I think there is a subtle difference in what could be happening. Adapting an analogy Alan Adams uses; Lets say there is a hyper-intelligent decision making monkey in a box rather then the magnetic field etc, The monkey sorts heads and tails coins (instead of colours, or up down spin) Question is, does he sort the coins that are already flat on the floor, in an easily identifiable state or sorting the coins from a column of semi set jelly, placing them on the floor thereby altering them by the process of sorting.

Georgina,

"thereby altering them by the process of sorting." Exactly. Which is why EPR proposed an alternative experiment, in which that cannot possibly be relevant to the outcome: instead of attempting to measure each particle twice, measure two identical (entangled) particles once. Measuring two identical particles once, should give the same result as a Stern Gerlach experiment that sorts without altering, but with no possibility of the unmeasured coin having its state altered by a previous measurement. But when Bell produced his theorem proving that the outcomes SEEMED to imply that the unmeasured particle would be altered by the measurement of the other, it triggered 50 years of experiments to test if that was really the case. But the key word there is "seemed". Neither Bell's theorem nor any of the experiments correctly account for "bad calls", when your monkey is forced to call dirty, worn-down, blurry-looking, edge-on coins. My 2016 paper demonstrates that the monkey forced to sort those types of coins, will reproduce the observed correlations.

Rob McEachern

Hi Georgina,

The "illusion" is simply a catch phrase associated with the debate about temporal direction. The argument is usually centralized about unitarity in quantum mechanics. Basically stated that if a quantum gate is Unitary then there exists a law that takes a state 1 to state 2, and there must also exist a law that takes state 2 to state 1. Quantum gates that are not measurements, are required to be Unitary. Measurement gates are not required to do this. Certainly, this is a conundrum that is hence to be solved mathematically by understanding the measurement problem.

My solution to thinking about the debate is that both of these things exist independently of each other. Quantum Mechanically, there does exist a notion of unitarity that is absolute. However, there is also directional time that we experience through measurement. No real mathematics or physics gets accomplished but a sort of entertaining philosophy can be drawn from the example.

Eric

Eric,

The conundrum arises entirely from the false assumption that quantum theory describes a "unitarity of being" rather than merely a "unitarity of seeming".

Measurements are a reflection of reality. Absurd speculations regarding the supposed properties of hypothetical quantum wavefunctions, quantum bits and quantum gates are not; hence the adage, "Shut up and calculate."

"My solution to thinking about the debate is that both of these things exist independently of each other." Exactly. Reality exists independent of the quantum mythology and dogma that physics has created. The "wavefunction of the gaps" is no more measureable than the "god of the gaps".

Rob McEachern

MIT 8.04 Quantum Physics I, Spring 2013.Lecture 1 superposition. Allan Adams. The various results are more difficult to understand if fixed properties are being thought about rather than if the states found with different kinds of boxes (i.e. field orientations) are not properties but temporary condition in response to the applied sorting context, (Meaning the environmental conditions exposed to does make a difference. ) Evidence in favour of environmental effect; Example experiments 3 and 4 in the lecture (cited above). In 3 two paths are joined into a single path and the outcome is unexpectedly 100% 'W"not 50:50 'B'/'W'. No. of electrons doesn't matter. When either path is blocked the 50:50 result is found. An electron is only ever detected on one path. It could be that the joined paths allow a flow not just of electrons but the medium that supports electric and magnetic fields. Blocking the path could prevent its flow and so the joining flow effect is lost. This proposition of an effect of the medium fits with similar explanation for the double slit experiment results.(happening even if there is an electron on one path only). I suggest the joining flow effect, tying in with only ever finding the electron on one path is more likely than the electron taking not one path or the other path or both or neither, as Allan Adams says must be the case. That conclusion does not take account of the environment experienced by the electron being different in the different experiments. The joining flows effect is then just another environmental context that applies in certain kinds of experimental set ups.

Eric, some reactions and processes can go in reverse with time progressing as usual not reversed. Is it necessary to propose time reversal happening at the unmeasured gates?. Isn't it enough that reversal could happen (though unlikely) without reversing time? I accept that the quantum physics thought to be happening unmeasured is not like our everyday experience. BTW You may see that I have made a suggestion that it might not be quite as strange as has been thought.(On this page Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 24, 2019 @ 02:42 GMT.

