Agree:

"All of the actual laws of nature can be considered to be one large system that controls all processes in our universe. Science is a means of discovering what some of these universal laws might be. "

"My thesis in this essay is to suggest that all experimental test results that supposedly support quantum mechanics can actually be explained using conventional physics."

I (the Scalar Theory of Everything - STOE) go a step farther. The experiments/observations of astronomy/cosmology and the sub-atomic worlds can be described (explained) by equations of the Newtonian world. All that is required is a better descriptions of the parameters.

The STOE forms a Universal Equation and applies it to astronomical/cosmological problems and to light interference experiments https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328489883_STOE_replaces_relativity_and_quantum_mechanics

You focus on the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (QM). The Bohm Interpretation (BI) of QM posits the particles/light have a definite position and momentum which is directed by a wave. Bohm doesn't identify the source of the wave. BI then derives the Schrodinger Equation as a measurement probality. The STOE says the wave is real and the source is the moving particle/photon following Newton.

The Afshar Experiment (see wikipedia) rejects the Copenhagen Interpretation. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=93056 rejects the wave nature of light and poses a problem for BI. There are other light interference experiments that reject the wave nature of light. All of the experiments do NOT reject the STOE model of light.

The STOE suggests "spin" is not actual rotation of particles but is a magnetic effect resulting from the structure of particles and their interaction with the external magnetic field.

I may have misinterpreted your description of the entanglement experiments. The experiment is to have the pair with opposite spins, then change the spin of one and detect that the other changes also. I agree, "entanglement" results from real properties - that the medium supporting the wave action has waves traveling much faster than light. It was speculated by Newton.

Hodge

    "Prior to any measurement, the particle's position would just not exist!" Consider 3 questions: What is measurement? What is a particle? What is position? Does the Copenhagen Interpretation give precise answers to the 3 preceding questions? Does quantum information reduce to Fredkin-Wolfram information? Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology? Please google "kroupa milgrom", "mcgaugh milgrom", "sanders milgrom", "scarpa milgrom", and "witten milgrom".

    According to Steven Weinberg, "It is a bad sign that those physicists today who are most comfortable with quantum mechanics do not agree with one another about what it all means."

    "The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics" by Steven Weinberg, January 2017

      Thanks for your post.

      From all of the literature that I have read over the past 15 years, I've never seen an explanation of the wave function as something real. Bohr and Born define the wave function as a "probability wave." I think that what you suggest has already been proven to be not real: the existence of an ether within which waves can propagate.

      In one of Einstein's 1905 papers, he physically demonstrated that photons are physical quantum particles. Electromagnetic waves propagating through space are made up of an ensemble of many many quantum particles interacting with each other to behave as larger waves. There's no connection here to the quantum mechanics' "wave function," I don't think.

      I ask a favor from you: Could you please vote for my paper? I really want to try to get the attention of the quantum mechanics physics community if at all possible.

      Thanks for such a great post. I plan on reading your essay soon and hopefully will have more to say later. I appreciate your statement about judges and physicists having doctrinal beliefs.

      You did make a statement in your post which I would like to explore further. You said: "There was just one flaw in your analysis, as Bell showed simple spin alone CAN'T do the job."

      I think I disagree but I've been wrong so many times before. Consider this:

      In theoretically studying his twin spin model, Bell derived the probabilities of a match if the members of a set of twin particles were measured about different axes of rotation. The measurement axes were assumed to be θ degrees apart. Bell's theoretical probabilities of a match for his model were subsequently referred to as "Bell's Theorem" by other physicists at that time. I'd like to mention here that one of the main assumptions Bell made for the his twin spin model was that the component spins about two different measurement axes were probabilistically independent of each other which would not be the case for either the qubit or the simple pure spin models. Bell had to throw out simple spin because this case would require probabilistically dependent component spins, violating his assumption of independence. Note that in the simple spin model, there's always a match if the measurement axes are the same for each twin particle.

      If the twin quantum particles are assumed to be in simple pure spin states, like soccer balls, then the 50% matching results obtained in some testing would be expected based on theoretical calculations. As a matter of fact, elementary quantum mechanics for the pure spin state show that if the angle between two measurement axes is θ, then the probability of a match is. Then for θ = ±120º, this probability is equal to ¼. The probability of a match for some tests would then be

      P(match) = 1/3*[1 + ¼ + ¼] = ½ = 50%

      which is the actual result that was obtained in those tests.

      I'm sorry for rambling.

      I'm hoping you cast a vote for my essay.

      Ronald

      Sorry, an equation didn't get printed in my last response to your post: Cos squared(Theta/2).

      Ronald

      Prof Ronald Racicot

      Wonderful essay please. Simple and easy language and well written essay.

      Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability are very much undesirable properties and out-comes of any theory. That theory might have developed by a very reputed person or by a group of well-educated and knowledgeable persons. There is no point of poring resources, money and highly educated man power into that theory when that theory is failing on above three points.

