On a contextual model refuting Bell's theorem

Steve,

you point out "the photons are not encoded in nuclei".

So far. There is yet to be a rationale for the peculiarities of intensity rates of chage in the Transition Zone. The right question should be; 'What do those measurable variations tell us of what determines wavelength?' (lambda)

Now again, in the span of one wavelength, light velocity would take a finite span of time. But the wave doesn't know how fast time goes, it can only be somewhere between nil and light velocity... OR all of the above. so mathematically the physicality can be simplified to the wave seeking what that speed of time is... so going from nil to c and back again at an exponential rate of change would require that c (light velocity) is the root exponential mean of the sum of integral partial differentials for the span of real time relative to the gravitational reference frame and by Lorentz any (luminous aetherial) reference frame the wave subsequently transits through.

So we can postulate that the maximun speed (scalar value) reached in the waveformation is equivalent to [(c^1/e) c } = 2.143^14 cm/sec . And that transcends (e is after all a transcendental number) the locality of the waveform of any single wavelenghth and makes the wavetrain rigidly connected across the real time length of span of emission. The time span at c in each wavelength reaches out across that real proportional extension of length. jrc

And now the movie, folks!

If we were to accept that postulate presented above for the rigid connectivity of a wavetrain of an emission of a series of repetetive wavelengths of the same frequency, then not only would the exponential sum value of spacetime extension of each wavelength reach out forward in the LOS of transmission,, it would reciprocally reach out rearward towards the source of emission and a rationale for the perceived non-locality of Bell-Aspect experimental apparatus results can be explained. The time-wise connectivity is as rigid as if were itself material, after all it is an extension of the Transition Zone of the material particle emitter. Thanks for the audience, "Its a Trick Bulb" jrc

John, I am sorry but yes they are encoded in a kind of coded space vacuum and permit the heat, the electromagnetic forces, the fact to observe. The nuclear forces are stronger just because we have more photons than the electromagnetic force. It seems logic.

The ordinary matter appears simply because this space vacuum coded encodes photons and this cold dark matter to create the reality.The time is not odd it is just irreversible and correlated with the motions and changes, because without motions, there is no time. The wavelenghts are not odd, they are just correlated with the ocialltions motions of particles in a superfluidity and like all evolves and that we have changes, so we can utilise like a tool these waves. The photons are not the primoridal essence of the universe, and they shall not answer to our deep unknowns. The constant c in a vacuum also is not odd, it is just a tool for the universe,and about the luminiferous ether, it is just a part of the puzzle, we need to consider this DM and this DE, the problem is always the philosophy it seems to me, the thinkers are too much persuaded to better understand the universe and that this GR is the only one piece of puzzle, like if we had only these photons and that their oscillations explain all, it is odd for me.The people now want to make metaphysics with non mecessary extradiemnsions, reversibilities of this time, and others. It is due to abstracts maths creating confusions. Since when the GR and the photons alone have been proved to be the only truth ? they speak to god or what the thinkers or maybe they beleive that their philosophy and knowledges are more developped, I don t know but it is odd, even einstein told what I tell. We must retrun at this old school instead to create all these confusions for me. It is not a competition where we want to be the specialist of this GR in detailing it to reach the unknowns, no the aim is to explain the unknowns and since that the thinkers are in this GR prison and strings they turn in round. The fields here, the waves there, the geometrical algebras here, the non commutativity here, extradiemnsions there ??? is it a hidden camera lol ? the universe is simple generally and the photons are just the photons, they are not the primoridal essence. They are just a fuel.

Let s be frank and tell me more . I am going to ask simple question and answer simply , don t evitate the answer.

1 What is for you the origin philosophical of the universe ? do you consider a ind of god or other , and if yes why ? do you consider fields or particles and why ? do you consider this BB?

2 Do you consider that we have only this GR and the photons like primoridal essence and if yes why , what are the rpoofs ?

3 what is for you the origin of topologies, geometries and what are the foundamental objects? you can utilise the strings or points, the geom alg or the geometrodynamics and if yes why and have you proofs ?

4 What is for you the dark matter and the dark energy and why and have you proofs ? Best , friendly

Gee Steve,

each one of those questions would require for a dissertation.

In context with Bell Inequalities, I think it is best to constrain the theoretical discussions to more modest aims than some Grand Unified Field Theory. If such an all encompassing theory can be had, then it should support limited applications to specific instances such as Bell-ASpect and Stern-Gerlach results. The maths employed to analyze the probabilities must then stand on their own, wouldn't you think? I personally find a lambda approach satisfying because it is amenable to a condensed matter state and by extension a condensed energy state wherein two scalars, distance and speed, can be examined. In the Std Model frequency (nu, in the case of e=h(nu) then goes commonly to a vector value of velocity which makes the relativistic side more restrictive in terms of degrees of freedom. jrc

Lol you are surprising I must say :) you have always the good answers , you are right, let s focus on the good paper of Eugen, I like also his lambda and indeed it can be analysed deeper with the distances, speeds, frequences, vectors,waves, scalars.

