John

I'm confused by your assertion of no diffraction pattern from a single slit. I've always found one, varying with energy, distance and width, and it's well documented. Are you saying something different?

Single slit diffraction

I think few here subscribe to the view that real ontological understanding is just 'arm waving' without maths! There's no new maths needed for...

view entire post

John

I'm confused by your assertion of no diffraction pattern from a single slit. I've always found one, varying with energy, distance and width, and it's well documented. Are you saying something different?

Single slit diffraction

I think few here subscribe to the view that real ontological understanding is just 'arm waving' without maths! There's no new maths needed for the redshift model, it's simple as Pi! - The circumference length increases as the orbital diameter increases so each orbit takes longer. As the lateral (propagation) speed is constant the wavelength increases (redshift). 'Understanding' that simplicity is everything.

You may be right that one simplistic 'interpretation' of Huygens may be; "each point in the slit.." but that's not correct. Each PART of the slit has TWO edges, which is what produces the single slit diffraction.

Another big common error is thinking 'frequency', which is only a time based derivative. The real physical property is WAVELENGTH Lambda, which any professional Astronomer or Astrophysicist will tell you. Diffraction patterns change with wavelength. Your assertion "therefore it MUST be from photons" as "no other model can explain it" is therefore quite wrong. The reason being that you started with a false assumption.

Later you say the same of the lateral shift, which is similarly untrue. Remember just because there's no light in the dark stripes doesn't mean there's no energy on that "trajectory". I found an interesting action was to move the screen further forward and back for the CHANGING 3D picture. As my essay identifies, reality becomes far clearer with 3D models.

Of course there are photons, spreading but requantized continually, but that doesn't falsify wave diffraction or Huygens principle. Better understanding of wave/particle duality is needed (I'm referring to ALL not just you John!)

In any case you should recall from my paper that the old 'ballistic' theory of conserved photons without wave characteristics doesn't and can't coherently explain Stellar Aberration.

I like and agree with much of your model, but in suggesting it falsifies waves the whole thing fails the consistency test. That's the area I see most refinement needed.

I hope that was clearer and helps.

Best

peter

view post as summary

Paul

Wow, that's longer than many essays! I'll try;

"If a Schrodinger sphere actually exists in nature, and not just as a mathematical construction, what is it composed of and how does it actually function to produce that helical path? How can it be observed? In your theory what limits the speed of light to C?

The sphere surface is the plane wavefront of any signal....

view entire post

Paul

Wow, that's longer than many essays! I'll try;

"If a Schrodinger sphere actually exists in nature, and not just as a mathematical construction, what is it composed of and how does it actually function to produce that helical path? How can it be observed? In your theory what limits the speed of light to C?

The sphere surface is the plane wavefront of any signal. Imagine a supernove in space. The light travels at c in all directions creating a growing sphere (just one of a packed sequence of them). If it hasn't reached an obsever he hasn't yet seen it!

Now image a rotating 'photon' or pair of charges at any point. The propagation (translation) at 'c' produces the helix we find in Photonics at ALL points on the sphere surface. If the rotational axis does NOT orthogonal to the sphere surface we get elliptical polarity. As the sphere expands the radius of each orbit increases. However; 'c' is LOCAL so although the 'sphere expansion' rate is c (or 2c considering the whole thing) the speed round each local orbital path CANNOT increase so the orbital time increases.

Simple geometry shows this can produces cosmic redshift - WITHOUT requiring acceleration expenasion of the universe!

Back to 'c'. Propagation speed modulated locally by fermion interactions. If ALL fermions re-emit at c then we'll always FIND c locally so NO PROBLEM EXISTS which needs paradoxical mathematical gymnastics to solve!

"....How would this develop the complex molecular structure of RNA?". The 4 dots preceeding that sentence represent a lot of doctrinal assumptions. As in computors, it only takes one tiny original input or design flaw to make EVERYTHING it produces from then on illogical gobbledygook full of inconsistencies, anomalies and paradoxes . That's what's happened. Revert to my 'Discrete Field Model' etc essays 5 years ago onwards and the adjusted input removing all those inconsistencies, anomalies and paradoxes is explained. Any 'shear' perturbation of the condensate produces identiacal 'pairs', with reverse spin orientations (the 'Higgs process'). RNA is at a much larger scale with more complex 'proteins' but the fundamental structure is fractal.

"Generally in a recycling universe the big crunch destroys everything created in the previous cycle. How does your theory work in that respect and if things in some way survive from one cycle to the next what is the observational evidence of that?"

The (smaller fractal) galaxy model shows us best. Not quite ALL matter is recycled. Most is re-ionized (solving that one!) o and the old is mixed with the new, i.e the hypervelocity stars already spat out whole on the axis of our own AGN WON'T be re-ionized this time round. Same with the outermost halo matter seen in 'ring' galaxies. i.e. Google Centaurus A. (note also the helical form of the superluminal (collimated) jet outflows) A mass of evidence exists, identified in this paper; http://www.hadronicpress.com/issues/HJ/VOL36/HJ-36-6.pdf or Academia, or DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4540.5603.

Enough for now.

Peter

view post as summary

Dear Peter,

The fact that you answered me without resorting to abstract math and used visual examples of your concepts lets me know that you have greater visualization abilities than many in this world at this time. The next thing that I need to know is your current level of structural conceptual understanding.

If you consider a line that extends out from the point of origin of a...

view entire post

Dear Peter,

The fact that you answered me without resorting to abstract math and used visual examples of your concepts lets me know that you have greater visualization abilities than many in this world at this time. The next thing that I need to know is your current level of structural conceptual understanding.

If you consider a line that extends out from the point of origin of a photon at the supernova and goes through the center of the photon, do you consider the photon’s shape to be a rotating sphere traveling out away from the supernova along that line at the speed c, as an object that consists of one or more point objects that travel in an orbital pattern around that line while at the same time traveling at speed c in the direction of the line, or as some other form or shape?

Do you consider the shape or form of the photon to just be the shape that the motions are traveling in and the motions are the real existence or do you consider the photon to have some other substance beyond just the motions that you mention? It looks like you are saying that the photon’s size is increasing, so that it takes a longer time to complete one rotation on its axis. Is that the case? If that is the case then that size increase will grow very quickly due to the rapid increase in size of the wave front sphere with distance from the source. I could be wrong, but it would seem that this would result in a very great red shift even at a short distance from the source and in even 1 light year from the source the red shift would be very extreme, much more than is generally ever measured in light from actual stars.

When a photon interacts with an electron in an atom, such that it causes the electron to go to the next higher level in the atom and in the process the photon disappears, what happens to the photon in your understanding? If the electron later drops back down into its normal lower level and in the process a photon is generated, where does the photon come from?

What is the condensate made of and how does it create matter particles when shearing motion is added to it? Is it like the vacuum energy of quantum mechanics or something else? What is a real world example with actual observable data of how the identical pairs (such as 2 electrons) that you mention have actually been produced? Most of man’s current data, that I have looked at, only talks about the production of a matter particle and its antiparticle in pair production.

When you say that the fundamental structure of an RNA molecule is fractal, I am assuming that you are talking about the backbone structure of an RNA molecule being the same throughout the molecule and that the same small number of molecular structures are used to generate the stored codes (that contain the pattern and number of amino acids required to build each of the protein machines in the living creature) are also used throughout the molecule, but the important part of the structure, which is the actual coding for the structure of each protein machine is individual for that machine and can vary greatly from that of any of the other codes in its order of and pattern of the codons, etc. It is sort of like saying that a video disk with a movie recorded on it is just a simple disk of plastic with small holes burned in its substrate that are all the same size, etc. and not noticing the great variation of where those holes are positioned that generates the complex code that allows the generation of all of the images that make up the movie. The information is generally not fractal in structure. It is generating and storing the proper valid information of how each of the 200 or more protein machines that are needed to produce a very simple living creature with no errors that is difficult because there are too many possible code combinations that could be produced for the structure of each protein with only 1 of them actually being the valid 1 to ever produce the valid 1 by random self-assembly and the RNA molecule would not only have to get that one code right, but would also then need to do the same for each of the other 199 protein machine codes. If an error is made anywhere in any of those 200 codes, the RNA molecule would not work. Just the number of possible different protein machines that could be built that have an amino acid chain length of 100 amino acids, that could be coded for in the RNA molecule is more than 1 x 10^220. If you count all of those that have all of the other possible chain lengths the total is much greater than that. For comparison to that, it has been estimated that there are about 1 x 10^80 elementary matter particles in the universe. This means that if you could use all of the matter in the universe to try to self-assemble that RNA molecule, you could not produce a large enough portion of all of the possible ones to have any reasonable possibility of producing the one that you needed to use to make the first living creature.

I looked at the paper that you provided the link to and I found the concept to be interesting. It would require the existence of various phenomena elements that have not actually been observed and proven by man, as far as I have seen so far. If we first look at its feasibility to actually produce your desired result of an infinitely recycling galaxy, I do find some apparent problems with the concept. First you say that the new galaxy that is produced during each cycle has a greater mass than the one from the previous cycle. It also looks like the cycle times have slowed down with each cycle. This would be expected to ionize the greater mass contained in each subsequent cycle. It would also be expected that as the accretion process progressed a point would be reached where the remaining matter that had not yet been accreted would not possess the power needed to keep the process going, so that it would die out without fully accreting all of the matter from the previous galaxy. Most of that left over matter would likely be higher elements that could not be fused in stars. It would mostly be located in the accretion zone of the new galaxy and would likely at least initially hinder the accretion of matter from the new galaxy. This would likely only be a temporary problem because the accretion flow would likely move that matter out of its path by interactions with the accreted particles, but it would be likely that some of these accreted particles would be converted into heavier atoms that could not be fused in the process. This heavy matter would likely remain in the plane of the previous galaxy and would then become part of the galaxy of the next cycle. It would mostly be near the center of that galaxy and could interfere with the production of long life stars in that area, which could interfere with the production of the power needed for the new accretion cycle. These types of things could add to the overall increase in the cycle times over many cycle generations. The big problem that I see is that as the cycle time increases over many cycles, it would get to the point that it would be longer than the lifetime of most of the stars in the current galaxy. This would cause a loss of power to the accretion process that would result in a greater portion of the galaxy’s matter content not being accreted. All of this unusable matter would continue to build up over many cycles to the point that the amount of accretion that would be produced by a cycle would not be enough to produce a new functional galaxy. The process would then end either in a very big black hole or in a very super supernova type explosion or both, which would then end that galaxy. If it ended in a black hole all of that matter would ultimately be reradiated in the form of gamma radiation according to most of man’s current theories. If it ended in the explosion, it would result in much of that matter being converted into higher mass matter even up to and including uranium by the explosion. This matter would then be spread out in space over time and could be taken into and cause problems in other galaxies. After all of the galaxies died out, the remaining matter would ultimately be drawn into black holes and be converted into gamma radiation. Over time this gamma radiation would be red shifted by interactions with sub-energy particles until it all was transformed into sub-energy particles. Over a very long time the sub-energy particles would interact with each other until they all had the same speed in the same direction and all interactions in the universe would cease. That is the ultimate result of entropy. I will stop there for this time, so as not to get concepts scattered too widely.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

Paul,

I've now read through all your comments, needing another essay to answer. I saw nothing I disagreed with, but I'll try to take your latest points above.

"If you consider a line that extends out from the point of origin of a photon at the supernova and goes through the center of the photon, do you consider the photon’s shape to be a rotating sphere traveling out away from...

view entire post

Paul,

I've now read through all your comments, needing another essay to answer. I saw nothing I disagreed with, but I'll try to take your latest points above.

"If you consider a line that extends out from the point of origin of a photon at the supernova and goes through the center of the photon, do you consider the photon’s shape to be a rotating sphere traveling out away from the supernova along that line at the speed c, as an object that consists of one or more point objects that travel in an orbital pattern around that line while at the same time traveling at speed c in the direction of the line, or as some other form or shape?"

No2 is closest, but the path has 'helicity', the radius expands and the dynamics are fractal, so maybe better described as toroidal (perhaps twin helices for electrons). 'Particle like' when 'detected' (from ahead) and a 'wavelike' track if 'observed while going past' (impossible of course). The 'speed c away from the supernova' also becomes increasingly unlikely due to interactions/ requantizations at c in the centre of mass frame by quanta in some other state of motion ('inertial frame').

