

      Q6. Re Q5, since you dismiss infinite speeds, why would you not say that all experiments are, in your opinion, van Flandern-local? (As to the meaning of "local" see my essay for what I mean by Einstein-local; or google it under QM.)

      Tks; Gordon

      Gordon:

      Response to your question of 15 Feb.'15

      Q1: The older term I used was "the one universe principle" and its corollary that the universe is fractal. Therefore, the quantum world should have analogs in the Newtonian world without weirdness. In addition: since we learn from birth many characteristics of our scale, these become instinctual - more: they become the very definition of what is logical.

      Q2: The [AAD] is meant to show that "AAD" will mean "action-at-a-distance" in the paper. So, 2 of the things Bell's inequality showed was (1) AAD does not happen -was impossible, and (2) local interactions did not happen. Note "local" is here defined as less than or equal to the speed of light (see later questions). I think it's common to put definitions and symbols in parentheses immediately after the word. I don't understand what you expected to see there?

      Q3 experiments should guide the physics models/theories and the appropriate math should be used.

      The photon model with the math:

      The initial which showed how incoherent became coherent. However, although the slit simulations were encourging, the trace of photon paths left something to be improved.

      Photon diffraction and interference

      IntellectualArchive, Vol.1, No. 3, P. 31, ISSN 1929-4700, Toronto, July 2012

      http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=597

      improved math simulation

      Single Photon diffraction and interference http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1557

      Light diffraction experiments that confirm the STOE model and reject all other models

      http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1578

      some evolution of the model happened

      video based on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A07bogzzMEI

      Diffraction experiment and its STOE photon simulation program rejects wave models of light

      IntellectualArchive, Vol.4, No. 6, P.11 , ISSN 1929-4700, Toronto, Jan. 2014

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

      Hodge Experiment distinguishes between wave and particle caused diffraction patterns

      IntellectualArchive, Vol.5, No. 3, P. 7, ISSN 1929-4700, Toronto, Jan. 2014

      http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1712

      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

      another video based on this

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A07bogzzMEI

      Hodge experiment (continued) of interference with a slit in a transparent mask rejects wave models of light

      IntellectualArchive, Vol.6, No. 5,

      http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1862

      Hodge experiment (continued) with opaque strips and about the Afshar Experiment

      IntellectualArchive, Vol.6, No. 6,

      http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1872

      Q4: Conventional math does deliver with the unconventional STOE physics postulates. Little about the STOE physics postulates is conventional.

      Q5: The model is that all matter interactions are through the plenum and that the plenum wave effect is faster tha light ( faster than light means non-local). Therefore, any experiment performed involves an influence the happens at faster than light speed.

      Q6: ? sure if you wish. But my meaning uses instantaneous in the simulation as an approximation. I see little difference in what we can measure between 10^7 c and instantaneous except to say that infinite speed like infinite anything is physically disallowed in the STOE. When the math yields an infinity, something is wrong with the math or the model.

      However, diffraction observations on solar system or galactic scale may be possible where speed of gravity would be important. We have to think about what to look for.

      Thanks for the query.

      Hodge

      Thanks Hodge, but re this,

      from you: "Q2: The [AAD] is meant to show that "AAD" will mean "action-at-a-distance" in the paper. So, 2 of the things Bell's inequality showed was (1) AAD does not happen -was impossible, and (2) local interactions did not happen. Note "local" is here defined as less than or equal to the speed of light (see later questions). I think it's common to put definitions and symbols in parentheses immediately after the word. I don't understand what you expected to see there?"

      You write: So, 2 of the things Bell's inequality showed was (1) AAD does not happen -was impossible, and (2) local interactions did not happen.

      Here's what I expected: Two of the things Bell's inequality shows are:

      (1) His assumptions do not agree with reality; being experimentally false.

      (2) His claims, thus, have nothing to do with reality

      PS: You can see Bell's theorem refuted classically on p.12 of my essay. You can see the EPRB-expectation derived classically on p.7.