      From your essay, I can see, that the above paragraph is applicable to quantum mechanics also!!!

      In my essay just elaborated what should be the freedom available to an author when the " real open thinking" is supported. Have a look at my essay please.

      "A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory's Philosophy"

      =snp.gupta

        John,

        Thank you very much for your post. I appreciate your remarks.

        I haven't yet read your essay but it sounds interesting. I must admit that I'm not familiar with the different terms used in your post. And so I'm not understanding what exactly your propositions and theories are. I've mostly read APS papers and publications as well as most of the standard textbooks. I do sense your enthusiasm for what you call "STOE."

        In any case, since you've read some of my essay, I'd appreciated your casting your vote and expressing more of your opinions. Thank you very much.

        Racicot

        David,

        Thank you very much for your post.

        I haven't yet read your essay but it does sound interesting. I must admit that I don't fully understand some of your terms and references. I can sense your enthusiasm though.

        In any case, since you've read some of my essay, I'd appreciate your casting your vote and expressing more of your opinions. Thanks.

        Racicot

        Dr. Gupta,

        Thank you very much for your post.

        I plan on looking at your essay. It's clear to me that you have understanding of quantum mechanics. I don't know how much we agree concerning the subject matter but we do agree that there are unresolved problems which should be looked at.

        In any case, since you've read some of my essay, I'd appreciate your casting your vote and expressing more of your opinions. Thanks.

        Ronald Racicot

        Ronald,

        I agree that a rather stiff adherence to the Copenhagen interpretation seems to affect the direction of too many studies in physics and that further studies should be more open to other interpretations. I do wonder if you have a preference for a particular group explaining quantum decoherence of the other four: pilot-wave, objective collapse, many-world, or modal. I don't think enough investigative resources have been utilized to fully analyze difference approaches. I for one have difficulty accepting all the precepts of the Copenhagen interpretation and have seen elements of some of the others I like. I realize there seems to be a certain confirmation bias for the generally accepted Copenhagen interpretation since it seems to fit observations of other macro-world theories. Are you saying that this adherence to Copenhagen is the main reason for the three "Us" we are addressing in our essays? When you make your recommendation at the end of the essay, do you have a favorite approach to a quantum mechanics study, for example, pilot-wave theory argues that particles don't also exist as probabilistic waves, but that there are both real particles and real waves influencing how the particles move? Or do you have another version? I found you essay thought-provoking. Please check out mine.

        Jim Hoover

          Hi Sir,

          Thank you for your reply.

          I know a bit of quantum mechanics.

          Thank you for casting vote suggestion, I will reciprocate your appriciation in voting....can you please give me your mail ID?

          If you are replying any of comments I posted on your essay, I request you to post a copy or intimation that you posted reply, on my essay

          "A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory's Philosophy"

          also, they will intimate me,so that I can continue discussion....

          Best Regards

          =snp.gupta

          Jim Hoover,

          Thank you for reading my essay and for the interesting post. I plan on reading your essay soon.

          You covered a lot of stuff in your post and you summarized a number of current new theories on the nature of quantum particles. To be honest, I don't personally cater much with far out suggestions such as 'many-worlds' where experimentation is not possible.

          I spent much of my R & D career in the area of probability and stochastic processes. I became interested in quantum mechanics some 15 years or more ago when I read about the Copenhagen interpretation and Einstein's (EPR) paper on the incompleteness of the so-called wave function. It seems like the superposition-of-probabilities was being posited to be a real object in both time and space. I couldn't grasp the concept that a 'probability' could be a real object. To me, probabilities can only predict possible outcomes or events of future 'experiments' or 'measurements.' Future events aren't real, I don't think.

          My favorite approach to QM is to consider all objects, no matter how small, to be real. To me, it's the internal physical characteristics of a particle that leads to its point-like and wave-like behavior as it interacts with other like particles or with other forces and objects.

          I'm sorry for rambling.

          I'm hoping that you cast a vot

          9 days later

          I think that we should regard the possibility that the wave function is real, and representing what a moving particles is doing to the ether.

          Dear Dr. Racicot:

          I read your essay with great interest.

          You clearly take a realist view regarding quantum mechanics. I agree.

          You might be interested in reading my essay, "The Uncertain Future of Physics and Computing".

          My essay focuses on the central role of mathematician John von Neumann on the foundations of both quantum mechanics and computing. Most people do not realize that the entire "Hilbert space" mathematical formalism is due to von Neumann. The classic computer architecture is also due to von Neumann, even if he got much of that from Turing. During his lifetime, von Neumann's reputation was so strong that no one ever criticized him, not even Einstein, who spent 20 years down the hall from him at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.

          I also point out that Quantum Computing is the first significant technological application that depends critically on quantum entanglement. With the billions of dollars being poured into R&D by governments, corporations, and VCs, it should become clear within a few years if this is possible. I predict that the entire field will fail completely, creating a major scandal. Only then will the physics community be willing to reconsider the foundations of QM.

