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

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

        Thanks Luca, this quick reply addresses what-I-take-to-be your main concern. [I will check the other matters that you raise.]*

        I will welcome your detailed comments on any step that you cannot follow in ¶13 of my FQXi2017 essay. ALSO: please see hyperlinked Reference [21] -- ¶¶2.13a-2.28 -- in my essay. It is a DRAFT but I will welcome any and all discussion. Please recall that BT is valid for most "classical" systems and also for weakly-correlated "quantum" systems.

        Note, from Background to Wholistic Mechanics (WM) in the first thread above

        "Whereas QM emerged from the UV-catastrophe ca1905, WM emerges from the locality-catastrophe typified by John Bell's dilemma ca1965: ie, neither rejecting nor endorsing 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."

        "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 my theory. Further, WM provides many ways to refute Bell's theorem (BT): one such is provided on p.8 of my essay."

        * PS: You write: "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."

        Please explain "your tension" -- for it looks to me that we are in agreement; yet I have no strain! NB: I suspect that you are missing a related subtlety.

        My thanks again; Gordon

        Peter, thanks for the ESP and/or happy coincidence: I've just left this [below] on your essay-thread. I'll return here (maybe tomorrow) when I've had a chance to read and digest yours above. It will now make VERY interesting reading; hopefully absent any silly boo-boos on my part. My thanks again, more soonly; G [nb: the temptation to re-edit resisted].

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

        Dear Michaele and Peter,

        I've just discovered that a 2-hr blackout has wiped a long enthusiastic WIP response to your essay -- probably via a valid log-out at FQXi -- and I'm not good at rewritings! So this is short-&-sweet as I look forward to many more ongoing discussions!

        Thanking you for a (for me) beautifully presented and breath-taking essay, I regret (just a little; as you'll see) that it follows the mould of Philip Gibbs' lovely essay on "a universe of stories" as against my fondness for "a universe of dialogue" based on stories, poems, observations, dreams, etc. + MATHEMATICS -- such dialogue itself based on a universe of spacetime (a beable), full of beables and interactions -- the more especially when I see our shared fondness for GA, wavefunctions, interactions, observables (7x on p.1), ++++; plus a healthy avoidance of matrices, etc; ps, though I find avoidance of Bell's lovely term "beables" (nb: in spacetime) not good for digestion; neither of food nor ideas; nb: I also like inferables. [Breathing has now forcibly resumed; and with it the truth that much of your essay is currently beyond me.]

        Re wavefunctions [WFs] -- and reminding you that (imho, if you like) math is the best logic -- please see Fröhner (1988:639), hyperlinked at Reference [12] in my essay; or via direct link to the PDF Missing link between probability theory and quantum mechanics: the Riesz-Fejér theorem.

        Fröhner's work is part of my theory [see essay at ¶11]; so re WFs, see particularly in the vicinity of this on his p.639: " ... Historically, the superposition principle had been established first as a puzzling empirical feature of the quantum world, before M. Born recognised that the absolute square of the wave function can be interpreted as a probability density. ..."

        Re this from you: "The resulting geometric wavefunction model permits one to examine the interface between fundamental and emergent." I see that "emergentia" is a favourite theme (at least on p.1): me being here forced -- similar to my distinctive use of "premiss" -- to return to the much more sensible Latin [subject to latin-experts] since the right word here -- emergency -- is misleading in plain English. Though (please NB) maybe it does apply as a primary-concept that we should first sort out: me trusting that we agree with that fundamental and elementary premiss: TLR (true local realism)?

        PS: Regretting, with apologies, many other wiped comments (though they can be reconstructed in ongoing dialogues), I'll drop a copy of this onto my essay-thread; hoping you'll do likewise if/when you respond.

        With my thanks again, and with best regards; Gordon

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

        Peter, to be clearer re my last above: "[nb: the temptation to re-edit resisted]" should more clearly say: [nb: the temptation to NOW read AND THEN re-edit BEFORE SENDING HAS BEEN resisted]. This next is quick and dirty to get things moving: I'm time-poor on many fronts at the moment.

        Now, having begun to read [but needing much more time]: please [in future] number your paragraphs and sub-points as I do in my essay. For there are many points that we hold in common but a few that raise questions.

        Re this from you above, with -- [CAPS] -- by me: "I like your logic approach to the problem, in principle should be clear of inadequacies of particle theory models (renormalization comes to mind) -- [YES + AAD, NL AND WFC (WF-COLLAPSE); SO FAR SO GOOD] --, but lacks the intuitive advantage of simple geometric electromagnetic wavefunction model in 3D space -- [GEWM-3D: THIS I MUST SEE] --" for I'm seeking intuitive advances at every step. So please see Fröhner re WFs and superpositions: and tell me about [point me to] the GEWM-3D!

        PS: We build a bridge via dialogue! I need to learn about your use of "mechanical-impedance" -- in baby steps please + references to the related online literature (if any): hoping to see the end of "the impedance matrix". TKS; G: I'll put this on your essay-thread.

        This thought-provoking essay -- Brian Josephson's essay: On the fundamentality of meaning -- provoked the following favourable reponse from me:

        Dear Brian,

        Many thanks for your thought-provoking essay and my introduction to biosemiotics.* In return, there follows one of the just-mentioned thoughts: offered at the risk of my being scheduled as biosemiidiotic (if not wholly so).

        Seeking to understand (and give meaning to) your symbols, it seemed that you were in fact talking (somewhat in code) about me [well, certainly about some of my friends; but they can speak for themselves]. For, like them, I believe myself to be an element of the set X = {biological | spacetime}: renown for my agency, as in my doings, performances, actions; AKA getting things done.

