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

Extended introduction to better explain what the paper is about.

The original paper is 5 pages double spaced. The additional intro. makes it 6

Hi Georgina, I read your works and papers, you are productive , general and relevant, congrats, it is like this that we learn more, evolve and create , regards

Hi Steve,

thank you for your nice comment and for reading the last paper

It has taken a long time for me to really understand the Bell's inequalities problem, but now I see. It's frequently presented as if the inequalities should not be violated as otherwise you must accept that quantum strangeness prevails. I'm trying to show that violation of the inequalities is not strange, nor is maintenance of entanglement and 'particles' doing the correct thing without being told what to do. There have been some 'stepping stones' getting there.

RE. spooky action at a distance. There is a presumption that information has to be given to the partner particle to ensure it always behaves as it should. Such as going through x orientation of a polarizer, if the first tested particle has gone though that orientation i.e. making the partner into an always goes though x particle. A change of what it is from an uncertain behaviour type of particle.

No such thing is happening. The particles are not being changed from what they are

Why it is an unnecessary presumption: One of the particles will not independently change what it does and so become uncorrelated with its partner unless acted upon by something but not the partner prior to the test. The particle is individually behaving according to the relationship established at the time, and place of its own meeting the polarizer, and given its energy and angular momentum obtained at production of the pair. Conservation applying to each individually maintains their symmetrical relationship and therefore symmetry of behaviour.

http://viXra.org/abs/2211.0138

The entangled particles do not need telling what to be in order to do the correct thing in the circumstances they individually find themselves. Going through a polarizer, lets say polarizer A, is not a characteristic of the photon that can be compared with other identifying characteristics. Has: Hat, gloves and glasses are sometimes used in explaining Bell's inequalities. Going through polarizer A always depends on how it is encountered at the time by the individual without a prior goes through or doesn't go through identity.

Existence is different from a model of it built using received information, To be what it is, existence does not require information from everything around it. It, the pattern of all that exists is at the one and only foundational time, Uni-temporal-Now. What is existentially true at one location in the pattern of existence is true throughout it. It us not a matter of viewpoint or reference frame. There is no need for communication to make it so. So the idea that superluminal communication must be allowed is redundant.

The existing particles have orientation. The individual orientation does not have to be fixed, red glove-like. Any change will be correlated with a change to the partner. Being an entangled pair the orientations and spins are by definition and fact of creation of the pair correlated. They remain correlated unless one is perturbed in a way the other isn't. No communication is needed to maintain correlation. So just by doing what they do they are correlated unless treated differently. What a person knows is different from existence. Existence is independent-ly real of thought processes or information derived product of measurement

Having said 'The existing particles have orientation', I need to qualify that. They really are in a condition whether fixed or changing that is potentially measurable. Measuring involves applying a context that will yield a particular outcome. So measured this way the orientation is x. Measures with a different orientation of measuring apparatus the orientation result is different. This is a kind of relativity. The measurement outcome depends on how you look. That does not mean the condition measured does not exist until measured. It means how that condition is described, the measurement result does not exist before measurement

It could be said this way: the existing particle has a relation to everything else that exists being a part of the pattern of all existing, that might be called it's absolute, unmeasured orientation. That does not need to be static. A measurement related to that orientation is looking at it in one particular, limited way. A measurement produced is a particular characterization, when measured that way. Such as the result of an orientation of polarizer. Same applies yo electrons and Stern Gerlach apparatus orientations.

The challenge continues with different combinations of angles. One door vertical and one door at 45 degrees, which allows one friend to pass with ease and the other faced with an obstacle between easy and difficult that can be successfully passed 50% of the time. (neither of you are very bendy.) 50% of the time there will be failure to get through the 45 degree doorway. There is no certain correlation or lack of correlation, Again no communication is needed to get this result. Each person is just taking on the situation they individually face. However when both doors are at 45 degrees there will be the case that both pass through or both fail without agreement via communication about what result will happen. This is due to both being in the same condition from the outset. For analogy both persons are feeling particularly energetic and Sprite-ly having drank a large cup of coffee 15 minutes before the test. Both will pass the 45 degree test with flying colours. Or alternatively both are feeling weak and tired, deprived of sleep and coffee. This time both will fail the 45 degree test.

It would be easy to have an anti-correlation from the outset, like that found using polarizers. Just by giving one of the human partners coffee and depriving the other. Which doe gets coffee does not matter. It is just a way of showing the creation of a pair of opposite conditions.

The statistical results obtained in tests of Bell's inequalities are not demonstrating "Spooky action at a distance." It is because the experiments involve happenings that can result in different outcomes according to the particular circumstances encountered at the time and place of the test. They are the ordinary maybes aka. 'it depends'. Unlike certain states, like a right handed red glove. More akin to throw of a basketball.

Here is an early preview of two papers I've sent to viXra today. They should be listed soon in their History and philosophy of physics archive.

The Unspooky Violation of Bell's Inequalities: Examination of the violation of Bell's inequalities by analogy (improved). The how, why and what Bell's inequalities require and therefore must sometimes be violated in a universe where things happen rather than just exist. Identifying that what happens via a process is not the same as what is predicted just using prior existent traits. Conclusion and recommendations given for locality, realism and spacetime. (File=Unspooky).

The Ideal Recipe vs. Baking Existential cake: is about creation of an objective model of reality. The 'missing' ingredients are identified.(File=Cake), Reference: Tegmark M., 2007, Shut up and calculate, arXiv: Popular Physics 2007

Free pdfs available via viXra now. Addresses to copy and paste in search given below and link too, for if you prefer that method.

http://viXra.org/abs/2212.0008 The Unspooky Violation of Bell's Inequalities

http://viXra.org/abs/2212.0007 The Ideal Recipe vs. Baking Existential cake

Typo in The Unspooky Violation of Bell's inequalities. Should read -Which does get coffee does not matter.

Bother!

Spoiler Alert

It's a hiddenvariable because it's not accessible through the senses or measuring. Observation and measurement only give relative i.e. measured this way descriptions. Whereas Absolute unmeasured orientation is all existing relations. There is no goes through polarizer A,B or C state. It depends. Passing through the polarizer depends on Absolute orientation and polarizer orientation when particle and polarizer meet.

Given that a particle is a part of what is existing, it has Absolute relation to everything else existing. It does not require relative measurement for its existence or Absolute relation. A measurement result or product, usually given as a value or state is coming into being at measurement. The result is not the same as the unmeasured entity or its Absolute relation.

It makes me think of putting a camera into the 'magic' hat and taking a pplaroid snap. Then pulling the photo out rather than the rabbit. The photo is only coming into being and is known when the photo is taken and revealed, the rabbit pre-exists and is much more than the photo.

1. The 'magic rabbit' does not come into being, upon the photo being seen. Existential rabbit and photo measurement product are different entities.

2. The photo is obtained by a particular measurement process and is a particular viewpoint.

3. The 'magic rabbit' in this situation never leaves the hat but is the source of the measurement product that is formed.

4. There would be no photo of rabbit without the existence of the unseen 'magic rabbit'.

Compare: "Wild', existentially free particle, unmeasured, unperturbed, in Absolute relations that can be fluctuating, the magic rabbit", unknown vs.

Measured, perturbed by measurement, relative to measuring apparatus and method, fixed, no longer changing, outcome, " snapshot photo of the magic rabbit" that's no longer an existentially free particle. Measurement outcome is known.