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

    Hi Luca, and many thanks! [nb: below, the superscript-function does not work with ±. I use "bold" to identify the start of my comments; not for emphasis.]

    I agree: "The disturbance interpretation is very appealing, since it maintains our realistic view of beables."

    I acknowledge that many agree with you: "The formalism [I] use is not so transparent."

    But this next from you gives me hope for the formalism: "However I think I got the idea." nb: the formalism is meant to be physically significant in that a beable is represented by the same physically significant symbol: objectively/ontologically in spacetime and abstractly/epistemically in the mathematics.

    I thank you for this: "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." Please note: I do NOT infer to the total information of the angular momentum; for (as you rightly say) such cannot be inferred completely under β. However, I can carefully infer to the equivalence relations: and here I use a weaker, more general equivalence relation than that used by EPR and many others (about which we seem to agree; which is good).

    In addition, note that β in (8) specifies the conditions under which the related (immediately-preceding) argument must be interpreted. So β drops out when we interpret (8) correctly and arrive at (9). This is explained in ¶6.2-6.3; but let me add for greater clarity:

    The physical significance of the argument in (8) is this. Under condition β (and thus using the equivalence-relations established under β, etc) we are asked to evaluate the (possibly-disturbing) interaction between a polarizer δb± and a polarized particle q(a-). And we need the probability that q(b+) is the outcome. But, via our equivalence relations, this interaction/probability is just that covered (already classically) by Malus' Law.

    So we use Malus' Law, to write (9) immediately. And we write QED because our result is that confirmed by QT under β. HTH?

    In reply to this: "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)."

    Agreeing with EPR, every relevant beable must be included in our analysis. So if you follow the suggestion in ¶4.1 to Watson (2017d:§2) you will see that my (1)-(2) includes the beable of spacetime, here reduced to 3-space since time and gravity are not essential beables under β.

    With my thanks again, I look forward to your further comments on my disturbance interpretation: and any other concerns, critiques, suggestions, etc. I cannot be offended and learn much from such.

    Gordon

    Eckard, from me, via your essay-thread: GW. -------

    Dear Eckard: above you wrote:

    "Gordon Watson wrote: -- "Reality makes sense and we can understand it." --

    In my understanding, this is a tautology because I am merely distinguishing between mysticism and conjectured reality of anything including the also comprehensive notion of the physical universe."

    My use of that phrase is an affirmation that links to your statements: "There is only one reality;" and "Causality [see my use of -- "interactions" --] is most fundamental to reality." Thus, as in my essay, my efforts to understand begin with the premiss of true local realism (TLR)* in spacetime.

    "Not curiosity, not vanity, not the consideration of expediency, not duty and conscientiousness, but an unquenchable, unhappy thirst that brooks no compromise leads us to truth." G. W. F. Hegel.

    * TLR: true local realism is the union of true locality and true realism. True locality insists that no influence propagates superluminally, after Einstein. True realism insists that some existents may change interactively, after Bohr.

    All the best; Gordon

    By GW, from Declan Traill's essay-thread:

    .........

    Declan, referring to my earlier suggestion, and seeking to continue our discussion efficiently, it would help me if you could post your responses on my essay-thread so that I get an alert!

    Now, to be clear on a significant point of difference in our theorizing: ie, I point out that your theory is not classical.

    In your essay you write that Figure-1 shows the "Classical prediction in Blue." From your comments above, I take it that you did not derive that line yourself? And that you have no such derivation?

    Here's what I find when I check the two sources that you cite in comments above:

    You write: "It's not just me saying that the Classical prediction is linear, it says so on the Wikipedia page on bells theorem: See the diagram in the overview section here:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem"

    But, in reply, please note the Wikipedia wording:

    "The best possible local realist imitation (red) for the quantum correlation of two spins in the singlet state (blue), insisting on perfect anti-correlation at zero degrees, perfect correlation at 180 degrees. Many other possibilities exist for the classical correlation subject to these side conditions, but all are characterized by sharp peaks (and valleys) at 0, 180, 360 degrees, ..."

