If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

Previous Contests

**Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest**

*December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020*

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss • winners

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

**Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**John-Erik Persson**: *on* 3/13/18 at 18:41pm UTC, wrote Declan Traill If you read this you may be interested in my last blog at: ...

**Terry Bollinger**: *on* 3/2/18 at 1:00am UTC, wrote Declan, I've discovered that if you make a lot of FQXi comments for a lot...

**Ulla Mattfolk**: *on* 2/26/18 at 17:26pm UTC, wrote Also, how is the QM line computed? + uncertainties? entanglements????

**Ulla Mattfolk**: *on* 2/26/18 at 17:15pm UTC, wrote Hi, Have you tried to put it on a Bloch sphere? The slope is important. Is...

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 2/26/18 at 15:53pm UTC, wrote Declan, Richard I explained the fit to Richard. It's been interesting how...

**richard nixey**: *on* 2/26/18 at 1:01am UTC, wrote Declan, Does your code completely fit the mechanism in Peter Jacksons...

**Kamal Rajpal**: *on* 2/25/18 at 16:55pm UTC, wrote Dear Declan Andrew Traill, 2D space can be filled up with squares but not...

**Kamal Rajpal**: *on* 2/25/18 at 15:14pm UTC, wrote Dear Declan Andrew Traill, The tables on page 10 and 12 are similar. The...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Georgina Woodward**: "Lorraine, trying to dodge accountability by pretending you were just..."
*in* Tensor networks as a data...

**Lorraine Ford**: "Georgina, I am not apologising for pointing out well-known facts: people..."
*in* Tensor networks as a data...

**Steve Dufourny**: "It is very important this general idea and I need help of mathematicians to..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Steve Dufourny**: "My intuitive equation considering the cold dark matter encoded in nuclei..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Jack James**: "I noticed this was a 4 dimensional approach also. ..."
*in* Unification of the four...

**Anonymous**: "good to read this post"
*in* The Noise of Gravitons

**Steve Dufourny**: "You know Mr Gilbert, if we find these bridges beyond this GR and the..."
*in* Is Causality Fundamental?

**Steve Dufourny**: "Hi Mr Gilbert, like I told we have more difficulties to reach the unknowns..."
*in* Is Causality Fundamental?

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Can Choices Curve Spacetime?**

Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

**The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools **

Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

**The Quantum Refrigerator**

A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

**Time to Think**

Philosopher Jenann Ismael invokes the thermodynamic arrow of time to explain how human intelligence emerged through culture.

**Lockdown Lab Life**

Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

Philosopher Jenann Ismael invokes the thermodynamic arrow of time to explain how human intelligence emerged through culture.

Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.

FQXi FORUM

April 14, 2021

CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]

TOPIC: A Fundamental Misunderstanding by Declan Andrew Traill [refresh]

TOPIC: A Fundamental Misunderstanding by Declan Andrew Traill [refresh]

Quantum Mechanics claims that particles can become entangled such that there is a correlation in the detected results from EPR type experiments that cannot be explained by Classical Physics. This paper shows that the result can be fully explained by Classical Physics, and that the correlation curve for different angles between the two detectors can by reproduced when modeled this way. The model can even explain the results of the most recent supposed loophole-free Quantum Steering experiments – giving a clear violation of the Steering Inequality.

Declan Traill is a Scientist and Software Engineer with a Science degree from the University of Melbourne in Australia. He has been actively publishing Theoretical Physics papers and contributing to various Physics discussion groups and forums for 20 years. He is interested in re-constructing both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into a Classical framework that can be understood and visualized using a universal set of principles. The foundations of this framework were layed out in his 2012 FQXi essay titled "A Classical Reconstruction of Relativity" based on work done since 1998 on a new theory named "Energy Field Theory".

Declan,

This is an interesting result and the graphics are very easy to understand and compare with the EPR result. I'm glad you've found a way to apply you programming background to a difficult problem in Physics.

I have thought that the problem with Alice and Bob and EPR might be sampling ... namely that the measured results only represent a small fraction of all the atoms or photons that the experiment produces. And hence what we actually see is a distorted dataset and hence distorted conclusions.

You should expect to receive a lot of pushback.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

This is an interesting result and the graphics are very easy to understand and compare with the EPR result. I'm glad you've found a way to apply you programming background to a difficult problem in Physics.

I have thought that the problem with Alice and Bob and EPR might be sampling ... namely that the measured results only represent a small fraction of all the atoms or photons that the experiment produces. And hence what we actually see is a distorted dataset and hence distorted conclusions.

You should expect to receive a lot of pushback.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Hi Declan, your entry is not really an essay, and not really addressing the topic of the competition. Looks like you are taking an opportunity to present your report and get some feedback on it.I understand from the end of the piece that you are thinking of security concerns. Hopefully you will find some interested, knowledgeable readers who will take the time to evaluate it. Kind regards Georgina

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Georgina,

Essays come in different forms; some are long winded and wordy, others are concise and to the point. Mine addresses the topic directly, identifying a problem that is fundamental to Physics and possibly preventing the unification of Quantum Mechanics with Classical Physics (and Relativity).

The topic of what is fundamental can be approached from many different angles. This is the approach I have chosen to take, and which may be the most beneficial to Science, rather than some banal discussion on the meaning of the word ‘fundamental’.

Anyhow, thanks for taking the time to read it. If you are familiar with the EPR experiment and its meaning and importance to Physics then hopefully you can appreciate what I have discovered in my analysis and its potential ramifications for Physics?

Regards,

Declan

Essays come in different forms; some are long winded and wordy, others are concise and to the point. Mine addresses the topic directly, identifying a problem that is fundamental to Physics and possibly preventing the unification of Quantum Mechanics with Classical Physics (and Relativity).

The topic of what is fundamental can be approached from many different angles. This is the approach I have chosen to take, and which may be the most beneficial to Science, rather than some banal discussion on the meaning of the word ‘fundamental’.

Anyhow, thanks for taking the time to read it. If you are familiar with the EPR experiment and its meaning and importance to Physics then hopefully you can appreciate what I have discovered in my analysis and its potential ramifications for Physics?

Regards,

Declan

Georgina,

I can see your point about 'word count', however this really DOES address the subject more than any (many) I've read so far! What can be more fundamental and revolutionary than finally escaping the weird nonsense of QM and rationalising physics!!??

Declan's finding really DOES do that, and indeed represents the mathematical code for the rationale and simple experiment in mine. Of course all those steeped in the Doctrine of the last 100 years will likely kick, scream, complain and deny, or just ignore, for another 10 years yet.

I know you're not so 'steeped'. Rather you've seemed a bit fearful of QM, so often criticised any essays addressing it, but it really IS MOST fundamentally important for physics to escape the wonderland it's been in.

I think and hope you'll fully understand mine (though a good idea of what needs to be achieved would help) which then also shows how the quantum world becomes fully rational and compatible with Relativity AT LAST! (though both interpretations need slight adjustment)

I'm off to celebrate.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I can see your point about 'word count', however this really DOES address the subject more than any (many) I've read so far! What can be more fundamental and revolutionary than finally escaping the weird nonsense of QM and rationalising physics!!??

Declan's finding really DOES do that, and indeed represents the mathematical code for the rationale and simple experiment in mine. Of course all those steeped in the Doctrine of the last 100 years will likely kick, scream, complain and deny, or just ignore, for another 10 years yet.

I know you're not so 'steeped'. Rather you've seemed a bit fearful of QM, so often criticised any essays addressing it, but it really IS MOST fundamentally important for physics to escape the wonderland it's been in.

I think and hope you'll fully understand mine (though a good idea of what needs to be achieved would help) which then also shows how the quantum world becomes fully rational and compatible with Relativity AT LAST! (though both interpretations need slight adjustment)

I'm off to celebrate.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Declan, you are right there are lots of ways an essay can be presented. Yours was a brief illustrated report.It would, I think, have been helpful if you had explained your approach to the competition topic up front, so that it appears relevant to it. I.e. Rather than 'what is fundamental?' you choose to identify a fundamental problem and address it. It would also have been helpful for me if you had written more to explain the background and walk through the significance. You write " The probability of a non-detect event is proportional to the square of the cosine of the angle between the photon polarization axis and the detector polarization axis –such that the greater the angle difference, the more likely a non-detect will occur." OK, but you don't explain why that is. From what I read, I get the impression that what is going on is various people tinkering with results, including or excluding them to tr and get the kind of relation they are hoping for. That is my impression knowing very little about this kind of work. I'd be interested to know if this kind of analysis has been done before as the problem has been around a long time. Are there any comparable findings from others? I think it will be really good to get feedback from people who can analyse what you have done and agree or disagree on its significance- rather than nice graph or enjoyed your paper.. Good luck with it. Kind regards Georgina

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Andrew

Thank you for this very important contribution!

Do you think that maybe entanglement is an illusion as well and photon as a PARTICLE and instead A and B are affected by the same WAVE?

Regards John-Erik

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for this very important contribution!

Do you think that maybe entanglement is an illusion as well and photon as a PARTICLE and instead A and B are affected by the same WAVE?

Regards John-Erik

report post as inappropriate

John-Erik,

Thank you.

Yes, It does look likely that entanglement is an illusion, as it is the one aspect of Physics (QM primarily) that defies logic and cannot be explained Classically (other than the explanation in my essay).

Photons are electromagnetic waves. They are emitted and absorbed by atoms in discrete quanta, yes, giving them the appearance of being particles; but I’m not convinced that they are held together in the same way as the wave-functions of other particles such as electrons. Indeed, a photon in space can be a wavetrain of several metres in length - hardly particle like. Photons of radio waves can have very long wavelengths (hundreds of meters), meaning that if they are particles they would be truly huge!

Regards,

Declan

Thank you.

Yes, It does look likely that entanglement is an illusion, as it is the one aspect of Physics (QM primarily) that defies logic and cannot be explained Classically (other than the explanation in my essay).

Photons are electromagnetic waves. They are emitted and absorbed by atoms in discrete quanta, yes, giving them the appearance of being particles; but I’m not convinced that they are held together in the same way as the wave-functions of other particles such as electrons. Indeed, a photon in space can be a wavetrain of several metres in length - hardly particle like. Photons of radio waves can have very long wavelengths (hundreds of meters), meaning that if they are particles they would be truly huge!