      All the best; Gordon

      Kamal: Seeking to encourage you in your work, I'll reply at the second thread that you started below; Gordon

      Dear Kamal,

      Seeking to encourage you in your work, I wanted to clarify the calculating method that you describe in "Linear Polarization, Graphical Representation", at page 10.

      So this reply refers to your above first-thread ----

      ie: "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 ."

      ---- to first clarify an issue that arises from the essay you referred to here.

      With respect to your calculation, I understand the Figures that refer to each result: but what are you calculating, please? And what is the significance of the 10cm wavelength? Also, from the geometry in your figures, it seems to me that there should a simple mathematical formula for what you were needing. So what was the purpose of the mm graph paper, please? And, to be clear, am I right in believing that the areas you measured were the non-opaque regions in each figure?

      PS: Note that you have used Malus' Law, with each photon passing through two polarizers. In EPR/Aspect, each photon passes through one polarizer only. From my essay, 露6, you will see how Malus' Law extends to the one-particle per one-polariser in each EPR/Aspect paired-test. So --- until I understand your method better --- I suggest it is this extension that you need to analyse in your work. 聽

      With best regards; Gordon

      Correction: "... there should BE a simple mathematical formula ... ." GW

      Dear snp [Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta]

      Thanks for commenting thoughtfully on my essay and quoting one of its key components: my theory is driven by facts and evidence.

      The truth of my premiss (in that its consequents agree with a thoroughly tested quantum theory and observation) thus advances science and commonsense; for I essentially refine much modern thinking via one realistic (but neglected) fundamental:

      At the very foundations of physics, I simply do "what [in your terms] is clear to me" -- I replace naive-realism by true-realism -- to see even more realistic consequences follow.

      From this recap, I trust you can see that I am in agreement with this (from you) --- "I use everyday physics as achievable by engineering" --- me happily recalling that many famous physicists were said to be, firstly, engineers.

      Alas, as such an engineer, focussed on fundamental foundations, I'm in no position to comment on the grand sweep of schemes like your Dynamic Universe Model.

      But from the above it follows that you need have no concern as to what I might mind (or what might be my opinion) about you and your work. I wholeheartedly encourage anyone that seeks to make sense of reality to proceed at their own pace and in their own way; and (as we agree) always with facts and evidence in mind!

      In this regard, here are three commonsense mantras that I suspect we share: (1) Reality makes sense and we can understand it. (2) Correlated tests on correlated things produce correlated results without mystery. (3) Only the impossible is impossible.

      So for me it is a bonus to see that you are NOT following a branch of main-stream physics that endorses naive-realism: with its consequent quantum-mysteries and nonlocality!

      Also: I very much appreciated the question-and-answer-style of your essay; especially the emphasis on experimental results. Though I am more cautious re this conclusion: "No imaginary or negative time axis." Sure that I understand your meaning, I suggest the reference to "an axis" is unnecessary. For me it possible to reason "backward-in-time" from later evidence; like how it was that the Titanic sank so quickly.

      With my thanks again for your comments, and wishing you every success; Gordon

      PS: As requested, I will post this on your FQXi essay-site.

      At 3009 I tried to explain why I consider this statement a tautology.

      Eckard

      Dear Gordon Watson

      Thanks for well studied comments on my essay

      Your observations about truth do indicate that you are well educated and knowledged person... It is very nice that you work is based on experimental evidences from QM. Any study or work will be successful if it is based on experiments.

      ..............Your words....

      From this recap, I trust you can see that I am in agreement with this (from you) --- "I use everyday physics as achievable by engineering" --- me happily recalling that many famous physicists were said to be, firstly, engineers.

      ............... Thank you for the supporting comments...

      ..............Your words....

      Alas, as such an engineer, focussed on fundamental foundations, I'm in no position to comment on the grand sweep of schemes like your Dynamic Universe Model.

      But from the above it follows that you need have no concern as to what I might mind (or what might be my opinion) about you and your work. I wholeheartedly encourage anyone that seeks to make sense of reality to proceed at their own pace and in their own way; and (as we agree) always with facts and evidence in mind!