Do you consider the shape or form of the photon to just be the shape that the motions are traveling in and the motions are the real existence or do you consider the photon to have some other substance beyond just the motions that you mention? It looks like you are saying that the photon’s size is increasing, so that it takes a longer time to complete one rotation on its axis. Is that the case? If that is the case then that size increase will grow very quickly due to the rapid increase in size of the wave front sphere with distance from the source. I could be wrong, but it would seem that this would result in a very great red shift even at a short distance from the source and in even 1 light year from the source the red shift would be very extreme, much more than is generally ever measured in light from actual stars.

Yes, and should only be problematic if you don't account for requantizations.

When a photon interacts with an electron in an atom..." Good question. I haven't yet thought about possible answers.

"What is the condensate made of and how does it create matter particles when shearing motion is added to it? Is it like the vacuum energy of quantum mechanics or something else? What is a real world example with actual observable data of how the identical pairs (such as 2 electrons) that you mention have actually been produced? Most of man’s current data, that I have looked at, only talks about the production of a matter particle and its antiparticle in pair production."

Just run your finger through water. But don't be fooled by the (easier to observe) surface boundary dynamics. The 'vortices' are 3D. In a 'vacuum' they're made of 'Comprathene'. A silly answer 'medium' I invented long ago to demonstrate the silly question. It's really just fractal spin states, like water and turtles - 'all the way down'. The 'bottom' is well beyond the capability of slow motion giants line mankind the even conceive let alone 'see'. ('antiparticles' are nonsense, just the tail of the 'heads' or yang of the ying)

"When you say that the fundamental structure of an RNA molecule is fractal..."

Macro 'effects' can emerge at any 'scale' in the fractal sequence (How could/why should they not?) and interact ('couple') with other dynamics at that scale. Something else shocking; NO one protean should be precisely identical to any one other in the universe! Like grains of sand and snowflakes at our scale, stem cells, atoms & fermions.. etc. At some 'higher order' (I prefer; 'smaller scale') that may cease being true, but god only knows where!

"I looked at the paper that you provided the link to and I found the concept to be interesting. It would require the existence of various phenomena elements that have not actually been observed and proven by man, as far as I have seen so far"

You just need to look a little further, but little further than the Plank probe, the HubbleST and the annals of the MNRAS for instance. The secret is to discern and recognise what perhaps even the author hasn't from the findings, often by making unseen connections. All I describe is consistent with findings, and well referenced. The model only 'resolves' anomalous findings, and many of them! What 'new' mechanism do we need to see?' If we see shots of two cars heading for each other, then one of two mangled messes spinning away from each other, do we need some new physics just because out model suggests they may NOT have passed through each other as current theory suggests!

" ...the remaining matter that had not yet been accreted would not possess the power needed to keep the process going," Correct. The new AGN is 'born' on the orthogonal axis and a host of anomalus older stars in holo's and sattelite galaxies etc etc and explained along with the orthogonal outer rotation.

" The big problem that I see is that as the cycle time increases over many cycles, it would get to the point that it would be longer than the lifetime of most of the stars in the current galaxy." that may be true, but by that time the larger fractal has long started recycling the whole lot anyway! (maybe another 15Gyr). Or if not, then sure, a supernova may result. Whichever way, the greater majority of the matter seems to be re-ionized each time. I don't like unsupported assumptions and think you may have been getting into a few towards the end there!

I hope that helps your understanding of the model. Do take up the references to see the massive and wide gamut of anomalies and paradoxes the model can resolve!

Perhaps more importantly it's fits into the great jigsaw puzzle with other pieces that do the same; i.e. uniting relativity and SR, and all ultra Occam!

Best

peter

view post as summary

Dear Peter,

First let me say that I am not trying to discredit all of your concepts. It looks like you are at least very close to coming to the conclusion that it is really the motions that are the true existing most basic entities from which all things are made. That is an insight that very few people in this world have attained to. The next step after that is to come to the...

view entire post

Dear Peter,

First let me say that I am not trying to discredit all of your concepts. It looks like you are at least very close to coming to the conclusion that it is really the motions that are the true existing most basic entities from which all things are made. That is an insight that very few people in this world have attained to. The next step after that is to come to the understanding that since energy photons and matter particles can be broken down into basic linear motions, you have to get an understanding of how they can be built up using only basic linear motions. Since linear motions always travel in a straight line in the absence of an interaction, you must find a way to generate the interactions necessary to generate curved motions, etc. It also looks like you understand that in order for a matter particle to have a static mass effect that is the same in all three dimensions, the angular motions that create this effect must be three dimensional instead of just a two dimensional rotation, as an example. All that you need now is to understand how a three dimensional composite cyclical angular motion can be generated from simple linear motions and you will understand most of the basic concepts needed to explain the structure of matter particles. Energy photons require a simpler back and forth non curved cyclical angular motion to create their frequency, wave length, and dynamic mass effects. Since a matter particle is just an energy photon that contains the additional curved angular motion mentioned above to cause it to travel in a repetitive cyclical enclosed curved path at the speed of light instead of traveling in a straight line at that speed, it also contains the frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects similar to that of the energy photon that is contained within it. Field structures are also composed of simple motions that I call sub-energy particles. Once you understand all three of them you can then figure out how they are combined together to make atoms and how they operate or interact together, etc.

These things are much more important to understand than any attempt to try to justify an infinite universe when entropy precludes that possibility. Once you understand that the total amount of motion is the only thing that is truly conserved and, therefore, can’t be increased or decreased in the universe, you will begin to see why it is impossible to use the energy that is produced by the fusion of light elements in stars to turn all of the heavier elements that are produced by that fusion back into the light elements that they originally were. That would require total 100 percent conversion efficiency. In actual fact since the fusion process is a normal entropy motion dispersion process, reversing it would not only require the use of all of the originally radiated energy, all of which could not be recovered, but would also require an additional amount of energy to cause the process to run in the direction that is opposite to the normal entropy dispersion process. To put it more directly, it takes more energy to break down the heavier elements that are produced by fusion reactions then the amount of energy that is freed from their atoms binding energy during the fusion process that creates them. Since matter particles are composed of motions you can’t just create new ones from nothing because you can’t create the motions that they contain from nothing. This would mean that if the galaxy mass were to continue to increase over time it would require the continual introduction of motion into it from outside of it. That would not be practical. That could possibly happen for some time if the matter between the galaxies was slowly taken into the galaxies, but that source of matter would eventually run out. Everybody wants a free lunch, but the universe doesn’t serve it. You always have to pay more than you get back from the universe because it is slowly decreasing the motion content of entities that have more and transferring it to those that have less, thus decreasing the total range of motions, while at the same time dispersing all of the motions evenly throughout space. That is what entropy is all about. Because of this the most efficient way to store matter particles in atoms is in the middle of the range of atom sizes. That is why the lightest atoms can give up or free motion through fusion into heavier atoms. Once you get to iron it takes more energy to fuse them into heavier atoms than is freed in the process because you are too near the center most efficient energy storage part of the range. Of course the atoms at the high end of the size scale have the opposite problem because as you go away from the center of the range in that direction it takes more energy to store all of those particles in one atom than it does in the middle range atoms, so the natural entropy reaction for them is to break down into lighter atoms through fission. In either case if you go in the direction that is opposite to the natural energy flow, it requires the addition of all of the energy that had been freed from the fusion or fission reactions plus an additional amount because some of the applied energy is always dissipated and lost in one way or another in the process. I can understand your desire to believe that the universe is never ending because it makes it easier to believe that the tremendous complexity of living creatures could somehow have come about by some natural process if it can be over an infinite amount of time, etc., but entropy makes the world run down over time and that can’t be stopped. That is one of the problems with man’s current quantum mechanics is that over time many foolish concepts have been added to it that make it look possible to do such things. It is not until you get the understanding of the level of structure that generates the quantum effects that you can sort out the fact from the fiction. If you continue to work on understanding the basic structures of matter particles, energy photons, and sub-energy particles as mentioned above, you will come to understand these things and all of the indeterminate fog will be removed. Of course maybe I am just talking gibberish and you have it all figured out already.

To cover a few things in your response:

1. When you talk about requantizations, I am assuming that you are saying that energy photons interact with matter particles on the way from the emitting star to your eyes or other sensor and are thereby frequency up shifted every so often to restore their frequency to the higher level that we detect. I see a few problems with that concept.

a. During the individual interactions the amount of frequency up shift that a given photon would receive would be variable depending on the amount of energy that the matter particle brought to the interaction and other variables.

b. The interactions would be random so some photons would intersect and interact with many matter particles while others would go all the way from the star to your sensor without any interactions, since the matter particles would not just be sitting in one place, but would be moving around at various velocities.

c. Depending on the direction of interaction, etc. a photon could actually be down shifted instead of up shifted during an interaction.

The end result of all of these things and also other things would be a great variation in sensed frequency from the photons coming from any star, so that you would not see all of them red or blue shifted from normal, etc. as is usually observed.

2. It seems that you consider antimatter particles to just be matter particles that are turned upside down compared to each other. It has been demonstrated that when a matter particle interacts with an antimatter particle, such as an electron with a positron they both turn into energy photons. If one is just the other one upside down, it seems that it would be possible to pass two streams of electrons through opposite fields that would align all of the electrons in one stream in the same alignment with each other and opposite to those in the other stream and then bring the two streams together to cause them to all turn into photons and generate a lot of energy. Moreover, if they are just at opposite rotational directions, it would seem that free electrons would be at random rotational positions compared with other free electrons and we would, therefore, often see them aligned naturally, so that they would be converted into energy photons and there should then be a great shortage of electrons in the universe.

3. Fractal structuring generates similar structures at various size levels. You might be able to use such a system to generate RNA molecules, but the code patterns for the protein machines that would be contained in the RNA molecules can vary greatly for each code pattern of the 200 or so complete codes that would need to be stored in the molecule to allow it to be used to generate the needed protein machines to make the first living creature. It is, therefore, not subject to fractal duplication except that an RNA molecule could possibly be duplicated with the same code that happened to be randomly formed in the first RNA molecule that happened to come about in some way naturally, but since that first molecule would not likely get the valid code patterns in it randomly, duplicating it would not be of much practical use. Fractal duplication would not help much to produce the particular RNA molecule that contained the complete valid code pattern set for all of the machines. It takes intelligence to determine the jobs that each machine needs to do and then to design the machine to do that work and then to build the first Molecule that contains all of the right codes. There is no random short cut due to the extremely large number of possible proteins that could be made, most of which would not produce machines that would work. All indications are that at small scales things can be identical. The fewer parts that are contained in something the easier it is to assemble it in the same way each time. When it comes to matter particles and energy photons, etc. the built in dimensional structuring components generate duplicate entities due to the constants that are built into the dimensional system. There are various servo mechanisms that are built into the structure of entities such as atoms, etc. that control conformation of their parts to basic structural design requirements, thus limiting variability in their operation. It is much easier to have an atom or molecule missing in a crystal, etc. in large scale objects because they are not operationally bond to the degree that the smaller entities are and they contain so many more parts.

4. When looking at the accretions of galaxies what methods do they currently use to determine what the accretions are composed of and the level of their structure, such as plasma and if so what elements are included, whole atoms and if so what elements are included, molecules and if so what complexity level are included, large scale objects and if so what size scale range is included? I ask this because you mentioned that in the milky-way galaxy several whole stars have been accreted. On the other hand, it seems that the thrust of your argument would be that it is all broken down into protons and electrons.

5. My assumptions were based on the information that you supplied that indicated that the mass of the galaxy would increase with each cycle and that the cycle times have been increasing. It is only logical to assume that if the mass increases, it would take a longer time to complete the next accretion in order to accrete that extra mass. It would be reasonable to then extrapolate that increase in mass and cycle times into the future and see where that would lead us, especially since you propose it to be an infinite cycle. It looks like it would work ok until the cycle time became greater than the average life time of the stars in the galaxy. Then the fuel source for the accretion would be used up leaving more and more burned out remnants of stars not accreted at the end of each new cycle. This material would mostly be heavier atoms that could not be fused in the new cycle’s stars. It would, however, be drawn into and become parts of those stars, thus adding to their mass. This would mean that the stars in the galaxy would become larger and larger with each new cycle. Large stars fuse more source material much quicker than smaller stars do because they need to be at higher temperatures to balance the pull of gravity on their greater masses. This would use up the available fuel quicker with each cycle. They also have much shorter lifetimes than smaller stars. Stars the size of the sun might last about 10 billion years, but stars about 60 times the size of the sun would burn out in as little as 3 million years. This would mean that the fuel source for the accretion would be depleted much faster as the cycles progressed. At the same time the larger stars usually end their lives in supernovas that generate much heavier elements even including lead and uranium, etc. This would add even more heavy elements to the stars in the next cycle making them burn out sooner. Over a long enough time the accretion process would completely die out because there would not be enough accretion to enable the production of functional stars for the next cycle. There are several assumptions used above, but they are all in line with man’s current understanding of the ways that stars function. Supernova explosions don’t generally break atoms down into lower elements. The temperatures and pressures created by the explosion tend to condense the matter into higher more heavy elements.

Since your model is based more on realistic structures of matter particles, etc. than the currently believed point object construction it is no wonder that you come out being able to explain things that can’t be acceptably explained by the main accepted theory structure. The more that you learn about the detailed structure of the basic particles and how they work together to make larger scale structures the more your theory will be able to explain and the less likely it will be that you will get sidetracked into unworkable concepts. I would not worry too much about uniting relativity and SR, and quantum mechanics, etc. because they contain some truth and some false information. As you progress you will see the good parts of them and they will then fit together. At the same time you will also be able to see the false parts of them and be able to not get caught up in following their dead ends. It will come naturally as you gain in understanding of how things really work. Occam’s razor or the concept that the simplest answer is usually right is good to remember, especially when you hear people talking about multiverses, 20 or 30 extra dimensions, or traveling forward or backward in time, etc. Sometimes a few things must be added to get things to work, but it is best to add only what is necessary to accomplish that. Continue the good work. Sorry I wasn’t paying attention to how big this was getting. I hope it is not too much.

Sincerely,

Paul

view post as summary

Stefan,

Yes, it'd be ideal if such major advancements were perceived immediately, but it never happens, as history shows. Big new physics is 'wrong', ignored, and finally 'self apparent'. In 2010 I estimated 10 years ('2020 Vision') so it's on track.

But there are no 'local hidden variables' in the model. Bell was correct. The 'secret' is found in the particles themselves, hidden...

view entire post

Stefan,

Yes, it'd be ideal if such major advancements were perceived immediately, but it never happens, as history shows. Big new physics is 'wrong', ignored, and finally 'self apparent'. In 2010 I estimated 10 years ('2020 Vision') so it's on track.

But there are no 'local hidden variables' in the model. Bell was correct. The 'secret' is found in the particles themselves, hidden from current theory and designated as the second unreal but 'superposed' quantum state. It isn't unreal. IT IS REAL! (And we know well the process in an eyes lens 'decoding' lambda!!).

We get lots of discovery's in astronomy, only the odd one BIG. An astronomer in my field, Nick, had the previous big one a while ago, but that similarly proved TOO big to be accepted! To save loosing his job and livelihood he stopped pushing it. All very sad. Finally, more recently, it 'crept in' after verification by someone else, but it then caused that guy endless problems too!

As the US Chemical Soc. president said explaining why Dan Sheckman had 40+ years of pain before his recent 'quasicrystal' Nobel, "That's how science is done". That was only a minor advance! but he was right, and I'm a realist. I just hope nobody ends up like the guy who followed Nick, he ended his life under house arrest by the Pope!

To answer your question; People really should READ essays as I try to, not skim them! I identify clearly that, and why, there can be NO 'perfect printer plot!' Chaos and stochasitic variables are not eliminated. They just can't reproduce the QM findings, as Bell showed. you'll find the explanation partly under 'mutation'. 'Curl' is uncertain to 50:50 at an 'equator' and similarly linear momentum at EACH POLE (So both orthogonal to the angle of max amplitude).

"how can it make a difference if it has no experimental consequences?" It's a fair question but I don't think you thought much before asking it. Nicholas Copernicus and Galileo's discoveries also had no physical consequences. Celestial bodies didn't suddenly head off in different directions! They just explained what we DO find (that's what all Cosmology is too!) Yet those were the greatest advancements in understanding for eons, and have ended up affecting almost everything in physics in some way or another! (I don't include Relativity or QM as both are flawed and have been counter productive).

So; Yes. Unlike Eddington's view, science ISN'T 'all sorted'. My papers and video's include long lists of just about every anomaly, paradox and inconsistency in physics which the combined 'SR/QM' model resolves. They only have to be actually read! If you're interested in any one in particular just ask and I'll show you how it emerges.

Unlike most I DON'T want to be a 'new Einstein' and don't want rewards. I was a legend in my own lunchtime by 30, have a nice yacht and drive an Aston. But think about it; if you were me wouldn't you feel guilty if you 'kept it all secret'? It's actually now rather a cross to bear!

Very Best

Peter

view post as summary

Dear Peter,

thanks for your reply.

I really read your essay, not skimmed it. You used 47 times the term ‘may’ in the sense of ‘it may be that’. Therefore and for the reason that i am not into cosmology, i don’t want to comment on the anomalies, paradoxes and inconsistencies you claim to have resolved. It only appears to me that you use two different modalities to...

view entire post

Dear Peter,

thanks for your reply.

I really read your essay, not skimmed it. You used 47 times the term ‘may’ in the sense of ‘it may be that’. Therefore and for the reason that i am not into cosmology, i don’t want to comment on the anomalies, paradoxes and inconsistencies you claim to have resolved. It only appears to me that you use two different modalities to communicate your ideas, one that does claim something to be ultimately true (IT’S REAL), the other which suggests a probability for something to be true in a subclause (it may be).

Then you go on to claim that ‘the secret is found in the particles themselves’. Peter, why don’t you then – after a couple of essays on your topic – eventually write down the relevant equations which describe the particles and their interactions and show mathematically that they violate Bell’s inequality? You can’t argue that there isn’t the appropriate maths out there if you have already identified the physical mechanisms. Please show mathematically the interactions between your particles and how this necessarily leads to the violation of Bell’s inequality. Put in some stochastic terms to even mathematically model the chaos you spoke of.

I never saw an elaborated equation of the interactions from you, nonetheless seeing you so heavily claiming these interactions meet reality. This is not a cross to bear, but could be elaborated together with a good mathematician. The fact that you do not show up such equations leaves the impression that if indeed done, they wouldn’t lead to your intended claims.

You cannot compare your case with Galileo and Copernicus, unless you have done the mathematics. I very well thought about it, and additionally i must note that even if Galileo and Copernicus couldn’t prove some of their ideas by observation, the later generations could – and verified them. Your theory is immune against testing it empirically and moreover, there are a multitude of different ideas about how to explain what you want to explain out there. How can you, for example show that your theory IS REAL instead of the one David Bohm developed, unless you have exemplified your theory with mathematical equations that show that your theory is more than just a suitable idea?

Peter if you have a yacht and you drive an Aston, you should also be able to find a mathematician with whom you can develop the needed mathematical equations. Nobody is guilty of developing and publishing some ideas. But couldn’t it be that your were really guilty if you would further insist that IT’S REAL without simply doing the maths? This would be your fault, nobody in the scientific community can be blamed for that, not even i myself for criticizing you! You constantly complain about modern science and its omnipotent behaviour and its trickery, but yourself do just the same - you constantly claim something to be true without putting the mathematical litmus test on the table!

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

view post as summary

Stefan,

I did so & published the algorithm in 2014. You had the link. (Diracs twin stacked 'spinor' pair equation is then fine). DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3754.1287 (open access). Most schoolboys know spherical surface momentum (Earths surface speed) varies by the cosine of latitude, and QCD shows Amplitude² values emerge in fields ('squared' 3D 'cascade' geometric progressions...

view entire post

Stefan,

I did so & published the algorithm in 2014. You had the link. (Diracs twin stacked 'spinor' pair equation is then fine). DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3754.1287 (open access). Most schoolboys know spherical surface momentum (Earths surface speed) varies by the cosine of latitude, and QCD shows Amplitude² values emerge in fields ('squared' 3D 'cascade' geometric progressions couldn't be simpler!) and I identify WHERE - which is in cascade photomultipliers or avalanche photodiodes). The words 'cascade' and 'avalanche' kind of gave that away, hiding before our eyes!

All I can do is publish it, point to it and keep working Stefan. I'm a scientist not a salesman. In the end notes of my 2014 essay I even reported an experiment deriving it subjectively with students and did a full results chart! So it's certainly NOT immune to testing! In the next I showed that 'reversible' socks, like dipoles, or simply 'lining' red socks with green, allowed the classical solution. In algorithmic terms the (mathematicians) correction of QM's 'state pair' revised algorithm was;

p(A1 B1 |a,b, l + b,a, l) = p(A2 B2 |a,b, l + b,a, l) = p(A1 B2 |a,a, l + b,b l) = p(A2 B1 |a,a, l + b,b l) = 1. Certainly perturbation theory always applies too.

I do ask mathematicians regularly if they'd like to look and play with it, but have the same problem Einstein found with that! (You'll even note a co-author is one J Minkowski!). I don't know what else you want. I can teach students and children, but it seems that beyond 25-30 everyone knows better so ignores it. That's really not a problem for me Stefan. I'm really anyway not entirely convinced humanity is quite ready for any great advancements in understanding.

On "MAY", just so you know; I've said 'NOTHING is certain in science', but some are more certain than others (My 'Law of the Reducing middle' in logic is Bayesian curves) so adopt the convention "may" for anything suggested but not 'required' (or 'highly probable' like finding 'left' or 'right' near an equator).

Lastly on ANOMALIES etc. Your assumption that these are just in astrophysics is wrong. Try me on ANY well known anomaly, the chances are I've 'turned the model on it' and a resolution is shown; CP Violation? simple dynamic geometry produces it, Lorentz Transformation? I described & derived that 5 essays ago, 3 Filter problem?, Non-integer spin states etc? - all in the video, Quantum eraser/backward causality? simple and all in a current draft paper. Just pick one.

For me this is an academic excercise Stefan. I don't have a website (the net abounds with them!) I don't 'OWN' it, nature does! I don't want to belittle work by others, much of it has informed the DFM, and I'm certainly not an expert on everything! But at the end of the day it's veracity can be judged as a jigsaw puzzle. Either it fits together or, like most current science, heaps of confusing inconsistencies remain. Anyone who looks at it all can see this fits rather better.

Please take any part you wish and improve it (but do beware the papal police!).

Very best

Peter

view post as summary

Peter,

thanks for your reply. Surely i had the link, but i cannot see the algorithm which produces the common experimental findings. You write that the dynamics you propose is not 100% deterministic, but i do not understand this statement in light of the recursive fractals you also mentioned. In a fractal, there is no room for quasi-causal mechanisms, your attempt to unite both points of...

view entire post

Peter,

thanks for your reply. Surely i had the link, but i cannot see the algorithm which produces the common experimental findings. You write that the dynamics you propose is not 100% deterministic, but i do not understand this statement in light of the recursive fractals you also mentioned. In a fractal, there is no room for quasi-causal mechanisms, your attempt to unite both points of view, the deterministic and the probabilistic one, are then contradictory. Therefore it is no wonder that you write you published the algorithm in 2014, but what you published was a Bayesian probability assignment on the basis of your assumptions.

If nature operates mechnistically in a fractal setting, there should be a non-bayesian equality to show at what place within the fractal the interactions you are interested in take place and how ‘higher order uncertainty’ within this fractal does impact the measurement results. Introducing higher order uncertainty itself does not help, because within a fractal there is no higher or lower level, but only precisely defined mechanistical relations that lead to a precise sub-picture of the fractal. With the notion of fractals, i think you run into problems with infinity, because you can zoom in and out without ever identifying the initial causal basis for each quantum event and that is something which i think really does circumvent Bell’s theorem. If your main assumptions meet reality, i think this reality cannot be a fractal. But if the latter would be true, you need another ‘source’ to introduce uncertainty.

I am not the one to decide what nature really does. I am just not convinced by your papers. And you indeed do not need to convince me, but need to convince the professionals. I regret that your co-author, having such a prominent name like Minkowski, has not achieved to present your ideas in a more radically mathematical formulation, but mainly by words which are sometimes hard to trace if these lines of wordings really describe an ontology or merely an idea (an idea to which you personally attach a high probability to meet reality). Personally, i would say, presenting your ideas as a string of words instead of a string of mathematical symbols does damage your ideas. And personally i think your diverse concepts are contradicting each other, leading to inconsistencies, but that’s only my personal view. Maybe it is the case that what confuses the one person, elucidates another person and vice versa. As Lawrence Crowell recently wrote, you cannot disprove a theory with another theory, same as you cannot disprove strict determinism with the concept of fractal emergence of different sub-pictures within that fractal.

We humans cannot in most cases attach proper probabilities for our ideas to indeed meet reality, because we lack the needed information. What seems probable for one person, seems totally improbable for another person (think of the idea of God). The consistency of the idea does not prevent us from not having the needed information to judge the proper probability for that idea to meet reality. So you are right that nothing is certain in science, at least for the things from which we yet don't know how, why and if they indeed exist.