Regards,

Declan

Declan,

That finding's astounding. A revolution in physics! Classical QM!!! I've checked it and it's correct. I know that because my own essay; 'Absolute Simplicity' gives the full rationale and repeatable experimental protocol (with photographs) proving the very same thing!

I recall a previous essay & cited an earlier paper of yours on the right tracks. I interesting note you also cite some of mine, which also show how the result unifies the description of QM and SR. I'm sure you'll completely understand and like mine.

Many may miss this so for anyone else reading this; YES you CAN believe your own eyes. This is genuine and really important new physics.

Very well done. We must get together on it, though I see we live almost precisely a hemisphere apart!

Very best of luck in the contest.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

That finding's astounding. A revolution in physics! Classical QM!!! I've checked it and it's correct. I know that because my own essay; 'Absolute Simplicity' gives the full rationale and repeatable experimental protocol (with photographs) proving the very same thing!

I recall a previous essay & cited an earlier paper of yours on the right tracks. I interesting note you also cite some of mine, which also show how the result unifies the description of QM and SR. I'm sure you'll completely understand and like mine.

Many may miss this so for anyone else reading this; YES you CAN believe your own eyes. This is genuine and really important new physics.

Very well done. We must get together on it, though I see we live almost precisely a hemisphere apart!

Very best of luck in the contest.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Peter,

Thank you. I’m glad you understand the significance of this and concur with it. I have found your past essays, and now your latest one, very interesting and helpful in advancing our understanding of how the EPR experimental results are obtained by the combined effects of polarizers and photomultipliers resulting in a cosine squared dependence on angle.

Yes, we are almost exactly a hemisphere apart - which may explain the perfect correlation in our findings!

Best of luck for your essay this year...

Regards,

Declan

Thank you. I’m glad you understand the significance of this and concur with it. I have found your past essays, and now your latest one, very interesting and helpful in advancing our understanding of how the EPR experimental results are obtained by the combined effects of polarizers and photomultipliers resulting in a cosine squared dependence on angle.

Yes, we are almost exactly a hemisphere apart - which may explain the perfect correlation in our findings!

Best of luck for your essay this year...

Regards,

Declan

I liked your essay

One nit though. Why is a classical presentation of entanglement the most

foundational aspect of physics?

You make it appear as though this is a TOE in the making

Can you explain more?

Thanks

Andrew

report post as inappropriate

One nit though. Why is a classical presentation of entanglement the most

foundational aspect of physics?

You make it appear as though this is a TOE in the making

Can you explain more?

Thanks

Andrew

report post as inappropriate

Andrew,

Thank you. Yes I would be glad to: the entanglement aspect of QM is the reason that Local Real models for the Universe have been considered to be disproven, placing QM as a more fundamental theory that cannot be explained by Classical Physics. QM theorists assert that fundamentally the Universe obeys strange laws such as entanglement and only reduces to Classical Physics is special circumstances. Hence if this can be proven to be false, and that every aspect of Physics can be explained Classically then the very nature and character of Physics is changed and unification, or a TOE becomes possible. See my 2012 FQXi essay for how Relativity can be explained Classically; so if QM too can be explained Classically, then we have the makings of a Theory Of Everything, or TOE.

Regards,

Declan

Thank you. Yes I would be glad to: the entanglement aspect of QM is the reason that Local Real models for the Universe have been considered to be disproven, placing QM as a more fundamental theory that cannot be explained by Classical Physics. QM theorists assert that fundamentally the Universe obeys strange laws such as entanglement and only reduces to Classical Physics is special circumstances. Hence if this can be proven to be false, and that every aspect of Physics can be explained Classically then the very nature and character of Physics is changed and unification, or a TOE becomes possible. See my 2012 FQXi essay for how Relativity can be explained Classically; so if QM too can be explained Classically, then we have the makings of a Theory Of Everything, or TOE.

Regards,

Declan

Declan

I see that your ideas are very like mine. See my comment above. I therefore suggest that you take a look at my article called*Fundamental Errors in Physics*.

From _______________ John-Erik

report post as inappropriate

I see that your ideas are very like mine. See my comment above. I therefore suggest that you take a look at my article called

From _______________ John-Erik

report post as inappropriate

Quantum steering exploits quantum correlations whereby an observer, Alice, can influence, or as it is said to steer, Bob’s physical system in a bipartite entanglement with Alice's. This is a nonlocal process inaccessible to classical world. This in turn results in violation of some inequalities. This is employed by some to try to understand how quantum mechanics leads in the large action limit to classical physics. However, it is not in of itself a classical underpinning of quantum mechanics.

I am having a hard time pinning that down in your essay. Computer codes can of course be written to output almost anything. I include the diagram in the attachment to illustrate where quantum steering sits with respect to the various levels of quantum nonlocality.

Cheers LC

attachments: levels_of_nonlocality.png

report post as inappropriate

I am having a hard time pinning that down in your essay. Computer codes can of course be written to output almost anything. I include the diagram in the attachment to illustrate where quantum steering sits with respect to the various levels of quantum nonlocality.

Cheers LC

attachments: levels_of_nonlocality.png

report post as inappropriate

Dear Declan Andrew Traill,

I am in full agreement with you that entanglement, "*a nonlocal process inaccessible to the classical world*", is a most serious problem facing those who wish a comprehensible universe. Like you, I find it possible to produce a classical model that violates Bell's theorem. In the following I will try to compare our two results, both of which lead to the...

view entire post

I am in full agreement with you that entanglement, "

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Edwin,

Nice analysis, initially as mine, but Declan's code doesn't just achieve your cos(a.b) curve (good but not quite complete) it produces the paired offset Cos2 curves of Bell, of Born's rule ('Law'), and indeed Malus's Law (Intensity = the square).!!

While it looks to simply use 2 spin states it's one step more complex than that, as I show in my own essay which explanation & experiment underpins Declan's code.

One state is 'curl' (max at poles) but that goes to zero at the equator and has inverse values (complementarity) with the LINEAR left/right (or up/down) over 180^{o} momentum at the EQUATOR. So which is also then zero at poles. Both change by cos theta as my full explanation why.

I also show how just then adding 'c' in the electrons local centre of mass frame for re-emissions unifies the mechanism with Einsteins final ('52) explanation of SR!! I suspect we really may be on the verge of a revolution in physics!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Nice analysis, initially as mine, but Declan's code doesn't just achieve your cos(a.b) curve (good but not quite complete) it produces the paired offset Cos2 curves of Bell, of Born's rule ('Law'), and indeed Malus's Law (Intensity = the square).!!

While it looks to simply use 2 spin states it's one step more complex than that, as I show in my own essay which explanation & experiment underpins Declan's code.

One state is 'curl' (max at poles) but that goes to zero at the equator and has inverse values (complementarity) with the LINEAR left/right (or up/down) over 180

I also show how just then adding 'c' in the electrons local centre of mass frame for re-emissions unifies the mechanism with Einsteins final ('52) explanation of SR!! I suspect we really may be on the verge of a revolution in physics!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Edwin,

Thank you for your comment and approval of my essay.

I have not read yours as yet, but have it on my list of things to do soon.

In your comment you talk about two spin states in free space. I don’t suggest that the spin is confined to only two possible orientations, but only the reading of the spin is. The spin is free to be in any orientation but the cosine of the angle difference between its spin and the polarization axis determines the probability of detection as a +1 or -1. Once the polarizer has shifted the photon/particle’s orientation to align with its, then the photomultiplier amplified the signal which has the effect of applying another cosine to the detection probability. So we end up with a cosine squared relationship (also explained in Peter’s past and current essays, as pointed out above).

Again, many thanks for the positive comment...

Regards,

Declan

Thank you for your comment and approval of my essay.

I have not read yours as yet, but have it on my list of things to do soon.

In your comment you talk about two spin states in free space. I don’t suggest that the spin is confined to only two possible orientations, but only the reading of the spin is. The spin is free to be in any orientation but the cosine of the angle difference between its spin and the polarization axis determines the probability of detection as a +1 or -1. Once the polarizer has shifted the photon/particle’s orientation to align with its, then the photomultiplier amplified the signal which has the effect of applying another cosine to the detection probability. So we end up with a cosine squared relationship (also explained in Peter’s past and current essays, as pointed out above).

Again, many thanks for the positive comment...

Regards,

Declan

Dear Declan Andrew Traill,

Are you aware of R. McEachern's paper I just pointed to in the thread 31426 (by Flavio Del Santo)?

I feel enlighted by Edwin Eugene Klingman's proficient detailed comments.

See also Alan Kadin's current essay.

Best regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Are you aware of R. McEachern's paper I just pointed to in the thread 31426 (by Flavio Del Santo)?

I feel enlighted by Edwin Eugene Klingman's proficient detailed comments.

See also Alan Kadin's current essay.

Best regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard,

Thank you for your comment.

I have not seen that essay yet, I will have a look...

I have read and agree with Alan’s essay - a fine piece of work.

Best Regards,

Declan

Thank you for your comment.

I have not seen that essay yet, I will have a look...

I have read and agree with Alan’s essay - a fine piece of work.

Best Regards,

Declan

Dear Eckard,

I cannot find any essay by R. McEachern's, is it a paper located elsewhere? If so, can you provide a URL link to it?

Thanks,

Declan

I cannot find any essay by R. McEachern's, is it a paper located elsewhere? If so, can you provide a URL link to it?

Thanks,

Declan

Dear Declan,

I read your paper with great interest, being somewhat familiar with the issues of photon entanglement experiments. As you know, these have been difficult experiments, subject to measurement and interpretation bias, which claim to prove that entanglement is real.

I understand that you assume an angle-dependent detection efficiency, which may be reasonable. This could be an important result. But for completeness, the analysis should also indicate how sensitively the agreement depends on the particular selection of parameters.

On a more general note, entanglement is central to quantum mechanics, and should not be all that hard to prove. The difficulties suggest that something is seriously wrong.

