Quantum Physics and the End of Reality by Sabine Hossenfelder and Carlo Rovelli

Your feedback would be much appreciated.

"The best-known formulation of the rule is Laplace's principle of indifference (or principle of insufficient reason), which states that, when "we have no other information than" that exactly mutually exclusive events can occur, we are justified in assigning each the probability 1/N This subjective assignment of probabilities is especially justified for situations such as rolling dice and lotteries since these experiments carry a symmetry structure, and one's state of knowledge must clearly be invariant under this symmetry." Wikipedia equiprobability

The assumption of equipossibility (equally likely) is the start of the problem.

"We can. however, rig up an experiment where the interactions can not affect each other without faster than light communication but where the same impossible numerical weirdness persists. The key is not to have the photon pass through filters at different points in time but through different points in space at the same time." Bell's Theorem: The Quantum Venn Diagram Paradox.

Addressing the "impossible numerical weirdness" http://viXra.org/abs/2211.0009

2 pages

Ref. Bell's Theorem: The Quantum Venn Diagram Paradox. YouTube video https://youtu.be/zcqZHYo7ONs

I start by mentioning a fishing scenario but could have been more explicit. Lets say there are equal numbers of vegetarian grass carp and piranhas. If the bait used is a strip of steak , there is little likelihood the catch will have even numbers of each species. A model built upon the assumption of an equally distributed catch would be wrong. Wrong because equipossibility has been assumed as the difference in behavioural biology was not known. "Recall Laplace's formulation, when "we have no other information than" that exactly mutually exclusive events can occur, we are justified in assigning each the probability 1/N "The catches are mutually exclusive. You are going o catch fish of one kind or the other with one hook.

http://viXra.org/abs/2211.0009 2 pages

It's not about fish and their likes..

It becomes more relevant when we are taking account of something that does not give a definite will or won't answer but affects the probability. (So not a variable like red hat or has glasses!) I give the analogy of basketball inflation affecting probability a ball will pass through a hoop of fixed size. For comparison with-

Photon wave component orientation affecting probability a photon will pass a polarizer of certain orientation. Giving the characteristic probability distribution. For sequential polarizers or the same angle between orientations of distant polarizers testing entangled pairs. Even if I didn't precisely spell it out.

http://viXra.org/abs/2211.0009 2 page

The actual physical correlation between an entangled pair is conserved as they move apart. The angle that each partner's wave component meets its own polarizer, and whether it passes, is a matter of geometry. Which as a system is shared- that having bearing on correlation or not of geometry determined joint outcomes. Geometry, (instantaneous as its about existence), not particle communication is involved.

Polarizers do not have homogeneous structure. It makes sense that if a polarizer is rotated relative to wave orientation of an incoming photon the likelihood of its passing through should vary. We should not expect that to a straightforward linear relationship as the structure of the polarizer is not varying that way. Close to aligned or aligned, passing is easiest. Furthest from aligned, most difficult.

A basketball of fixed standard size, thrown at a standard hoop has a chance of passing through. The likelihood depends on the trajectory of the ball. Not all standard balls and hoops will have the same chance. There has to be precise matching up of the physical matter of ball and hoop to get a physical relationship that allows passing.

So too, the chemical structure of the polarizer must be in a relation with the physical actualization of 'light' so passing through is possible. How possible will depend on how exactly it, the 'light' actualization, is moving .There will be correlation between the translation orientation of the wave component with the particles trajectory. That is not a simple quantum, yes it will or no it will not, but a likelihood of yes or no, like the basketball analogy.

Quantum physics gives us the idea that quantum particles' behaviour, such as that of photons require giving up locality or realism. That is relinquishing; That causes are local or locally mediated and that things are real before measurement. Maybe the fundamental concept is wrong, giving wrong conclusions. Reconsidering photons: What other 'picture' fits the facts we know? How are they formed? What's missing? Does it have explanatory advantages?

