On a contextual model refuting Bell's theorem

Steve D.

Are you asking? ...."an oscillation (of what?) in space and time"? or "an oscillation of spacetime?"

If we accept GR field equations in its terms of a stress energy tensor, then the field is raw energy that can be conceived of as continuously coming into being as a consequence of what mathematically we would describe as the difference between a straight line and a curved line, hence the tighter the curvature the higher the stress energy.

Semi-Classically (3D) the energy field could be deemed primordial and an oscillation of which would satisfy the question "of what" in Steve Agnew's nicely written brief. His distinction of a linearly polarized photon is provocative, and I agree with you that this discussion is opening some contextually good avenues of approach to modeling the characteristics of EM observations to a physical shaping of a theoretical photon. The possible axial rotation of a soloton and the directional vector of electric field on its surface might produce a rationale for that physical rotation, rotating from the orthogonal to linear (as we speak of a conical section rotating) polarization dependent on the emission source. jrc

These are some very interesting questions that do relate to understanding the universe. An unpolarized photon has no meaning in a determinate universe since every photon has a well defined polarization before any measurement.

The quantum reality is that even a single photon can be unpolarized and the measurement of a single photon polarization actually results in either of two polarizations. This cruel quantum logic limits what we can know about quantum precursors for quantum outcomes.

A photon is a quantum superposition of two polarization states and when those two polarizations share quantum phase, the photon is polarized. When the quantum phases of the two polarizations are not coherent, the photon is unpolarized. Of course, there are many degrees of depolarization just as there are elliptical as well as circular and linear polarizations.

There is a magnetic field perpendicular to the electric field and each polarization. Note that certain combinations of amplitude and polarization can result in a dark photon due to destructive interference. The question then becomes where does the photon energy disappear to?

Just like a photon can be transform limited as a sinc pulse in time and frequency, the universe is a 13.4 Byr sinc pulse in time made up of 1e125 sinc pulses of aether in frequency. So the photon Fourier transform limit also reflects the universe Fourier transform limit...

John,

the EMR is existential. We agree on that, there is evidence from its effects. A photon of EMr isn't the "thing appearing to view" For a visible light photon. the effect could be a seen flash of light. Generated from the signal sent by a stimulated photoreceptor cell. That effect is a phenomenon; known by the observer, who might call the experience seeing a photon. It is the knowable effect not the Source noumenon, the particle entity. Re. quantum experiments: Starting with the noumenon entity, a relation is formed with it and a property born from that relationship, that specific perspective, is revealed by generation of a knowable phenomenon. Eg, exposure of a film emulsion or click of a photomultiplier. Relevant to the measurement problem.

Steve A.

Nice! "The question then becomes where does the photon energy disappear to?"

I like to think that the gravitational field is another c proportional difference in potential intensity or physical density, from that same proportional difference between electric and magnetic. So IF a photon is an envelope of gravitationally bound energy in a self reinforcing wave (soloton) the phase drft resulting in destructive interferrence of the electromagnetic influence, might not destroy the gravitational bound. It becomes 'dark' and not detectable but would still follow a gravitational worldline. In common aggregate emission it would be like the zero's mathematical property of a place keeper.

That last post of mine needs a bit more qualification;

If we equate energy density with velocity relativistically existant within the soloton volume, then a rotation off orthogonal, or a phase drift that would destroy the electromagnetic polarity would not necessarily destroy the energy (conservation is inviolate). Rather, the existant velocity inherent to a differentiation of electric field and magnetic field would physically compound to result in a gravitational density from the portion of energy at magnetic range, and a magnetic density of the portion which had been at electric density. But without an electrical inductive influence the magnetic region would not be differentiable as such. jrc

Georgi, many years ago, a sign painter named George Stankowitz holding forth at the old Fort Fizzle (local historical legend) spake thusly about the nature of time;

Sir! I am greatly embarrassed and deeply humiliated, but due to certain unforseen circumstances the inner workings and hidden mechanisms of my chronometer are in such inacord with the great sidereal motion by which time is most commonly reckoned by most men, that I cannot with any degree of accuracy state the precise time. However, at the risk of being somewhat in error I would hazzard that it is approximately 38 minutes and some several ticks past the hour of three o'clock past noon.