Experiments could be done varying the barrier thickness, material and integrity to find out under what conditions the barrier effect is lost and the flow effect restored.

Edwin,

Maybe, the answer is Max, Max, Max, and once again Max. Maxwell's aether worried the community. Max Abraham firmly believed in it. Max Planck and Max von Laue supported Einstein's utterly mistakable interpretation of the principle of relativity as Relativity. Max Born built a bridge via Stern/Gerlach to the also multi-paradoxical mechanical interpretation of quantum physics.

While I admit, my suspicion concerning the Stern/Gerlach experiment might be unfounded, I maintain: The fundamental logical inconsistency of Einstein's 1905 relative two-way velocity is definitely inacceptable to me.

I realized that even prominent opponents of Relativity overlooked or swallowed it.

You are attributing gamma to energy. This might be the most reasonable way out, no matter whether or not you are correct in all other details.

EB

The experiments could also be used to answer the question 'Is there a partial barrier effect/partial flow effect (when the barrier is only partially effective) or is it always all or nothing? If the ratios of different states are altered it provides further evidence that the environment is affecting the outcomes.

Dear Eckard,

Thank you for reading and grasping my paper 'Everything's relative...' and for your last remark above, to the effect that

"Attributing gamma to energy... might be the most reasonable way out" [regardless of whether I'm correct in all other details.]

Yes. The Fizeau experiment [among others] is still not physically understood, and my details of such may or may not be correct, but the energy-time model versus the space-time model yields intuitive physical explanations of experiments without the inconsistencies of special relativity (the 'paradoxes').

Having spent almost 2 years arguing these points with excellent physicists, including two of Feynman's students, I am very aware that relativity has been pushed into countless areas of application. The application of gamma to relativistic energies is most significant, but the time-dilation experiments are the basis of most relativists' belief in (faith in) SR.

While I appreciate your Max Max Max Max and other observations, I've become convinced that focusing on many details, while necessary, is distracting, and it is better to focus on the root false premise - Einstein's introduction of multiple time dimensions into the problem at the 'definition-of-terms' level, and since all theoretical arguments are then framed in these terms (i.e., inertial reference frames) then the falsehood permeates every logical argument thereafter.

Einstein complemented the introduction of the false premise of multiple times with his imaginary invention of perfect, weightless clocks, that somehow magically measure time in each dimension. With real physical clocks, based on mass and inertia, the increase in relativistic mass increases the inertia, upon which every clock is based, and this provides a universal explanation of 'time dilation' in all SR experiments.

I strongly suggest that this be understood and applied to the dozens or even hundreds of instances where relativity is applied.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Eckhard has read and grasped my paper [link:vixra.org/abs/1812.0424]Everything's relative...[/link] and remarked above that

"Attributing gamma to energy... might be the most reasonable way out" [regardless of whether I'm correct in all other details.]

The Fizeau experiment [among others] is still not physically understood, so my details of such may or may not be correct, nevertheless the energy-time model versus the space-time model yields intuitive physical explanations of experiments without the inconsistencies of special relativity (the 'paradoxes').

Having spent almost 2 years arguing these points with excellent physicists, including two of Feynman's students, I am very aware that relativity has been pushed into countless areas of application. The application of gamma to relativistic energies is significant, but time-dilation experiments are the basis of most relativists' faith in SR.

I have become convinced that focusing on many details, while necessary, is distracting, and that it is better to focus on the root false premise - Einstein's introduction of multiple time dimensions into the problem at the 'definition-of-terms' level, and since all theoretical arguments are then framed in these terms (i.e., inertial reference frames) then the falsehood permeates every logical argument thereafter.

Einstein complemented the introduction of his false premise of multiple times with his imaginary invention of perfect, weightless clocks, that somehow magically measure time in each time dimension. With real physical clocks, based on mass and inertia, the increase in relativistic mass causes clock's inertia to increase, and since every real clock depends on inertia this provides a universal explanation of 'time dilation' in all SR experiments.