Furthermore, entanglement is central to the power of not only quantum communications, but also quantum computing. Quantum computing in particular has become a major research engine internationally, with both major corporations and governments investing billions of dollars. Skeptics are being ignored and suppressed.

Given all this investment, I predict that this entire enterprise will fail within about 5 years. Only after that occurs will the mainstream be willing to consider alternatives – namely, that entanglement is an illusion, and the foundations of quantum mechanics are built on quicksand.

I address some similar issues in my own essay, “Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics”.

Best Wishes,

Alan Kadin

report post as inappropriate

I read your paper with great interest, being somewhat familiar with the issues of photon entanglement experiments. As you know, these have been difficult experiments, subject to measurement and interpretation bias, which claim to prove that entanglement is real.

I understand that you assume an angle-dependent detection efficiency, which may be reasonable. This could be an important result. But for completeness, the analysis should also indicate how sensitively the agreement depends on the particular selection of parameters.

On a more general note, entanglement is central to quantum mechanics, and should not be all that hard to prove. The difficulties suggest that something is seriously wrong.

Furthermore, entanglement is central to the power of not only quantum communications, but also quantum computing. Quantum computing in particular has become a major research engine internationally, with both major corporations and governments investing billions of dollars. Skeptics are being ignored and suppressed.

Given all this investment, I predict that this entire enterprise will fail within about 5 years. Only after that occurs will the mainstream be willing to consider alternatives – namely, that entanglement is an illusion, and the foundations of quantum mechanics are built on quicksand.

I address some similar issues in my own essay, “Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics”.

Best Wishes,

Alan Kadin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Declan Andrew Traill,

I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

post approved

I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

post approved

Dear Declan,

The FQXi team added the missing references of my essay.

Hopefully you got aware of my correction to the link to Eachern's first paper.

I am also curious how Jochen Szangelios will answer my question concerning DQC1.

Best,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

The FQXi team added the missing references of my essay.

Hopefully you got aware of my correction to the link to Eachern's first paper.

I am also curious how Jochen Szangelios will answer my question concerning DQC1.

Best,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Meanwhile Szangelios replied.

You might also be interested in comments by Bollinger elsewhere.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

You might also be interested in comments by Bollinger elsewhere.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Declan Traill

Regarding your 'explanation' to destructive superposition that you expressed on my article page:

How do you explain that energy suddenly can disappear somewhere and later pop up in very different point??????

With regards from ________________ John-Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate

Regarding your 'explanation' to destructive superposition that you expressed on my article page:

How do you explain that energy suddenly can disappear somewhere and later pop up in very different point??????

With regards from ________________ John-Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate

Dear John-Erik,

The light does not suddenly relocate, it is ‘squeezed’ out sideways as it is traveling.

In the case of the two slit experiment, for example, the light from each slit interferes with the other beam causing lateral movement as well as forward movement; such that there is no path leading to the dark regions, but multiple paths leading to the bright regions. All of the light moves towards its destination on the screen at speed ‘c’.

Regards,

Declan

The light does not suddenly relocate, it is ‘squeezed’ out sideways as it is traveling.

In the case of the two slit experiment, for example, the light from each slit interferes with the other beam causing lateral movement as well as forward movement; such that there is no path leading to the dark regions, but multiple paths leading to the bright regions. All of the light moves towards its destination on the screen at speed ‘c’.

Regards,

Declan

Declan

You have only invented a 'cover up'. To me this represents no logical explanation. However, if you assume light to contain information without energy, you can find a much better explanation.

We can explain bound electrons to generate thermal radiation without having to do the jumping. The bound electron produces only information, or POTENTIAL force that becomes REAL when radiation is hitting the electron that we use as a detector. At that moment the energy comes from the ether, and therefore the emitting electron does not have to loose energy. We do not need quantum jumping.

Best regards from ___________________ John-Erik

report post as inappropriate

You have only invented a 'cover up'. To me this represents no logical explanation. However, if you assume light to contain information without energy, you can find a much better explanation.

We can explain bound electrons to generate thermal radiation without having to do the jumping. The bound electron produces only information, or POTENTIAL force that becomes REAL when radiation is hitting the electron that we use as a detector. At that moment the energy comes from the ether, and therefore the emitting electron does not have to loose energy. We do not need quantum jumping.

Best regards from ___________________ John-Erik

report post as inappropriate

John-Eric,

Good to see you here and active. The logical explanation to the 'cover up' emerges if you study quantum optics, even just on wikipedia. i.e. visualise eliptical polarity, or perhaps turn a disc or plate nearly 'edge on'. Now measure it's chord orthogonally, so on both major and minor axis (which is what the 2 channel photomultiplier does).

You'll find one at maximum value (i.e. +1) when the other diminished to near zero, so can't trigger the detector. If you turn the plate 90 degrees on the other axis (so now horizontal not vertical) you'll find the precise opposite That's the foundation (and essentially known science).

There are two other main elements explaining the full experimental findings (and 'predictions' of QM. You'll find those also fully explained and sequenced in my essay, which also reports on a simple experiment (with photo's & protocol) confirming the inverse Cos distributions. (The ontology & mechanism surprisingly also seems to include production of the effects we know as 'Special Relativity'.)

Note the process works for all 'signals', including electrons (fermions) and neutrons, which certainly do have energy of course. I look forward to getting to your 'information based' option for light shortly.

Very best

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Good to see you here and active. The logical explanation to the 'cover up' emerges if you study quantum optics, even just on wikipedia. i.e. visualise eliptical polarity, or perhaps turn a disc or plate nearly 'edge on'. Now measure it's chord orthogonally, so on both major and minor axis (which is what the 2 channel photomultiplier does).

You'll find one at maximum value (i.e. +1) when the other diminished to near zero, so can't trigger the detector. If you turn the plate 90 degrees on the other axis (so now horizontal not vertical) you'll find the precise opposite That's the foundation (and essentially known science).

There are two other main elements explaining the full experimental findings (and 'predictions' of QM. You'll find those also fully explained and sequenced in my essay, which also reports on a simple experiment (with photo's & protocol) confirming the inverse Cos distributions. (The ontology & mechanism surprisingly also seems to include production of the effects we know as 'Special Relativity'.)

Note the process works for all 'signals', including electrons (fermions) and neutrons, which certainly do have energy of course. I look forward to getting to your 'information based' option for light shortly.

Very best

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Hello Traill,

Well written essay. I am amazed by your way of presenting problems and its solution, in a computational way.

But I have got a feeling that you think entanglement as an illusion. Well, you have presented things clear in the paper. But I am confused if you consider a quantum phenomenon as an illusion if not defined by classical mechanics. Can you give me more viewpoints?

You are welcomed to my essay: Is Mathematics Fundamental where I discuss if mathematics and patterns can be fundamental.

report post as inappropriate

Well written essay. I am amazed by your way of presenting problems and its solution, in a computational way.

But I have got a feeling that you think entanglement as an illusion. Well, you have presented things clear in the paper. But I am confused if you consider a quantum phenomenon as an illusion if not defined by classical mechanics. Can you give me more viewpoints?

You are welcomed to my essay: Is Mathematics Fundamental where I discuss if mathematics and patterns can be fundamental.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ajay,

Than you for your kind comments and positive feedback.

Entanglement is my main problem with QM due to its illogical behavior and the problems it poses to being able to model the Universe in a rational way. However, I also disagree with the QM interpretation in regards to other aspects of Physics. For example, the interpretation of wave functions as probability amplitudes, although it works, leads us away from a clear picture of what is happening to particles on the microscopic scale. In Classical Physics a wave function describes the position of a test particle at any place/time and thus describes every aspect of a wave structure, the same should be true at the Quantum level. I have determined the wave functions for the electron and positron based on them being 3D wave structures rather than point particles. These are wave functions in the Classical sense rather than probability amplitudes. My paper on this can be found here: http://vixra.org/abs/1507.0054

Also, there must be real reasons based on Classical Physics for what appear to be random or statistical events, but it is just difficult, if not impossible, to know the minute details of the Physics of a situation to be able to determine these reasons. Similarly there must be short-lived intermediate states between stable states when quantum jumps occur. Some of the time scales at which these changes occur are starting to become possible to probe with recents advances and techniques, but there is a way to go yet.

These are some of the problems that need to be addressed to unify the QM view of the world with Classical Physics, no doubt there are others too.

Regards,

Declan

Than you for your kind comments and positive feedback.

Entanglement is my main problem with QM due to its illogical behavior and the problems it poses to being able to model the Universe in a rational way. However, I also disagree with the QM interpretation in regards to other aspects of Physics. For example, the interpretation of wave functions as probability amplitudes, although it works, leads us away from a clear picture of what is happening to particles on the microscopic scale. In Classical Physics a wave function describes the position of a test particle at any place/time and thus describes every aspect of a wave structure, the same should be true at the Quantum level. I have determined the wave functions for the electron and positron based on them being 3D wave structures rather than point particles. These are wave functions in the Classical sense rather than probability amplitudes. My paper on this can be found here: http://vixra.org/abs/1507.0054

Also, there must be real reasons based on Classical Physics for what appear to be random or statistical events, but it is just difficult, if not impossible, to know the minute details of the Physics of a situation to be able to determine these reasons. Similarly there must be short-lived intermediate states between stable states when quantum jumps occur. Some of the time scales at which these changes occur are starting to become possible to probe with recents advances and techniques, but there is a way to go yet.

These are some of the problems that need to be addressed to unify the QM view of the world with Classical Physics, no doubt there are others too.