          Alan Kadin

          Alan Kadin,

          I was more than happy to read your post. I couldn't agree with you more. The first thing I want to do is read your essay and then write to you again.

          Ron Racicot

          8 days later

          Ronald. Not 'rambling' at all, perceptive and sensible, ..but not *quite* right yet;

          It was BOHR who had to 'throw out simple spin' and introduce 'quantum "spin" alongside OAM rotation as the orthogonal 2nd state in conjugate pair particles to try to resolve his analytical problem.

          Bell's 'theorem' correctly showed some ERROR in Bohr assumptions, writing he thought; "the founding fathers were wrong". I've identified that if Bohr had used Maxwells orthogonal state PAIRS (Linear AND 'curl') as Poincare showed as sphere surface vectors, then he wouldn't have needed ANY weird nonsense! But you're right, Bell didn't identify where/what Bohrs error was.

          So if pairs have antiparallel axes, (there will emerge our entanglement!) but random angles for each pair, the polariser electrons rotate, and we use simple vector addition at the interaction tangent point, we get output; Cos2 Theta!! A couple more steps give us the full QM data set, with NO 'action at a distance' etc! I show the full sequence in last years essay; https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3012

          But of course very few have your understanding of the problem, and most that do firmly believe nature is weird!! (My previous essay showed the rotating sphere figure, and 2015 top peer scored 'Red/Green socks' essay set the basics).

          By the way; Last years Trail essay verified the model with computer code and plot). https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3014

          Yes of course I'll score yours, I have it down for a top score in fact, but usually read most to moderate before applying. I'm pretty sure you may think mine worth the same! I'm interested in your comments, questions, and discussing with you anyway.

          Very best

          Peter

          Ronald,

          I did nicely rate yours on the 20th of March soon after I was able to see the community ratings and they extended the deadline. I am updating mine and will replace the current version soon, something I haven't done before but was told I could just once. Hope you can read it then.

          Jim Hoover

          Ronald,

          Wanted to let you know that I updated my essay and uploaded it a few minutes ago. Personally I feel that it is greatly improved. I did rate yours on 3/20, giving it a good rating, feeling it was one of the better ones.

          Please check mine out if you have time. Such honest, No BS, reviews are needed by all of us.

          Jim Hoover

          Peter, Hi again

          Thanks for your 2nd post.

          I did read your essay and found it to be a great review of important events in the history of quantum mechanic and classical-relativity physics. I gave your essay a top rating.

          I'm still not fully understanding your arguments against the validity of assuming the simple pure spin model for twin particle testing (Clauser, Shimony, et al). These were tests measuring matching correlations of the twin particles at different measurement angles (theta). Your main objection was that Bell discounts simple spin. I argued that Bell makes the assumption in deriving his theorem (inequalities) that component spins are probabilistically independent at different measurement angles. Since spins at different measurement angles for the simple spin model are probabilistically dependent, Bell had to throw out the simple pure spin model in his derivations.

          I think that your sphere arguments in looking at correlation of spins leads you to the probability of a match to be cosine-squared(theta). Assuming this does not lead to the 50% test results that were actually obtained. The pure spin model, on the other hand, yields a matching probability of cosine-squared(theta/2) which in turn exactly matches the results that were obtained in all twin particle testing.

          But, maybe not?

          Best regards,

          Ron Racicot

          10 days later

          Dear Ronald Racicot,

          It's wonderful to see the awakening spreading. Without FQXi it would be hard to gain any traction at all, since academia locks out all mention of fundamental problems.

          Physicists, as so many essays here hint at, have projected mathematical structure onto the universe and then come to believe that the physical world actually has that structure. You mention 'qubits' for example. This offshoot of the Stern-Gerlach experiment does not fit the SG data shown on the famous Bohr-postcard, but it does fit the Pauli spin matrix structure, put into the Schrödinger equation by Pauli, and put into the Dirac equation twice! There are certainly domains in physics where the qubit is a reasonable approximation: spins in magnetic domains in solids tend to line up in one direction or the opposite, and it's probably simpler to compute with sigmas than with 3D vectors, to obtain reasonable statistics. But when Bell erroneously projected qubits and his first equation projected A,B = +1, -1 for SG atoms, he ends up with entanglement, whereas classical spins end up with the correlation he claims is impossible.

          Dirac projected space-time 'symmetry' [believing special relativity required it] and wound up with superluminal free particles traveling at 1.7c.

          In my (well-researched) opinion, almost all of the false premises of physics boil down to structural projections that have become matters of faith.

          My current essay looks at the 4D structure that Einstein/Minkowski imposed on the universe, and compares it to the (3+1)D-ontology that is the basis of energy-time theory. I hope you will read my essay Deciding on the nature of time and space and I welcome your comments.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman