To all; Bells Inequality

Joy Christian and Edwin have shown flaws in Bells inequality but no doubt much doubt may remain, so I explain the conceptual solution here that also shows the limitations, of it's domain.

The fact that motion is transformed locally to a new 'manifold' via condensed matter condensing (the implementation of the change) means effectively that it's particle form CAN effectively 'depend on someone observing it', yet up to that moment it remains part of the 'continuum' (or Schrodinger wave-front if you prefer) so doesn't breach anything and is thus allowed. this cannot of itself 'explain' entanglement, but we should remember this arose more from mockery be Einstein than by discovery, and none of the very limited experimental evidence has a conclusive or only one explanation. To much assumption can be dangerous!

Peter

Quite impressive, Peter. Do I need to print your essay to be sucked in by your embedded black hole. I haven't done that yet but will. With my meager background, I certainly need more time to digest your thoughts.

You are justified in sitting on top of the FQXi mountain.

Jim Hoover

James

Far from the top yet, but thanks for the kind words. the black hole is only a photograph. Look carefully for the giant Tokomak (Toroid - or donut) lensing light in HH34. I can't find any evidence it was previously spotted! Or indeed the head of the 2nd red shifted Jet. There should also be one at the centre of the universe, (a bit bigger) which the 'axis of evil' points us to. As Einstein said, discovery is easy once we know what we're looking for. It's noted in my last 2 papers, including the preprint linked.

Peter

    I've been asked to explain my statement above re Bells inequality, Briefly; but to set the scene; The inconsistency Joy C spotted is essentially mathematical, so i won't comment!, there are issues that the main loopholes identified may have been closed individually but not yet all at once (Freedom of choice, fair sampling and Separation/Locality) though being tried, and the Cambridge 'Locality Collapse' loophole, But I refer to none of these!

    It's simply that measurable properties do change between inertial fields so the whole assumption limiting 'localism' is extended beyond it's valid domain. It's a bit like the invalidity of moving points in geometry. Once you rely on the maths and assume they're ok all results are rendered invalid. (think about it, that's an awful lot of recent physics!) Sorry if it's a shock.

    The other thing it does do is allow QM in a Discrete of 'Block' universe, essentially by creating the boundary domain. This in reality is our very own plasmasphere / ionosphere, where light speed changes from 'c' wrt the sun to 'c' wrt the planet. Occams razor rules ok?

    If anyone has any scientific disproof of that (but not 'beliefs' please) please do give it here.

    Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #98

    Peter,

    Great opportunity to pick up our discussions from months ago! I am curious on a curiosity! How those of the 'particle' persuasion explain how 'photons' pick up speed again after they have been slowed down going through a medium like glass! Of course in our view, there is no problem! The same principles I use to explain the double-slit experiment (as well as many other results in my essay) apply here as well:

    1)Energy propagates continuously but interacts discretely.

    2)Before there is manifestation there is accumulation of energy.

    3)The 'photon' emitted is not the same as the 'photon' detected.

    More generally, what is the mechanism by which waves propagate through a medium? I don't mean a 'mathematical model'!

    Recently I have been thinking about your Discrete Field. I am trying to make sense of how this fits with continuous propagation of energy. Can you elaborate?

    Constantinos

      • [deleted]

      • Post #99

      Dear Peter,

      Extremely interesting essay, of course! I likely may never fully comprehend, but I will take some time to understand as best I can.

      In the meantime, I invite you to consider two perhaps distantly related conceptual questions regarding the perception of the universe. I expect your comprehension of the physics involved may allow you to quickly identify some misconception...

      1. While the identified CMB emissions are almost certainly the highly redshifted EM emissions permeating ancient spacetime, might not local spacetime currently be emitting sparse (infrared and other spectra) energy waves, just as virtual particles seem to appear from nothing? Unlike the detected uniform microwave signal, local sparse, uniform emissions of 'space energy' would likely not be discernable from other 'signals'. Of course, the recent local emissions would be much 'cooler' than the distant ancient emissions of 'space energy' in the hot, dense early universe. Nevertheless, the CMB may actually represent only the ancient tip of the spacetime continuum 'iceberg'.

      2. The determination that the universe is accelerating was based on the discrepancy between distance estimates derived from (1 type Ia SNe consistent peak emission luminosity and (2 standard cosmological models (based on redshift) with standard parameters. The discrepancy only occurred for SN >5Glya. The SNe luminosities indicated they were 10% - 15% farther away than models predicted. To produce agreeable model estimates for more distant objects, researchers modified their model to include a positive cosmological constant parameter ('vacuum energy density') and a negative deceleration parameter (intended to indicate acceleration).

      Since it was the more ancient light emissions from more distant objects that exhibited greater effects from spacetime expansion than the more recent light emissions from nearer objects, I assert that the observational results only confirmed that universal expansion has temporally decelerated, as previously expected.

      As I understand, both light emitted 5G years ago and light emitted 4G years ago both traversed spacetime imparting identical (uniform) conditions and effects of spacetime expansion for the past 4G years. The only distinction between the two sample groups of photons is the effects produced by the conditions of spacetime expansion that occurred 4G - 5G years ago. Since the more ancient light emissions from more distant objects indicated greater expansion, it was the earlier expansion that produced those effects. Is this interpretation incorrect?

      I hope you can spare a little time to consider these issues.

      Sincerely,

      Jim

      Constantinos,

      You asked Peter "How those of the 'particle' persuasion explain how 'photons' pick up speed again after they have been slowed down going through a medium like glass!"

      In a comment above [Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 23:21 GMT] I linked to a new paper that treats that question: GEM and the Constant Speed of Light.

      I hope this makes some sense to you. It also relates to Jason's remark about information being lost due to redshift.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Peter,

      As Constantinos implies above, intuitively we all want an 'ether' of some kind for the waves to 'wave' in.

      As you know, my essay is based on the gravity field existing initially. After symmetry breaks the 'gravito-magnetic' aspect of this field appears, providing an inflationary force and interacting with itself in turbulent fashion to give rise to elementary particles. These particles, some of which are charged, produce electro-magnetic fields or photons.

      In my view, the gravity field has 'fluid-like' properties, and there is no reason that is obvious to me that this 'fluid' would not support electro-magnetic 'waves'. Remember that all fields have energy, and energy has mass, so there is some 'substantial' character to the gravitational field to support electro-magnetic 'undulations'.

      If this were the case, then the 'ether' that Michelson and Morley tested would actually be the local gravity field, and this would (as compatible with your 'discrete frame' based system) be local in character, not globally 'absolute' (in a Machian sense) as the 'luminiferous ether' was assumed to be at the time.

      From the perspective of these local discrete frames Michelson and Morley found exactly what would be expected, since they only rotated their arms in a horizontal plane. And testing at different locations and different times of the year, as they did, would produce no different results.

      Of course Pound and Rebka did find that a photon traveling vertically in the earth's gravity is shifted, but that is fully compatible with the 'time dilation' equation in my essay. And for the photons observed during a solar eclipse, the photon will blue shift as it falls into the solar gravity well, then redshift as it climbs back out (compatible with my "GEM and the Constant Speed of Light" paper referenced above). So the photons that we observe on earth are approximately what we expect them to be.

      Do you see any immediate problem that I am overlooking?

      Something to think about.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      • [deleted]

      • Post #102

      Edwin,

      Thanks for your comment. I have taken a quick look at the paper you linked, but I didn't find the answers I was looking for. Let me explain. Explaining physical phenomena mathematically is certainly necessary and unavoidable, but the kind of explanations I am looking for are 'physical explanations' that make sense ("what is the physical picture", as Einstein once asked of Bohr).

      Thus, to my question, if we consider that light is made of photon particles moving in empty space, how in this 'physical view' can we account for photons 'picking up speed' after being slowed down going through a medium like glass. I didn't see that answer in the equations you've written.