Friendly

Hi John, it was hard to find these replies to you. They got burred. Here they are.

Okay, thanks Georgina,

I'll give it another go but I do disagree with your concept of how we can imagine time to be. I keep stumbling over the need for me to become an observer of observations to make uni-temporal time meaningful. Physically I see time and space as being existential rather than emergent, without which there is no connectivity for a span of distance to be recognizable to the unobserved particles (object reality) or relate any change to a passage of time. Sorry, we are going to have to agree to disagree. My posts are probably just as less than comprehensible to you, too. C'est la vie. :-) jrc

So you are taking system parameter lambda that either applies or doesn't. As the coupling established at formation of the pair is revealed by symmetric treatment/measurement and is absent, broken by asymmetric treatment. You are making the system parameter instead into a variable. Maybe the variable is a part of lambda but not lambda itself. Some aspect of correlation (or anti) Would another name help?

John,

Uni-temporal means existence is all at the same and only 'time'. No existent future. no existent past. That has nothing to do with observation. Space-time is obtained from processing of sensory signals. For us primarily EMr. Transmission and processing is not instantaneous -that's how time gets mixed up with observation product space. What you are seeing is emergent, biologically generated, virtual space time.

John,

Change of the configuration of existence is continual. As a particle moves through space it too is a part of the changing configuration. Each configuration is a time. Change of the configuration has no singular spatial direction. And there is no singular rate of change. Some parts of the configuration of existence are changing spatially more than others. A particular change occurs within the entirety of existence. The movement of clock hands are also part of the change of the configuration of existence. Comparison of a change being investigated can be made with change of clock reading. Timing can still happen.

"As a particle moves through space....?!"

I thought you disavowed a physical necessity for space. That's the same post hoc ergo propter hoc that Isaac Newton explained away by saying 'See the math works".

John,

I should have been more careful with my language. Saying instead 'as the particle moves through the configuration of existence'. By 'space' I'm not referring to something with independent existence but the volume of existence,

Georgina,

By volume of existence I am assuming you mean that it is an absolute void with particles and electromagnetic radiation from those particles moving and perhaps colliding with each other. There is no physical connection between any discrete mass or emission other than the subsequent coincidence of ballistic collision or absorption and/or refraction of EMr. And all that we are capable of observing is only a small portion of what is actually actively in existence and observable due to clever contrivances of reception devices or the same responsiveness inherent to human sensory organs. That is your contention (paradigm) of what the existential reality is; am I concisely correct so far? And that there need be no other agency for a particle to be an observable distance from another if there are sufficient EMr emissions recieved, and that time is simply that which we experience as an assemblage of sensory perception and mental processes. Am I correct in that? best jrc

No absolute void. Fields have be disturbances / changes of distribution of something. I propose a base existence which allows electric, magnetic and gravitational fields to be and EM radiation. We can't see with sense organs or via devices, what exists at Unitemporal-Now. We are only able to experience the products formed. Not the Source objects from which that potential data has emanated.

Object reality is existence. to which We do not have sensory access. Image reality is the products of sensory signal receipts and processing. Compare : the beable particle is an existing thing, Object reality, Absolute as no relative perspective has been applied. The measurement is like Image reality in that it is not the source beable reality but is a limited relative, contextual; product of a process/method.

John re. your "time is simply that which we experience as an assemblage of sensory perception and mental processes. Am I correct in that?"

there are different kinds of time.

A configuration of existence is a time. Chane of that configuration is Foundational passage of time. We experience the updating of sensory products, which is Emergent passage of time; The changing subjective present.

There is also clock time which is from the counting of standard events generated by the device or in the case of sundials from the regular motion of Earth and Sol.

Thanks Georgina,

for the clarification. One other thing; do you see the several characteristics of fields as being distinct by virtue of some physical variation of the same thing (whatever that "stuff" might be), or do you think of them as being physically distinct and somehow associated with particles and EMr? jrc

Hi John,

" Employing Ockham's razor, it is better to assume there is only one kind of base existence from which all other differentiated kinds of existence are formed rather than multiple kinds of base. Supported by the apparent

conversion of particles into other kinds of particle during certain kinds of interactions. Which would not be possible if they were ultimately constituted from different foundational types of existence.' G Woodward

from Universe soup and Sandcastles. FQXi What is Fundamental essay competition, 2017

I.e. All fields, EMr and all particles being different kinds of spatial and temporal distributions of (and within) base existence.

P.S. By temporal distribution I mean being within a sequence of configurations of existence.