And i am far away to pick more of your ideas to analyze them, because i see no reason to do this in general and also specfically not in the current essay contest, where the main question is much different than the ones you claim to have consistently answered.

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

view post as summary

Stefan,

I agree with most. But "All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses." (Bronowski) or finding "new connections". Too many reject such new connections as too unfamiliar. Mathematicians have tried to limit the implications of Godel's theorem into ever smaller boxes as they hate it. I discussed this about 4yrs ago here.

'Understanding.' OK.; Start from OAM, in...

view entire post

Stefan,

I agree with most. But "All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses." (Bronowski) or finding "new connections". Too many reject such new connections as too unfamiliar. Mathematicians have tried to limit the implications of Godel's theorem into ever smaller boxes as they hate it. I discussed this about 4yrs ago here.

'Understanding.' OK.; Start from OAM, in which I identify an additional momentum HIDDEN from QM (or 'not used' in the simpler formulation; 'Up/Down' states). It DOES exist in some science, from Maxwell equations on. It is 'curl', which, despite confusion, is what we commonly call 'CHARGE', or clockwise or anticlockwise rotation. This momentum peaks at the POLES, so is ORTHOGONAL (at 90^o to) the tangentially LINEAR ('up/down') momentum which peaks at the equator. BOTH these states are then OPPOSITE at 180^o.

QM postulates NOTHING about particle morphology and dynamics, except to say up/down 'spin' are some magically 'superposed' states which CAN'T be classical rotation because different angles get bizarrely different 'orthogonal' findings!!

Bless their little cotton socks. Lets give them some nice new red socks lined with green, then explain each is REVERSIBLE. That's equivalent to reversing the angle of interaction with a sphere, so you find the OPPOSITE state!

I'll leave you with that for the moment because it DOES take some initial absorption and integration into neural networks, needing lots of old rubbish to be cleared away to establish. Once done it's simple to then learn how the orthogonal Cosine value distributions with angle emerge, and how they are squared. But one step at a time.

You know the common foundation with the DFM's 'Relativity' already. Light propagation speed is localised ts 'c' wrt the centre of mass of each fermion on interaction. That creates exactly Einsteins 1952 final conception 'spaces in motion within spaces' but gives it a quantum mechanism and removes all the nonsense (in BOTH) preventing unification.

But enough for now. First go back and embed the TWO DISTINCT momenta previously poorly understood and not employed.

On the subject of maths. Sure it'd be helpful to speak Swahili to those who speak Swahili, but my last essay shows that has limitations when it's essential they learn a whole new language to advance. Maths and logic need rebuilding using those simple common rule of brackets as foundations. That was understood on reading it and thus scored top, but then of course just forgotten! I also quoted Wheeler this year; Ontological understanding comes FIRST! Nonetheless if a mathematician came along and joined the party to numerate it all then that's fine. Be my guest! All I can say is; sorry but it won't be me! I have far more important things to do than spend time improving my Swahili.

Thanks for your efforts Stefan. I'm now wondering if you really can be an exception and overcome my essays cognitive dissonance hypothesis (that term itself intentionally not used).

Best

Peter

view post as summary

Dear Peter,

so far i agree on what you wrote concerning Gödel’s results.

Thanks for the first step of your explanation. I first like to know to what kind of particle you refer, to electrons or photons. I assume to electrons, since photons are known (at least to me) to have no charge.

The OAM you spoke of – is this the usual OAM of electrons? I assume not, since you write...

view entire post

Dear Peter,

so far i agree on what you wrote concerning Gödel’s results.

Thanks for the first step of your explanation. I first like to know to what kind of particle you refer, to electrons or photons. I assume to electrons, since photons are known (at least to me) to have no charge.

The OAM you spoke of – is this the usual OAM of electrons? I assume not, since you write that it is hidden from QM. But i nonetheless ask, since OAM has two components, a position and a momentum component. To define the desired position or momentum, one has to take into account all 3 vector components of position or momentum.

I now assume that what you identified as additional momentum is the momentum component of OAM. The particle spin is always orthogonal to the OAM and both facilitate the total angular momentum. This is the standard interpretation and is valid separately for all 3 spatial directions.

You should give me feedback whether i understood what you wrote or misunderstood it. I would be also helpful to first tell what orthodox QM says in each step and then tell me what your theory says for that step.

Now i imagine a sphere with the north pole above and the south pole down below. This sphere has then its equator inbetween north and south pole. It is turning in the plane of the equator such that the poles do not turn. At the poles, the charges you spoke of are maximal, at the equator they are zero. Therefore, at the equator, another momentum (is this the QM spin?) is maximal an at the poles is zero. This particle has its maximum angular velocity at the equator, and its maximal charge at the poles. During its journey from its source to some detector, the poles always stay where they are, north up and south down below (so the particle has no precession or something like that?). Alternatively, during their journey from their source to some detector, the plane in which both particles turn around is always the equator plane and always stays the same, namely the equator plane (is this more correct?).

Is this the right description so far?

“You know the common foundation with the DFM's 'Relativity' already….”

Please let us proceed on step after another. I do not remember what DFM is, although i may have read it some years ago.

What is the next step (if my conclusions so far are correct)?

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

view post as summary

Stefan,

First, photons DO have 'charge'! Latest max= 10^-46 of detector field 'electrons', which dominate exchanges. i.e. IOP & Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 261801 (old rubbish to go!)

The key player is the detector electron field (as Bohr et al & now QBism infer) Use incoming photons or electrons at will, and photons as or part of 'spread wavefronts, and propagating ON their polar...

view entire post

Stefan,

First, photons DO have 'charge'! Latest max= 10^-46 of detector field 'electrons', which dominate exchanges. i.e. IOP & Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 261801 (old rubbish to go!)

The key player is the detector electron field (as Bohr et al & now QBism infer) Use incoming photons or electrons at will, and photons as or part of 'spread wavefronts, and propagating ON their polar axis or with some 'elliptical polarization' (simply different axial orientation, or, think hard, Einsteins 'lateral' wave component.)

You must also step back from the old 'position/momentum' assumption, cause of much of the confusion by assigning them as the offset sine curves. THAT is what's helped hide the distinctive curl PLUS linear momenta.

It was also 'hidden' because QM famously assigned no 'morphology' to the paired particles. The algorithms then assume ONLY spin UP or DOWN. There logic all fell apart because they had to be magically 'superposed', and one 'collapse' on detection, with FTL or 'non-local' effects between Alice & Bob. Rather than listen to Einstein, EPR etc and correctly taking the hint that some assumption was wrong we just learned to live with what Bell insisted & showed was utter nonsense!

You'll have seen the effects of the 3 'vector component' or 'degrees of (rotational) freedom in the video; (snippet here 100 sec Compressed version. The complex OAM analysis isn't far off, but famously it's said 'Quantum' angular momentum (QAM) CAN'T be OAM for the various 'reasons' I identify and reveal as invalid (non-integer spins from the 3 degrees...etc). But I show 'interaction latitude' is critical, So;

QM; Each particle of a pair 'collapses' to just ONE 'state' (and a 'position').

DFM; Each has both momenta, & relative detector field angle gives amplitudes.

Your description would best start with the poles left and right. When 'split' they maintain that attitude, so lead by OPPOSITE charges. To keep it simple for now ignore elliptical polarity and remember the DETECTOR electrons, which Alice & Bob rotate, are king! The 'requantize' the energy by absorption and re-emission, and their angle DICTATES the new Cosine values of curl and AM. (that is equivalent to entirely poorly understood 'wavefunction collapse')

Of course arriving electrons (read 'fermions') have similar charge to field electrons, but each encounters millions so the effect is the same. Once you've re-run and absorbed all that we'll go on to the final 'squaring' of amplitudes to complete the mechanism (or delve into QCD!). But do challenge any bits or ask any more questions first.

Best

Peter

view post as summary

Stefan,

Yes, "they requantize" not 'the' (or requatized!) See my 2014 'It from Bit' essay; 'The Intelligent Bit' for helices, also this cosmic redshift video Time Dependent Redshift, but remember the 'fractal' scale heirarchy (so all entities 'orbiting' as they translate are themselves rotating), so here 'curl' is really the transfer of "a momentum able to induce rotation."...

view entire post

Stefan,

Yes, "they requantize" not 'the' (or requatized!) See my 2014 'It from Bit' essay; 'The Intelligent Bit' for helices, also this cosmic redshift video Time Dependent Redshift, but remember the 'fractal' scale heirarchy (so all entities 'orbiting' as they translate are themselves rotating), so here 'curl' is really the transfer of "a momentum able to induce rotation." (Try to think simply for initial understanding, only then build the full complexity). And yes; When re-emitted the FIELD ELECTRONS dictate orientation (a whole new 'wavefunction' if you like). Now you can see REAL 'observer dependency'!!) The new amplitudes (pairs remember) have the inverse Cosine values of the the interaction tangent point.

Sorry about the '100 Sec' video link. Try these; youtube or vimeo But remember that's just a glimpse of this; Full Classic QM video.

I see electron charge more as 'power' (amplitude) at each interaction but you may be right. So 'charge' is better thought of as rotational energy, not 'speed' (which is 'c' wrt the last event).

Yes, +/-. If North happens to be left, then even when split, if heading left it will only be found negative, so the one heading right is Positive. Remember the +/- is a 50:50 chance but always opposite. NOW we can make sense of the findings when Bob & Alice rotate their 'electrons'. 'Action at a distance is NOT needed!

"So, your DFM has two governing mechanisms, one the momentum, the other the detector field angles? What do these two mechnisms contribute to the measurement and first of all how do they contribute to the measurement result?"

TWO momenta remember, with (Diracs) 'complementarity', dictated by the field angle, (so inverse Cos values).

NOW the big finale; Those 'polarized' photon/fermion/whatevers now hit lets say (most commonly) a 2-channel photoamplifier, (each channel has opposite polarity) and each will only make ONE channel go 'CLICK', and at a rate dependent on it's amplitude. If Bob & Alice's settings are the same, and Bobs + channel clicks, then Alices - channel will click. If either of them reverses electron angle ('dial') at the last instant then both ++ (or both --) channels will click. If both dials are at half way (say the equator, for 'curl') then BOTH findings will be quite random 50:50 - yet angular momentum AM will PEAK!

Thus the results of current statistical analysis are entirely reproduced with a classical mechanism, and without all the nonsensical spookiness currently needed. Shocking I know, but it's entirely self evident.

So Einstein was right at Solvay 1n 1927, he was just a bit wrong about SR (c is localised by CSL) which prevented him finding the mechanism.

How are you doing? I'm impressed you've hung in where professional physicists have so far failed. As John Bell said; "Professional physicists really ought to be able to do better!" I wait patiently.

...ooops I'm late for tennis! must dash.

Peter

view post as summary

Peter,

the field electrons dictate orientation (due to their own orientation relative to the incoming particle) and this orientation dictates the measurement outcome (if no more intermediate interactions occur), is this correct so far?

The dial you spoke of is the polarisation filter, i guess?

“Yes, +/-. If North happens to be left, then even when split, if heading left it...

view entire post

Peter,

the field electrons dictate orientation (due to their own orientation relative to the incoming particle) and this orientation dictates the measurement outcome (if no more intermediate interactions occur), is this correct so far?

The dial you spoke of is the polarisation filter, i guess?

“Yes, +/-. If North happens to be left, then even when split, if heading left it will only be found negative, so the one heading right is Positive.”

Let’s assume that the two polarisators have the same angles (there is no relative difference in angles between them). Then the one particle (say, the left with north) is re-quantized with a certain ‘power (charge)’, depending on the particles initial angle relative to this polarisator, is this correct? For the other particle it is the same, but with the difference that the certain ‘power (charge)’ i spoke of is complementary to the one for the first particle (the north particle). Complementary in the sense that if one would add up both ‘powers (charges)’, it always results in the maximum charge that is possible on a single particle. Is this correct?

So if we give the maximum charge (power) an arbitrary value of 1, then the charges of the two particles always add up to 1. The same principle should then be true also for the other property you spoke of, namely the tangentially linear momentum. If charge has a zero peak at the equator, this tangentially linear momentum has its maximum peak at the equator and vice versa. The two properties of the particle, the charge and the linear momentum, have their opposite interaction powers both at 180 degree.