      Also, I am likewise having trouble making sense of Discrete Fields. These don't quite feel philosophically complete to me. If there is such a field around each and every discrete particle in the Universe, what is in between their 'boundaries'? Or, if each field meets each other field in boundaries which are mutual and there is nothing (no space) between such boundaries, then this raises serious questions about what constitutes such boundaries. Wont they need to have some 'physicality' to be physically real? The very notion of a field to me is just a mathematical idea. It is a mathematical abstraction.

      But the most important of the questions in my previous post is 'what is the physical mechanism for the propagation of waves in space'? I don't see how Discrete Fields answer this. The very term, Discrete Fields, seems to me paradoxical. It is an interesting way of combining two antithetical notions. But are we creating a conceptual contortion or a true conceptual synthesis? I am keeping an open mind.

      Constantinos

      Constantinos,

      You might want to spend more time looking at the GEM paper. It is a "physical" explanation. The "del cross field" describes the circulation of a field around something (in this case the momentum vector of the photon E cross B) and the Lenz-like-law (last equation on page 2) is the mechanism that explains "how in this 'physical view' can we account for photons 'picking up speed' after being slowed down going through a medium like glass".

      To augment the math, try to imagine the 'cylinders' shown on page 4 as holding a constant amount of 'action' (given by Plank's constant) and realize that to do so, as the wave-length changes, the radius of the cylinder must change to hold the action constant. You might think of the wavelength as essentially a measure of 'time dilation' when the wavelength returns to its "free space length" then the time returns to its "free space" value, restoring the "free space" speed of light. The cylinder radius is a measure of the C-field circulation, connected to the wavelength through the equation.

      At the very least, I hope it's 'physically' clear that the associated circulation of the C-field provides a means of 'saving and restoring' that is otherwise missing from the picture.

      As for 'discrete fields' what Peter has done is break up the "whole universe" into domains, so that local physics might apply in a domain that is at least conceptually disconnected from other domains. What I have shown is that the local C-field is "connected at the hip" to the local momentum.

      Of course, sense you don't believe in physical fields, I guess none of this makes any sense to you.

      I can't imagine what you do believe in, since if your 'eta' is not a field like entity, I have no idea what you conceive it to be.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Peter,

      You manage to pack a lot of mystery into a few references. Does the proto-star, HH-34, have jets or is that a quasar from the black hole revealed by the debris around the event horizon (head of first jet). What makes you think that donut is an accretion disk or am I looking in the wrong place?

      Then you seem to delight in opening the "axis of evil" Pandora's box without giving me the cosmic "GPS coordinates" for finding the BH in the center of the universe.

      Hasn't the Planck mission disproved the "axis of evil" yet?

      The fun continues.

      Regards,

      Jim

      James

      You ask; "Does the proto-star, HH-34, have jets or is that a quasar from the black hole revealed by the debris around the event horizon (head of first jet). What makes you think that donut is an accretion disk or am I looking in the wrong place?

      and Re; "GPS coordinates" for finding the BH in the center of the universe.. ..Hasn't the Planck mission disproved the "axis of evil" yet?"

      HH34 IS a Quasar James, (or 'Blazar/Gamma Burst/Radio Source/Pulsar' - there's much confusion!). The jet heads aren't what's termed 'event horizon's. The closest thing to that is probably the lensed (curved and magnified) light around the toroid form (from stars behind the BH). Quasars have two contra flow jets, which often spiral as a toroid is symmetrical. The jet heads are the plasma (ion) clouds condensed as the superluminal plasma jets hit the continuum (energy) medium and are slowed down to the local 'c'. Condensed matter shouldn't be too much to swallow, we do it every meal time!

      Look at the Chandra IR photo of the centre of the crab nebula (there it's termed a 'neutron star'), but the black hole toroid is exactly the same shape and much more clearly visible. Does all that make more sense now?.

      Peter

      James

      Ooops, sorry - I forgot the 'axis of evil'. It was the SloaneDSS and Plank missions that picked it up! It just needs someone with a decent telescope to follow the axis and find the centre of the universe, which should look just like the ESO photo in the essay, much bigger but further away, and probably no more active that the crab nebula one at present (see the weak jets).

