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

20 days later

Dear Ron,

Thank you again for asking all the right questions in your essay.

Regarding the nature of the quantum wave, here are some other key questions:

Does quantum diffraction really prove the presence of quantum waves for all "particles"? Are all particles the same?

I argue that quantum diffraction is not classical wave diffraction at all, but rather a discrete transition that changes the momentum of the "particle" by transferring quantized momentum from the lattice or slits.

So a neutron can be a small particle on the 1-fm scale, but it can show quantum diffraction effects from a crystal lattice that would appear to require a coherent wave on the 1-nm scale. No such wave exists.

On the other hand, the electron is a true de Broglie wave packet, as shown by obeying the Schrodinger wave equation. But it, too, can produce quantum diffraction effects, even without long range wave coherence.

Similarly, the energy of a vibrating molecule is quantized, and this is usually taken to prove that the component atoms are waves. But in fact, atoms are real quasi-spherical objects undergoing classical oscillations. The energy is quantized only because transitions are mediated by photons, which themselves are quantized wave packets. Only certain classical trajectories are accessible.

If you are interested, I can give you some citations that discuss these issues.

Alan

    Dear Alan Kadin:

    Thank you so much for your posts. I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner but I honestly thought that the essay contest was over. I've been so busy with family matters during the current pandemic that I've just ignored FQXi stuff.

    I believe that you've done brilliant research on studying non-magical solutions and approaches in the fields of quantum mechanics and physics in general. I would love to dig deeper into some of your approaches in the future. I support your realistic concepts of how our particular universe works without the need to introduce unexplainable magical theories such as the quantum entanglement phenomenon and the instantaneous communication of information between twin or entangled particles. I believe that quantum computing and teleportation will both flop in the future. There are purely physical explanations of all test data, so I believe.

    I would just like to express a general opinion about the current state of modern physics. I think that the general physics community simply does not understand applied probability theory. This includes APS and IOP. Most physicists believe that probabilities and probability functions can exist in reality and in real time when they can only predict possible future outcomes. The Schrodinger, Bohr, Born, Heisenberg wave equation is essentially a probability function. It simply cannot exist or be attached to a real particle. There simply cannot be an infinite number of paths that an electron takes in going from one point to another in space. All quantum diffraction patterns and all field theories are based on the physical interactions of particles with each particle existing as a real object.

    Thanks for listening to the rantings of an 82 year old man who loves science and the people in my life.

    Good luck on all of your research,

    Ron Racicot

    Dear Ron,

    Thank you for your comments.

    First, I hope that you and your family are doing okay during the pandemic. I am also in the midst of an active zone (New Jersey), but I am doing fine.

    Second, the FQXi contest is still going on - ratings of essays will continue through May 18.

    Third, what you are saying is not ranting, and your call for non-magical solutions is exactly what is needed.

    That reminds me - Arthur C. Clarke once said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. But quantum mechanics is magic even to the experts, which indicates a major problem.

    My view is that quantum mechanics is overripe for a scientific revolution, and I hope to be around when that occurs (I'm 67). Future historians of science will look back and wonder how such fundamental misconceptions could have been maintained for so long, almost 100 years.

    Good luck on the remainder of the contest.

    Alan Kadin

    hi Ronald. I appreciate your questioning of QM, you have my votes.could QM Copenhagen interpretation be a product of cognitive bias ?pls read here https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.all the best in the contest

    6 days later

    Ronald,

    Hope you have time to check mine out before the deadline: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3396

    Jim Hoover.

      James Lee Hoover,

      I read your essay, trying to be patient to read all of it slowly and really trying to understand its meaning. A lot of it seemed like poetry. I have to admit that I thought your writing skills were excellent but some of the writing was beyond my ability to understand what you were personally trying to show and what was your overall thesis.

      I did give your essay a good rating.

      Ron Racicot

      5 days later

      Dear Ronald,

      I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

      "This essay briefly examines the possibility that some posited laws in quantum mechanics might be false when comparing to conventional physics with further study of experimental evidence and deeper analyses".

      While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: "Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus", due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 "Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability".

      I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

      Warm Regards, `

      Vladimir