Concerning the two-channel photoamplifiers, i now could investigate how these tools function in detail due to mainstream physics. But i guess they work a bit different in your scenario. Anyways, it would be helpful for me if you would explain me the detailed mechanism. Only ever one channel will click, i understood so far (and is self-evident). What channel will click depends on the orientation of the final re-quantized particle arriving at the photoamplifier. But how can a clicking rate depend on the (charge and/or linear momentum) amplitude of a single particle event? As i understood it so far, at the poles, there is no tangentially linear momentum, but maxiumum power (charge). But what for the case *near* the pole – does a certain channel, say the minus-channel (arbitrarily choosen), click here and what is the mechanism that would *prevent* this channel to click? I mean i must understand how a continuum of charge-values from the pole to the equator translates into a binary clicking behaviour of either + or - channel. At what point of the mentioned continuum does the clicking-channel switch from + to – ? The same question arises for the continuum of the tangentially linear momentum. How are these continua quantized into + or – clicks in the photoamplifiers for a *single* particle event? Something inside them must decide which channel clicks for a single particle event and this is something i haven’t understood yet from your hitherto explanations.

After a flue and lots of antibiotica i do well again! Thanks for your compliments concerning my essay, i do my best to clear up some issues which i consider as fog concerning the essay contest’s questions!

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

view post as summary

Stefan,

All correct up to para4; "Then the one particle (say, the left with north) is re-quantized with a certain ‘power (charge)’, depending on the particles initial angle relative to this polarisator, is this correct?"

Not quite. The TWO momenta (curl+AM) amplitudes are very much dependent on the FIELD ('electrons') angle relative to the particles not vice versa (which...

view entire post

Stefan,

All correct up to para4; "Then the one particle (say, the left with north) is re-quantized with a certain ‘power (charge)’, depending on the particles initial angle relative to this polarisator, is this correct?"

Not quite. The TWO momenta (curl+AM) amplitudes are very much dependent on the FIELD ('electrons') angle relative to the particles not vice versa (which could be implied by your description). The particles relative +/- & up/down 'states' are conserved.

Para5 is also wrong; For each property the max values +1 and -1 are at the opposing poles (for curl) and opposite 'sides' of the equator (up/down). So each is then 0 at 90^o. We can only EVER interact with one 'side' at a time so can only 'find' one (curl/AM value pair) at a time. We don't 'add up' Bob & Alice's values. If we did we'd get 0 as one is + and one - !

What we do in QM is 'correlate' the 'clicks' statistically, which is quite different (leading to the famous 'damn lies' due to the key false assumption that there's only ONE 'state pair'). The orthogonal Cos² curves are the amplitude plots from changing polarizer field angles. The complimentarity of QM is the inverse relationship of curl/AM values with the angle. Add each of THOSE together and yes, you get 1. (But the cheese would taste a bit chalky as the 0-1 is only mathematical abstraction.)

Photomultipliers "..i guess they work a bit different in your scenario." Nope, not at all. They're called 'Cascade..or Avalanche..' as they have a dense field (think of a matrix) of fermions (think of them as 'pre-charged to avoid transmission loss) which amplify signals due to cascades of interactions; That is, viewed in Feynmanns 2D, the incoming particle hits one electron which produces two. But look from ANY angle (say 90^o) and you find the same! Nature is 3D NOT 2D! The mathematical progression in cascades is therefore by the SQUARE of the input amplitute, not just 'doubled'.

When Bohr, Von Neumann etc said the detector/meter is 'part of the system' it seems they really didn't have any idea just how right they were!

"how can a clicking rate depend on the (charge and/or linear momentum) amplitude of a single particle event? Instruments are tuneable, and each emission arrives at BOTH channels. If (relative remember) amplitude in the 'lower value' side doesn't reach a threshold level there'll be no click, but that means there'll be a click from the opposite channel (higher input value side relative to that channels field orientation).

"At what point of the mentioned continuum does the clicking-channel switch from + to – ?". It doesn't. Rephrase to; "At what point does the + channel stop and - channel start clicking." The answer is then; at 90^o. But actually AT 90^o there's around a 50:50 chance of either clicking (if set/tuned correctly). And THAT is 'quantum uncertainty'. Actually to 50:50 is presently (also) the statistical correlation between Bob and Alice's clicks when set at 90^o to each other. Say Bobs dial is fixed, Alice changes to OPPOSITE, = SAME results, then she goes to 90^o and the 'statistical correlation' becomes 50:50. A quantum physicist, website or even Wiki will confirm that's what's found. However as you and I and very few others so far now know, the apparent 'paradoxes' of those findings don't actually need to exist!

I can still recall how tricky it was to first get my brain round that, so you really do need to read it through and visualise it many times! But you should soon be able to read all about QM, spot the flawed assumptions and confusion of interpretations they led to.

Peter

view post as summary

Peter,

thanks for the reply.

“Not quite. The TWO momenta (curl+AM) amplitudes are very much dependent on the FIELD ('electrons') angle relative to the particles not vice versa (which could be implied by your description). The particles relative +/- & up/down 'states' are conserved.“

I have difficulties to understand this. I thought that, lets say the particle propagating...

view entire post

Peter,

thanks for the reply.

“Not quite. The TWO momenta (curl+AM) amplitudes are very much dependent on the FIELD ('electrons') angle relative to the particles not vice versa (which could be implied by your description). The particles relative +/- & up/down 'states' are conserved.“

I have difficulties to understand this. I thought that, lets say the particle propagating to the left from the source has, say, its north pole left (at the propagation axis, since the poles are initially always at the propagation axis). The up/down ‘states’ are initially all on the equator, since the particle spins around itself on the equatorial line (the equator is initially oriented vertically).

The first interaction is due to a polariser with a certain angle. According to your description i concluded that the polarizer’s field absorbes the particle and re-emitts a new one with the same orientation as the polarizer’s field orientation. Mmhh, is this correct so far?

If yes, i further concluded that the new particle (with the new orientations) hits a photoamplifier’s electron and due to its orientation, it transmits a certain momentum to the electron. But now i have to consider that these amplifiers have two channels and both channels are stimulated by the impact of the particle. The one channel is stimulated by ‘curl’, the other by ‘momentum’. Is this the right visualization?

What i do not understand is that you wrote the “particles relative +/- & up/down 'states' are conserved”. If two particles propagate from the source, the one has north pole left, the other has also north pole left. Since both particles are measured at opposite sides, their relative ‘charge states’ are always opposite, *if* no re-emission takes place before a measurement. The same should be true for the up/down state, right? O.k., but there are the experimenters who can indepdently change the polarizer angles from 0 up to 90°. So it can’t be that ‘relative’ in your sentence means relative between the two particles. I guess it means the curl/momentum pair for every particle is conserved and is always +/- 1 for one particle (for one particle +1, for the other particle -1). I conclude from this that the particle’s properties and architecture is completely conserved, only the space-like orientation of its properties is changed due to re-emission? Is this the correct way to think of it?

“Para5 is also wrong; For each property the max values +1 and -1 are at the opposing poles (for curl) and opposite 'sides' of the equator (up/down). So each is then 0 at 90o. We can only EVER interact with one 'side' at a time so can only 'find' one (curl/AM value pair) at a time. We don't 'add up' Bob & Alice's values. If we did we'd get 0 as one is + and one - !”

O.k., max. value + at one pole, min. value (zero charge) at the equator, max value – at the other pole. The same for the equatorial plane: max. value ‘up’ say at the front, min. value at the top/down and max. value ‘down’ at the back of the particle. Since both properties are continua, at every point of the sphere the curl/AM combinations are different from each other.

“The complimentarity of QM is the inverse relationship of curl/AM values with the angle. Add each of THOSE together and yes, you get 1.“

I conclude from this that you attach to the terminus technicus of ‚up/down’ also a kind of ‚charge’ with + and – signs. Is this correct? If ‘charge’ is +1 (-1), then the other value is 0, if ‘charge’ is 0, the other value is +1 (-1).

“The answer is then; at 90o.”

This should be the relative difference in angles between the two poarizers, is this correct?

“The answer is then; at 90o. But actually AT 90o there's around a 50:50 chance of either clicking (if set/tuned correctly).”

What prevents the two channels to both click simultaneously?

PS: 90o should be read 90 degree angle.

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

view post as summary

Stefan,

The problem is you're still defaulting to the old assumption that the particle pair momenta dictate output. They don't, apart from just the +/- which IS still key, and that amplitude must be 'adequate'. The cosine value distributions come from the FIELD FERMIONS (interaction tangent point latitude).

Before we leave that; to save confusion I stated 'default' mode of...

view entire post

Stefan,

The problem is you're still defaulting to the old assumption that the particle pair momenta dictate output. They don't, apart from just the +/- which IS still key, and that amplitude must be 'adequate'. The cosine value distributions come from the FIELD FERMIONS (interaction tangent point latitude).

Before we leave that; to save confusion I stated 'default' mode of propagation along the x axis. That's not true for elliptical polarity (see the redshift video) but is largely insignificant. For electron energies it would be more so except for the multiple interactions, so the old state ('wavefunction'') is rather beaten into submission! (in diffuse media even light has bi and trirefringence during that process, which is MORE THAN ONE POLARITY subject to how many interactions each re-emission has had. Your Para 3 then is about right.

Para4; "The one channel is stimulated by ‘curl’, the other by ‘momentum’. Is this the right visualization? Not strictly, no. Remember EACH state is an inverse PAIR with + and -. The channels electrons are set opposite (+/-) (or electron/positron) and interactions are all again RELATIVE! So the + or - amplitude of each part of each 'tuple' is what's amplified. Indeed that CAN mean one channel is measuring weight of chalk and one intensity of cheese! NOT currently discerned by the maths.

Para5; Yes. But remember outcomes are relative, so reversing the dial (+/-) then reverses the output (+/-).

Para7-8; Yes, "Since both properties are continua, at every point of the sphere the curl/AM combinations are different from each other." and different by Cos² Theta (so angle) inversely (and orthogonally i.e. a 90^o angle to each other) ..that's 'complementarity'. which is also Malus' Law (for 'Intensity' of light) from long ago!

Lastly NOTHING prevents both channels from clicking simultaneously, or BOTH channels clicking. They probably often do at around the 50:50 transition, particularly if the instrument isn't precisely tuned. Fact is we haven't known how many 'photons' are detected so it makes no difference to the abstracted statistics.

Also remember Aspect had to reject 98% of his data to make his results fit current interpretation due to an unidentified 'rotational invariance' problem blamed on his 'source'. Well I never! The new classical model predicts more like 98% of his data. (Weihs et al reported the same unknown problem from an electro-optic modulator simply stating it was "corrected for"!).

Bless 'em.

Peter

view post as summary

Stefan,

"i would demand the details of such a mechanism. Because i would like to know more about fundamental reality and whether it is strictly deterministic (although maybe with some noise and untracable chaos within it).."

Yes, so would I, and I assume all would! Sure the model helps by narrowing the possible range of 'particle' dynamics that produce the observed...

view entire post

Stefan,

"i would demand the details of such a mechanism. Because i would like to know more about fundamental reality and whether it is strictly deterministic (although maybe with some noise and untracable chaos within it).."

Yes, so would I, and I assume all would! Sure the model helps by narrowing the possible range of 'particle' dynamics that produce the observed outcome, but that's all anything is physics has EVER done and can ever do!

"Bell’s assumptions may have been indeed wrong (and yours also)." As a top QM statistics professor 'R' pointed out in a blog here recently Bell MADE NO assumptions! Of course where 'R' was wrong is that Bell stated clearly he used QM's assumptions, which he believed MUST be wrong somewhere. I simply show he was right, and where. The only 'assumption' I must make an an axiom is if momentum exchanged on an interaction at different orientations is equivalent to it's distributions across the surface of a spinning sphere. It was in testing that hypothesis (as part of the ontology) that I found the ONLY classical model EVER that reproduces QM's predictions! Of course it's incomplete and may not model reality, but that last sentence remains true.

"I would be very surprised if such a theory that predicts something different than QM cannot be constructed in principle, since QM with all its weiredness was also constructed as a ‘circumvention’ of some problems and it works well and has predicted many phenomena." You misunderstand how 'QM' arose. Bohr & Co STARTED with a complex set of findings. If any theory finds something different it would be WRONG as it doesn't correspond to reality! To paraphrase QM then; it gives a complex mathematical algorithym that works, but no physical analogy was possible so say's; "all this weird unphysical stuff must happen to give these results".

Now I've just shown there IS a physical analogy which can produce the findings!

