On a contextual model refuting Bell's theorem

John Cox

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

Georgina Woodward

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.

Georgina Woodward

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.

John Cox

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

Georgina Woodward

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.

Georgina Woodward

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

John Cox

Thanks again, Georgi.

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

Steve Agnew

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...

Steve Agnew

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

John Cox

Doc Agnew,

And still no one can say what a photon even looks like. We are stuck with a spread of probabilities that we can only loosely associate with the mutually perpendicular orthogonality of electromagnetic response, and the axial pseudovector that results in a flip decision when two EM fields are in near enough proximity to interact. Call it what we may, we need a new plan, Sam. best jrc

Steve Dufourny

John, what is a photon indeed ??? a point, a string or a serie of 3D spheres like in my model and what are their changes , it is due to what ? is it due to external fields of this GR or .....

John Cox

Onward! through the fog!

Steve Dufourny

aha lol , and the fog is thick , we cannot see our steps .... onward told us the source that said

Georgina Woodward

Hi John, I think you are alluding to its unsee-able form. What it looks like, the phenomenon is a very tiny flash of light, when seen in a completely dark environment. The product formed subsequent to stimulation of a photoreceptor.

Just as the seen light is not the photon particle alone, the probabilities are not the property of the photon alone but relations with it, whereby something to do with it can be known.

John Cox

Yep, that's the ticket. So what new ideas for experimentation can be proposed to perhaps discover what sort of form a 'photon' might exhibit? Such as "why is the perforated screen on the interior of the glass door of my microwave effective in preventing irradiation of objects outside the oven? Why that size of holes? jrc

Georgina Woodward

John,

Visible 'light' has a very, very much smaller wavelength than microwaves. So cooking inside can be seen because of the visible 'light' wavelengths passing through. The microwave wavelength is about 12cm. I have read that waves van pass easily through an aperture of diameter 1/4 their wavelength. It gets less likely transmission will occur the smaller than 1/4 wavelength the hole's diameter. At about 1/120 of the microwave wavelength the perforated screen is, I presume, as impenetrable to the microwaves as a solid barrier. A photon is an amount of energy. A change of existence happening over time. Only whole photons are detectable, As only they can cause change to an atom/ shift the energy level of an electron. I.e. that amount of energy is the minimum for a change that can be detected.

John Cox

Georgina,

I haven't been aware of those specific ratios, but it is along the lines I have contemplated. Perhaps what we call a (measured) photon consists of more than one waveform and is self sustaining as a gravitationally discrete soloton which could be modeled as a 3D packet of energy. The perf size might be indicative of the effective diameter of an electrostatic density response with the magnetic density reactive domain of the metallic screen material(?), given Maxwell's determination that the intensities of a point charge exhibit a c proportional difference between electric and magnetic influence. The screen acts effectively as an antennae. thanks for the thoughts, I'm sure Steve finds a fit also. jrc

Georgina Woodward

John,

soliton is a good description. 'Particle' works in "the least possible amount" meaning [2], as they are the minimum detectable amount. The other meaning of 'particle'[1] seems to suit fermions, atoms and ions.

From Oxford Languages: particle noun !. a minute portion of matter 2.the least possible amount

John Cox

Georgina,

IN CONTEXT, with this topic the question of what is a particle goes to the QM treatment of superposition as argued by Agnew et al, and a classical description. And of course QM treats a photon as a massless particle. And as of yet, classicism hasn't produced a particle model which is sufficient to account for the characteristic behaviors observed in what we assume to be particulate matter. That kind of leaves to discussion open to interpretation, but what I personally keep going back to is simply that IF and Only If there is a physical connectivity (not to be conflated with material) across a light separable distance then the violation of inequalities would be explained. I just do not accept the conventional paradigm that the primary force effects peter out to infinity. I model them as local and time-wise self limiting relative to mass. jrc

Steve Dufourny

Hi FQXi friends, all this is very philosophical about what is really a photon and its origin. The same could be asked about what is really an electron . A photon is seen actually like a quantum of light, so having also the ability to change its wavelenghts and can be stored in the electromagnetic wave. It is simply a quantum of E , a quantum of Heat , able to change its wavelenghts , but the real question how inside this photon. You know my model now with the series of 3D spheres, so the changes of a photon are incredicle in their complexity seen the number of these series having the same number than the comsological finite number. See also the relevance of rotations motions, oscillations of these spherical volumes of this quanta of light. And is they are encoded in this space vacuum coded of the DE with the cold dark matter , so that becomes interesting for the disptributions of properties of matters created when they fuse. They are massless travelling at c and there are reasons because without this we cannot observe. The electromagnetic fields and radio waves are due to this light but the complexity of encodings in this space vacuum is complex and imply a distribution of matter and the other forces also due to this number of photons encoded and their waves. See also that it becomes relevant when this dark matter cold is encoded also , because they permit with the higgs mechanism activated by the photons encoded to create the mass, it is like if this space vacuum coded possesssed an energy and codes and that the mass of the DM and the quantum of light permitted to activate what they must become these matters. Of course it is just my interpretation but see that all can be ranked and understood with rational proportions of the 3 series merging and these spherical volumes in motions and oscillations. The interactions of exchanges also can be understood and ranked.