      In this regard, here are three commonsense mantras that I suspect we share: (1) Reality makes sense and we can understand it. (2) Correlated tests on correlated things produce correlated results without mystery. (3) Only the impossible is impossible.

      So for me it is a bonus to see that you are NOT following a branch of main-stream physics that endorses naive-realism: with its consequent quantum-mysteries and nonlocality!

      Also: I very much appreciated the question-and-answer-style of your essay; especially the emphasis on experimental results. Though I am more cautious re this conclusion: "No imaginary or negative time axis." Sure that I understand your meaning, I suggest the reference to "an axis" is unnecessary. For me it possible to reason "backward-in-time" from later evidence; like how it was that the Titanic sank so quickly.

      With my thanks again for your comments, and wishing you every success; Gordon

      PS: As requested, I will post this on your FQXi essay-site.

      .............. thank you for nice blessings and Good opinions expressed on my essay.

      You have written a nice essay and I am giving a high score ...

      Best Regards

      =snp

      Dear Gordon,

      This response is my reply to the comment you posted on my essay "A Fundamental Misunderstanding". I have also posted this response on my essay thread too.

      In answer to your question "what happened to classical energy conservation in each and every interaction?":

      Every particle detect or non-detect obeys normal, Classical Physics. Energy conservation is obeyed - why would it not be?

      If a particle isn't detected is may be simply absorbed by a molecule in the apparatus or elsewhere.

      (Questions: 1, 2, 2a) The reason for the Classical prediction being the blue line is this:

      Classically each detector has a semicircle of directions where an incident photon will give a + result, and the other semi-circle (of the whole circle)

      where an incident photon will give a - result.

      When both detectors A and B point in the same direction (or exacly opposite), the semi-circles overlap perfectly giving a correlation of +1 or -1.

      As detectors A and B are rotated, the semi-circles' overlap decreases linearly to a minimum (90 degrees between A and b, giving a 0 correlation) and then increases to a maximum again (i.e. now giving a correlation -1 or +1 respectively). So the amount of correlation expected is a straight line from +1, through 0 and then to -1.

      (3) Yes of course different experiment have differing detection efficiency, and different papers have different correlation results too, but there are no experiments with 100% efficiency; indeed the best efficiencies are still quite low, allowing for a significant non-detect count.

      (4) What is GHZ? are you referring to a particular experiment/paper?

      A single particle event doesn't prove anything. The correlation is built up from numerous events. To discount non-detects one would have to have very good (approaching 100%) efficiency, which no experiment yet has come close to.

      (5) I am aware that the detection loophole has been used to explain the BT result for a long time, and I used to talk to Caroline Thompson about Physics in the past.

      My paper is mainly about showing that the detection loophole is still a viable explanation as the so called 'loophole free' experiments using a Steering Inequality do not close the detection loophole as claimed. My model shows a clear violation of the Steering Inequality using Classical Physics via the detection loophole.

      The two computer challenge is exactly the same as my model. The two functions for determining the results from A and B could easily be run on different computers

      in different rooms - or even different Galaxies if you like. It will still give the QM correlation using a Classical model based on non-detects.

      I don't have time at the moment to analyse and undertand your paper fully, but I did pick up on this excerpt:

      "For us, EPRB entanglements arise from the pairwise conservation of angular momentum; as in (3). (ii) A logical necessity therefore follows: if the a-component of О»i is known (say, via Ai = 1), then (if tested), the a-component of Ојi will certainly deliver Bi = в€'1."

      Essentially it seems to me that you are saying that the two photons in the experiment have opposite angular momenta, thus conserving angular momentum across the experiment.

      Yes, there is no doubt of that - but this is not sufficient to assure that detectors A and B have correlated results at different angles, as each detector has a probability of detecting each photon as either + or -. What the EPR experiment reveals is that when the two detectors have nearly the same orientation they have a high degree of correlation despite not knowing

      where the other detector is. So to build up a high correlation between A and B, each detector would have to register more + results (for photons incident on them from at the samse angle) when the other detector is in a certain location; then register more '-' results when the other detector is in a different location, despite not being able to know that other detector's location!