"I visualized the main ingredients on the unit circle. As in computing, one flaw in input and all that follows is nonsense!! There are NO 'zero' points! Nature is 3D so a circle CAN'T model it. Think 'sphere'. Now you missed a key statement; 'UP/DOWN' and 'LEFT/RIGHT' are equivalent arbitrary labels as the poles may ALSO be either. The key word is; 'ORTHOGONAL'(to the poles, i.e. at 90^o).

SOURCE: I discuss in more detail in the paper but the typical model for a splitter, i.e. Stern-Gerlach magnet will work viz. A particle inputs, possibly at any random angle and certainly with a 50:50 chance of North being left or right. The pair head off in opposite directions, one 'led by' N and the other by S, (but with some ellipticity of polarity possible due to orientation). However remember the big power player here is the FERMION FIELD! - so in the simplest case the only thing that matters is whether pos or neg states 'arrive'. And yes, +/- will tend to 50:50.

The point I made strongly in my essay is that it IS DIFFICULT to embed and remember more than 3 things at once, which you're finding, and there ARE FAR MORE than that in the ontological construction giving the solution, and some informed by recent science. That's why neither Bohr nor Einstein could find it in the 1920's so argued at Solvay in '27.

Peter

view post as summary

Peter,

i know that we talk about spheres. I only scribbled a unit circle first. For convenience, lets assume the north pole being up, the south being down. These are the maximum points for this ‘axis’. It follows that the equator is a horizontal line (the x-coordinate-line of the unit cirlce if you will). At the front of the equator (in the middle of it seen from the front of the unit...

view entire post

Peter,

i know that we talk about spheres. I only scribbled a unit circle first. For convenience, lets assume the north pole being up, the south being down. These are the maximum points for this ‘axis’. It follows that the equator is a horizontal line (the x-coordinate-line of the unit cirlce if you will). At the front of the equator (in the middle of it seen from the front of the unit circle) the momentum property is maximum, since at the other side of the equator it is minimum. Therefore at the front side (middle of equator), the curl is zero, since up and down it is maximum (+1, -1). What’s left are the both sides of the sphere (if we visualize the unit circle as a sphere what we want to do). So, left and right (in terms of the unit circle at 90 degree and 270 degree) both curl and momentum are zero (zero means half the way between +1 and -1).

If they wouldn’t be zero, how can you explain that for two subsequent polarizers (one for unpolarized light, the other for the result having went through polarizer number 1), orientated relative to each other at 90 degrees, no particle will go trough the second polarizer? But since your interaction mechanism is unclear, it could well be that the particle will go through (but this would be in contradiction to experimental findings). Nonetheless, at the other twin-particle with the same polarizer-settings, it then will not go through. So you need two points at the sphere, distinguished by 180 degree, for which no ‘intensity’ can interact with the field and lead to 're-emission'.

“"I visualized the main ingredients on the unit circle. As in computing, one flaw in input and all that follows is nonsense!! There are NO 'zero' points! Nature is 3D so a circle CAN'T model it. Think 'sphere'. Now you missed a key statement; 'UP/DOWN' and 'LEFT/RIGHT' are equivalent arbitrary labels as the poles may ALSO be either. The key word is; 'ORTHOGONAL'(to the poles, i.e. at 90o).”

I conclude from this that two twin-particles, produced by, say a down-conversion process, are ‘only’ complementary insofar as their complementary parts do always stand orthogonally relative to each other. Say, if the left particle has north left, the right particle has its south pole right. The latter particle then has its maximum momentum at one point of the sphere, the other particle 180 degrees away (but always on the equator, defined by the position of the poles!). If another particle(-pair) has its north pole up (from the same point of view of an ‘observer’), the other particle will have its north pole down, and again the latter then has its maxium momentum at some point on the sphere, namely at the equator, its twin 180 degrees away from that point, also on the equator. So the twin-particles can come in arbitrary spinning directions and orientations of their poles and equators from the twin-source, but always must conserve the above described relationships in relation to each other. If the equator plane is spinning up, the equator plane of the twin particle must spin down. Is this the correct understanding?

“If any theory finds something different it would be WRONG as it doesn't correspond to reality!”

I think this would be only true if we had discovered all the consequences of QM yet. How can we know that we already have? I mean, other causal mechanisms could well lead to other experimental findings. That these findings aren’t yet made has then its cause in the mathematics of QM, which does not predict or indicate such experimental findings. So nobody does look for them.

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

view post as summary

Stefan,

The best way to consider the sphere is that the energy level, or 'momentum', at any (latitude) orientation is the same, across the whole surface. The 'distribution' is only between what we've called AM and curl. To prove this, spin up a rubber sphere, then take a 2nd sphere (or a dynamometer) and hold it against the first. At the poles the 2nd will be made to rotate, but then at its...

view entire post

Stefan,

The best way to consider the sphere is that the energy level, or 'momentum', at any (latitude) orientation is the same, across the whole surface. The 'distribution' is only between what we've called AM and curl. To prove this, spin up a rubber sphere, then take a 2nd sphere (or a dynamometer) and hold it against the first. At the poles the 2nd will be made to rotate, but then at its equator there will be the same AM! Conversely; touch them at the equator of the first and the AM is transferred, but now look at the POLES of the 2nd and we find the same CURL amplitude as at the poles of the first! So there is NO POINT ON THE SPHERE WITH LESS MOMENTUM THAN ANY OTHER, but there are TWO classes of momenta, distributed orthogonally.

As I said, If you try to reduce this to a (2D) circle it fails to reveal nature.

"If the equator plane is spinning up, the equator plane of the twin particle must spin down. Is this the correct understanding?" Yes. As I've written many times it's best to always remember there's no such concepts us up/down or left/right in space. Just orthogonal and opposite with 3 degrees of freedom. Anything beyond basic rotation is entirely observer dependent, even 'translation' is relative. Think on this; Who's to say Bob and Alice may not be floating upside down in relation to each other!

You're also in danger of becoming too focused on the pair. Don't forget that it's the relative relationship with the field electron that dictates output. It would then be far better to think of the relative outputs from interactions as simply either 'SAME' or 'OPPOSITE' directions.

In other words the findings and stats aren't really reporting on 'state pair' states but RELATIVE states at the interactions (that needs a little thought too!)

"..other causal mechanisms could well lead to other experimental findings. That these findings aren’t yet made has then its cause in the mathematics of QM, which does not predict or indicate such experimental findings. So nobody does look for them." That is a good point. So if you can think of any do test them or let me know! There ARE some, but purely seen as alternative solutions to well established interpretations, i.e. 'backwards causality'!. The problem is, because Diracs maths is essentially correct, any such finding is likely to be hailed as a "new implication of QM" not any proof that embedded assumptions are wrong. That's how physics seems to work; If there's disagreement on any theory, some unpredicted finding comes along and BOTH sides interpret it as a proof!

In this case however the very fact that some classical mechanism IS possible is the revelation. Certainly if it had been found at any time in the FIRST 50 years, from 1920 to Bell's era, it would have been recognized immediately and the nonsense all dropped. But now after ANOTHER 50 years the weirdness may be too familiar and deeply embedded to be overturned.

That's one reason my essay identifies the need for humans to self evolve thinking methodology to allow understanding of nature to advance.

Peter

view post as summary

Peter,

„In other words the findings and stats aren't really reporting on 'state pair' states but RELATIVE states at the interactions (that needs a little thought too!)”

How can the sampling of many twin-pairs then reproduce the Bell-curve? Surely, one can analyze the measurements in terms of independent interactions at every measurement station and this of course must be done,...

view entire post

Peter,

„In other words the findings and stats aren't really reporting on 'state pair' states but RELATIVE states at the interactions (that needs a little thought too!)”

How can the sampling of many twin-pairs then reproduce the Bell-curve? Surely, one can analyze the measurements in terms of independent interactions at every measurement station and this of course must be done, since the two stations do independently choose with what angles they operate in each trial (either by the will of the experimenter or automatized).

But all this has to result in the Bell-curve at the end and the latter is a description of correlations of twin-pairs, not of some cosine-like distributions of some momenta at a single particle. If the twin-pairs are not send out from the same sample source in always the same spatial orientations (except for north and south interchangeable and therefore also for up and down), i would conclude that the Bell-curve cannot come into existence with your approach. If only spatial orientation is rendered at every measurement interaction, but no intensity of momenta, then the final photoamplifiers need no treshholds. If it is only the relative angle of the photoamplifiers field with the incoming particle which decides what channel does click and your statement ‘NO POINT ON THE SPHERE WITH LESS MOMENTUM THAN ANY OTHER’ should be true, then on the basis of what criteria can the photoamplifier then discriminate what channel should click and at the same time act according to QM probabilities which change with angle and are correlations that produce a continuous pattern, namely the Bell-curve. This can’t be done with only a digital description of two classes of momenta that have at no point on the sphere less momentum than any other.

I re-read your comment at 21.Mai 10:56

“The 'requantize' the energy by absorption and re-emission, and their angle DICTATES the new Cosine values of curl and AM.”

I think i understood this; the relative angle between incoming particle and the field of the measurement device.

The question for me is now whether the twin-particles produced by the source are produced with some cosine values of curl and AM (surely then due to the orthogonally- and opposite-rules you mentioned) or not. The second question is what triggers both of the final photoamplifiers to produce the Bell-curve over time if the sine- and cosine patterns are not existent on a single particle. Remember, perfect correlation can be explained classically, but there are cases where these perfect correlations (or anti-correlations) resolve more and more into a 50:50 chance. This behaviour must be reproduced by your scheme and for that it is necessary that the source’s twin-particles that are suitable to be sampled come always with the same initial orientations (except for the exchange of north/south and up/down). By ‘same initial’ orientations i do not only mean that the two particles must have ‘opposite’ initial orientations, but their common spin-axis’ for their two momenta must always be of the same orientation (relative to an observer with a fixed point of perspective towards the source) for every sample pair.

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

view post as summary

Stefan,

Hmm. you keep forgetting key bits so conclude wrongly. I can't blame you, I struggled for ages! But the video does derive this, or also see the end notes of my previous essay experiment using colours. Remember the x axis scale of the Bell curves is detector field angle, and there are TWO curves offset by 90o, so when one peaks & troughs the other is crossing zero (mid height), and...

view entire post

Stefan,

Hmm. you keep forgetting key bits so conclude wrongly. I can't blame you, I struggled for ages! But the video does derive this, or also see the end notes of my previous essay experiment using colours. Remember the x axis scale of the Bell curves is detector field angle, and there are TWO curves offset by 90o, so when one peaks & troughs the other is crossing zero (mid height), and vice versa. Now consider the finding not as 'spin up/down' but just as 'same/different' to the detector electron direction.

We'll say Bob and Alice can rotate their dials at will. When the SAME angle they get opposite results, when at OPPOSITE angles they get the SAME results. Now when they're at 90o relative to EACH OTHER (anywhere around the dial) the correlated results have maximum uncertainty. This is because; if the rate of clicks between Bobs two photomultiplier channels is say 60:40, then Alice's will be the inverse so CORRELATION ( a 'relative' function) will be at its poorest (50:50). Of course NEAR 90o it'll still be poorish, whereas near the SAME or OPPOSITE settings it'll be pretty certain. That reproduces the Cos curves of the interactions but this time SQUARED due to the value amplifications of the photomultiplier cascades.

In the colour experiment it was subjective. When asked how close red was to green it was NOT AT ALL (opposite) but then comparing red & orange, green & lime or buff & sand, in was CLOSE. So the distribution of 'sameness' was non linear. But now asked if yellow is closest to red or to green? (orthogonal switchover point ) Duh! the result was around 50:50.

That statistical non-linearity is tricky to get your head round at first then keep in there! But don't assume the correlations actually mean what many assume them to mean. The distribution is NOT the original particle momentum distribution itself but that simply repeats itself. The simple subjective essay experiment with a bunch of students gave a surprisingly good reproduction of the Bell curves from the correlations. (of course many just suggest, oh 'that's just proved QM'. Doh!)

Peter

view post as summary

Stefan,

For consistency stay with polariser/modulators & twin channel photomultipliers (PM's). The important fermions are those of the rotatable polariser FIELD. Remember the main differences between travelling pair fermions and 'photons' is the former take more field interactions to be 'modulated'.

My last post was late Sunday so not as clear as it should have been! But it also...

view entire post

Stefan,

For consistency stay with polariser/modulators & twin channel photomultipliers (PM's). The important fermions are those of the rotatable polariser FIELD. Remember the main differences between travelling pair fermions and 'photons' is the former take more field interactions to be 'modulated'.

My last post was late Sunday so not as clear as it should have been! But it also seems you didn't check back to the Bob & Alice essay I directed you to. There are clear diagrams and a findings chart (end note). Human brains store visuals easier than numbers so study the figs and sketches. Do Bob & Alice have a future?

