On a contextual model refuting Bell's theorem

Georgina Woodward

That's not right. The spines (field) always point out.

John Cox

Georgina,

yeh, graphic interpretation onto a physical measurement space gets dicey. It goes topological a lot easier than 3D, and I try to keep in mind that the planar sections under the curve are representative of the measurement of inverse square law effect which is a straight line LOS. The minimum value of field intensity being coincident with the maximum of the other force effect field that results from the 90* phase shift, (I think) is indicative of there being a real cyclic rise and fall of density in the time span of any wavelength. And that can equate with acceleration (positive and negative) such that electric density reduces to maximum magnetic in the first half wavelength, then collapsing to recover electric effect density in the second half of the waveform (?). The reversing polarity of successive wavelengths is puzzling and maybe attributable to detector field reaction but I don't think that can hold up. Maybe at the head of the snake it bites the rattle on the tail of the next snake, and gets turned inside out lensing through that pinch point(?). jrc

Georgina Woodward

Electromagnetic waves, YouTube https://youtu.be/W1cTpqM9DaU Explains why in phase.

John, I'm confusing both of us. By field reversal I was intending change of direction of the motion . Not clear sorry. I think it is not going to work combining what is with what happens. They are different pictures. I think the electric field always points out but that is based on a field from moving electrons. Maybe its different.

John Cox

Georgina,

That's just the thing, isn't it? All of the graphics and representations are not of a hypothetical photon... they are all representations of observational measurements of interaction of the fields of both a photon and the aggregate field of a macroscopic (detector) antennae. And that interface incorporates the confused rates of change of intensities of electric and magnetic fields in the Transition Zone. Load in the particle model of the photelectric effect and the whole problem of "what is a photon"" gets profoundly confused. ( and it pays so well, eh? ) :-)

John Cox

Oh! I almost forgot. If we model a 3D photon and it has an axial rotation at all while moving at light velocity in one direction, then any point on the rotating surface would have to exceed light velocity or lag the direction of motion and drift backwards along the photon's surface.

John Cox

Dr. Agnew,

"The photon connection between emitter and absorber seems to be at the foundation of what reality is..."

And of course we cannot observe what that might be without absorbing a photon in mid flight. Even a semi-classical model would seem to founder on the shoals known physical laws. But superposition can be made real in a 3D model of a photon as a soloton due to the limit of light velocity. Spin angular momentum would dictate an axial rotation of a soloton and any vector of which would exceed light velocity as the vector projects perpendicular to a one dimensional axis parallelized to the direction of motion. That's wordy, but correct. Actually, in my attempts at modeling, physical rotation plays a relativistic role hypothesizing a postulate that density varies in direct inverse relation to velocity. ie: if a vector must exceed LV on a modeled surface of the soloton, then it must conversely compensate by drifting backwards to direction of mo9tion, so it physically would be in superposition. Relativistically, if it exceeds LV then it would be drifting backwards in time, so it would still be in superposition. It's operationally going forwards and backwards at the same time as long as the soloton is not slowed by a diffracting EM field or to rest by absorbsion. best jrc

Steve Dufourny

Steve Agnew, you seem to make the same general error than many considering these photons like the primordial essence and the GR. So you consider that all the forces come from these photons and their oscillations, and so you interpret even this Dark matter like this with your explaination from the gravitation and stars. Since when can you affrim this ?? a second thing also is about the TOE or GUT , are you conscious that we know nothing still and that a GUT is not possible to reach and it will be the same if we survive in 1 million years. with all my respects, you affrim things not proved. If you tell that the emissions and absorption of the photons are what is the reality and if you affirm this about the dark matter, woww for me it is more than odd . You have made the same for your antiverse , I am curious , tell us more about your general philosophy, what is the origin of the universe and why and what are the foundamental objects , you can explain with the strings, points and the geometrical algebras and photons and why and what is the proof, you can even begin with a BB.

Steve Dufourny

to be frank , I have difficulties to understand how it is possible that the majority of thinkers consider just this BB and photons oscillating with this GR , we have evolved in 100 years of relativity and hop gocus pocus the majority concludes that they understand the generality of the universe and its philosophy. Is it a hidden camera, we have deeper logic to add to this puzzle, and the photons alone like primoridial essence is total non sense for me. They are just photons , a tool for the universe and the luminiferous spacetime is just a part of the puzzle, so what is this prison of thought ? we are youngs at this universal scale, and how is it possible that we conclude these things about the gut, the toe, the photons, the strings, and others ? the universe is more complex than this and has so many secrets to show us. The fact to consider just the photons and their oscillations vibrations, absorptions, emissions or this or that is more than reductor considering our limitations. We can compare our knowledges at this quantum scale to our knowledges at this comsological scale, we have more than 10000billions of galaxies, and even our nearest planet we don t know it lol , it could be well if the thinkers are a little bit less persuaded to know how acts this universe because it becomes odd. We are not in a competition of knowledges, we search answers and we cannot affirm unknowns and we cannot conclude due to these limitations.

Georgina Woodward

John, you wrote, "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 Cpx My reply got burred.