When I tell that the strings and this GR alone have created a philosophical prison, it is not false, the thinkers turn in round in forgetting to return at this old school of proportions. The maths are essential but when the abstract maths are utilised and that the philosophy general is limited, that implies an ocean of confusions and irrational extrapolations. There is nothing of really odd with the light and if hidden variables exist they don t come for me from external hideen fields but they come from the matters and are not still analysed due problems of scales and philosophy. The space vacuum of this DE seems the key.....

Georgina Woodward

Hi John, I don't understand why" IF and Only If there is a physical connectivity.." J.C. Is the results being probabilistic the issue?? If Alice and Bob are operating independently on their own local measurements, probabilistic results are to be expected. For 3 settings X, y, Z, 1/3 of the time choosing settings that give symmetry keeping (anti) correlation. 2/3 of the time 505 same outcome as (anti)correlation; But not from symmetry keeping but probabilistic outcome when two 'values' are available. Treating all outcomes as having the same influence is problematic. There is a symmetry imparted at pair production maintained if treated symmetrically .Lost as soon as the particles undergo asymmetric treatments. How the results fit with space-time is an issue. It has to go rather than superdeterminism, or Many worlds being needed.

Georgina Woodward

That should say "2/3 of the time 50% same outcome as..."

John Cox

Georgina,

Going back to the simplified illustration of a Bell-Aspect experiment, being a point light source midway between two polarizers and a photomultiplier detector beyond each of the polarizers so that a flash of light will register by the detectors. On average; if the polarizers are aligned in the same direction, both detectors will register. If the polarizers are aligned at right angle to each other, on average only one detector will register but the probability of which one will is that which you have laid out. STILL, the point is that only one detector will register and that suggests that there is a physical connectivity which is sustained between the emission source and the transit of the photonic pulses going in opposite directions. Yet we have to contend with the fact that the light source is a highly complex aggregate of atomic structure and that a multitude of photonic emissions must be being generated by a single energizing if the circuit that makes the trick bulb flash.

In a relativistic field paradigm (my own personal preference, others need not agree) the term "hidden variable" is not hidden at all, because in a 'spacetime' regime Time is just as physically real as is the particulate matter of the emitter and other elements of the experimental device, so is Space. The variables of the complex light source atomic structure may be subsumed in a locally global domain as a composite Transition Zone which modulates the frequency of the emitted EMR into a coherent (classical, Webster's Dictionary definition, not the intentional backwards definition of QM) soloton having a volumetric waveform. And in a relativistic reference frame there is a Time-wise rigid connection between the two solotons across the source that is just as real as if it were a steel rod. First one to put a QKE system into global operation will control the world's transfer of billions of digital dollars per hour. You pays your money and you places your bet. jrc

Steve Agnew

John Cox: And still no one can say what a photon even looks like. We are stuck with a spread of probabilities that we can only loosely associate with the mutually perpendicular orthogonality of electromagnetic response, and the axial pseudovector that results in a flip decision when two EM fields are in near enough proximity to interact."

Since photons are how we see anything at all, we all know very well what photons look like. What you mean is that, classically, there is no such thing as a single photon at all, you believe that a photon is just the 1 bit limit of Shannon noise. If you believed in photons, you would at least be at the semiclassical limit with Einstein and Planck and not still back at Maxwell.

Even Shannon believed in photons and for the quantum BBO experiment, quantum photons are everywhere. There is not even a semiclassical explanation for the BBO photon entanglement pair.

Georgina Woodward

Hi John,

you overcome the need for superluminal communication using the waveforms to direct the outcomes. I think you are talking about relative phase. Which could explain the symmetry keeping/loosing, for photons. With space-time there still has to be the singular outcomes already in spacetime or all possible outcomes in the spacetime of the Many Words multiverse. The first option means giving up the freewill to even select a setting or angle. For Many Worlds too free will is not possible as all options must be chosen by versions of the experimenter. Which do you favour? I think giving up outcome deteerminism (so called Realism) required by a spacetime environment is the 'lesser evil', compared to superluminal communication (so called non locality), superdeterminism or Many Worlds.

John Cox

Describe the volumetric shape of a 'photon'.

Georgina Woodward

John your question seems to presume that the photon is like a solid object, We do not know that. it is an amount of energy. I have proposed that it is a disturbance of the base existence. It moves at the speed of light in a vacuum. Slightly slower when passing through an other medium. That makes saying where one is problematic. Like the fastest cake in the world- Scone (said quickly with a northern English dialect.) They have to be intercepted to say where one was. I've read visible light has a wavelength of 380 to 700nm. So very tiny but very nippy.

