On a contextual model refuting Bell's theorem

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,

John,

on whether the 90 degree orientation depiction is true to existent form. From what i have read it seems that the depiction is an interpretation of Maxwell's equations. The two fields are either at 90 degrees or one is a zero vector. If a uniformly charged wire is considered, the electric field is like a static sleeve around it. Put a moving charge through it a magnetic field which has direction surrounds the wire. If there is no wire but just a moving electric field, it seems reasonable to me that the magnetic field should surround, and maybe overlap, the electric field as it does with wire. Mirroring the undulating field as it would an undulating wire. I.e. the zero vector option.

Georgina,

let's get Maxwell out of the way first. Yes, the 90* phase difference is a analytical result of Hertzian radio waves. The in phase (zero vector, in your words) graphic plot is the analytic result of stationary point charge observations and slow mechanical speed electrical generator/motor measurements which are so slow that relativistic effects are undetectable. So it remains an open question as to how does a photon produce that analytical result in the observation system. It doesn't necessarily mean that the fields of the photon itself are out of phase.

Now QKE. Early polarizers were made by inscribing very finely spaced, very fine lines into the surface of glass plates, creating a grating of electrostatic ridges. In those types of Aspect experiments the argument often made that the orientation of the prepared singlet pair would would persist, is sufficient to explain the right angle polarizer results. Fast forward the Bejing in 2017 and their partner lab in Vienna, not Alice and Bob, we call them V and B. Gone are the incised glass plates, we aren't talking about a rotation of a plate. More like the cut facets of a gemstone, which rotates the orientation of a singlet partner in a freely gimballed choice of vectorization. The Quantum satellite is in an orbital that is in the earth's shadow and so are V and B. The sequence of singlet pairs is prepared on board the satellite and the split projections toward Bejing and Vienna commences while the bird is a wee bit nearer Bejing. Both V and B know what the original singlet state vector orientation is. In their massive research facility the scientific workers under supervision of the Chinese People's Army begin the task of gimballing the original orientation of the fraternal twin sequence that gets to their lab a nano, or milisecond sooner than its partner sequence gets to Vienna. In Vienna the detection system only is concerned with what the alteration of the original orientation vector is. And that detected alteration will be the reverse of the direction of the altered vector in Bejing while the magnitude of V will be the same as the altered magnitude in B. That is Quantum Entanglement, today. Not a measure of the original orientation, but an entangled measurement of the altered orientation. Statistically it behaves like there is a direct physical connection between the two paired photons in the prepared sequence. And it is the code of the sequence of altered vectoring that at present cannot be intercepted without destroying the signal and giving away the game. {-( jrc

I am really not that concerned about China's technology... since for some reason, the U.S. just keeps on cooking. China is now prospering because it allows people to be very wealthy and so their GINI is now greater than the U.S. and China has much less freedom of belief. It is not clear how long China can survive with suppression of freedom of belief.

As far are quantum correlations go, I am all in and am really into quantum causal sets. Dave Rideout is a causal set guy and has had FXQI funding, but still, there is very little causal set stuff in the FXQI crowd. That is because causal sets do GR very well, but are not quantum... so far.

However, causal sets do this funny random sprinkling thing to a causal set that has no space or time. Space and time both emerge from this random sprinkling of a causal set into a spacetime manifold and so there is much hope that there are also quantum causal sets. A quantum causal set would then be consistent with GR and be a GUT or even a TOE.

The random sprinkling of causal set events is very reminiscent of the random but constrained photon paths of the two-slit experiment. The quantum question is never which slit does the photon go through, but the quantum question is rather how the presence of two slits alters the quantum photon phase.

Of course the photon is in a superposition of both slits because that is what quantum particles do. Anyway, here is my blog describing the two-slit causal set... two-slit causal set

There are a bunch of so-called random events that seem to determine the nature of physical reality. Since photon events are seemingly random, the photon connection between emitter and absorber seems to be at the foundation of what reality is...

John,

whether meeting the same orientations of an etched polarizer or same orientating of a facet of a crystal the 'identical' twins, I.e. Sharing relative to each other orientation, treated identically should not be expected to give different results. Why would they?

G,

B does the rotation which changes the vector of the spin angular momentum of Photon B. V does not do anything to Photon V, that detection system only registers what the vector of Photon V is. And it has changed from the original prepared singlet state vector to the reverse of the changed vector of Photon B. There is no synchronized "polarizer" in Vienna, the high tech polarizer is in the Bejing lab. In Vienna, the altered vector is registered by the detector which of course alters the altered vector, but the altered singlet vector has been observed and the detection alteration is superfluous. jrc

Georgi,

I take the coins from my pocket and put them on the counter and flip all the pennies so they show heads. Now all the pennies in your pocket are tails up. jrc

John,

I don't believe that. Heads up is a relation between observer and observed brought about via the experimental method or protocol. The coins in my pocket have not undergone the coin calling protocol or yet been observed. So there are of limited, fixed relative, contextual outcome states in my pocket. Isolated face outcomes are not the material coins. Beside them not being 'entangled'. Measuring B does not alter V. You are talking as if the theory was fact. Measuring B fixes what the matching measurement of V must be. That is not the same thing

That should say 'So there are no limited [etc.] outcome states in my pocket.'

Moving charge generates magnetic fields and the faster the motion, the greater the magnetism. The electric field of the photon changes fastest at the nodes and that is why magnetism peaks 90 degrees out of phase with the electric field for a photon.

Electromagnets emerge from the motion of electrons in wire loops and ferromagnets emerge from unpaired electron orbits in iron. This is why there is no such thing as a magnetic monopole.

Thinking more on the relative field orientations of EMr and photons. If the electric field acts out at 90 degrees to direction of travel; and the magnetic field encircles electric field at 90 degrees to direction of travel; the two fields are acting at 90 degrees to each other while taking the same wave path. Not two waves 90 degrees separated. That is a picture unlike convention. Like a boa constrictor encircling and being impaled by a porcupine.

...and of course, the oscillation of the electron electric field is what determines spin magnetism, not really a physical spinning charge. Note that the electron oscillates in both electric field as well as in mass, but at different frequencies. This is why it takes a spin rotation of 720 degrees to get the same spin back, not just 360 degrees.

Georgina, that's a creative idea and would be worth fleshing out. I was browsing earlier for info on BBO crystals and there is a striking similarity. The entanglement is circular with one circle emission on the vertical plane and the other on a horizontal plane and entanglement occurs at the points of intersection of the two circles. The emission produced is conical rather than a spherical spread. The crystal element though, is made by sandwiching two Beta-Barium-Borate discs with a 90* rotation of one in relation to the other, so its still a 5mm x 1mm flat disc. So you might be onto something, there. :-) jrc

Thanks for the link, Doc.

I gave it a once through read, but will have to chew on it some more. Random sprinkling sounds good to me, even if we have a determinate side to reality, nothing in the universe can be assumed to always work perfectly. If Quantum Phase can be seen as cyclic across the wavelength, then a continuous change of some physical property would physically allow for a single photon to couple to both slits. jrc

The advantage of the configuration given is that it gives the 90 degree relative orientation of fields and vector addition of fields as if one is a zero vector, as the field wave paths are the same. Not either or but both.

Its hard to not to confuse the graphical representations with something in 3D space> I think I'm struggling with that. I have thought about representations of field strength (and curl). At least the girth of both animals is small at the head, large at the middle and small at the tail! ?? Reversal of field strength?? The animal analogy gets bizarre with inward pointing spikes and reverse coiling snake.