      Did you pick up the point about the 2nd jet to HH34, it's so red shifted it's outside our visible range past the IR, which is why it's termed a 'radio source'. Do we have an astronomer in the house whose got over the dumping of Freemans Law?

      Peter

      Constantinos

      Ballistic photons can easily change course at sharp angles and instantly speed up when you have your head in the sand! Lena Hau etc. can make them go from 0mph to 'c' (coming out of BEC) on the spot, and all with zero mass/energy! The whole thing is a nonsense of course. It's well known in Optics that Huygens Construction is the solution, extending through Fourier optics, which is lucky for us, as fibre optics wouldn't work otherwise! The lack of knowledge of optics of most physicists is astonishing. Does anyone here understand Ewald-Oseen extinction?

      I agree entirely with 2.9 of your 3 points. (I'll double check I've scored your essay as I note it's way below where it should be!) Point 2 (accumulation) needs some expansion as the delay before 'Stokes' scattering is about polarisation as well as charge (Polarisation Mode Dispersal- PMD) Just look at Birefringence, which shows delay (Fresnel's 'n') is subject to relative polarisation of the light and the medium).

      Also; "More generally, what is the mechanism by which waves propagate through a medium? I don't mean a 'mathematical model'!"

      It's 'Atomic Scattering' Kostas. The QED version is simply electrons absorbing photons and 're-emitting' (actually emitting shiny new ones, which consist of, may be part of, and/or 'evaporate to' waves) - as you say, or particles being charged and 'scattering' waves, as you also say. The big mistake is not understanding that this is at 'c' wrt to particle even it it (the medium) is moving wrt it's local background (i.e. 'arrival rate'). It's been a configuration/ communication failure of the quantum particles in our brains. This also explains why most are so confused about the difference between concrete and apparent reality, i.e. that we're seeing scattered light at 'c', yet it's 'apparent' rate of progress CAN be c plus v. without actual violation of 'c'. (Local Reality).

      And ; "Recently I have been thinking about your Discrete Field. I am trying to make sense of how this fits with continuous propagation of energy. Can you elaborate?"

      Yes. Field boundaries are made of plasma (ions) and where there is relative motion they change f and lambda via 'n', (as above) to maintain 'c' and E locally. i.e. light takes the same time to get through a glass of beer whether or not you slide it down the bar or drink it on a plane, but your OBSERVER FRAME is different! That bit's in the viXra paper; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

      or watch the simple video; http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/1_YouTube__Dilation.htm

      But be warned, it does take much conceptual intellect as our brains aren't used to picturing and manipulating moving variables. Once you think you have it, rehearse it to build the memory path or you'll loose it again! (Christian Doppler did the maths long ago, but don't let abstraction confuse you). Just keep thinking wave particle interaction.

      I understand you philosophical confusion, but once you have it in your mind it's simple. Particles don't have their own inertial frames 'fields' if they're not moving (nothing does). But, in an accelerator we can SEE the ion clouds forming with increased speed. Now just Google 'Plasmasphere' (or follow one of my Ref's) - it's the same thing. Then the same for Galactic Halo's (reputedly holding over 90% of galactic mass!) many kiloparsecs deep and at densities giving the exact refraction needed to match curved space/time (and a = g).

      Let me know how your brain gets on!

      Best wishes

      Peter

        Edwin

        Yes, a few points (and congrats for your excellent position!!).

        1. I haven't been sure if there is an actual gravitational effect from the field itself, the particles are propagated to implement the effects of gravity, i.e. diffracting em waves due to 'n' to create the effects of curved space time. But the energy for the ions must come from somewhere, so logically it would leave an energy deficiency with the same curve as 'gravity'. I discussed it in an early paper, but was probably floundering; did I pass it to you? http://vixra.org/abs/1001.0010

        The field certainly has 'limited compressibility' (which I think Planck suggested when supporting the Stokes/Fresnel/Heaviside original iteration of the DFM; 'Full Ether Drag' - never disproved, and supported by M&M!