What I forgot was I also devised a way for YOU to experiment in 2D. Draw a circle and perimeter cosine number distributions from +1 to -1 between poles, then also in a different colour +1 to -1 orthogonally (so starting at 90^o = the equator).

Now draw a smaller circle with radians at say 5^o intervals from zero round 360^o (so 180 is opposite)^o, then cut it out and pin it concentrically on top of the first.

Now wherever 0 happens to be you can choose any angle on the top disc as the RELATIVE angle between Bob and Alice's detector dials. Now for ANY position going in 5^o increments plot (z axis) each colour Cos value onto a graph.

The outcome relationship from Bob & Alice's RELATIVE settings will then become clear and self apparent. All we then need to do is add the PM cascade amplification effect (as in QCD), so square the Cos values (which means they now represent the PM 'click' rates) and do the plot again.

Now you've fully reproduced the experimental findings and 'predictions' of QM with a Classical mechanism. Something still considered impossible! What's more you've shown that so called 'superposition' and 'entanglement' effects purely emerge from the orthogonal TWIN momenta and maintained axial relationship between the pairs, NOT anything weird & spooky!

However DOING this is relatively easy compared to the near insurmountable task of getting doctrinal mainstream science to understand, accept and adopt it! But maybe that doesn't matter as (look around you!) we're probably not yet ready for a quantum leap in understanding.

Let me know if you run into problems with the experiments and I'll help.

Peter

view post as summary

Peter,

i read your essay ‚’Do Bob and Alice have a future?’.

It seems that both Alice and Bob experiment with electrons and use as ‘analysers’ Stern-Gerlach magnets. Bob did in fact use polarisers to experiment with electrons and seemingly also used photons with the Stern-Gerlach magnets.

You wrote

“So something was wrong. Whatever he did, half the spin...

view entire post

Peter,

i read your essay ‚’Do Bob and Alice have a future?’.

It seems that both Alice and Bob experiment with electrons and use as ‘analysers’ Stern-Gerlach magnets. Bob did in fact use polarisers to experiment with electrons and seemingly also used photons with the Stern-Gerlach magnets.

You wrote

“So something was wrong. Whatever he did, half the spin results were identical with the same settings, the other half with opposite settings!“

the figure 5 in that essay shows that there are 4 quadrants, 2 on the left, 2 on the right. The ones at the left are symmetrical to the ones at the right. For a ‘Bell believer’ this mirrors the classical and non-classical correlations. For a ‘Bell denier’ this mirrors that every twin pair comes into the experimental setup with a fixed symmetry and a common propagation axis.

But now assume that we first measure the vertical ‘spin-component’ of the spin half particles. For all particles that have spin ‘up’, we now measure the horizontal ‘spin-component’. Since we now measure an orthogonal variable, the results should arise in the well-known 50:50 manner at both sides. After that, we now measure the particles again orthogonally to the previous measurement. Again there should only arise values in the well-known 50:50 manner.

In other words, whatever we do after the first measurement (vertical component), ‘half the spin results were identical with the same settings, the other half with opposite settings!” for every further added measurement station (but now not as the Bell-curve, but linear).

The latter paragraph is not surprising in light of your approach, since you defined an increasing randomness towards the relative angle of 90 degree. What is surprising to me is that doing an analog experiment, not with electrons, but with photons, we can erase the very first measurement (vertical ‘spin-component’) by superposing the up- and down particles of the vertical measurement after the subsequent horizontal measurement and therefore forcing the twin pair to give always the SAME answers. Interrupting the superposition by blocking one path to its creation, and the 50:50 situation is restored again, independent of what is happening with the other particle. So what one does in one path (locally), does impact what happens in the other path.

You know these experiments. Interference on both sides of an entangled system can locally (on one side) be created or destroyed and subsequently this has an impact on the twin particles’ ‘behaviour’ (it does contribute to interference or not, dependend on what happens on the other side). This cannot be explained by subsets or ensembles, it is a very real correlation of action-at-a-distance, since for interference, the particle has to avoid certain regions more than for non-interference (so the probabilities change for that twin-particle due to what an experimenter does on the other side with the other particles).

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

view post as summary

Stefan,

I confess I'll have to read my own essay again to understand your commentary! Things have also evolved of course. One BIG No No in your description relates for instance to;

" we first measure the vertical ‘spin-component’ of the spin half particles. For all particles that have spin ‘up’, we now measure the horizontal ‘spin-component’." We famously can't do...

view entire post

Stefan,

I confess I'll have to read my own essay again to understand your commentary! Things have also evolved of course. One BIG No No in your description relates for instance to;

" we first measure the vertical ‘spin-component’ of the spin half particles. For all particles that have spin ‘up’, we now measure the horizontal ‘spin-component’." We famously can't do so, indeed it's a philosophical problem that Bell goes into that we can't 'check on' the state of a particle 'on the way' to compare it's state on arrival. Indeed even individual 'time resolved' particle comparisons have been tricky as the theory was only ever based on 'streams'. As I wrote, the analysis isn't really correlating what it's assumed it is, indeed the whole concept of applying mass statistics to individual occurrences is highly dubious anyway.

It would be very helpful to read Prof William McHarris's essay which I've just read, which agrees and quite brilliantly explains the background, set ups, limitations and issues in QM.

I also don't know what you mean by 'Bell deniers'. I don't know any exist! His theorem is undeniable. I certainly agree it.

Finally I can't see what you refer to in your last paragraph as it's incorrect, unless you're referring to so called 'delayed choice' type interferometer experiments which use the same flawed starting assumptions so end up with the same 'spooky' inferences. There is NO case where 'action at a distance' is required to explain the findings.

I can explain the quantum eraser etc but it takes some space. A key is, in the definitive experimental set-ups count how many mirrors (so state reversals and delays) there are on each side of the system! If your brain is locked in to the Classic QM mechanism (which I can see it mostly isn't yet) the solution may fall out.

The 'concentric circle' experiment I described above should let you prove it conclusively to yourself. But do read the McHarris paper first.

Best

Peter

view post as summary

Peter,

i think the experiment i spoke of was first meant as a thought experiment, figured out by Zeilinger and Mike Horne in 1985 and then presented at a conference in 1987, as far as i remember. It indeed was not a quantum eraser experiment, since i confused it with another experiment. So here it is:

Take a source that produces twin-particles which propagate in opposite directions....

view entire post

Peter,

i think the experiment i spoke of was first meant as a thought experiment, figured out by Zeilinger and Mike Horne in 1985 and then presented at a conference in 1987, as far as i remember. It indeed was not a quantum eraser experiment, since i confused it with another experiment. So here it is:

Take a source that produces twin-particles which propagate in opposite directions. At each direction from the source, place a double-slit barrrier. The source and the distances between two slits on a barrier is such that at the measurement screen behind each double-slit, there does not appear an interference pattern, but a homogenous gray.

Say, the twin-particle propagating to the left is called A, the other, propagating to the right, is called B.

Scanning the detection plane (with a detector B) of particle B (from left to right or vice versa) gives a random pattern of impacts which lead to the homogenous gray.

But repeat the experiment with the difference that now we also install a detector (photomultiplier or such) in the detection plane for particle A at a specific place. Now repeat the experiment by measuring the relative frequencies of impacts at the measurement plane B (while detector A is always at the same location) by again moving it (from right to left or vice versa). Now you get non-random relative frequencies of the impacts, they form an interference pattern.

For the relevant coincidence counts, detectors A and B together produce an intererence pattern in the plane of particle B. One can also once more change the relative frequencies of impacts at the detection plane of particle B by slightly shifting detector A. One can do this until the maxima and minima at side B for the placement of detector A in the first run and in the second run (the latter the one with the slightly shifted detector position) build up together a totally washed out ‘interference pattern’.

The fact that a detector is used at side A alters the relative frequencies of impacts on side B, irrespectively of how large the distances between the two detector planes are. Since nothing has changed at the source and at side B, one is forced to correlate the initial change of patterns with the use of detector A. But how can the use of detector A influence what detector B measures…

My term ‘Bell deniers’ is confusing. I should have written entanglement deniers, since you accept Bell’s theorem, but do not think that spooky-action-at-a-distance is reality, but only a misunderstanding. In a certain sense i do so, because i do not think that there is really an action at a distance in space and time. But i rationally think that there is a reason for the above described behaviour, although maybe not tracable with our usual notion of causality.

The above experiment was conducted and confirmed. In this experiment one can neglect the particles which did not hit the detectors or did not hit the double slits.

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

view post as summary

Stefan,

Thanks. Yes I recall these now (from long ago). They are 'quantum eraser' type set ups as I suggested. The findings of ALL these are fully as predicted by Classic QM, simply identifying wrong interpretation and analysis resulting in the flawed conclusions you described. No 'backward causality' or 'non-local communication' is then needed.

To simplify, just run...

view entire post

Stefan,

Thanks. Yes I recall these now (from long ago). They are 'quantum eraser' type set ups as I suggested. The findings of ALL these are fully as predicted by Classic QM, simply identifying wrong interpretation and analysis resulting in the flawed conclusions you described. No 'backward causality' or 'non-local communication' is then needed.

To simplify, just run through each experiment carefully and armed with the classical mechanism (rather than using confused statements like; "..projects the state of photon 2 into a momentum eigenstate"!).

So here it is; BOTH 'photons' have BOTH momenta and states, and parts go BOTH (secondary) 'paths' (I can explain that more). If one is rotated, reversed or delayed, then when they're 'recombined' (on a board OR statistically!) there will be CONSTRUCTIVE INTERFERENCE so an interference pattern. Don't forget that just one extra reflection can do this by leaves a state INVERTED.

Now look at say the PR/Nature 2005 review article. Fig 4. As the filter (NDF) is gradually introduced it rotates the state so only DESTRUCTIVE interference results. Though things have moved on in 12yrs there were some interesting comments in the links, i.e; "..many phenomena thought to be due to the quantum nature of light can actually be explained by using a classical electromagnetic field and by assuming that only the processes of absorption and emission are quantized." But then poor interpretation of other findings confounds! The links were then very interesting, thanks.

Also in there, after designating Bosons unexplained 'spin 1'; "Fermions would behave differently because their quantum state is antisymmetric, as reflected by a negative sign in their initial state. In this case the two amplitudes introduced above interfere constructively and the two particles are always found in separate outputs. Interestingly, this ‘fermionic’ behaviour can also be observed for two photons if the photons are prepared in an antisymmetric state with respect to their spin." (another way of putting what I explained, that they CAN for most purposes be considered in the same way).

Once you've read Bill McHarris's essay watch the IBM Q Charlie Bennett video (referred by Robert Groess below) for the latest analysis, far better than the confused stuff in these papers and even more consistent with ClassicQM, but still hitting QM's 'brick wall' and admitting little progress with Quantum Computers.

best

Peter

view post as summary

Stefan,

It seems you may have just slipped back into to the usual 'mode 1' thinking of the first part of my essay rather than rationalise what I wrote. That's not surprising. It IS tricky to get your mind round it and hold it there, so lets take it in stages; (It's worth doing, unless you can't accept there may be ANY alternative to 'backward causality'!)

Let's simplify to one state...

view entire post

Stefan,

It seems you may have just slipped back into to the usual 'mode 1' thinking of the first part of my essay rather than rationalise what I wrote. That's not surprising. It IS tricky to get your mind round it and hold it there, so lets take it in stages; (It's worth doing, unless you can't accept there may be ANY alternative to 'backward causality'!)

Let's simplify to one state and start with mirrors, parts of the system not properly addressed and accounted for in any of the experimental analysis! I'm not sure if you know this or not (if not just check) but reflection INVERTS the photon state (equivalent to electron spin flip). So for the same path length; if two parts from a splitter are brought back together and one has had one more reflection, there WILL be destructive interference. This is what we find. All OK so far?

Now if the pair have the SAME number of reflections and the same path length (remember the delays from transmissions through glass, giving a slight 'phase slip, have to be adjusted for) then the OPPOSITE will found! You should see the fully consistent logic in that, Yes?

Now apply that to the experimental set ups and you'll see that assuming it's a 'which path' question is a misunderstanding leading to the confusion so only an illogical analysis is possible.

So called 'Parametric down-conversion' (a fancy name distracting from the fact it 'splits' photons, which is still assumed by most as impossible) is not a 'unique' case but de-rigeur in Huygens construction (recall my redshift video). That means some state and energy is ALWAYS taking both 'paths'. If you've now looked at Harris's (IBM Q cutting edge) video you'll see the confirmation that some of these assumptions from even 15 years ago are false. (and please, there's no need for insulting suggestions I 'don't understand' experiments I've studied dozens of over decades, and even done some.)