    The best possible local realist imitation: insisting that it be bound by two points!* Best possible? Imitation? And presumably a naive-realist (see next).

    You also write: "Also see this presentation by Alain Aspect on the EPR experiment:

    http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/colloq/aspect1/pdf/Aspect1.pdf"

    Please note that Aspect's slide is headed: "NAIVE example of LHVT."*

    Thus, so far, nowhere do I see a classical calculation delivering your Blue line. (And my comments on the non-classicality of your attempt to MATCH the Green line remain.)

    * PS: The benefit of classically deriving one-half the GREEN line, based on polarized particles is that you can see that the tighter correlation under the singlet state in EPRB will deliver an understandably different (but related) correlation, without mystery.

    HTH; Gordon Watson More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

    Gordon,

    I was happy to accept that the linear expectation was already derived by others, and on thinking about it could see how it was derived (as I explained earlier with the hemispheres) so I saw no need to re-derive it in my paper as it is in the Wikipedia page anyhow.

    Incidentally Alain Aspects presentation does show how it was calculated on page 13, with the sign() formula for A and B.

    Regards,

    Declan

    Background to Wholistic Mechanics (WM)

    Whereas QM emerged from the UV-catastrophe ca1905, WM emerges from the locality-catastrophe typified by John Bell's dilemma ca1965: ie, seriously ambivalent about AAD, Bell adamantly rejected locality. He later surmised that maybe he and his followers were being rather silly -- correctly; as we show -- for WM is the local theory that resolves Bell's dilemma [there is no AAD] and proves the Bellian silliness.

    So WM begins by bringing just one change to modern physics: rejecting naive-realism, true realism insists that some beables change interactively, after Bohr's disturbance-dictum. Thus recognising the minimum-action associated with Planck's constant, WM then recognises the maximum speed associated with light: for true locality insists that no influence propagates superluminally, after Einstein.

    The union of these two classical principles -- the foundation of WM -- is true local realism (TLR). Under TLR, EPR's naive criterion for "an element of physical reality" is corrected, then the Laws of Malus and Bayes are validated in the quantum world. Then, via the R-F theorem ca1915, Born's Law is seen to derive from elementary Fourier theory. This in turn allows us to understand the physical significance of Dirac's notation; etc. Thus, beginning with these elementary natural principles, WM's universe-of-discourse focuses on beables in spacetime: with mathematics taken to be our best logic.

    NB: Formulated in 1989 in response to a challenging article by David Mermin (1988), many leading Bellian physicists and philosophers have committed to review the foundations of WM and its early results. Since no such review has ever been delivered, I am not yet aware of any defect in the theory. Further, WM provides many ways to refute Bell's theorem (BT): one such is provided on p.8 of my essay.

    PS: To those who dismiss my essay due to an alleged typo in the heading, I follow C. S. Peirce (absent his severity): "It is entirely contrary to good English usage to spell premiss, 'premise,' and this spelling ... simply betrays ignorance of the history of logic."

    Assuring you that critical comments are most welcome,

    Gordon Watson More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

    Gordon,

    As I already showed you in my email correspondence including the correlation graph and model code, modeling the EPR experiment using Malus's law does not give the correct correlation curve.

    So whatever your maths shows, if you cannot model it and get the correct correlation curve then it is wrong.

    Regards,

    Declan Traill

      Dear Steve, thanks for dropping by and alerting me to your absorbing essay.

      The fuller story: "As high seas crashed about you, a black bottle smashed aboard. Seeing the now-revealed message, you transcribed it here as your opening paragraph: not realising that you had discovered the long-lost introduction to Moby Dick."

      Thus does your poetic bent go on to reveal your wide-ranging knowledge of important themes and buzzwords: inviting me to an exciting universe of discourse based on ideas, thoughts, poetry, etc. Alas, for me (an engineer), devoid of mathematics.

      It's this last aspect that I seek to address in my essay -- mixing my poor poetry with simple math --- prompting another alas: it's nowhere near as popular as yours.

      So please bring your poetry and your heavy-duty know-how to bear on my essay: for I will welcome such to trigger corrections and improvements. Hoping it will help to bring out the best in you, here's some background info.