        2. What may really be needed is a catchy word for the 'condensate' or 'C' Field. As most Science seems still to be based on the eternal triangle of Belief/Maths/Fashion, which excludes logic, perhaps we should play that game and slip the logic in unnoticed. 'Continuum' seems the most common, but is wrong. "Dis-continuum" is too long, 'ether' is out of fashion, Inter-whatever medium doesn't work overall. The mind boggles but nothing stands out. I don't see 'C Field' as adequately self explanatory for a PR job. What do you think? ..Anyone else any ideas?

        3. Last Point (Pound-Rebka etc). In the DFM the whole process is wave particle interaction, i.e. FM, (as in your radio) via diffraction. Our atmosphere is stuffed full of ions at increasing densities!" this is a real solid material physical, reproducable and measurable process - producing inertial frames and everything SR and GR does, via a Quantum Mechanism. (and lots more rewarding work for unemployed string theorist to do!) I hope the C field is consistent with that as thinking it through it gives Unification, ToE, cheap slimming pills, what else is there?

        Thoughts?

        Peter

          James

          I think 'echo of the big bank' is a misleading propagandic crock. This is not mainstream science (till about 2020), but listen to those at the top not the 'midrift bulge' of sheep.

          The CMB radiation we get is at the frequency 'LAST SCATTERED', i.e. it has been passed on by local particles (plasma) scattered to a higher or lower frequency subject to relative motion (Equivalent to Raman - Stokes Anti-Stokes up and down shifting). This is what gives the 'absorption lines' (from IR spectroscopy) we haven't entirely learned how to read yet, but which effectively contains a full log of the EM wave inertial frame history.

          Virtual particles don't quote appear from 'nothing'. The condensate has to be perturbed, by other massive particles or 'blocks' of condensate moving through it, condensing matter and a local plasmasphere (diffractive boundary). (Venus Express just confirmed theirs is like ours, in the planets frame).

          The very existence of the CMB rest frame is completely inconsistent with the assumption (actually 'stipulation') of no absolute field for SR, so it's been 'heads in the sand' again. This means we've missed the 3rd option, no single 'absolute' frame, but an 'ether type' field none the less, (the C field of Edwin) as a privaleged 3rd frame. The Discrete nature and local conversion of all em waves to 'c' resolves the issue of all em waves being measured at 'c' locally. Simple really, (but not that easy to get the dynamic pattern onto your brain cells the first time!

          It also points to much of the redshift being due to the very low impedence and resistivity of the medium (which we know precisely along with it's permitivity, but buried in the sand somewhere)! The logical conclusion dictates we're expanding but at a slowing rate. I'll explain more if you wish. 'Temporary' is relative. If you read the viXra paper I posted above you'll see what I mean!

          Anyway - remember I'm only guessing here, but it does seem to fit the complete data range much better than any other theories I've heard, and does resolve the anomalies and most of the 13 great unanswered questions. I hope some of it sounds sensible to you?

          Best wishes

          Peter

            • [deleted]

            • Post #110

            Peter,

            Thanks for responding so quickly.

            I admit I don't follow GR very well, but I conceptually envision the local gravitational 'curvature of spacetime' to be the product of an external (generally radial) contraction of external kinetic energy that imparts velocity to matter (including photons). I think this is in general agreement with your explanation of redshift, but I don't think I follow how that applies to redshift imparted by spacetime expansion.

            However, I am wondering if you were able to follow my interpretation of proper astronomical observational perspective? I think that the local field effects of gravitation on redshift do not explain the distinction between observational samples nearer than and greater than 5Glya. Something evidently did qualitatively change about 5 billion years ago.

            My interpretation is that, since the ancient light emitted from more distant objects indicates a requirement for increased expansion effects the evidence supports an increased rate of expansion in the earlier universe.

            Can you follow my reasoning - that the established interpretations are spatially-temporally inverted?