Regards,

Declan

Declan,

It is good to see some community support for classical arguments that challenge the QM method which requires *entanglement* to explain correlation of events. And I would hope that there is also a level of concern among the Western physics community in pursuing alternative protocols, whether Quantum or Classical, to find some clarifying agency in the phenomenon. In the public domain it is the Chinese whom are claiming real time advances in Quantum State Communications, and whatever the physical reality might turn out to be; success in the "Quantum Experiments at Space Scale" (Quess satellite program) would have an immediate impact on global communications markets. Theatre-wide military application should also be a great concern given that the Chinese are known to have been increasing their conventional forces budget by 10% per year over the past 20 years, and their stated intent is towards a hegemony which would expel democratic interests from their sphere of influence. Hard scientific proof of falsification of the claimed 'unhackable' security of quantum communication, and effective counter-measures, are likely to become as big an industrial investment strategy as has been the decades long quest for the elusive Quantum state. Good Luck, we are all in the brave new world of "Big Science". jrc

report post as inappropriate

It is good to see some community support for classical arguments that challenge the QM method which requires *entanglement* to explain correlation of events. And I would hope that there is also a level of concern among the Western physics community in pursuing alternative protocols, whether Quantum or Classical, to find some clarifying agency in the phenomenon. In the public domain it is the Chinese whom are claiming real time advances in Quantum State Communications, and whatever the physical reality might turn out to be; success in the "Quantum Experiments at Space Scale" (Quess satellite program) would have an immediate impact on global communications markets. Theatre-wide military application should also be a great concern given that the Chinese are known to have been increasing their conventional forces budget by 10% per year over the past 20 years, and their stated intent is towards a hegemony which would expel democratic interests from their sphere of influence. Hard scientific proof of falsification of the claimed 'unhackable' security of quantum communication, and effective counter-measures, are likely to become as big an industrial investment strategy as has been the decades long quest for the elusive Quantum state. Good Luck, we are all in the brave new world of "Big Science". jrc

report post as inappropriate

Dear John,

Thank you for your comment.

A lot of the reporting of advances is just hype around activities that are being undertaken but are not proof or big advances of QM entanglement. There has been talk of Quantum computers for years with very little to show for the millions that has been poured into the area of research. Surely if the theory of operation had merit it would have been achieved by now?

Regards,

Declan

Thank you for your comment.

A lot of the reporting of advances is just hype around activities that are being undertaken but are not proof or big advances of QM entanglement. There has been talk of Quantum computers for years with very little to show for the millions that has been poured into the area of research. Surely if the theory of operation had merit it would have been achieved by now?

Regards,

Declan

A clear-cut viewpoint, pointing to a fundamental observation. Good job, very precise essay.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Hi Declan,

Your essay gives a very interesting conclusion. The two feet on the floor again.

But there are some things that I don't understand, sorry for that I have no programmation background.

You are concluding that non-detect events are the reason that the classical model can again be the explanation of "entanglement". In my own primitive thinking this means that "What we don't see is the reason that our "perceptions and its explanations" are wrong, just because we can generate an output of this "unseen" that proves it.Am I understanding this right or am I just wrong, if so help me.

I can agree with the three-dimensional wave perception of particle experience (like in Peter Jackson's essay's), what I don't understand that if it is so simple to explain "entanglement" in a "classical way" that this was not found before, there are a lot of scientists (like Joy Christian) who are seriously researching this subject.

And after three times reading your essay I still do not understand in the classical way entanglement, thank you for making me think again. I hope that you also may have a look at my essay : Foundational Quantum Reality Loops , it may not be your cup of tea, but I hope that it contains also thoughts that in turn make you think.

best regards

Wilhelmus de Wilde

report post as inappropriate

Your essay gives a very interesting conclusion. The two feet on the floor again.

But there are some things that I don't understand, sorry for that I have no programmation background.

You are concluding that non-detect events are the reason that the classical model can again be the explanation of "entanglement". In my own primitive thinking this means that "What we don't see is the reason that our "perceptions and its explanations" are wrong, just because we can generate an output of this "unseen" that proves it.Am I understanding this right or am I just wrong, if so help me.

I can agree with the three-dimensional wave perception of particle experience (like in Peter Jackson's essay's), what I don't understand that if it is so simple to explain "entanglement" in a "classical way" that this was not found before, there are a lot of scientists (like Joy Christian) who are seriously researching this subject.

And after three times reading your essay I still do not understand in the classical way entanglement, thank you for making me think again. I hope that you also may have a look at my essay : Foundational Quantum Reality Loops , it may not be your cup of tea, but I hope that it contains also thoughts that in turn make you think.

best regards

Wilhelmus de Wilde

report post as inappropriate

Dear Wilhelmus,

Thank you for your comment and questions.

Yes, essentially the correlation that is interpreted as being due to entanglement can be explained due to what is not detected, but is dependent on the angle difference between the photon’s polarization axis and that of the detector. This means that a specific region of possible orientations there is a higher chance of not getting a detection.

Prior to the loophole-free experiments, there was already acknowledged the possibility of what was termed the ‘detection loophole’ where detection efficiency (i.e. not every photon is detected) could bias the result set and falsely cause the correlation to appear to be entanglement.

The use of a Steering Inequality was supposed to account for that by including Alice’s non-detects in the statistical calculation that determines the degree of correlation. However, as I have demonstrated, if the two functions I have shown (for Alice and Bob) are used, and the Steering Inequality is calculated on a the result set, there is still violation and the supposed QM ‘entanglement’ correlation curve is obtained.

I hope this helps you understand my explanation in regards to the explanation for entanglement using Classical Physics.

I will have a look at your essay too...

Best Regards,

Declan

Thank you for your comment and questions.

Yes, essentially the correlation that is interpreted as being due to entanglement can be explained due to what is not detected, but is dependent on the angle difference between the photon’s polarization axis and that of the detector. This means that a specific region of possible orientations there is a higher chance of not getting a detection.

Prior to the loophole-free experiments, there was already acknowledged the possibility of what was termed the ‘detection loophole’ where detection efficiency (i.e. not every photon is detected) could bias the result set and falsely cause the correlation to appear to be entanglement.

The use of a Steering Inequality was supposed to account for that by including Alice’s non-detects in the statistical calculation that determines the degree of correlation. However, as I have demonstrated, if the two functions I have shown (for Alice and Bob) are used, and the Steering Inequality is calculated on a the result set, there is still violation and the supposed QM ‘entanglement’ correlation curve is obtained.

I hope this helps you understand my explanation in regards to the explanation for entanglement using Classical Physics.

I will have a look at your essay too...

Best Regards,

Declan

Declan

Have you seen an R language computer simulation of Pearle's (1970) model for the EPR-Bohm correlations by Richard Gill in July 2015 at http://rpubs.com/gill1109/pearle2 ?

The third graph shows that data are less likely to be gathered at theta = 90 and 270 degree.

The model uses a particular function to decide on whether data are excluded and this is the relevant part of the R code:

U

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Have you seen an R language computer simulation of Pearle's (1970) model for the EPR-Bohm correlations by Richard Gill in July 2015 at http://rpubs.com/gill1109/pearle2 ?

The third graph shows that data are less likely to be gathered at theta = 90 and 270 degree.

The model uses a particular function to decide on whether data are excluded and this is the relevant part of the R code:

U

report post as inappropriate

Declan

My last post must have fallen foul of special symbols in the text, so I am trying again.

Have you seen an R language computer simulation of Pearle's (1970) model for the EPR-Bohm correlations by Richard Gill in July 2015 at http://rpubs.com/gill1109/pearle2 ?

The third graph shows that data are less likely to be gathered at theta = 90 and 270 degree.

The model uses a particular function to decide on whether data are excluded and this is the relevant part of the R code:

U is uniformly distributed

s i given by (2/sqrt(3*U+1)) - 1

where Pearle's "r" is arc cosine of "s"; divided by pi/2

this seems to be similar to your method of excluding data but I am not sure how close it is. Does your model give a curve which asymptotically approach the cosine curve as the number of pairs of particles emitted increases? The points plotted in your Figure 2 do not look like an exact match but that could be caused by a small sample? If your function is different, which gives the better fit to the cosine curve?

Best wishes

Austin

report post as inappropriate

My last post must have fallen foul of special symbols in the text, so I am trying again.

Have you seen an R language computer simulation of Pearle's (1970) model for the EPR-Bohm correlations by Richard Gill in July 2015 at http://rpubs.com/gill1109/pearle2 ?

The third graph shows that data are less likely to be gathered at theta = 90 and 270 degree.

The model uses a particular function to decide on whether data are excluded and this is the relevant part of the R code:

U is uniformly distributed

s i given by (2/sqrt(3*U+1)) - 1

where Pearle's "r" is arc cosine of "s"; divided by pi/2

this seems to be similar to your method of excluding data but I am not sure how close it is. Does your model give a curve which asymptotically approach the cosine curve as the number of pairs of particles emitted increases? The points plotted in your Figure 2 do not look like an exact match but that could be caused by a small sample? If your function is different, which gives the better fit to the cosine curve?

Best wishes

Austin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Austin,

Thank you for bringing that to my attention, I have not seen it before and it is great supporting evidence. The exact shape of the correlation curve can be tweaked by changing the algorithm for non-detects, and there may be different algorithms for different types of detectors. In my last graph the Steering Inequality is modeled so some of the non-detects (Alice’s) are admitted as valid results. Thus has the effect of changing the correlation curve away from a perfect cosine, primarily as perfect correlation and anti-correlation cannot be achieved at 0 and 180 degrees in such a model (as non-detects are included in the data).

Regards,

Declan

Thank you for bringing that to my attention, I have not seen it before and it is great supporting evidence. The exact shape of the correlation curve can be tweaked by changing the algorithm for non-detects, and there may be different algorithms for different types of detectors. In my last graph the Steering Inequality is modeled so some of the non-detects (Alice’s) are admitted as valid results. Thus has the effect of changing the correlation curve away from a perfect cosine, primarily as perfect correlation and anti-correlation cannot be achieved at 0 and 180 degrees in such a model (as non-detects are included in the data).

Regards,

Declan

Dear Declan

The paper that I mentioned by Gill shows the possibility of obtaining an asymptotically exact cosine curve by removing data according to a formula. I have written, a few years ago, a visual basic program (mimicking Chantal Roth's original java pprogram) to obtain the cosine curve but it does remove a lot of data (about 25%, by my memory?).

I am quite suspicious that you...

view entire post

The paper that I mentioned by Gill shows the possibility of obtaining an asymptotically exact cosine curve by removing data according to a formula. I have written, a few years ago, a visual basic program (mimicking Chantal Roth's original java pprogram) to obtain the cosine curve but it does remove a lot of data (about 25%, by my memory?).