      Background to Wholistic Mechanics (WM)

      Whereas QM emerged from the UV-catastrophe ca1905, WM emerges from the locality-catastrophe typified by John Bell's dilemma ca1965: ie, seriously ambivalent about AAD, Bell adamantly rejected locality. He later surmised that maybe he and his followers were being rather silly -- correctly; as we show -- for WM is the local theory that resolves Bell's dilemma [there is no AAD] and proves the Bellian silliness.

      So WM begins by bringing just one change to modern physics: rejecting naive-realism, true realism insists that some beables change interactively, after Bohr's disturbance-dictum. Thus recognising the minimum-action associated with Planck's constant, WM then recognises the maximum speed associated with light: for true locality insists that no influence propagates superluminally, after Einstein.

      The union of these two classical principles -- the foundation of WM -- is true local realism (TLR). Under TLR, EPR's naive criterion for "an element of physical reality" is corrected, then the Laws of Malus and Bayes are validated in the quantum world. Then, via the R-F theorem ca1915, Born's Law is seen to derive from elementary Fourier theory. This in turn allows us to understand the physical significance of Dirac's notation; etc. Thus, beginning with these elementary natural principles, WM's universe-of-discourse focuses on beables in spacetime: with mathematics taken to be our best logic.

      NB: Formulated in 1989 in response to a challenging article by David Mermin (1988), many leading Bellian physicists and philosophers have committed to review the foundations of WM and its early results. Since no such review has ever been delivered, I am not yet aware of any defect in the theory. Further, WM provides many ways to refute Bell's theorem (BT): one such is provided on p.8 of my essay.

      PS: To those who dismiss my essay due to an alleged typo in the heading, I follow C. S. Peirce (absent his severity): "It is entirely contrary to good English usage to spell premiss, 'premise,' and this spelling ... simply betrays ignorance of the history of logic."

      Assuring you that critical comments are most welcome,

      Gordon Watson More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

      Declan, re the correlation graph that you sent me: please post the graph as an attachment. I would like to reply in detail with reference to that context. Thanks; Gordon

      Gordon,

      Attached is the correlation curve, and here are the Alice and Bob functions modeling Malus's law that generated it:

      function GenerateAliceOutputFromSharedRandomness(direction, sharedRandomness3DVector) {

      var dot = Dot(direction, sharedRandomness3DVector);

      var angle = Math.acos(dot);

      var rand = Math.random();

      if (dot > 0) {

      if (rand < (Math.pow(Math.cos(angle),2))) return +1;

      return -1;

      }

      else {

      if (rand < (Math.pow(Math.cos(angle),2))) return -1;

      return +1;

      }

      };

      function GenerateBobOutputFromSharedRandomness(direction, sharedRandomness3DVector) {

      var dot = Dot(direction, sharedRandomness3DVector);

      var angle = Math.acos(dot);

      var rand = Math.random();

      if (dot > 0) {

      if (rand < (Math.pow(Math.cos(angle),2))) return -1;

      return +1;

      }

      else {

      if (rand < (Math.pow(Math.cos(angle),2))) return +1;

      return -1;

      }

      };

      Regards,

      Declan TraillAttachment #1: 9419AD67-D625-4CBF-880F-75AF534FD87C.png

      Declan, thanks for attaching that strange (red-spotted) graph that you emailed to me. From your emails it appears you think it correct and that (somehow) my suggested remedy won't work. I'm hoping what follows (and further discussions, if necessary) may convince you otherwise.

      I'm also hoping that you will now quickly spot the source of "the twist" in your graph -- when corrected, it will mirror one-half the Green line -- so that you can then offer it as remedy to the many world-wide fallacies that attach to that misleading straight-line. Of course, as discussed, I would also encourage you to revert to formalism NOT modelism in this area: where the former is simpler (and far less misleading; see the equations below).