My best to all,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    What if instead of a partially effective barrier in one arm of he apparatus there is a series of 'boxes' that reduce the beam input to the join on one side? Meaning at each 'box' half of the output is discarded. Is the effect the same or different, and if different why?. Does it matter what is discarded and what kept? Or does that make no difference? (as expected).

    Has this experiment been done? What is the result?

    Dear Edwin,

    Einstein and von Laue were both born in 1879 and Planck was already born in 1858. While I don't yet understand why Planck made Einstein famous, Laue (who inherited nobility in 1913 and was awarded the Nobel price in 1914) admitted that he spontaneously admired Einstein's 1905 SR. Why? He agreed with the (misleading) argument that the laws of physics must hold for all systems.

    I appreciate your focus on energy and gravitation/inertia. Stationary gravitation is thought as an elementary mutual and symmetrical attraction force between two bodies A and B. Let me just naively guess:

    In case of non-zero relative velocity v between A and B, gravitation may get asymmetrical resulting in a seemingly two-way sum 1/(c+v) plus 1/(c-v) dependency of mass on v (gamma).

    EB

    Dear Eckard,

    If I understand your remark, you are asking how mass depends on v through gamma.

    Either one believes that kinetic energy is "energy of motion" (whatever that might be) or one believes that energy is stored in a field. Elsewhere I've shown that the gravitomagnetic field induced by moving mass (analogous to the electromagnetic field induced by moving charge) is equivalent to kinetic energy. That leads to a gamma dependence on velocity.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    In the first set of experiments suggested the 'circuit' is either open, closed or partially open, if that is possible. In the next set of experiments the circuit is open but what passes through it is modified to see if that has any effect on the outcome.

    Dear Edwin,

    I quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity: "the speed of a gravitational wave, which, ... confirmed by observation of the GW170817 neutron star merger, is the same speed[1] as the speed of light (c)."

    Admittedly, I didn't deal with gravitoelectrics and -magnetics. I just guess that there might be a vortex-free source field analog to the stationary electrical one and a source-free vortex field that could possibly be responsible for inertia and gamma.

    I cannot imagine how inert and heavy mass depend on rotation of the bodies.

    May I your expression "energy of motion" by "energy of RELATIVE motion"? I have no idea how to define v else.

    EB

    Dear Eckard,

    If, as I propose, light propagates in the gravitational field (gravity as ether) then there is no way to avoid gravitomagnetics in attempting to understand energy-time physics vs space-time symmetry. I suggest that you may wish to review the Hafele-Keating and Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiments (pages 45-52 in 'Everything's relative...') to grasp the necessity of gravity for interpreting these experiments.

    I was made aware of a paper by Al Kelly, circa 1995, that came to the same conclusions (based on these and other experiments) that I have reached. I have a copy of the pdf, but no link to it.

    In short, gravity defines a local absolute, which finally answers the problems of energy associated with the concept of "energy of relative motion".

    I do not know how many times you have read 'Everything's relative...', but there is far too much information for anyone to absorb in only 2 or 3 readings, and impossible to transfer to FQXi comments in any meaningful fashion.

    Best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    I always find it fruitful to try to explain the universe in a completely background independent way. How to explain everything without time, space and forces and matter? I think some of the equations from loop quantum gravity may hint about something as they don't take time into account. Time, as almost everything else must somehow be emergent from a very simple ground structure. And time like everything else must be local. Such that I experience my own time, exactly like you, when reading this experience your own. Although the difference is way too small to notice.

    I think what we eventually experience as time is a result of a really simple mechanism. If we take a really broad view of what the universe is we can say it is a huge heap of lumps of information that is related to each other. When some relation changes, time ticks. Each change of relation is not completely deterministic - there is always some random element, hence time has a direction. The cause of the change can be thought of as a point of action, something that instigates a change. The total number of these points is by the way the total energy in the system.

    These ideas leeds us inevitably to ponder upon if conservation of energy is a fundamental property or if it is a result of a higher order error correction algorithm like, say spacetime. Anyhow it is indeed fortunate for the stability of the universe that we have a maximum speed limit and a swift mechanism for decoherence.