I am quite suspicious that you...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Declan ! Many thanks for supporting my work by rating it up; Jan20, I already rated yours with 10. See my post above. I can learn at FQXI at lot of things by reading the key essays, which are connected to my own research on the logic of exponentiality and the fundamentals of science. Best: stephen

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Declan

I also have been investigating classically produced quantum correlations, in the context of Rob McEachern's one bit hypothesis. The simplified model I came up with had a similar amount of noise obscuring the cosine, but when the number of trials was increased to one billion, a residual systematic error of about 1 percent was discovered. This was verified with a purely...

view entire post

I also have been investigating classically produced quantum correlations, in the context of Rob McEachern's one bit hypothesis. The simplified model I came up with had a similar amount of noise obscuring the cosine, but when the number of trials was increased to one billion, a residual systematic error of about 1 percent was discovered. This was verified with a purely...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Colin,

Ok thanks for the comment. Austin brought the Pearle R code to my attention a few days ago (see his comment and my reply above). That is good supporting evidence for my essay.

My model does a very similar thing, although my algorithm for non-detects is based on cosine squared (Born’s rule - see past and current essays by Peter Jackson on the origin of cos squared dependency).

It’s good to have some like minded people in the contest. We should support each other’s work with a decent rating.

Regards,

Declan

Ok thanks for the comment. Austin brought the Pearle R code to my attention a few days ago (see his comment and my reply above). That is good supporting evidence for my essay.

My model does a very similar thing, although my algorithm for non-detects is based on cosine squared (Born’s rule - see past and current essays by Peter Jackson on the origin of cos squared dependency).

It’s good to have some like minded people in the contest. We should support each other’s work with a decent rating.

Regards,

Declan

Dear Declan,

I read your essay, but due my formation in philosophy I've no means to evaluate – nor even to fully comprehend – your physics hypothesis. As far as I understand, it's quite revolutionary, if true – but sadly the history of science is full of thunderous silences.

Could you please sum up your discovery in not specialists term? If it's possible, of course.

Bests,

Francesco D'Isa

report post as inappropriate

I read your essay, but due my formation in philosophy I've no means to evaluate – nor even to fully comprehend – your physics hypothesis. As far as I understand, it's quite revolutionary, if true – but sadly the history of science is full of thunderous silences.

Could you please sum up your discovery in not specialists term? If it's possible, of course.

Bests,

Francesco D'Isa

report post as inappropriate

Dear Francesco,

Thank you for your kind comment.

Ok, I will try:

Most of Physics can be understood and makes sense in terms of Classical Physics that people can understand and is what is termed “Local and Real”. We can ‘see’ what is going on and can build a model of it.

Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, has some strange counterintuitive aspects, with...

view entire post

Thank you for your kind comment.

Ok, I will try:

Most of Physics can be understood and makes sense in terms of Classical Physics that people can understand and is what is termed “Local and Real”. We can ‘see’ what is going on and can build a model of it.

Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, has some strange counterintuitive aspects, with...

view entire post

Dear Declan,

thank you very much. It seems a very important discovery! I will rate it high to raise the curiosity of the specialists.

Best regards and wish you luck!

Francesco D'Isa

report post as inappropriate

thank you very much. It seems a very important discovery! I will rate it high to raise the curiosity of the specialists.

Best regards and wish you luck!

Francesco D'Isa

report post as inappropriate

Dear Francesco,

Thank you very much, it would be good if it could get looked at by the establishment.

Do you have an essay too?

Best Regards,

Declan

Thank you very much, it would be good if it could get looked at by the establishment.

Do you have an essay too?

Best Regards,

Declan

Dear Declan

Please note that I have posted a reply to you on my own thread. Some of it is better placed on your thread so here it is ...

I still have a couple of points about your contest paper which I will likely post in your thread. But I have not got to grips with the Steering Inequality yet. The Steering Inequality is a theoretical device (2011 paper) which is not part of the recent experimental results (2015 paper)? The 2015 paper did not mention 'steering' AFAIK and anyway they only had 245 pairs of outcomes. And surely they did not contaminate an experimental finding with results other than +1 or -1? I presume that the steering inequality implies that some data were not detected to be measured for some genuine pairs which would have reduced the correlation absolute size if that data had been detected in the 2015 experiment? Or am I missing something from the 2015 experimental design?

Best

Austin

report post as inappropriate

Please note that I have posted a reply to you on my own thread. Some of it is better placed on your thread so here it is ...

I still have a couple of points about your contest paper which I will likely post in your thread. But I have not got to grips with the Steering Inequality yet. The Steering Inequality is a theoretical device (2011 paper) which is not part of the recent experimental results (2015 paper)? The 2015 paper did not mention 'steering' AFAIK and anyway they only had 245 pairs of outcomes. And surely they did not contaminate an experimental finding with results other than +1 or -1? I presume that the steering inequality implies that some data were not detected to be measured for some genuine pairs which would have reduced the correlation absolute size if that data had been detected in the 2015 experiment? Or am I missing something from the 2015 experimental design?

Best

Austin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Austin,

When you talk about the 2015 paper, do you mean “Realization of mutually unbiased bases for a qubit with only one wave plate: theory and experiment” that I referenced in my essay?

If so, I included this reference as it provides information about the detector angles for MUBs where quarter and half wave plates are used (as is the case in the Ref 2 paper).

In that paper ther are -1,+1 and 0 results recorded and a Steering Inequality is used to analyze the results.

Regards,

Declan

When you talk about the 2015 paper, do you mean “Realization of mutually unbiased bases for a qubit with only one wave plate: theory and experiment” that I referenced in my essay?

If so, I included this reference as it provides information about the detector angles for MUBs where quarter and half wave plates are used (as is the case in the Ref 2 paper).

In that paper ther are -1,+1 and 0 results recorded and a Steering Inequality is used to analyze the results.

Regards,

Declan

Declan

Very sorry for being obscure and wasting some of your time. The 2015 report was on the latest real experiment, that I know of, to try to close the loopholes (which had only 245 pairs of particles):

https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949

Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km

Do you know if this is one of the recent experiments that have used the steering inequality as mentioned in your paragraph following Figure 2?

Best

Austin

report post as inappropriate

Very sorry for being obscure and wasting some of your time. The 2015 report was on the latest real experiment, that I know of, to try to close the loopholes (which had only 245 pairs of particles):

https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949

Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km

Do you know if this is one of the recent experiments that have used the steering inequality as mentioned in your paragraph following Figure 2?

Best

Austin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Austin,

Ok, no problem - I will have a look at that paper when I have more time, thanks...

Regards,

Declan

Ok, no problem - I will have a look at that paper when I have more time, thanks...

Regards,

Declan

Hi Declan Andrew Traill

Wonderful work “ Quantum Mechanics claims that particles can become entangled such that there is a correlation in the detected results from EPR type experiments that cannot be explained by Classical Physics. This paper shows that the result can be fully explained by Classical Physics, and that the correlation curve for different angles between the two detectors can...

view entire post

Wonderful work “ Quantum Mechanics claims that particles can become entangled such that there is a correlation in the detected results from EPR type experiments that cannot be explained by Classical Physics. This paper shows that the result can be fully explained by Classical Physics, and that the correlation curve for different angles between the two detectors can...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear snp,

Thank you for your kind comment.

I have had a read of your essay:

An interesting idea. I also think that the Universe can be modeled using linear equations based on Galilean principles. You might be interested to read my 2012 FQXi essay titled “A Classical Reconstruction of Relativity”.

The creation of Matter by light passing close to atomic nuclei is known to occur - pair production - but this is due to the strong electric field around, for example, a lead nucleus. Likewise electrons and positrons can mutually anihilate to produce gamma rays (light). There is a balance between both these types of events.

I think you have ‘Red shifted’ and ‘Blue shifted’ around the wrong way in you equations 32 and 33. A higher frequency would be a blue shift and a lower frequency would be a red shift.

Regards,

Declan

Thank you for your kind comment.

I have had a read of your essay:

An interesting idea. I also think that the Universe can be modeled using linear equations based on Galilean principles. You might be interested to read my 2012 FQXi essay titled “A Classical Reconstruction of Relativity”.

The creation of Matter by light passing close to atomic nuclei is known to occur - pair production - but this is due to the strong electric field around, for example, a lead nucleus. Likewise electrons and positrons can mutually anihilate to produce gamma rays (light). There is a balance between both these types of events.

I think you have ‘Red shifted’ and ‘Blue shifted’ around the wrong way in you equations 32 and 33. A higher frequency would be a blue shift and a lower frequency would be a red shift.

Regards,

Declan

Thank you Dear Declan Andrew Traill

……………..Your words…………

An interesting idea. I also think that the Universe can be modeled using linear equations based on Galilean principles. You might be interested to read my 2012 FQXi essay titled “A Classical Reconstruction of Relativity”.

The creation of Matter by light passing close to atomic nuclei is known to occur - pair production - but this is due to the strong electric field around, for example, a lead nucleus. Likewise electrons and positrons can mutually anihilate to produce gamma rays (light). There is a balance between both these types of events.

………..Reply……

Thank you, can you please send me a copy of paper and more details of pair production …

…………your words………………

I think you have ‘Red shifted’ and ‘Blue shifted’ around the wrong way in you equations 32 and 33. A higher frequency would be a blue shift and a lower frequency would be a red shift.

……….Reply…………

I noticed it. By mistake I sent older essay. FQXi puts older essay only.I put a corrected abstract, please see…

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 21:58 GMT

Best regards

=snp

report post as inappropriate

……………..Your words…………

An interesting idea. I also think that the Universe can be modeled using linear equations based on Galilean principles. You might be interested to read my 2012 FQXi essay titled “A Classical Reconstruction of Relativity”.

The creation of Matter by light passing close to atomic nuclei is known to occur - pair production - but this is due to the strong electric field around, for example, a lead nucleus. Likewise electrons and positrons can mutually anihilate to produce gamma rays (light). There is a balance between both these types of events.

………..Reply……

Thank you, can you please send me a copy of paper and more details of pair production …

…………your words………………

I think you have ‘Red shifted’ and ‘Blue shifted’ around the wrong way in you equations 32 and 33. A higher frequency would be a blue shift and a lower frequency would be a red shift.