Now just take the Classical Hypothesis and carefully 'run through' each experiment step by step. You'll find IT DOES PRECISELY PREDICT ALL the findings! (including those 'once removed' by the statistical analysis). If there's anything specific you get stuck on or think it can't resolve, just ask!

A few others are now getting their heads round the classical derivation, which really is quite an intellectual test, including to overcome the cognitive dissonance you're struggling with (see below, and Bill McHarris essay) so I hope you can stay focused and get back the grasp of it you seemed to have earlier.

Best

Peter

view post as summary

Peter,

since there is no interference pattern if you take a photo plate instead of D2, you are simply wrong. Interference only shows up as two-particle interference, means in the case of coincidence measurements. These interferences cannot be viewed as just correlated by an observer via the proper subsets of some measured (or unmeasured) data.

The two-particle interference is a...

view entire post

Peter,

since there is no interference pattern if you take a photo plate instead of D2, you are simply wrong. Interference only shows up as two-particle interference, means in the case of coincidence measurements. These interferences cannot be viewed as just correlated by an observer via the proper subsets of some measured (or unmeasured) data.

The two-particle interference is a result of the correlation of particle 1 impinging on D1 with particle 2 impinging only on certain areas of the detector plane D2.

The detector plane was in the case of no interference an area where many particles impinged, is in the case of two-particle interference and area where almost no particles impinge. All measurement devices are at the same positions in both cases. Except D2 is scanning the x-axis for the interference pattern instead of the photo plate scanning this axis all at once.

You can’t explain this, even if you refer to D2 as only scanning a subset of what the photo plate does scan. Because if you would, you would contradict what you wrote so far. At D2, the photons must somewhat know that they only belong to interference pattern x, but not to its inverse. They can’t know with your mechanism, and you stated that the lenses let them take arbitrary states.

Moreover, you had 10 pages to explain it all in your essay. Instead you wisely switched in your current essay to explain that the reasons why your approach is not capable of meeting reality is due to the readers mind/brain/evolutionary deficits.

“You seem to want it easy Stefan. Research takes time. I can point where to look but I can't do it all for you! All I CAN tell you (in advance of you checking and understanding how) is the findings and implications, which I've done.

I've spent much time answering your questions but you seem entirely unappreciative and unwilling to follow the research trail as needed. That's a shame, but I'm not surprised or upset as it is complex and not an abnormal response in mans' current condition.”

You confirmed me. I was not the one who wrote

“OK, that one's real simple.” This was you.

You can easily tell your findings and implications, as every other scientist also can. 10 essay pages should be enough to outline all the ingredients and link them physically to each other. You didn’t and you didn’t also in your previous essays. I showed more willingness than every other participant to understand what you wrote. Regularily refering to what others wrote does not help you. You must give the precise linkages between what you assume to be fomerly overseen physical interactions. You can’t blame others to having overseen them, until you lay down the full picture, means, show that *you* at least see it clear. But you don’t, you only repeatedly claim it. That’s, if at all, is the real shame. Look what i have asked in the above posts and how you camouflaged your answers to precise questions.

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

view post as summary

Stefan,

"there is no interference pattern if you take a photo plate instead of D2" Maybe I don't understand what you're writing, or maybe you misread what I wrote, but I assure you the above isn't correct for the cases I describe. I've long studied optics and photonics and done the experiments myself. To be clear;

We find 'self interference' from single photons and a...

view entire post

Stefan,

"there is no interference pattern if you take a photo plate instead of D2" Maybe I don't understand what you're writing, or maybe you misread what I wrote, but I assure you the above isn't correct for the cases I describe. I've long studied optics and photonics and done the experiments myself. To be clear;

We find 'self interference' from single photons and a double slit, and ALSO an interference pattern build up (not 'gray scale') on a photo plate from photons passing through a SINGLE slit. All that is quite well established so if I'm right in understanding you're claiming it's wrong, then you're mistaken or confused! I can pass you numerous links on i it. i.e. (at random) SINGLE SLIT DIFFRACTION PATTERN.

When so called statistical 'correlation' is done (normally a histogram) against the D1 data we can, as I explained, get a whole RANGE of findings subject to how the diffraction pattern data is 'superposed' on the histogram. Remember this is NOT the 'which path' information current doctrine assumes it is!

There are then a number of ways to 'slide' the superposed wave patterns across each other to get constructive or destructive interference (build or cancel the pattern). One is by changing the distance between the slit plane and D2. That's because the photon of energy is REQUANTIZED' at the slit plane, and the (Huygens construction) energy density (just simplify it to a wave works fine) changes with range.

It really was very simple Stefan. It seems to be your cognitive dissonance that struggles to allow anything different past. That, as the first half of my essay was dedicated to explaining, is the more important issue in allowing advancement of understanding. The essay topic was about the mind NOT just about QM!

Now of course there a lot more subtleties, which would take a whole book to explore, but if you still disagree with any of the above please identify precisely what and I'll post some links. If I've misundersood what you wrote, again please identify precisely where. I did find your last post difficult to unravel.

Peter

PS; Please DO read Bill McHarris's essay and watch the IBM Q video which it seems clear you haven't yet, like a student who clearly didn't do his homework! I think they may be important 'mind openers' for anyone with older doctrine embedded.

view post as summary

Stefan,

The 'cases' I identified were those in the two experimental diagrams in your link as discussed, then I further clarified; "consider the so called 'scanning slit' as if it were backboard. It's position and/or distance from the 2 slits dictates the state interacting at that plane (and slit). If D2 were now ANOTHER backboard the pattern can be whatever you want (full or zero etc)...

view entire post

Stefan,

The 'cases' I identified were those in the two experimental diagrams in your link as discussed, then I further clarified; "consider the so called 'scanning slit' as if it were backboard. It's position and/or distance from the 2 slits dictates the state interacting at that plane (and slit). If D2 were now ANOTHER backboard the pattern can be whatever you want (full or zero etc) entirely controlled by the position of the single slit plane. though I did mean controlled by the longitudinal position (so 'distance') as clarified afterwards.

You then asked what would happen if we "install a photo plate instead of Detector 2" Note that I referred to BOTH planes ('scanning slit' and D2) then you specified just D2, for a photographic plate. I answered clearly that we'd find an interference pattern, (also pointing out the pattern varies with distance).

Now you cite Zeilinger (whose confirmation bias in the Weihs 'rotational invariance' adjustment can be forgiven but none the less happens and is critical!) who refers to the "distribution of photons behind the double slit", note NOT the distribution behind the SINGLE slit (so not at D2)!! He's also discussing the statistical 'correlation probabilities' NOT any pattern on a photoplate in path 2!

So you interpreted wrongly, so compared chalk with cheese (blaming me for the error!) Admittedly Zeilingers poor description misled you so the error was easily made and indeed common. I agree he may have been perfectly correct for the case HE was considering, the statistical correlation (so one order 'removed') but that is not the case you specified, and he didn't actually PUT a photoplate 'behind the twin slits' to distinguish.

So just to confirm; you only have to consider normal twin slit refraction to realise that however photons or electrons are treated or (Stern/Gerlach or PDC etc) 'split', ANY impinging on a photographic plate after twin slits have always produced fringe shifts. But remember that is NOT the same case as pre-splitting and (post D2) statistical 're-combination'.

I stress the confusion stems from the assumption that experiments consider 'which way' information, as assume 'weak measurement' can find states without affecting them. Experiments then remained unable to confirm Zeilingers statement applies prior to 'correlation'. i.e.; arxiv.org/pdf/0706.3966.pdf.

To explain more in 'barmaids' terms; To get interference we must 'recombine' two fluctuations. But without (or after) recombination the is nothing to interfere with!

Has that helped clarify the confusion?

Peter

view post as summary

Stefan,

Sorry about the delay, busy reading & responding, then a weekend away.

I think we too often rely on assumptions and hearsay in physics. Those and poor descriptions leads to much misunderstanding. Lets just deal with actual results rather than what people may of may not think or 'know'.

The only 2 slit experiments I know not showing interference patterns on a backboard...

view entire post

Stefan,

Sorry about the delay, busy reading & responding, then a weekend away.

I think we too often rely on assumptions and hearsay in physics. Those and poor descriptions leads to much misunderstanding. Lets just deal with actual results rather than what people may of may not think or 'know'.

The only 2 slit experiments I know not showing interference patterns on a backboard are when actual states are changes or blocked. I've done the one removing it with twin orthogonal polarisers myself, similar to to the 3 filter case in my video and as my model predicts. The single slit after the pair in Fig2 just makes it a single slit diffraction case. Zeilinger was of course entirely correct in the (once removed) correlation of paths 1 and 2. If you can find any actual experimental results showing no 2 slit interference do please post them.

Also compare Zeilingers findings 15 years later that photons have 'no memory' of previous state with the analysis his 1999 paper, assuming the contrary at the path 1 lens! (s290 right hand para; "..provides information about it's direction, i.e., momentum before entering the lens.") Sure understanding improves, so lets keep up with it!

The Key point here is more fundamental Stefan. In my schema there are TWO 'states' as opposed the the assumed one, and orthogonal, and thus no case of 'which path'. It's the false initial assumptions that cause all the confusion that follows. All have recognised there looks like something wrong or incomplete in QM, Einstein, Bell, Feynman, and Anton Zeilinger!; (s292 bottom)"Such a picture would imply a theory underlying quantum physics which provides a more detailed account of individual mechanisms". All I've done is identified it, allowing a coherent interpretation without needing the illogical nonsense!

If it were the other war round, if we HAD the sensible derivation and I was proposing an illogical one relying on wierdness and backward causality then I'd expect all to resist! I suggest the only problem here Stefan is quite normal cognative dissonance, as the first part of my essay identifies.

But do present any ACTUAL apparently contrary findings. I have searched for some time but perhaps not exhaustively.

Very Best.

Peter

PS; See also my blog ref to Pauli's important spectral lines solution, from which we got the periodic table. His strict condition was that the valance electron HAD to somehow have TWO-VALUEDNESS! He never did did find an explanation of what that meant so we've always assumed it's 'classically indescribable'. No longer perhaps as that's exactly what the 2nd state is.

view post as summary

Lawrence,

I entirely agree with all of that. Very well put. We can only EVER reveal inconsistencies, which is the task, but never 'prove' anything absolutely (even with experiments come to that!) so my point remains. I agree 'disprove' wasn't a perfect word but that is a little semantic.

And I entirely agree 'experimental data supports Bells theorem' which was anyway self...

view entire post

Lawrence,

I entirely agree with all of that. Very well put. We can only EVER reveal inconsistencies, which is the task, but never 'prove' anything absolutely (even with experiments come to that!) so my point remains. I agree 'disprove' wasn't a perfect word but that is a little semantic.

And I entirely agree 'experimental data supports Bells theorem' which was anyway self evidently correct. And that same experimental evidence also entirely supports the model I identify, which in NOT a hidden variable theory, indeed is consistent with Bells predictions.

The only problem you have here Lawrence is Cognitive Dissonance. That's entirely to be expected. I'll give you a few more quotes of John Bell (which I didn't find till AFTER I derived the model and was trying to disprove it, including scouring every page of his; compilation; 'Thinkable and Unthinkable in QM')!.

“We are interested only in the possibility of hidden variables in ordinary QM and will use freely all the usual notions.” p.2.

"..fundamental obscurity in quantum mechanics. Our theorists stride through that obscurity unimpeded… sleepwalking?” p.170

"The quantum phenomena do not exclude a uniform description of micro and macro worlds…systems and apparatus.” p.171.

“I think that conventional formulations of quantum theory, and of quantum field theory in particular, are unprofessionally vague and ambiguous. Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better.” p.173.

“It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal.” p.172.

“...the new way of seeing things will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us. In any case it seems that the quantum mechanical description will be superseded.” p.27

“...the ‘Problem of Interpretation of QM’ has been encircled. And the solution, invisible from the front, may be seen from the back..” p.194.

Bell was very wise. A "radical leap that will astonish" is not one most readers of an essay contest are going to immediately be able to accept (for the reasons I identify in the essay). Indeed if anyone says; 'Yes' wow! I see; brilliant!' I'll most likely assume they're crazy! The mechanism none the less self evidently does what Bell predicted, which most people wrongly assumed he thought 'impossible'!

So did you actually watch the video? Classic QM It's just that from what you write it appears you didn't.

Best

Peter

view post as summary