Colloquially, time cannot know how fast its going any more than we can, nor space know what size it is. We just start with 1 second per second as the world turns. And in a condensate of energy, there need be no single light velocity limit to how time and density might stack up on itself. jrc

Timing is comparison of a change (subject of inquiry) with a standard , regular change providing a scale, enabling measurement. Is per second is like saying a water clock measures 1 drip per drip. It isn't the speed of time but the unit used for comparison; i.e. used for timing. I don't think the problem lies in the knowability of the speed of time by itself, or for us. It is the incompatibility of the concept of speed with foundational passage of time (tied to the configuration of existence). The relativity of experienced events has to do with signal travel distances from source to receiver. I don't see any requirement for variable light velocity other than varying according to the medium it is passing through

Georgina,

Oh... excuse me, it was JOHN not George. but anyhow

There is no incompatibility of the concept of speed with foundational passage of time. Light Velocity is physically a foundational constant but that is due to it being the root mean of the limit time itself can act. Time only 'stops' for a photon at light velocity , not the region of space it transits through, because that is a 'fast' as time can pass across a span of distance measured in that region. It has never been falsified yet, that the passage of time slows in greater gravitational fields. Where time physically 'stops' is where energy density is compact enough that the gravitational effect is comparable to a black hole. And arguably, there is a tiny black (or perfectly transparent) black hole a the center of any and every metastable real physical particle, it is the densities of electromagnetic fields which are observable as being in superposition. And if we accept c as the root exponential mean, then where there exists sufficient gravitational compaction of density to produce a black hole then that density would be perfectly inelastic and the foundational rate of passage of time would be the sum of integral exponential partial differentials {(c^1/e) c } = 2.143^14 cm/sec. and an event horizon would exist at the zero boundary of that perfect inelasticity and the nominal inelastic density we encounter with inelastic scattering observations.

We can agree to disagree, that's the essence of argumentative discussion. jrc

Hi John, I agree to disagree. The kind of time carried by EMr is not foundational but emergent.

The photon oscillates from positive to nonexistence to negative in electric field and 90 degrees out of phase with the perpendicular magnetic oscillation. So the photon never really disappears during its oscillations but simply goes from electric to magnetic and back again.

Radio wave dipole antennas do a similar exchange and even planetary gravity elliptical orbits exchange potential and kinetic energy in a gravity oscillation as well.

In fact, there is an extra vector gravity associated with the mass loss of star emission that couples star motion in galaxies. This extra gravity term is called dark matter but is really just the gravity analog to vector magnetization.

The pilot wave stuff is popular for photons, but seems completely unnecessary since photon diffraction is really not that mysterious...

correction: I should have noted :same area under the curve(s)" of both electric and magnetic response.

However, that area is of the effective inductance reaction of the volumetric field regions moving in proximity and it goes to the non-zero vector tangent to the graphic plane representing the inverse square LOS between the axial direction of the EM signal and the receiver element, which Dr. Agnew draws a correspondence with in potential and kinetic energy in orbital oscillations. If we were to put the physical field back into the GR spacetime model, we could still do without the Force term because force in GR is simply expressed in its separate terms of Mass and Acceleration, and those can go to direction and magnitude.

I was out of town yesterday at a function and this afternoon was blocked from the fqxi server with a Fatal Error notice which displayed the stack number and page number and the identifier of the insertion/surveillance bot, I need not name that source out of an abundance of caution and it was successfully cleared by identifying it to a smart phone through which it routed. If you find such a notice, you will also find that you cannot contact fqxi to report it, because security protocols will not recognize your email address. You must check you contact lists of your own devices and networks to backfeed the intruder DNS identifier so that it chews on itself. Keep in mind that fqxi is an open source portal to one of the world's most advanced theoretical research institutes. A Perimeter is just that! a perimeter.

there's a cyber war going on, KISS, and keep a clean machine. Don't network your science with your playthings. And Gads! get off the couch and adjust the thermostat digitally with those on your hand! cheers jrc

What is most relavent to this topic of a contextual model to explain the Quantum correlations, is that we in the western democracies are playing catch-up ball. The Chinese have raced ahead with Quantum Key Encryption and we could be within a dozen years of China having a space based Quantum satellite fleet in orbit with QKE links to ground based 5G networks in most countries of the world. And there would be no financial institution even in this country, which would sit still for countermeasures to interfere with a physically unhackable QKE transfer of billions of digital dollars per hour, globally. Fossil fuels will no longer be sufficient to float the U.S. dollar as the world's preferred reserve currency and we will become overwhelmed by our unsustainable national debt. It is imperative to find a contextual solution to intercept an entangled singlet pair projection on at least (and preferrably) one LOS of that transmission which will not destroy the signal so that it can be decoded. That's what we are doing here! Okay with everyone? jrc

Note that certain combinations of amplitude and polarization can result in a dark photon due to destructive interference. The question then becomes where does the photon energy disappear to?" Steve Agnew

I'll try this

The energy is fully expressed. The effect is cancelation. Imagine two men walking in opposite directions along a wall of loose bricks. They are picking up 5 bricks, then laying 5 bricks as they walk, but out of phase. As man one picks up bricks man two lays his bricks. When they cross paths as man one lays a brick man two picks up a brick in the same location until both have picked up or placed bricks as usual. It is as if nothing happened at that location, just taking account of the effect. The men pass and carry on with their tasks.