……….Reply…………

I noticed it. By mistake I sent older essay. FQXi puts older essay only.I put a corrected abstract, please see…

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 21:58 GMT

Best regards

=snp

report post as inappropriate

Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

post approved

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

post approved

Hello Declan,

As I understand it your essay explores the boundary between classical and quantum via the concept of 'steering inequality'. Or is it that it explores non-locality via that concept, and that leads you to question whether there exists difference between quantum and classical at the foundational level?

in any case it seems like understanding both local and non-local...

view entire post

As I understand it your essay explores the boundary between classical and quantum via the concept of 'steering inequality'. Or is it that it explores non-locality via that concept, and that leads you to question whether there exists difference between quantum and classical at the foundational level?

in any case it seems like understanding both local and non-local...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Declan - to be clear re entangled photons, the scale invariant far field impedance that connects them is what communicates the superposition. The phase of neither is defined until it is measured, and they share that single superposed/entangled wavefunction phase when entangled via the invariant impedance. The phase determines the angular momentum orientation generated by the flow of energy between E and B fields. When that phase is defined at the one via measurement it is no longer superposed, and it's partner wherever she may be likewise has relative phase of her fields defined to conserve angular momentum.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Declan Andrew Traill

Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.

My essay is titled

“Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin”. It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.

Thank you & kind regards

Steven Andresen

post approved

Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.

My essay is titled

“Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin”. It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.

Thank you & kind regards

Steven Andresen

post approved

Declan Traill:

Here is another support for your model:

(1) superluminal signal of waves in my plenum

(2) all interaction is Bell's non-local - matter warps plenum, plenum divergence directs matter (like in GR)

(3) therefore, quantum weirdness unnecessary, classical scale descriptions work.

photon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k

photon: http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1603

and

STOE assumptions that model particle diffraction and that replaces QM

IntellectualArchive, Vol.5, No. 3, P.1 , ISSN 1929-4700, Toronto, Jan. 2014

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1719

Therefore, single photon at a time experiment explained, may also explain entanglement and quantum eraser.

My plenum is (like zero point energy or "space" in GR) is like your Theta field (higher density=>slower light speed from Shapiro delay observation).

Universe according to the STOE

IntellectualArchive, Vol.4, No. 6, P.6 , ISSN 1929-4700, Toronto, Jan. 2014

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648

"Even when presented with these experimental proofs, many people have

great difficulty believing that the effects actually occur." from your gsj paper

I'll be studing your papers on gsj.

report post as inappropriate

Here is another support for your model:

(1) superluminal signal of waves in my plenum

(2) all interaction is Bell's non-local - matter warps plenum, plenum divergence directs matter (like in GR)

(3) therefore, quantum weirdness unnecessary, classical scale descriptions work.

photon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k

photon: http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1603

and

STOE assumptions that model particle diffraction and that replaces QM

IntellectualArchive, Vol.5, No. 3, P.1 , ISSN 1929-4700, Toronto, Jan. 2014

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1719

Therefore, single photon at a time experiment explained, may also explain entanglement and quantum eraser.

My plenum is (like zero point energy or "space" in GR) is like your Theta field (higher density=>slower light speed from Shapiro delay observation).

Universe according to the STOE

IntellectualArchive, Vol.4, No. 6, P.6 , ISSN 1929-4700, Toronto, Jan. 2014

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1648

"Even when presented with these experimental proofs, many people have

great difficulty believing that the effects actually occur." from your gsj paper

I'll be studing your papers on gsj.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Declan,

Very interesting essay in the spirit of a deep Cartesian doubt. You give new ideas and important conclusions that are aimed at overcoming the crisis of understanding in the basis of fundamental science. Successes in the Contest!

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Very interesting essay in the spirit of a deep Cartesian doubt. You give new ideas and important conclusions that are aimed at overcoming the crisis of understanding in the basis of fundamental science. Successes in the Contest!

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for your kind words and support; I am glad you see the importance of this his work.

Do you have an essay in the contest?

Regards,

Declan

Thank you for your kind words and support; I am glad you see the importance of this his work.

Do you have an essay in the contest?

Regards,

Declan

Hi Dear Andrew

I have read your work with huge interest. The matter is I am also has come to deep convince long ago in the possibility to interpret as QM laws and events, as well as the relativity in whole, issuing from the causality principle (i.e. in the same principle and fundaments as the classical physics are constructed!)

The problem only is in that, we loss the opportunity of direct observations (measuring) how working these causal-classical relations in the level of particle physics, as well as in case of near to light velocities (that is why we invented a "new kind of natural laws" - QM, ST & GR.)

Meanime, I has felt some complicaton with the QM entanglement that I can not understund how need to solve with classical viewpoint. That is why I am just happy to find your article!

So, I can only very welcame your partisipation in the contest and wish you succeses (meantime, not so much peouple will be with us!) Be well my dear!

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

I have read your work with huge interest. The matter is I am also has come to deep convince long ago in the possibility to interpret as QM laws and events, as well as the relativity in whole, issuing from the causality principle (i.e. in the same principle and fundaments as the classical physics are constructed!)

The problem only is in that, we loss the opportunity of direct observations (measuring) how working these causal-classical relations in the level of particle physics, as well as in case of near to light velocities (that is why we invented a "new kind of natural laws" - QM, ST & GR.)

Meanime, I has felt some complicaton with the QM entanglement that I can not understund how need to solve with classical viewpoint. That is why I am just happy to find your article!

So, I can only very welcame your partisipation in the contest and wish you succeses (meantime, not so much peouple will be with us!) Be well my dear!

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

Dear Andrew,

I am just shocked with this:

//The wave functions presented here describe particles with all the correct properties for an Electron and a Positron and satisfy the requirements of both the Classical and Quantum Mechanical interpretations.// And with the "The rotating vectors" - that is the one effective greatest method! (Most of theorists never using this, but electrical engineers well know it!)

My dear I am just saying the same that you says! What ever you have don that is very right! I no need even to check up all your formulas to say this because your formulas derive from ideas that are out of doubt for me.

Just let me say you some important thing - You have still used the "elementary charge" and with this the electrical and magnetic constants. We must be free of them to be explain everything by el.mag field only. It is possible do by understanding the essence and hugest cognitive significance of alpha (1/137). Then everything will become for you clean as spring water! Please look my works (from reference in the end) there you can find what is alpha, then I believe you can finalized your works and bring it to the very comprehensive level to everybody. Why you - because I am not so well with math, also with English, and also I am not so young!

Best wishes!

report post as inappropriate

I am just shocked with this:

//The wave functions presented here describe particles with all the correct properties for an Electron and a Positron and satisfy the requirements of both the Classical and Quantum Mechanical interpretations.// And with the "The rotating vectors" - that is the one effective greatest method! (Most of theorists never using this, but electrical engineers well know it!)

My dear I am just saying the same that you says! What ever you have don that is very right! I no need even to check up all your formulas to say this because your formulas derive from ideas that are out of doubt for me.

Just let me say you some important thing - You have still used the "elementary charge" and with this the electrical and magnetic constants. We must be free of them to be explain everything by el.mag field only. It is possible do by understanding the essence and hugest cognitive significance of alpha (1/137). Then everything will become for you clean as spring water! Please look my works (from reference in the end) there you can find what is alpha, then I believe you can finalized your works and bring it to the very comprehensive level to everybody. Why you - because I am not so well with math, also with English, and also I am not so young!

Best wishes!

report post as inappropriate

Dear George,

Thanks you for your kind comments. Yes, you are quite right, the charge could be further simplified in terms of something more fundamental. In my solutions the charge parameter just gives the correct amplitude to the wave function. My main concern was to build a model of electrons/positrons that works and can be fully understood in terms of Classical Physics. We know the solutions MUST be stable wave forms as they are solutions to the Schrodinger and Classical wave equations.

Regards,

Declan

Thanks you for your kind comments. Yes, you are quite right, the charge could be further simplified in terms of something more fundamental. In my solutions the charge parameter just gives the correct amplitude to the wave function. My main concern was to build a model of electrons/positrons that works and can be fully understood in terms of Classical Physics. We know the solutions MUST be stable wave forms as they are solutions to the Schrodinger and Classical wave equations.

Regards,

Declan

Declan,

I've just pointed Harri Tianen to yours, you should see his, (very consistent from a different viewpoint) and our discussions.

Did you see Roychouri, & Bollinger? & comment on Gordon Watson's partial algorithm?

Very best

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I've just pointed Harri Tianen to yours, you should see his, (very consistent from a different viewpoint) and our discussions.

Did you see Roychouri, & Bollinger? & comment on Gordon Watson's partial algorithm?

Very best

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Declan Andrew Traill,

Having read your Essay, I agree that Einstein was right when he did not agree with the EPR experiment conclusions and had said, “spooky action at a distance” cannot occur and that, “God does not play dice”. Please read Linear Polarization http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0174v5.pdf

QM claims that an electron can be both spin-up and spin-down at the same time. In my conceptual physics Essay on Electron Spin, I have proved that this is not true. Please read: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3

.pdf

Kamal Rajpal

report post as inappropriate

Having read your Essay, I agree that Einstein was right when he did not agree with the EPR experiment conclusions and had said, “spooky action at a distance” cannot occur and that, “God does not play dice”. Please read Linear Polarization http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0174v5.pdf

QM claims that an electron can be both spin-up and spin-down at the same time. In my conceptual physics Essay on Electron Spin, I have proved that this is not true. Please read: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3

Kamal Rajpal

report post as inappropriate

Dear Kamal,

Thanks for your comment. I had a look at your Linear Polarization paper, however I cannot see how you get your area percentages from the diagrams on page 12? For the examples given in the diagrams, I calculated the areas as shown below, but this is a linear curve, not a cosine squared curve:

0 degrees: 48/48 = 100%

15 degrees: 40/48 = 83.33%

22.5 degrees: 36/48 = 75%

30 degrees: 32/48 = 66.66%

45 degrees: 24/48 = 50%

60 degrees: 16/48 = 33.33%

67.5 degrees: 12/48 = 25%

75 degrees: 8/48 = 16.66%

90 degrees: 0/48 = 0%

Regards,

Declan

Thanks for your comment. I had a look at your Linear Polarization paper, however I cannot see how you get your area percentages from the diagrams on page 12? For the examples given in the diagrams, I calculated the areas as shown below, but this is a linear curve, not a cosine squared curve:

0 degrees: 48/48 = 100%

15 degrees: 40/48 = 83.33%

22.5 degrees: 36/48 = 75%

30 degrees: 32/48 = 66.66%

45 degrees: 24/48 = 50%

60 degrees: 16/48 = 33.33%

67.5 degrees: 12/48 = 25%

75 degrees: 8/48 = 16.66%

90 degrees: 0/48 = 0%

Regards,

Declan

Dear Declan Andrew Traill,

2D space can be filled up with squares but not with circles. See figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 on pages 4, 5 and 6. You are calculating the area inside the circle only. I am doing it inside the square. This was the mistake made in 1935. See paragraph 1 on page 11.