Georgina Woodward

A photon prior to detection is not a phenomenon. I used to think a phenomenon is just something that happens. It is not. It is something apparent through sense or senses; "observed to exist or happen" Oxford languages. Instead the undetected photon is a noumenon, beable, an actualization using my own terminology; a thing that exists independently of observation or measurement. Spacetime models the experience of phenomena.

John Cox

Georgina,

I do understand your imperative to classify terminology, and I also have referred to common English language definitions to qualify in discussion what I mean. However, I think that it is counterproductive to impose a personalized scheme of new words on what the conventions of scientific discourse have long established. Various words are often argued in qualification, and there is often disagreement as to what duly constitutes what some word might be. Such it is with "phenomenon", which one might argue as an existential event or physical entity whether it is observed or not, while others will argue that all exists in a coherent state of superposition until an actual measurement is made. You are of course free to make up your own paradigm as you engage your thought and evolve conclusions, just keep in mind that to communicate your thoughts it will require that you must assume the pedagogical role to explain word usage that resolve back to meanings that others already customarily use.

As to my preferred paradigm and my simple challenge, 'Describe the volumetric shape of a photon'... I refer you and Dr. Agnew back to the thread in this topic started by R. McEachern with 3 replies shown and 28 hidden, and my two posts on May 23 @ 13:55 and 14:37. That's not the whole model but it certainly goes beyond Maxwell, though I doubt any of us follows every post of everbody else and I don't expect Dr. Agnew to pay much attention to me.

I'm going to take a break for a while, I have some time sensitive matters which by necessity and legal practicality I must be catching up. best to all for now...jrc

Georgina Woodward

phenomenon Wikipedia" thing appearing to view'; plural phenomena) is an observable fact or event. The term came into its modern philosophical usage through Immanuel Kant, who contrasted it with the noumenon, which cannot be directly observed".

I have not made up my own meaning of the word 'phenomenon'. As I said I used to misunderstand it.

Georgina Woodward

Photon of EM radiation is a noumenon.

Flash of light in a darkened room and click of a photomultiplier are phenomena that might also be refeed to as a photon. Those phenomena are observations that show the photon had existence.

Steve Agnew

The volumetric shape of the photon depends on the photon spectrum and can vary quite a bit. In the transform limit, a sinc pulse defines both the time volume as well as the frequency volume spectra.

There are both electric and magnetic field oscillations for a photon and a photon can carry information as both amplitude and phase, or intensity and polarization.Attachment #1: photonOscillation.JPG Attachment #2: photonTransformLimit.JPG

Steve Dufourny

Steve Agnew, it is interesting all this about the volumes, I consider them very important in my theory. That can be relevant to consider the general volume that we observe and link with the series that I explained. The proportions can be ranked in function of many parameters. The external parameters like the parameters inside these photons . If the volumetric shape preserves the volume but changes, it becomes interesting about the main causes implying this.

Steve Dufourny

The holograms of photons can be of course considered with the phases , amplitudes and wavefunctions. The informations so can be studied .It is like the interferometric analysis if my memory is correct. But there is a difference with the columes of holograms and the real shape volumic of these photons but they converge probably if we knew what is really a photon. We have the same problem with the electrons, we don t know what they are really like foundamental mathematical and physical objects, but we see properties and if we find the good partitions and if we knew what they are really, it d be very relevant to improve the technologies of these photons . They are for me series of 3D spheres and not strings or points oscillating. If the volumes of these spheres are essential and that their number is very important, so the properties are incredible also considering their motions rotations oscillations. We must maybe differenciate the informations considering the 3 main systems that I considered, the real informations to reach a real quantum computer universal must consider probably qutrits and the informations in this space vacuum of the DE. It is there that the holograms become relevant to converge with the volumes of space for the computation but in going farer than just with photons.The spherical volumes of these 3 primordial series must be the key at my humble opinion. It is there that the strings and spheres conjecture appear and we don t really need lower dimensions or extradimensions, just the 3D spherical volumes can be sufficient and we can consider the gravitational bridges because this force is the main chief orchestra. Like I said in my model I have reached this quantum gravitation and the holographic principle and the strings were not necessary but the 3 series yes in a pure 3D , that is why we must return at this old school for the propertions and properties of these Spheres simply. Yang Mills , the ADS CFT correspondence, the strings, the Mtheory, the E8.....are not necessary to quantify this QG. Furthermore a fith force appears considering this space vacuum possessing the main codes encoding the two fuels....

Georgina Woodward

"... a photon can carry information as both amplitude and phase, or intensity and polarization" Steve Agnew

A single photon is either detected or isn't. Intensity portrayed by amplitude relate to how many photons. If many photons strike the retina of an observer it will appear to be brighter than when only a few photons are being received, Photons can have different energies portrayed as different frequencies. Different individual photoreceptor cells each respond to a particular frequency or range of frequencies.

« Previous Page Next Page »