Georgina,

That fits with the traditional transverse wave theory of EMR, and of course a transverse wave has a shape like the surface of waves in water. But only the surface, not the undulations within the body of water. A Transverse wave has a signature like the corrugations of a cardboard box viewed from the edge.

Among the reasons that the QM model of a massless particle photon became the accepted paradigm is that the effect of an electromagnetic event does have the signature (oscilloscope) of a transverse wave but then the question arises of why would the phase of magnetic be 90* out of sync with the electric, AND as importantly, how could the minimum value of one field be coincident with the maximum of the other when the photon is moving at a constant uniform velocity? Not only does that contradict known macroscopic causal effect, the polarities reverse with each successive wave signature event. It would be like a photon generating an alternating current with a backwards inductance reactance propagating the distinct electric and magnetic fields. Is it any wonder that it has become simply expedient to describe EMR as an oscillation in space and time?

How can we derive a physical shaped form from that? What in the physical volume shape of a photon/soloton is changing direction as the photon continues on its uni-directional course? Puzzling once you start trying to get into it, it starts to make no sense at all. :-) jrc

Hi John,

are they out of phase? Or is that Steve Agnew's special idea? The depictions I've seen have them in phase but at 90 degrees orientation to each other.

Georgi,

Google; graph electromagnetic wave - and you can quickly get pages of graphic illustrations that show the typical planar reversal of the signal (do the same with; electromotive induction - and refresh). But this is precisely where you shine. You have persistently grappled with the quandary of whether what we observe is a product of the characteristics of an observing system or observer. So is the reversal the physical reality or a product of the experimental apparatus and proceedures?

I've been head wrestling a concept of a soloton wavetrain model of EMR for 40 odd years, and there is constantly some observed relationship between interactive fields that presents a damned if it do, damned if it don't scenario. It makes it impossible to argue against the QM methodology because its fascinating just how incredibly complex the behavior is of the humble photon. How does it DO that?!

Experimentally, quantum engineering introduces the trust factor; do we know what we are doing? but we do know that technologically we have highly refined the capability to achieve consistency. In a typical Bell-Aspect experiment, if both polarizers are in parallel, in a run of 10,000 flashes there will be a small but significant incidence when only one or neither detector will register, so we must assume that when the polarizers are at right angles there will be a physical inconsistency of results also. The theoretical ideal is that the Quantum Correlations are the probabilities we could predict IF there were a direct physical connection between the two simultaneous detections. But that's impossible from what we can reasonably explain today. :-0 jrc

John,

EM waves can be produced by oscillating sources. That seems evidence that there is oscillation in the environment prior to detection. Not just oscillation being induced in the detector.

I don't think the small number of anomalous detections are a big problem. Maybe they are from particles that failed to form an "entangled" pair. Or particles of a pair that, one or both, encounter another particle prior to t he polarizer. The vacuum will not be absolutely empty. "Entanglement" is said to be very delicate

Georgina,

pardon? Your question was whether the magnetic and electric fields of EMR are actually 90* out of phase, or if that were Dr. Steven Agnew's 'special idea'.

I my experience, Doc does have some special idea in a theoretical paradigm he has pursued in retirement, but they are solidly based on following the math of accepted conventional science. Whereas you seem to introduce a special idea without researching what has been common knowledge since 1885, and which can easily be accessed by generic search for [ graph electromagnetic wave ] and study what science does have in the way of experimental evidence. Then we could discuss whether the graphic representation is the reality of an undetected incidence of EMR in free space, or whether that graphic is only a product of the field interaction of detection.

The short answer is that Yes the fields of EMR are physically 90* out of phase. jrc

John, I understand if you just mean the difference in orientation with matching phase. As commonly depicted. I had thought you meant out of phase, as in the timing not just orientation. I have addressed the anomalous results. "The theoretical ideal is that the Quantum Correlations are the probabilities we could predict IF there were a direct physical connection between the two simultaneous detections. But that's impossible from what we can reasonably explain today. :-0 jrc"

Why should it be assumed that the relation of orientations formed at pair production does not persist, given symmetric treatment? Their oscillation motion being regular and forward motion a straight line. They don't seem unstable. Shouldn't persistence of that relation be sufficient for matching outcomes,