'Picture' of Electromagnetic Radiation Carriers as Photon Bits and Bobs

http://viXra.org/abs/2211.0116

What do you think of it?

5 pages

Still work in progress. I haven't clearly set out that Bit and Bob have to be separate entities though associated so they are separable.

Likening the picture to 'bouncing oil droplets; The bit 'bubble is like the droplet. The bob wave, inherited sympathetic frequency, like the external disturbance associated with the droplet, but not it.

I think getting the probabilities of passing. There is the forwards travel direction and also orientation of magnetic and electric fields, which will affect interaction with the chemical structure of the polarizer. I'm still unclear about the role of each. Thinking about a theoretical landscape of probabilities varying over 360 degrees for each direction. If that is helpful I'm not sure.

Ejected 'bubble' electron holes do provide the moving charge needed for traveling magnetic and electric fields.

But not being material things with mass they can't in theory carry charge. [?] OK, its an absence of at least some the ubiquitous base existence so shouldn't.

Yet electron holes in a wire are said to be positively charged compared to the electrons. They too aren't material entities with mass but an absence.

Ejected 'bubble' electron holes do provide a [difference] that we can not call a charge in this context, but maybe can call it so in other contexts] source for the sustained traveling magnetic and electric fields. A Bit-photon body that possesses the fields that are expresses perpendicular to the Bit direction of travel.

The separable Bob wave, obtained by sympathetic vibration with parent atom, has to be different to the Bit motion dependent field waves.

What if the idea of electric field orientation being associated with polarization is wrong? Maybe its just going along with Bit. What if its a mechanical wave 'Bob' that's inherited from parent atom's vibration. That gets split, then recombined giving the interference pattern, affecting the location of Bit, Bob has thereby been dissipated and spread out giving the pattern. Yet Bit is still able to deliver the full amount of energy from the electron transition event. Making it detectable. So it probably isn't the electric fields making the interference pattern affecting Bit location

Electron transition leading to 'light'-particle ejection can be imagined as an explosive event - in which longitudinal energy is imparted to the ejected 'particle'. Which would (if not for atomic vibration), proceed straight. Like a bunched up slinky also being a characteristic of the Bit. It won't protrude with lateral orientations to get diminished by polarization or split by beam splitter , then recombined, interfering and dissipating. It will remain its full amount, one units worth until absorbed by detection. The vibration of the parent atom of the 'light' particle [Bit/bob-photon]at ejection could impart the transverse motion. The longitudinal 'bunched slinky energy focused on the Bit-photon. The Bob wave affecting the Bit and local environment. The environmental disturbance aspect is potentially separable from Bit allowing double slit type interference patterns to form.

Re quantum physics experiments, 'light' direction and orientation of polarization.

Using lasers fixed at the polarizing angle will give a fixed direction, so that won't bee a variable in the experiments . Which leaves transverse wave orientation as a variable. 360 degrees worth of rotation affecting probability of passing . Not just will/won't choice.

If already polarized some angles of orientation are already completely missing , so the full 360 of possible orientation with different probabilities is't correct 90 degrees and close to can de discounted.

Back to Bits and Bobs. Perhaps given the causal initial push the non mass Bit needs no more as it doesn't experience resistance from the environment as a mass would. What if the transverse Bob gives the polarization behaviour but having traveled to screen, for example, the Bit is absorbed delivering the compressed slinky-like electron transition unit of energy that's detected ' The Bob is stopped and dissipates either wholly into the base substance or partly into it and also partly into the screen material. Either way its amount being undetectable

What this picture consists of;

more than just classical wave.......there is a particle like energy carrier.....carried energy always whole unit.

more than classical corpuscle...a transverse associated wave responsible for wave like behavioral interactions.

Why else should the whole quantum of energy be locally detected after interference pattern formation in the environment.

more than just a field condition.... but base existence environmental disturbance is fields happening. So there is a field component.