On a contextual model refuting Bell's theorem

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.

Thanks Georgi.

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".

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.

Thanks again, Georgi.

Different jargon but similar thinking. I call it raw energy and go from there. jrc

Muchowsky has inserted a determinate hidden variable into the middle of a causal set of a very complex quantum process and claimed a quantum coup. The hidden variable acts just like an uncertain quantum variable for that one step and so the hidden variable determines the polarization outcome. Muchowsky then claims that this hidden variable shows determinism and not quantum uncertainty.

The quantum outcome of a single photon polarization is the simplest example of Bell's theorem. Classically, a photon always has a certain knowable polarization and a measurement simply reveals the polarization that the single photon always had before the measurement.

In contrast, a quantum single photon can exist in a superposition of polarizations without a knowable single polarization. A measurement reveals one of two polarizations statistically, but does not reveal any knowable precursor polarization for the single photon.

Muchowsky describes a process where a highly polarized quantum laser single photon results in two downshifted quantum photons by a quantum BBO crystal made up of quantum bonds and quantum atoms. Now after all these inherently quantum processes, Muchowsky inserted a hidden parameter and concluded that there is no quantum fairy and so the universe is really determinate and not quantum after all.

Methinks thou doth protest too much...

The BBO quantum photons have polarizations either perpendicular or parallel to the laser single photon. Thus, Bell's theorem does not apply since there is no role for quantum phase coherence in this comparison of entangled photons. In fact, there are many versions of hidden variables that also do not violate Bell's theorem, including McEachern's finely tuned Shannon noise of missed detections...Attachment #1: hiddenVariableInQuantum.JPG