Gordon,

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

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

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

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

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

Eckard

  • [deleted]

  • Post #22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With best regards; Gordon Watson

Juan et al,

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

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

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

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

Do comment or question on those strings

Very Best

Peter

Gordon:

Thanks for your query.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now for some responses to your response not yet covered:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hodge

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

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

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    JA-3: "The idea that nonlocality must violate special relativity because it implies superluminal propagation of influences is a common confusion. The nonlocality of quantum mechanics is fully equivalent with special relativity and its causal structure."

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

    Gordon: to be continued.

    Gordon to Juan; continuing:

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

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

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

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

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

    JA-6:[/b ] "I am not going to write here explicitly the full expression for the correlation g because it is relatively complex and latex script here is broken, but it is a function of the interaction Hamiltonian V: g ~ V|Psi> higher order terms in V."

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

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

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

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

    "Juan et al,

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (iii) Only the impossible is impossible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Cheers; Gordon

    Boris,

    Your mention of "wave-functions, the unit-imaginary and rotations" should take you to equation (21) in my essay AND the link [at #12 in my References] to the Riesz-Fejér paper by my friend Fritz Fröhner (1998).

    So, for you, the next Law is Born's (named historically after Born's fumblings, c1926), whereas the Riesz-Fejér theorem [c1915; the R-F theorem, or RFT] derives more general results in a wholly classical manner (thanks to Fourier) AND WITHOUT MYSTERY.

    As for Fritz's essay (unlike mine): that you will happily read more than 5 times for its depth.

    Sincerely; Gordon

    Dear Gordon,

    Р"ля меня существует трудность перевода. РЇ РІ третий раз прочитал твоС' СЌСЃСЃРµ Рё теперь РіРѕРІРѕСЂСЋ, что РѕРЅРѕ Рё глубокое Рё тяжС'лое. Только теперь СЏ РїРѕРЅСЏР», какой разговор ты ведС'шь Рё РєСѓРґР° ты меня тянешь. Эту проблему СЏ всегда РѕР±С...РѕРґРёР» стороной. Р' New Cartesian Physics РµС' нет, так как РІ ней принцип неопределС'нности Р"ейзенберга переделан РІ принцип определС'нности точек пространства, Р° волновая функция используется для описания его вращений Рё колебаний. Применение РІ физике безразмерныС... относительныС... величин, такиС... как фактор Лоренца Рё вероятности квантовыС... состояний связано СЃ существованием РІ ней предельныС... значений: скорости света Рё постоянной Планка. РўС‹ можешь применить СЃРІРѕР№ опыт Рє рассмотрению физического пространства, которое есть материя.

    Р-елаю СѓСЃРїРµС...РѕРІ! Р'РѕСЂРёСЃ.

    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