      In a fairly obvious notation: α denotes Aspect's (2004) experiment (s = 1). β denotes EPRB (s = 1/2). Subscript c denotes a classical variant of the quantum experiments: ie, classically, the particle-pairs are correlated under linear-polarisation only. Thus, classically under c, and from my theory under "entanglement" -- see my essay -- we find:

      [math]E(a,b|\alpha_c)=P(AB=1|\alpha_c)-P(AB=-1|\alpha_c)=\tfrac{1}{2}cos2(a,b).\;\;QED.\;\;(1)[/math]

      [math]E(a,b|\alpha)=P(AB=1|\alpha)-P(AB=-1|\alpha)\;\;(2)[/math]

      [math]=cos^{2}(a,b)-sin^{2}(a,b)=cos2(a,b).\;\;QED.\;\;(3)[/math]

      [math]E(a,b|\beta_c)=P(AB=1|\beta_c)-P(AB=-1|\beta_c)=-\tfrac{1}{2}a.b.\;\;QED.\;\;(4)[/math]

      [math]E(a,b|\beta)=P(AB=1|\beta)-P(AB=-1|\beta)\;\;(5)[/math]

      [math]=sin^{2}\tfrac{1}{2}(a,b)-cos^{2}\tfrac{1}{2}(a,b)=-a.b.\;\;QED.\;\;(6)[/math]

      The superiority of formalism over modelism then becomes clear. A physicist (thanks to Bohm), comparing (1) with (3) -- or (4) with (6) -- sees that the superior correlation of the quantum-source gives superior results, without mystery (compared to the weaker correlation provided by the "classical" source). In other words, pairwise correlation under linear-polarisation is weak compared to pairwise correlation under the conservation of total angular momentum.

      It follows that the so-called "classical straight line" -- from all your sources -- is misleading: and the related flawed analyses do not support profound claims. Which is not to discourage you -- it is rather to redirect you from a popular dead-end to some real-physic; perhaps beginning with you challenging and correcting the hard-straight-liners; including Aspect.

      To that end -- since my theory reflects the end that you (and many others) are seeking; with just one commonsense refinement to modern physics -- I look forward to discussing where I too might be on the wrong track.

      With best regards; Gordon

      Gordon,

      Whilst the mathematical equations look nice, you cannot ignore it he modeling as that is the essential step to prove or disprove a theory. If you cannot generate the correlation curve using just Alice and Bob functions to determine detector results in a model of the experiment then you have nothing.

      Regards,

      Declan

      Thanks Declan. Surely that 2-computer contest is still running ...

      Trusting you've spotted the source of your erroneous twist; with best regards; Gordon

      Yes but I think the contest doesn't allow for non-detect results, only and - results, making it impossible to do...

      Gordon (Declan)

      I'm leaving you two to sort that! We must of course explain the high non-detects, clearly near zero amplitude. And also both Aspect and Weighs' 'rotational invariance' - unexplained so the data dumped! Both computer codes and alorythmic sequence is needed as well as (apparently!) deriving the Hamiltonian!

      I'm drawing a visual sequence, as that's how most brains best embed things. I've also posted this introductory aid memoir sequence in a few places to help; The Poincare Sphere was an important find (having already derived it from scratch last year!) Let me know if you think I've missed anything.

      1. Start with Poincare sphere OAM with 2 orthogonal momenta pairs NOT 'singlets'.

      2. Pairs have antiparalell axis (random shared y,z). (photon wavefront sim.)

      3. Interact with identical (polariser electron) spheres rotatable by A,B.

      4. Momentum exchange as actually proved, by Cos latitude at tan intersection.

      5. Result 'SAME' or 'OPP' dir. Re-emit polarised with amplitude phase dependent.

      6. Photomultiplier electrons give 2nd Cos distribution & 90o phase values.

      7. The non detects are all below a threshold amplitude at either channel angle.

      8. Statisticians then analyse using CORRECT assumptions about what's 'measured!

      Peter

        Peter, how glad am I (as previously explained) that I got out early on this stuff! Some thoughts.

        Maybe:

        1. Sketch it like the Figure in Fröhner that I referred you to.

        2. Importantly, sketch each of your beables and interactions on separate sheets of A3 paper; in time sequence: so that details are not lost when you make slides for online display. Supported by 3D models.