        Further, in accord with your thesis, I like to think that I do now take (from p.1) "proper account of the phenomenon of meaning." For example: Having learnt to read at early age, I could give meaning to the symbols at the local bus-stop. It read: "BUS STOP. SIGNAL DRIVER." And though I only ever saw one driver per bus, yet I knew it was not a typo. For I also knew that "signal" had two meanings: and it could not be the common one, for it already said bus STOP. Thus did I see that they were reassuringly advertising the outstanding safety of each driver. [Only later did I learn, standing there, that the driver did not stop unless you waved (action); accompanied by great future insecurity (he might miss your action): whereas the one consistent message -- to my small mind -- lead to inaction by me, certain stopping by the bus, and an assured long-term security.]

        All of which brings me to this next (p.1): "Meaning fails to show up in the world of physics simply because the kind of situations that physicists prefer to investigate are ones where meaning has no significant influence on the outcome." Yes, indeed! Consider the famous case of Bell's theorem: the meaning one attaches to REALISM significantly influences ones' understanding of REALITY. For me, "true realism" proves to be consistent with locality; for others, "naive realism" leads to dilemmas about AAD and nonlocality.

        I could go on about theorising and scaffolding; to the edge of chaos; confusing readers; your [BJ] personal benefits (p.5). But I want to focus on this: "Historians will marvel at the way insistence by the mainstream that at a fundamental level particles are the only things that matter, banishing to the fringe those scientists who think otherwise, will be seen to have drastically interfered with the progress of science" (p.6).

        I AGREE: For while I take "existence" to be fundamental, it is "interference; AKA interaction" that provides the doings, performances, actions of our dynamic universe: and particles. Thus do I believe that introductions to biosemiotics should focus on personal/human analogies from set X re scaffolding to the edge of chaos; etc.

        * My only acquaintance with C. S. Peirce is that I called upon him to prove a point re the last word in my title: More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

        With my thanks again, and with my best regards; Gordon

          Steve, thanks for voting openly and providing your reasons; these actions are much appreciated.

          I'm hoping that many of us will adopt the same procedure for the next essay. So please have a look at my comments on Terry Bollinger's essay-thread. (I'll also put a copy below.)

          Looking forward to further discussions when you are ready, with my thanks again; Gordon

          My voting suggestions/comments from Terry Bollinger's thread:

          Fundamental as Fewer Bits. Please, at minimum, add your own comments there re Terry's voting ideas! His essay is pretty good and worthy of comment too. GW.

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

          Terry, some quick short notes as I work my way to your essay:

          1. FQXi Essay Contestant Pledge = Suggested FQXi Voting Pledge

          Your Pledge is so refreshing that I've hot-linked it above. LHS wording of the title is yours; to me, it reads "official" and is thus too hopeful (for now). RHS is my suggested edit as we work with FQXi to improve things!

          2. Under current circumstances, my own position is clear:

          (i) As an independent researcher, I'm here to discuss, learn, teach, debate, respond to every question, critique others, etc. Result = Fail; eg, next to no questions, few responses.

          (ii) I'm not here for the votes: Result = Just-as-well; eg, given a 0 without explanation: how can I learn, respond, correct, defend, revise, acknowledge, etc?

          3. While we await (with many others) for FQXi improvements, why don't we develop an OPEN voting system? Add to your Pledge a (say, for argument's sake) 5-category [each numbered; #1-5] scoring sheet [maximum vote per category = 2] with space for explanations, plus identifier (say, for you, hot-linked Terry Bollinger [or with hot-linked email-addresses also allowed] so that we ALWAYS get an alert with easy-return access. [You get the idea.]

          Recipient can respond to Terry Bollinger#2, for all to see: thus promoting open learning, debate, progress, support for one view or the other, or a middle view, etc. Given the teaching/learning, who then here, as a serious researcher, would focus on "fake-scores"?

          The advantage of this OPEN proposal is that you, with your background, could lead us to something truly useful, actionable, within the current rules, a worthwhile experiment, ready for the next "contest" (surely the wrong word here) -- which FQXi can monitor before refining (if need be), and accepting as the new gold-standard in OPEN teaching/learning/essay-exchange; etc: ready for the next 1 "contest"!

          4. To your (for me) excellent essay:

          (i) I counted 8 important fundamental symbols in Challenge #1.

          (ii) Re Challenge #2: in my [hurried] essay, see hot-linked Reference [12], p.639! It's part of my theory.

          (iii) NB: Your editorial red-pen will be very welcome there at any time; hopefully after you've read [in the first thread], the Background to my theory (which dates from 1989).

          (iv) Maybe, with hard work and insight, you might just become the person who finds a hidden gemstone of simplicity by unravelling the threads of misunderstanding that for decades have kept it hidden.

          PS: Terry, if/when you reply to my post (at any time), please copy it to my essay-thread so that I'm alerted to it. I will do likewise.

          Enough (for now): With many thanks and much appreciation for your lovely work;

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

          Many thanks for your thoughts re my essay -- so thought-provoking that as I'm pretty busy I may not have time to respond in detail on this Deadline Day, but I'm letting you know as requested that I have looked at your comments. I see that like others you were caught by the dreaded anonymising bug, but your giving a link to this essay page in what you wrote circumvented the problem!

          Dear Gordon,

          I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand.

          Your essay allowed to consider us like-minded people.

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

          Vladimir Fedorov

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