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.

Georgina Woodward

Bother, I forgot to correct the typo. That should say 'So there are no limited [etc.]'

John Cox

Georgi,

That was a simple analogy of the one direction transmission of a Quantum Key codicillary exploited by the Chinese Quantum Experiments at Space Scale. The sequence of entangled singlet pairs is produced on board the satellite and the Bejing lab manipulates the vector of Spin on the photons it recieves. The Vienna lab does not manipulate the Spin vector of the paired photon sequence it recieves a short uni-temporal time interval later, V only records the Spin vector that has been altered on that leg by the manipulation of the vector by the Bejing lab. It apparently worked well enough that they could transmit a video protected by the Quantum Key code without anybody decrypting the video signal. And that was 4 years ago.

John Cox

It goes without saying that the only way the Vienna lab could know the vector sequence would be if the theory is fact. There is no other connection between the two labs than the reception of the sequence of singlet pairs produced on board the satellite. That sequence can be preprogramed as either all same vectors, or as any variant of differing vectors, but the only info the Vienna lab had was what that the pair production vectorization was. And when Trump made his State visit to China in 2017, his conditioned reflexive exaggerated body language deserted him. He changed what he was mumbling in mid sentence and leaned on the podium like a Frat pledge puking into the toilet. In the U.S. entourage only James Mattis, old Jar Head that he is didn't look like a deer caught in the headlights. He at least was willing to accept the best assessments of the Defense Intelligence Estimate. jrc

Georgina Woodward

John,

from a quick browse, it seems the breakthrough is the distance the 'entangled states were transmitted (as they are delicate). Each lab received a random sequence. To know the sequence it would have to be received and measured. if intercepted prior to that entanglement would be lost and noticeable. The talk itself over the internet. The key shows if there has been tampering it doesn't stop it. I think you are making it far more 'spooky' than it is.

Georgina Woodward

John,

Each labs sequence is made of photons that are half of a pair, the other lab getting the partner.

same measurements performed by each receiver would give very high correspondence of outcomes (there could be anomalies as previously discussed.) It is not necessary; Random choice of measurements can be expected to give greater than random occurrence of correspondence. As every matching measurement orientation gives 100 percent matched outcome (Ignoring very small incidence of anomaly). not a random outcome. Tampering so that 'entanglement' is lost would make all outcomes random. That is a far cry from the kind of spooky state flipping you gave as aan analogy.

John Cox

Georgina,

The ChiCom do admit publicly that their QUESS program includes entangled 'flip' experiments but what they only admit as achievement in 2017 is the argument you just gave. Which actually goes to Steve Agnew's interest in Quantum causal sets. After all, if there is entanglement it can't be random at the same time, only the technical capacity to get it right would be random. It would be folly to digress into argument of how much information can be trusted about secret research, as with any secrecy the only way to keep it is to not admit there is a secret. So most will follow the textbook arguments. I am not career-wise constrained from speaking too soon, so I'll follow a rationale that accepts a hidden variable and question how wavelength might effect the strength of entanglement. Would radio wavelength be less fragile than X-rays? or vice versa? The Chinese are a polite society, but I learned the hard way which is tragically the long way, that politeness dare not be mistaken for modesty.

Georgina Woodward

John,

I don't think which photon of a pair is which can be controlled at production. I think it is random. If a computer generates a random sequence of numbers displayed on screen and printed out, I think both displays are still of a random number sequence. Even though there are two versions of it. I give that as analogy for a sequence of entangled photons. Though there are two 'opposite' versions of the sequence ( may give anticorrelated outcomes), each sequence considered alone is still random. Same measurements of the pair do not give random outcomes but correlated because they are of the 'same' sequence /anticorrelated version of it.

John Cox

Georgina,

I don't know. On one hand the production on any singlet pair would be unpredictable as to which 'side' of the source would have a positive and the other a negative vector, but then we also have the problem of the projection of singlet pairs being actually a cluster and not actually of a single singlet pair as theoretically described. So In practice our source device would essentially pre-program the majority of a projected emission cluster to be aligned as one side ways being predictably and the other anti-correlated, wouldn't you think? That is the loophole in practice that Bell enthusiasts decry in theory. And theoretically you make a good argument. I am not anything near a statistician, can't stand the stuff, so in fairness I really can't say. :-) jrc

Georgina Woodward

John.

Are the clusters measured as if single or sequentially? If measured as one isn't that the same as if one?

John Cox

Georgina,

That's just the point. Experimentally at present there is no way to actually count the number of photons in any one cluster, A cluster would register as a single detection, and subsequent emissions of clusters would register sequentially. So it raises the question of whether the polarity of any cluster is pristine or if in the process of directing the path of projection the polarity vector is pre-set, or "put in by hand" in theoretical parlance.

The textbook explanation of the 2017 Quess experiment still boils down to a one time pad and a random number generator. So why couldn't the super computerized cryptologists of other national observers (whom would have had to be anticipating the attempt for it to have any political punch) crack the code? I mean it's old hat in clandestine tradecraft to tease the competition by making it difficult to spy on what you want your opponent to think is secret.