The tables on page 10 and 12 are similar.

The page 10 table has been arrived at using 7 squares as below:

No. Fig. Angle Area

1 15c 00 100

2 14c 15 093

3

13c 30 075

4 12c 45 050

5 11c 60 025

6 10c 75 007

7 09c 90 000

The table on page 12 has been arrived at using 9 squares and the precision is to the first decimal place.

Kamal Rajpal

report post as inappropriate

2D space can be filled up with squares but not with circles. See figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 on pages 4, 5 and 6. You are calculating the area inside the circle only. I am doing it inside the square. This was the mistake made in 1935. See paragraph 1 on page 11.

The tables on page 10 and 12 are similar.

The page 10 table has been arrived at using 7 squares as below:

No. Fig. Angle Area

1 15c 00 100

2 14c 15 093

3

13c 30 075

4 12c 45 050

5 11c 60 025

6 10c 75 007

7 09c 90 000

The table on page 12 has been arrived at using 9 squares and the precision is to the first decimal place.

Kamal Rajpal

report post as inappropriate

[NOTE: I inadvertently placed my assessment of your essay under your comment on my essay, so I suspect you have not even seen this yet (and I apologize in advance if you’ve already seen this and just did not choose to comment). Please also pardon the genuinely spontaneous “argh”s, as I actually quite impressed your essay. Finally, I inserted a rather long justification for how “primary...

view entire post

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Terry,

Thank you for your long and very positive comment, even though it is about my past 2012 essay.

I think you have understood my thesis quite well (most don’t seem to realize the meaning of it), though I think a sphere rather than a cube might be more appropriate. Actually there is only one reference frame in the Universe but different objects can have different states of motion with respect to the background phi field. There were no previous versions - this was my first model - I took quite a while thinking about it in various situations and concidering various known facts before sitting down to write and calculate. Indeed computer modeling has been an invaluable tool for checking my model; indeed an essential tool for the next step which was to build a 3D model of matter particles (electron and positron) which fits in perfectly with my 2012 essay ideas. This model can be found here: http://vixra.org/abs/1507.0054

Again, thanks for your support, and no, problems had not seen your comment so thanks for re-posting it here...

Best Regards,

Declan

Thank you for your long and very positive comment, even though it is about my past 2012 essay.

I think you have understood my thesis quite well (most don’t seem to realize the meaning of it), though I think a sphere rather than a cube might be more appropriate. Actually there is only one reference frame in the Universe but different objects can have different states of motion with respect to the background phi field. There were no previous versions - this was my first model - I took quite a while thinking about it in various situations and concidering various known facts before sitting down to write and calculate. Indeed computer modeling has been an invaluable tool for checking my model; indeed an essential tool for the next step which was to build a 3D model of matter particles (electron and positron) which fits in perfectly with my 2012 essay ideas. This model can be found here: http://vixra.org/abs/1507.0054

Again, thanks for your support, and no, problems had not seen your comment so thanks for re-posting it here...

Best Regards,

Declan

Terry,

Auto-correct error at the end of last post:

The word ‘problems’ appeared from the Ether and should not have been inserted into that sentence!

Declan

Auto-correct error at the end of last post:

The word ‘problems’ appeared from the Ether and should not have been inserted into that sentence!

Declan

Declan,

I've discovered that if you make a lot of FQXi comments for a lot of essays, figuring out whether someone has replied can be... tricky, even if you sign up notifications. The notifications do not tell you who added a comment! So my apologies, I only just now found your reply above, even though I looked for one (apparently in the wrong place) a couple of times.

Yes, you are exactly right that a ball is how your space should be described, not a cube. I don't recall why for sure, but I think I said "cube" only to emphasize that you model was using a nicely visualizable 3D space.

Bummer that more folks didn't get your model, though at the same time my own near-dismissal helps me understand why. Yours is a model that you have to dig into pretty deeply before you can start seeing how the transforms work out.

Likely I'll have more to say on this issue later, but for now I'm just playing catch up. I absolutely love that there are no ratings now, just comments! That makes it so much easier for folks just to talk about ideas, if they want to.

And apparently there is no deadline whatsoever for making comments, which is strange. But I looked, and the comments I made a few days ago on an essay thread you created 5 years ago is still there. Wow!

Cheers,

Terry

report post as inappropriate

I've discovered that if you make a lot of FQXi comments for a lot of essays, figuring out whether someone has replied can be... tricky, even if you sign up notifications. The notifications do not tell you who added a comment! So my apologies, I only just now found your reply above, even though I looked for one (apparently in the wrong place) a couple of times.

Yes, you are exactly right that a ball is how your space should be described, not a cube. I don't recall why for sure, but I think I said "cube" only to emphasize that you model was using a nicely visualizable 3D space.

Bummer that more folks didn't get your model, though at the same time my own near-dismissal helps me understand why. Yours is a model that you have to dig into pretty deeply before you can start seeing how the transforms work out.

Likely I'll have more to say on this issue later, but for now I'm just playing catch up. I absolutely love that there are no ratings now, just comments! That makes it so much easier for folks just to talk about ideas, if they want to.

And apparently there is no deadline whatsoever for making comments, which is strange. But I looked, and the comments I made a few days ago on an essay thread you created 5 years ago is still there. Wow!

Cheers,

Terry

report post as inappropriate

Dear Declan,

Here we are again all together. I enjoyed reading your contribution, which of course is worthy of the highest praise.

“This paper shows that the result can be fully explained by Classical Physics”. Great!

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

report post as inappropriate

Here we are again all together. I enjoyed reading your contribution, which of course is worthy of the highest praise.

“This paper shows that the result can be fully explained by Classical Physics”. Great!

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir,

Thanks for the positive comment on my essay. I have just read your paper, although admit I skipped over much of the detail, but got the general thesis. It is a very interesting paper, and I agree that matter is comprised of vortices held together (in part) by gravity. I think you would be interested in my paper where I model electrons and positrons as 3D Electromagnetic standing waves: http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0054v6.pdf

My wave function solutions could work for any mass plugged in - leading to infinite possible particles, except that my suspicion is that only certain masses lead to just the right amount of wave curvature (due to gravitational bending) to allow stable particles to form. Thus only certain particles can exist. So this bending effect of gravity causes certain energy densities to be able to form stable wave function structures. Also I have long suspected that the Universe may have a fractal nature - the repeated application of simple laws building up bigger and bigger structures, but with a similar appearance at different size scales.

Best Regards,

Declan Traill

Thanks for the positive comment on my essay. I have just read your paper, although admit I skipped over much of the detail, but got the general thesis. It is a very interesting paper, and I agree that matter is comprised of vortices held together (in part) by gravity. I think you would be interested in my paper where I model electrons and positrons as 3D Electromagnetic standing waves: http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0054v6.pdf

My wave function solutions could work for any mass plugged in - leading to infinite possible particles, except that my suspicion is that only certain masses lead to just the right amount of wave curvature (due to gravitational bending) to allow stable particles to form. Thus only certain particles can exist. So this bending effect of gravity causes certain energy densities to be able to form stable wave function structures. Also I have long suspected that the Universe may have a fractal nature - the repeated application of simple laws building up bigger and bigger structures, but with a similar appearance at different size scales.

Best Regards,

Declan Traill

Dear Declan,

Your wrote a very interesting and provocative Essay.

Classical and quantum are strongly connected with the issues of determinism and uncertainty. This discussion goes beyond physics as far as the fields of philosophy. It has also profound implications in the framework of unifications of theories. From a historical point of view, Einstein believed that, in the path to unification of theories, Quantum Mechanics had to be subjected to a more general deterministic theory, which he called Generalized Theory of Gravitation, but he did not obtain the final equations of such a theory. At present, this point of view is partially retrieved by some theorists, starting from the Nobel Laureate G. ’t Hooft. I agree with both of Einstein and ’t Hooft. Hence, I strongly appreciated your Essay and I hope that it could be the starting point of a more general discussion.

In any case, you wrote a nice and entertaining Essay, deserving my highest score.

Maybe you could be interested in my Essay, where I discuss a way to remove a fundamental uncertainty in quantum gravity... with Albert Einstein!

Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Your wrote a very interesting and provocative Essay.

Classical and quantum are strongly connected with the issues of determinism and uncertainty. This discussion goes beyond physics as far as the fields of philosophy. It has also profound implications in the framework of unifications of theories. From a historical point of view, Einstein believed that, in the path to unification of theories, Quantum Mechanics had to be subjected to a more general deterministic theory, which he called Generalized Theory of Gravitation, but he did not obtain the final equations of such a theory. At present, this point of view is partially retrieved by some theorists, starting from the Nobel Laureate G. ’t Hooft. I agree with both of Einstein and ’t Hooft. Hence, I strongly appreciated your Essay and I hope that it could be the starting point of a more general discussion.

In any case, you wrote a nice and entertaining Essay, deserving my highest score.

Maybe you could be interested in my Essay, where I discuss a way to remove a fundamental uncertainty in quantum gravity... with Albert Einstein!

Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Declan,

As a fellow Aussie, I give top marks to all those (from anywhere) who have-a-good-go. It is thus, for me, so good to see you having-a-real-good-go to understand reality -- via your many publications -- and to find that we share this interest: "in re-constructing ... Quantum Mechanics into a Classical framework that can be understood and visualized using a universal set of...

view entire post

As a fellow Aussie, I give top marks to all those (from anywhere) who have-a-good-go. It is thus, for me, so good to see you having-a-real-good-go to understand reality -- via your many publications -- and to find that we share this interest: "in re-constructing ... Quantum Mechanics into a Classical framework that can be understood and visualized using a universal set of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Gordon,

In answer to your question "what happened to classical energy conservation in each and every interaction?":

Every particle detect or non-detect obeys normal, Classical Physics. Energy conservation is obeyed - why would it not be?

If a particle isn't detected is may be simply absorbed by a molecule in the apparatus or elsewhere.

(Questions: 1, 2, 2a) The...

view entire post

In answer to your question "what happened to classical energy conservation in each and every interaction?":

Every particle detect or non-detect obeys normal, Classical Physics. Energy conservation is obeyed - why would it not be?

If a particle isn't detected is may be simply absorbed by a molecule in the apparatus or elsewhere.

(Questions: 1, 2, 2a) The...

view entire post

Declan, in reply, from my essay-thread. ...........

Thanks Declan, your prompt reply is appreciated. It's also good to see that we have some agreements; but I won't dwell on them for now. Instead I want to discuss what looks like (in my opinion) a serious point of disagreement.

Please note that I have no wish to discourage you -- quite the contrary -- because I think you have guts...

view entire post

Thanks Declan, your prompt reply is appreciated. It's also good to see that we have some agreements; but I won't dwell on them for now. Instead I want to discuss what looks like (in my opinion) a serious point of disagreement.

Please note that I have no wish to discourage you -- quite the contrary -- because I think you have guts...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Gordon,

It’s not just me saying that the Classical prediction is linear, it says so on the Wikipedia page on bells theorem:

See the diagram in the overview section here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

Regards

,

Declan

It’s not just me saying that the Classical prediction is linear, it says so on the Wikipedia page on bells theorem:

See the diagram in the overview section here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

Regards

,

Declan

Dear Declan, …(copied to your and mine)

Thanks for the positive comment on my essay.

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for the positive comment on my essay.

I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

report post as inappropriate

Dear Declan

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

A couple of days in and semblance of my essay taking form, however the house bound inactivity was wearing me. I had just the remedy, so took off for a solo sail across the bay. In the lea of cove, I had underestimated the open water wind strengths. My...

view entire post

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

A couple of days in and semblance of my essay taking form, however the house bound inactivity was wearing me. I had just the remedy, so took off for a solo sail across the bay. In the lea of cove, I had underestimated the open water wind strengths. My...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Declan, as foreshadowed above, here's some background on my theory; Gordon

**Background to Wholistic Mechanics (WM)**

Whereas QM emerged from the UV-catastrophe ca1905, WM emerges from the locality-catastrophe typified by John Bell's dilemma ca1965: ie, seriously ambivalent about AAD, Bell adamantly rejected locality. He later surmised that maybe he and his followers were being...

view entire post

Whereas QM emerged from the UV-catastrophe ca1905, WM emerges from the locality-catastrophe typified by John Bell's dilemma ca1965: ie, seriously ambivalent about AAD, Bell adamantly rejected locality. He later surmised that maybe he and his followers were being...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Gordon,

As I already showed you in my email correspondence including the correlation graph and model code, modeling the EPR experiment using Malus’s law does not give the correct correlation curve.

So whatever your maths shows, if you cannot model it and get the correct correlation curve then it is wrong.

Regards,

Declan Traill

As I already showed you in my email correspondence including the correlation graph and model code, modeling the EPR experiment using Malus’s law does not give the correct correlation curve.

So whatever your maths shows, if you cannot model it and get the correct correlation curve then it is wrong.

Regards,

Declan Traill

Declan, I've replied below, showing how Malus does give the correct result: and sure that you will spot your simple mistake when you see my equations. Cheers; Gordon

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Declan, re the correlation graph that you sent me: please **post the graph as an attachment on my essay-thread**. I would like to reply in detail with reference to that context. Thanks; Gordon

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Declan, this is from my essay thread, in reply to the graph that you emailed me. GW ...............

Declan, thanks for attaching that strange (red-spotted) graph that you emailed to me. From your emails it appears you think it correct and that (somehow) my suggested remedy won't work. I'm hoping what follows (and further discussions, if necessary) may convince you otherwise.

I'm also...

view entire post

Declan, thanks for attaching that strange (red-spotted) graph that you emailed to me. From your emails it appears you think it correct and that (somehow) my suggested remedy won't work. I'm hoping what follows (and further discussions, if necessary) may convince you otherwise.

I'm also...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hello Declan,

Pasting in from a thread with Peter Jackson in the comments of essay by Michaele Suisse and myself. Want to wade thru comments on your essay, then come back to offer more:

Peter,

Looked again a couple times at Traill's essay. Perhaps starting to get the connection Terry Bollinger was trying to point out.

From perspective of the geometric wavefunction interaction (GWI) model Michaele and I are working with two essential points relevant to Declan's essay seem to stand out.

1. There exist two different varieties of quantized impedances - scale invariant and scale dependent. Forces associated with invariant impedances can do no work, cannot share energy/information. Resulting motion is perpendicular to direction of applied force. These are the conduits of non-locality. They communicate only the quantum phase of entanglement, not a single measurement observable. Here the GWI approach appears to be in harmony with what Declan shows.

2. What distinguishes quantum from classical is quantum phase. Once one accounts for the fact that phase is not a single measurement observable, from the perspective of our synthesis of geometric wavefunction interactions with quantized impedance networks QM appears 'classical', again in agreement with Declan's conclusion.

Having arrived at this, now feel ready to take a look at Watson, and then yours again. Tho we're not math folks here, Poincare sphere is only slightly familiar to me from Penrose's road to reality.

report post as inappropriate

Pasting in from a thread with Peter Jackson in the comments of essay by Michaele Suisse and myself. Want to wade thru comments on your essay, then come back to offer more:

Peter,

Looked again a couple times at Traill's essay. Perhaps starting to get the connection Terry Bollinger was trying to point out.

From perspective of the geometric wavefunction interaction (GWI) model Michaele and I are working with two essential points relevant to Declan's essay seem to stand out.

1. There exist two different varieties of quantized impedances - scale invariant and scale dependent. Forces associated with invariant impedances can do no work, cannot share energy/information. Resulting motion is perpendicular to direction of applied force. These are the conduits of non-locality. They communicate only the quantum phase of entanglement, not a single measurement observable. Here the GWI approach appears to be in harmony with what Declan shows.

2. What distinguishes quantum from classical is quantum phase. Once one accounts for the fact that phase is not a single measurement observable, from the perspective of our synthesis of geometric wavefunction interactions with quantized impedance networks QM appears 'classical', again in agreement with Declan's conclusion.

Having arrived at this, now feel ready to take a look at Watson, and then yours again. Tho we're not math folks here, Poincare sphere is only slightly familiar to me from Penrose's road to reality.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Declan Andrew Traill,

The tables on page 10 and 12 are similar.

The page 10 table has been arrived at using 7 squares as below:

No. Fig. Angle Area

1 15c 00 100

2 14c 15 093

3

13c 30 075

4 12c 45 050

5 11c 60 025

6 10c 75 007

7 09c 90 000

The table on page 12 has been arrived at using 9 squares and the precision is to the first decimal place.

Kamal Rajpal

report post as inappropriate

The tables on page 10 and 12 are similar.

The page 10 table has been arrived at using 7 squares as below:

No. Fig. Angle Area

1 15c 00 100

2 14c 15 093

3

13c 30 075

4 12c 45 050

5 11c 60 025

6 10c 75 007

7 09c 90 000

The table on page 12 has been arrived at using 9 squares and the precision is to the first decimal place.

Kamal Rajpal

report post as inappropriate

Declan,

Does your code completely fit the mechanism in Peter Jacksons essay? It took me some time to familiarise myself with it as it includes a number of fresh views and elements, all rather better evidenced and more logical than the original. I hope we're in for that revolution and hope to see you keep working together! I suspect only a strong collaboration will penetrate established views.

I'm giving you top marks for yours as, like Peter's, it's so fundamentally important. I wish I could help as it looks like there's some detailed mathematical or algorithmic back up still needed, unfortunately not my specialism.

Very best of luck in the judging, though from what I've seen in the past it's a bit of an 'old pals' or community benefit excercise, rather opposite to the point of fqXi!

Very well done anyway.

Rich

report post as inappropriate

Does your code completely fit the mechanism in Peter Jacksons essay? It took me some time to familiarise myself with it as it includes a number of fresh views and elements, all rather better evidenced and more logical than the original. I hope we're in for that revolution and hope to see you keep working together! I suspect only a strong collaboration will penetrate established views.

I'm giving you top marks for yours as, like Peter's, it's so fundamentally important. I wish I could help as it looks like there's some detailed mathematical or algorithmic back up still needed, unfortunately not my specialism.

Very best of luck in the judging, though from what I've seen in the past it's a bit of an 'old pals' or community benefit excercise, rather opposite to the point of fqXi!

Very well done anyway.

Rich

report post as inappropriate

Declan, Richard

I explained the fit to Richard. It's been interesting how few have or have bothered to follow the mechanism. I set out a way ahead on my blog in answer to Gordon. Hope you two can reach agreement.

Andrew Beckwith complains he's been multi 1 bombed as I know you have so do read & support his if you haven't yet.

Very best

P

report post as inappropriate

I explained the fit to Richard. It's been interesting how few have or have bothered to follow the mechanism. I set out a way ahead on my blog in answer to Gordon. Hope you two can reach agreement.

Andrew Beckwith complains he's been multi 1 bombed as I know you have so do read & support his if you haven't yet.

Very best

P

report post as inappropriate

Hi,

Have you tried to put it on a Bloch sphere? The slope is important. Is it intermediate?

Ulla Mattfolk

report post as inappropriate

Have you tried to put it on a Bloch sphere? The slope is important. Is it intermediate?

Ulla Mattfolk

report post as inappropriate

Declan Traill

If you read this you may be interested in my last blog at:

blog

Regards from John-Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate

If you read this you may be interested in my last blog at:

blog

Regards from John-Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.