            I do appreciate your time and apologize for being so dense.

            Jim

            Jim

            Not dense, but, like most, you may need to 'step back' for overview, and read, consider and absorb more slowly.

            I entirely agree with reducing expansion rate, but I don't think that's for the reasons you suggest. The concept 'last scattered' is important. Yes, we are getting signals from local emissions, but they are mainly 'scattered' emissions, i.e. they have entered plasma shocks and halo's and been diffracted, (subject to relative speed of the body the shocks surround) to different frequencies, i.e. redshifts.

            This means part of redshift may perhaps relate to Polarisation Mode Dispersal (the particle charging delay causing diffraction) by the ion plasma particles and part to the impedence of the condensate itself. (2.7 degree pre condensed matter condition) also note the 2.7 changes slightly with frequency!

            You may still have a point about 5 Bn years ago, as that was around when the Milky Way should have had it's last recycling, (see the viXra paper) but I'd have to consider what effect that would have on incoming signals. That means I'd need to scrutinise all "the evidence" of what the difference between "observational samples" at that distance is. Can you provide that, with links?

            Peter

              • [deleted]

              • Post #112

              Peter, you write

              "I'll double check I've scored your essay as I note it's way below where it should be!"

              What ratings are you referring to? The last time I checked your public rating was 8.3 compared to 8.5 for mine.

              Ah, Peter, you are so sly! I like it! You are always a challenge and a pleasure to engage in these blogs! Politics is no less a match for you than Physics. Have you tried your hand in it? I predict you will be very good. I already voted for you!

              Moving on, however, from these murky waters of politics to the murkier waters of physics.

              We agree on many views.

              Certainly, we know physical reality by our observations and measurements of the Universe. But clearly such measurements are always done 'locally' where we are and our instruments are. So I agree with your "locality/reality" principle. And I agree that this has the potential of answering many puzzling enigmas of physics. You have been concentrating on explaining the constant speed of light and SR. While I have been more focused on explaining Planck's Law of blackbody radiation.

              The most astonishing result in my papers and essay is that Planck's Law is an exact mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. It is a mathematical result! Nothing to do with physics!

              One outstanding characteristic of Planck's Law is how remarkably exact it is to experimental data. Check: The Cosmic Microwave Background Spectrum from COBE! In this graph, the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from the theoretical curve. And unlike many other laws of physics, the better our instruments get the closer the fit! I ask all the physicists out there: "What is the explanation of this remarkable exact fit?"

              My work CAN explain this experimental fact, however! In my essay I prove that Planck's Law is an exact mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. Clearly, the COBE blackbody spectrum is recorded 'locally' by the 'sensor' making these measurements. These measurements describe the mathematical identity that is Planck's Law!

              I am still puzzled by your DFM. At this time, at least, it still feels to me like the "wave-particle" paradox. Having solved that paradox, however, I have a sense this dichotomy may be resolved too. I anticipate that we may agree on that point too. I just have to see it somewhat differently, in my way of thinking that fits all my other results.

              Constantinos

              • [deleted]

              • Post #113

              Dear Edwin,

              A brief reply for now since I am on my way out to see my daughter.

              If I am not mistaken, your C-field comes from modifications to Maxwell's equations. Thus, the properties of the C-field are already contained in the equations that gave rise to it. Though you take this C-field as 'primordial', its 'properties' don't flow out of it, but from the equations you use to define it!

              The 'prime physis' quantity eta in my essay is 'first nature'. What is eta? It is in a sense the 'what is'. Therefore, it is 'undefined and undefinable'. Other physical quantities like energy and momentum are defined in terms of it. And these lead, through mathematical identities, to the Basic Laws of Physics. This is different from mathematical modeling.

              Planck's Law, for example, I show to be a mathematical identity that describes the interaction of measurement! This fact alone explains why Planck's Law fits the experimental data so remarkably exactly. Check: The Cosmic Microwave Background Spectrum from COBE!. There is no explanation of this other than the one I offer!

              Constantinos