        3. Recall that, in Aspect and EPRB, the Detector unit-vectors a and b are in 3-space; not necessarily orthogonal to the line of flight.

        4. Purely hemispherical or sgn models do not work.

        5. Get familiar with the FEW QM models that deal with polarizing particle-field interactions.

        6. NB: Understand the BB dynamics via GA and my vector-product approach.

        7. Convert your coded scribbles (above) to complete sentences, with all abbreviations defined at the start.

        8. Then, please, tell me again what your goal is.

        8. Sorry if it looks like I'm saying, "LOOK; over there", as I sneak out .. .. .. ..

        Good on you, hang in there, +++, and all the best; it's past my bedtime; Gordon

        Gordon

        Please forgive a short comment. I'm traveling without computer, typing away on my phone. I read your essay, comprehended some of it ;) but happy to report that I support the notions of true realism and true locality. I have something further I want to share with you but am handicapped right now on this device. But if you find a discusion I am having with Peter Jackson then you can find it sooner rather than later.

        Because I can't verify the rationale and conclusions of your math, I'll rate based on the discussion presented and your general deductions which I happen to share. I want to understand your work better but that will have to follow after competition close. I'm giving you a 9

        You have done quite well in this competition. Very nicely done

        Steve

          Hello Gordon,

          Welcome urging of Jackson/Bollinger/Traill has inspired a read of your essay. I've left comments on their threads.

          We share a background in mechanical engineering.

          First thought on looking at your abstract is the use of the word 'true' to describe your understanding. Has me laughing a little. Dangerous dance, that one. Good luck with it, hope to find it so at the end of this read.

          Hadn't seen 'premiss' used before, was familiar with premise. Googled a little, tried to sort out finer shade of meaning, but i'm not particularly adept at that sort of thing and settled for liking your version, as it gives one the permission to be right or wrong, is in accord with much remaining to be done. And agree we are surely at the beginning. Feeling of sorta arrogant presumption in premise vs premiss. Tho premiss is almost too negative imo.

          Regarding your TOC, i looked in some detail at first 3 sections, browsed 4-9, and looked at 10-17 in some depth at several places. Took a break, fed the woodstove, coming back to it with some vague idea of where it's going, tho short term memory is not adequate for complexity you present in a single pass.

          1.1. thanks for the numbering. excellent practice. saw this also with Bollinger. very helpful for commenting.

          1.2 agree. gotta do the math. that's what keeps one on the path, the reality check.

          1.3.i what you describe here i would call the geometric wavefunction.

          1.3.ii and here you describe geometric wavefunction interactions, as modeled for instance by the geometric product of geometric Clifford algebra. Please notice the emphasis on geometry (need fields as well).

          1.3.iii yes. at the most fundamental wavefunction level reality can be described by interactions of the fundamental geometric objects (point, line, plane, and volume elements) of 3D Clifford algebra, endowed with topologically appropriate quantized electric and magnetic fields. Any brand of realism that negates/neglects this can be rejected as naive.

          1.3.iv hmmmm. this is where it gets interesting. It seems to me that at this point one has to clearly define 'real'. Wish you woulda done that for us. Or perhaps you do in what follows. Nice short clear definition here would be welcome.

          1.4 simplest thing for me seems to be to equate beable with wavefunction. How does that sit with you? And here would like more precise definition of cause and effect.

          2. appears to be mostly a lead-in to EPR

          3-9 the details.

          10. imo to define and understand entanglement one has to understand the wavefunction and its interactions. This line of inquiry has been frustrated foreffingever by point particle quark and lepton models, with all those unintuitive 'internal' attributes tied up in symmetry groups and higher dimensions, giggle dizzy daffy stuff imo.

          I like your logic approach to the problem, in principle should be clear of inadequacies of particle theory models (renormalization comes to mind), but lacks the intuitive advantage of simple geometric electromagnetic wavefunction model in 3D space.

          Conventional Hamiltonian and Lagrangian approaches look at conservation of energy and its flow between kinetic and potential, but they don't look at what governs that flow, the impedances.