Georgina Woodward

John,

"entanglement' does not persist beyond first measurement, letting it be known someone has intercepted the sequence. Like securing a door with a human hair. Easy for anyone to enter but the displaced hair lets the intrusion be known, afterwards.

John Cox

Georgi,

this is new on my browser, and much different from what I've understood of capabilities. This source says a 2020 test achieved a QKD transmission at a rate of only 0.12 bits per second, which would be 5 seconds for one bit of information to be passed to ground stations from the satellite.

https://asiatimes.com/2020/06/chinese-team-claims-quantum-supremacy-with-satellite-test

John Cox

oops... 8.3 seconds, what was I thinking

John Cox

Steve D.

Each to their own paradigm, eh. I think what Steve Agnew was emphasizing is that there really is an observationally over abundance of detectable events which we can only treat as random because there are too many to sort out and determine any distinct one event to be originating from an identifiable source.

Everyone is going to naturally approach any question from a paradigm that satisfies an intellectual requirement for comprehension. And there is no end of competing paradigms. But as a matter of rules of logic, an argument in one paradigm is not a valid argument against a competing paradigm, apples do not negate oranges. Where we can find a validity of arguments, is only where a similar or corroborating line of reason, conclusion or result is found in competing paradigms.

Of course, I reserve the right to complain about others I might disagree with but that's no argument either. What the heck. :-) jrc

Steve Dufourny

Hi John,

I don t critic the knowledges of Steve A, we can be all proud to know the sciences and we study all days to improve these knowledges, the problem is not there. I respect his knowledges. The problem for me is when we affirm assumptions. Like I said I doubt strongly that this GR and photons like primordial essence are the only one truth. Even Einstien recognised this, he doubted. The problem so is philosophical about the origin of the universe and all our unknowns. I make the same in my theory , I have many assumptions that I don t affrim, and so we are free to discuss. Even my theory of spherisation, it is an assumption like my 3D spheres like foundamental mathematical and physical objects. I suppose that the strings theorists logic and humble make the same, they don t affirm to know the truth, the same for the geometrodynamicsts and the points of the GR and the correlated spacetime. I don t like simply when persons affirm assumptions, because we cannot simply affrim to know these deep unknowns, even our standard model we know so few, the same for our comsological knowledges.We have several convergent intepretations of our quantum mechanics and they converge , we have improved the general relativity also since the discovery of einstein, but how is it possible to tell that all this is the only one truth about the photons oscillating, emitting, absorbing and the fields ? We must accept our limitations in knowledges. The quantum mechanics like the universe have so many things to show us. These photons and this GR are important but have created also a prison for me. I like hos steve agnew explains his knowledges but he must be prudent in affirming assumptions simply. We are not in a competition of knowledges, we search answers and we don t have all the answers. So the doubt is essential about the general philosophy, the QM, the cosmology.

Steve Agnew

"It's operationally going forwards and backwards at the same time as long as the soloton is not slowed by a diffracting EM field or to rest by absorption. best jrc"

...it sounds like your soliton paths are very much like photon paths... so you are getting to where you can make up a universe. Here is my post on how quantum gravity bonds bodies to the universe and not really to each other. Rather, it is the sprinkled photon shadows that make it seem like there is a force of gravity between bodies.

Universe from Sprinkled Random Photons

You mention that light velocity limits all action, which is certainly true. The quantum photon does not really have a direction because it is the emitter and absorber that give meaning to the photon direction. By definition, the absorber is an absorber because the photon decays to heat faster than it decays at the emitter.

In fact, if the absorber does not absorb at all, it is a mirror and reflects the photon back to the emitter... which can also be a mirror. This is how lasers work...

So the arrow of time comes from the sprinkled random photon paths along with the photon decay to heat at the absorber. Note that the heat produced is also quantum emission of multiple lower frequency photons but now with random phase and direction.

Those new photon paths are causally linked to the first photon path, but now also randomly sprinkled photon paths.

What is really fun is that these paths now show both scalar gravity between bodies as well as vector gravity that is perpendicular to that line. Vector gravity is what stabilizes galaxy rotations, not dark matter. Vector gravity is due to moving bodies that radiate and is analogous to moving charge generating magnetic fields...

John Cox

Thanks for the thoughts and Link, Doc. I put it on my favorites for a later read. I recognized it would be in keeping with your matter-time paradigm, and I find more and more incidental agreements as I have learned more of your theoretical approach. I'll have to chew quite a bit on your contention that gravity bonds bodies to the universe rather than to each other. In a spacetime approach which literally sees both space and time as existential and dynamic actors in the relationship between bodies and the global universe, there is a real bug-a-bear in taking a quantum gravitational unitary particle global. I won't digress more than to say that it goes more to a "qualia" (sounds like a modern made-up word I dislike) of energy behavior that allows the extreme minimum density ranges to co9eleace, each adding to the aggregate volume. A tenuous argument, I admit, and a topological challenge. jrc

« Previous Page Next Page »