      Regards,

      Declan Traill

        Dear Gordon

        If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don't rate them at all. Infact I haven't issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.

        Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?

        My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn't then gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

        Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

        For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

        My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.

        By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

        To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

        Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

        Kind regards

        Steven Andresen

        Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

          Thanks Declan, your prompt reply is appreciated. It's also good to see that we have some agreements; but I won't dwell on them for now. Instead I want to discuss what looks like (in my opinion) a serious point of disagreement.

          Please note that I have no wish to discourage you -- quite the contrary -- because I think you have guts and brains; and perhaps it is me that errs. However:

          Imho, what you call "Classical" or "Classical Physics" is not classical at all.

          Thus your "reason for the Classical prediction being the blue line is this: Classically each detector has a semicircle of directions where an incident photon will give a + result, and the other semi-circle (of the whole circle) where an incident photon will give a - result."

          May I take it that this "classicality" is part of your own theory? Or do you have a source? And can you be more specific, please, and consider your "detector" to be built from a polarizer followed by an analyzer?

          For it's true that Bell 1964:(4) uses a similar approach, but only by way of illustration: for I'm not aware of any classical textbook advancing such a theory. What's more I do not see how your idea works for the usual classical demonstrations that are conducted with three 'sandwiched' polarizers: where brightness measurements show good accord with classical theory without allowances for "non-detects"?

          You should be able to do the classical textbook calculation and see that it yields an expectation of one-half the QM value; which is NOT the blue line: instead it will be one-half the green line.

          Then, regarding this next point of yours [with my emphasis]:

          "Essentially it seems to me [DT] that you [GW] are saying that the two photons in the experiment have opposite angular momenta, thus conserving angular momentum across the experiment. Yes, there is no doubt of that - but this is not sufficient to assure that detectors A and B have correlated results at different angles, as each detector has a probability of detecting each photon as either + or -. What the EPR experiment reveals is that when the two detectors have nearly the same orientation they have a high degree of correlation despite not knowing where the other detector is. So to build up a high correlation between A and B, each detector would have to register more + results (for photons incident on them from at the same angle) when the other detector is in a certain location; then register more '-' results when the other detector is in a different location, despite not being able to know that other detector's location!"

          In reply, with Einstein-locality ensuring that no detector has any 'knowledge' about the other: in EPRB (eg, using Aspect's experiments) the probability of +1/-1 from each detector is 50/50, for all (a, b); so there is no "knowing" required. And the related correlation is twice the classical correlation because pairwise "entangled" photons (ie, in the singlet state) are more highly correlated than pairwise correlated photons (in beams) correlated by linear-polarization only.*

          Re the latter, I recommend that you do the classical calculation; re the former I would encourage you to study my essay and ask questions. For I am keen to see where we might disagree and where things might be improved; me noting that the only change I make to modern physics is to take Bohr's "disturbance dictum" seriously.*

          * My own dictum: Correlated tests on correlated things produce correlated results without mystery; and correlated tests on more correlated things produce more correlated results without mystery.

          PS: The GHZ I mentioned is [14] in my References; you'll see the 4-particle GHSZ variant of EPRB in [13].

          HTH, with best regards; Gordon

          Hi Gordon,

          The disturbance interpretation is very appealing, since it maintains our realistic view of beables. I will come back to that below on how I see it, in light of the interpretation I gave in my essay. First one note on your essay.

          The formalism you use is not so transparent. However I think I got the idea. Where I see a problem is the link between formula (8) and (9). This needs more clarification. The source information (beta) disappeared. I can imagine, that this is because of the perfect correlation of the angular momentum (ref. 15.12). However from the observed polarization vector (ref. 15.10) the total information of the angular momentum (ref. 15.11) cannot be inferred completely. Hence the source (beta) should not disappear in the derivation of the conditional probability.

          I will come back to the disturbance interpretation - how I see it - another time. Only so much: causes and effects are not as unambiguous as they seem and the condition for the possibility to make inferences from a measurement might depend on conditions not included in the description of the experiment (for instance the environment, which must be separable from the system).

          Best regards,

          Luca