          Trumpet player needs that horn to mechanically impedance match his lips to the room, to let us feel the force of his emotion and intellect. Computer at which i sit is electrically impedance matched at almost gazillion nodes. Otherwise it could not do what it does. Impdances govern amplitude and phase of the flow of energy.

          In the world of the quantum impedances have been overlooked for an odd mix of reasons. The possibility that our web of Indra is woven together via the natural quantized impedance matches of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and photons? That this is what permits the entanglement that defines a quantum system and permits higher levels of emergence?

          What governs the flow of energy in such systems are quantized impedances.

          What set Michaele and i upon this path is mechanical impedances. When one does an arguably logically rigorous analysis of the two body problem, what emerges is a version of Mach's principle that yields a number for mechanical impedance. All massive particles have mechanical impedances, quantized by their mass, their Compton wavelengths.

          Modeling a particle as an electromechanical oscillator then yields the conversion to electrial impedances. This approach can be applied to geometric wavefunction interactions.

          So now we come to EPR. Quantized impedances are either scale dependent or scale invariant. The one exception (afaik) is the photon, which has both scale invariant far field and scale dependent near field.

          Invariant impedances are inverse square. Associated forces can do no work, resultant motion is orthogonal to direction of applied force. All they can do is communicate quantum phase, not a single measurement observable. They maintain the phase coherent entanglement of the photon pair emerging from electron-positron annihilation, a coherence pre-existing in the eplus-eminus pair, phase rotating clockwise in the one and ccw in the other.

          Each carries phase information from the annihilation in the form of their superposition, energy passing back and forth between the phases via Maxwell. Talk by Vaidman at 2013 Rochester quantum optics/information conference described in detail an experiment their group did proving existence of Wheeler and Feynman's backward travelling phase via 'weak measurement'.

          In any case to understand wavefunction coherence, how this defines boundary of a quantum system, the role of quantum phase (tagging it as 'gauge' out of respect for Weyl's earlier mistake was a horrible pitfall for all that followed, made the obvious obscure) in entanglement both local and non-local,...

          To have the geometric wavefunction interaction model that Michaele and i present subject to the intense logical scrutiny shown in your essay would be a most welcome opportunity. How do we build that bridge? Your formalism looks pretty formidable to me? Do you have any sense of where our gwi model is coming from? Wondering how much interest the Bollinger/Jackson/Traill/Simpson/... cabal might show in such an approach.

          Agree at some not very complete comprehension level with most of what you present up to section 17.

          regarding that section, imo such a discussion requires more precise treatment of reality/causality/observables/emergence/... in the context of the wavefunction and wavefunction interactions.

          would like to understand more of what you're doing. Is it possible to continue these threads after the 26th? Only the possibility of rating expires at that time? Read somewhere in a comment that a few days ago someone commented on an essay from 2013, that commenting was still open there with his contributor code. Bug or feature of fqxi interface?

            Hi Gordon,

            I had a second thought on your disturbance argument. I think Bell presented the experiment and assumptions very well: the output depends of the setting a and the hidden maybe unknown variable h. The output is given by the function A(a,h). First of all the output is perfectly deterministic and second: it might be possible the polarizer disturbs the particle and whatever complicated mechanism creates an output that is only up, down. This disturbance does not matter for the whole Bell argument, since the disturbance has no influence on what happens on the other side B(b,h).

            I think Bell argument is so simple and direct, that if someone wants to propose some alternative model, has to explain in simple language, what is wrong with Bells argument in order for the people to be ready to follow some new argument.

            And now shortly to the disturbance interpretation that I find much more interesting. As I always understood the history of the interpretation of QM, Bohr might at the beginning endorsed some disturbance interpretation, but soon left it, while Heisenberg endorsed it a bit longer. As I see it, it was a kind of struggle to understand, what QM really wants to tell us. That Bohr did even criticize Heisenberg's description of the measurement disturbing the object and hence making the measurement of its complementary observable impossible can be found here.

            For me there is a tension between properties of things, that can only be known by interaction and the relations that these interaction creates, and the necessity that these interactions are described by the undisturbed properties of the participating objects.

            Good luck

            Luca