On a contextual model refuting Bell's theorem

Hi John,

I beleive that the origin of our topologies geometries , properties don t come from this GR and the fields in resume, I believe strongly that there is an enormpous philosophical problem in considering these photons like the only one primoridal essence of this universe and that they oscillate , vibrate at this planck scale in 1D connected with the EFE and the GR like a 1D cosmic field of this GR.

I beleive that they are just a fuel for the matters baryonic ordinary and permit the electromagnetic fields and the heat. I believe and it is just my interpretation that the electromagnetism is emergent from this coded space vacuum of this DE anti gravitational. This vacuum coded encodes in resume these photons and this cold dark matter permitting to mass and matters baryonic to emerge. That is why this central cosmological sphere if it exists intrigues me a lot because this thing sends the informations in these series of 3D spheres and is a kind of super matter energy. The real informations primoridal so are in this vacuum , we utilise the waves for our computers and the photons and sound waves but they are informations that we have created, the universe is for a deeper logic about the real primoridal informations.

These photons and cold dark matter when they merge with this vacuum in my model preserve the volumes, the number of the serie does not change, so the densities and properties of spherical volumes, yes, and the symplectomorphisms preserving the volumes can explain the deformations and assymetries permitting the uniqueness of things. That is why even all is unique even us,the planets, stars.....This evolution so becomes essential. All in resume is a little bit the same when the motions are not there but when the fuels permit to activate the properties of this vacuum, they create all the diversity of the mendeleev table more the complexity of interactions of exchanges in physics, chemistry and biology more the evolution and even this consciousness. So indeed the densities are essential and seem a key like the motions rotations and oscillations of these spherical volumes.

The mass also is emergent from this vacuum of the DE. An interesting point also is that the evolution can be predicted because we have this DM and DE disponible at this cosmological scale and the life death also can be correlated like the recycling due to photons and electromagnetic fields, because all seems to have a life time. The real complex thing to know so is the informations of this space vacuum and why we are conscious and what is the future of all this. The GR of course is a beautiful intepretation of einstein having interpreted the gravitation like a curvature of the space time at high velocities, he is right for this referential, newton also is right for his referential at slow velocities like a force between mass. But if the gravitation is the main chief orchestra balances between the anti gracvitation of the DE and the gravitation of the ordinary matter, that becomes fasciating to consider it like the main chief orchestra.

That is why this Quantum gravitation is not an emergent electromagnetic force in my reasoning that I have quantified. If you take the distances not of protons and electrons ,and that you consider this space vacuum coded and the cold dark matter encoded, that explains the animatter and the QG.....Friendly

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Describe the volumetric shape of a 'photon'.

Describe the volumetric shape of a 'photon'.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.JPGAttachment #2: photonTransformLimit.JPG

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.

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....

"... 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.

Is this of any interest?

Measuring the shape of a Photon

"The idea is to "mix" the photon to be measured with an intense laser pulse, allowing the photon and the pulse to interfere and either reinforce or cancel one another, depending on their shapes. The closer the shapes, the more likely it is that the photon will be detected." FOCUS, physics.aps.org, August 3, 2012, Physics 5, 86

Georgina,

How about this as a semantic bridge between philosophy and science terminology:

Your link to experimental efforts towards observation of an actual realistic shape of a photon is quite relevant and there are a few efforts I've come across over time that seek to isolate a single photon, the most recent was a credentialed protected source at U. of Maryland several years ago which claimed empirical success down to 4 photons.

In experimental physics, there is such a thing as "confounding variables" as opposed to "hidden variables" in theoretical parlance. Such can be illustrated by the clear implication of the photoelectric equation (e=hf) that any single wavelet will carry the Planck value quantity of energy, so it suggests a model of a wavetrain of same frequency solotons is the physical phenomenon of EMR and that intensity is confused with rapidity of of energetic transfer in an experimental regimen that only counts time span on the detector and assimilates multiple wavetrains as one. Conventionally there is the std model that the photon is a single entity, These are conflicting views but as of yet no experiment satisfies the dispute; hence we lack a definitive result.

So, okay, Kant's definition of noumenon rather than phenomenon could apply. Yes EMR is existential as a phenomenon but as yet is not predictably explained in an experiment based model. Does that distinction satisfy your criteria? jrc

p.s. Steve D's recognition that if the volume remains constant to any frequency of EM but the shape changes is, I think, quite important. And I myself found years ago that just following the math as I modeled an e=hf wavetrain, produced a constant volume across all frequencies. (My pet, but I'm not satisfied that its paper trained yet)