Search FQXi


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.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Display:
 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Georgina Woodward: on 6/16/21 at 4:26am UTC, wrote John, I don't think which photon of a pair is which can be controlled at...

John Cox: on 6/14/21 at 14:13pm UTC, wrote Georgina, The ChiCom do admit publicly that their QUESS program includes...

Georgina Woodward: on 6/14/21 at 0:34am UTC, wrote John, Each labs sequence is made of photons that are half of a pair, the...

Georgina Woodward: on 6/13/21 at 20:52pm UTC, wrote John, from a quick browse, it seems the breakthrough is the distance the...

John Cox: on 6/13/21 at 19:13pm UTC, wrote It goes without saying that the only way the Vienna lab could know the...

Steve Dufourny: on 6/13/21 at 14:45pm UTC, wrote Hi John, I don t critic the knowledges of Steve A, we can be all proud to...

John Cox: on 6/13/21 at 12:38pm UTC, wrote Steve D. Each to their own paradigm, eh. I think what Steve Agnew was...

John Cox: on 6/13/21 at 12:14pm UTC, wrote Georgi, That was a simple analogy of the one direction transmission of a...



FQXi FORUM
June 16, 2021

CATEGORY: Ultimate Reality [back]
TOPIC: On a contextual model refuting Bell's theorem [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Joe Schindler wrote on May. 17, 2021 @ 22:57 GMT
Thank you to Eugen Muchowski for suggesting we open a thread to discuss his recent paper On a contextual model refuting Bell's theorem, which was published in Europhysics Letters in May 2021.

From the paper’s abstract:

“Bell's theorem is refuted by presenting a counterexample that correctly predicts the expectation values of QM. As Bell only ruled out non-contextual models, a contextual model with hidden variables can refute his theorem. Such a model, which is able to explain the spin measurement results with entangled photons or electrons, is presented herein. It is not ruled out by the Kochen-Specker theorem. A physical justification for the contextual behaviour of entangled systems is provided. Consequences for the feasibility of quantum computers are discussed.”

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator



Robert H McEachern wrote on May. 18, 2021 @ 16:04 GMT
The paper states that "The concept of indistinguishability of identical particles could be seen as one of the foundational principles of quantum theory. Quantum systems differ from classic particles, particularly with respect to this effect... The point is simply that the assumptions of Bell's inequality —namely, the restriction to non-contextual models—do not comprehensively describe conceivable physical reality."

The problem is precisely that the assumption that the members of an entangled pair are actually indistinguishable, is a completely false assumption. It was conclusively demonstrated, years ago, by actual construction, that entangled pairs that have been constructed to manifest only one, single bit of information, in common (as defined by Shannon's Capacity) and thus are not identical, will reproduce the observed Bell correlations, with detection efficiencies above the supposed theoretical limit for any classical system.

At the same time, it was also demonstrated that, as a direct result of there being only one, single bit of information present any attempt to measure that actual particle state, will inevitably fail to yield the correct result, whenever the axis of the detector is misaligned with the axis of the particle being measured (which is always the case in every Bell test) and that these numerous, resulting "bit-errors" are the actual cause of the supposedly weird correlations; when all these bit-errors have been systematically eliminated from the correlation analysis, the Bell correlations vanish.

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 18, 2021 @ 17:28 GMT
Robert,

Absolutely!!! Yes! And it is critically important at this strategically pivotal political moment that SIGNINT people recognize the false assumption of mathematical identity in quantum mechanics is not the same thing as physically identical. The symmetry of QM is imposed by the math which is blatantly intended to over simplify for the sake of 'counting pieces parts'.

We are at a place in the wax and wane of global power shifts that if we as traditional western democratic societies do not meet the challenge of the Chinese monolithic regimentation of their societal programming to outstrip competition in the tech race, we will become a subservient cultural shadow.

Got to thinkin'. This UFO buzz that's (oddly) just become news (gee what could be more interesting?) does grab the imagination. But without looking into what real reports there might be, such as if these repeated sightings by aircraft are detectable by radar or IR sensors, What if they might be holographic projections? But even if they are not, what might happen if a holographic projection were positioned in the LOS of a Quantum Key transmission from a satellite to earth station? The Chinese have claimed to have achieved nightime transmission of a QKE between Bejing and partner lab in Switzerland in 2017.

Whatever one wants to think entangled singlet pair production might physically be, technologically what matters is "who gets there first". best jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on May. 18, 2021 @ 21:21 GMT
add edit

that doesn't read right. The false assumption in QM is that mathematical identity is identical to the physical particle.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eugen Muchowski replied on May. 19, 2021 @ 10:03 GMT
Robert:

First of all: After Bell's theorem no local model can reproduce spin measurement results with entangled photons or electrons.

The paper shows there is a local model which can do so thus refuting Bell's theorem.

It is not necessary that the model replaces quantum mechanics.

Secondly indistinguishability is not the sole reason why the model works. Model assumption MA4 is also necessary.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on May. 19, 2021 @ 12:04 GMT
Hi Mr Muchowski, thans for sharing your ideas on FQXi.

I consider this Bell s theorem very important due to fact simply that our QM is emergent from a deeper logic that we don t know and so implying hidden variables and philosophical limitations. The violations of inequalities seem important in resume. It is a little bit the same that this uncertainty. We have it seems to me many theings to add , and the major problem of these uncertainties and inequalities and violations came from the fact that we don t know really the philosophical and ontological origin of this universe, and nor the foundamental mathematical and physical objects . We don t know really why we exist and from what and why we have this QFT and standard model that I consider like emergent from a deeper logic. The origin of geometries, topologies, matters, fields are not known in resume. We just analyse the surface of problems. The statistics, the probabilities, the mathematical tools utilises or the extrapolations with the lie ggroups of yang mills theory are limited generally , we have not the good partitions towards the universal truths if I can say.

This Bell s theorem seems so important for me , the EPR experiment also. That gives us a road of humility in fact in accepting these limitations. I consider personally in my theory these 3D spheres and that the hidden variables come from the space vacuum coded and the DM also encoded in our standard model. The aim seems to find these partitions permitting to better understand these unknowns.

Best regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 20, 2021 @ 08:35 GMT
Eugen, your conclusions are so these ones ,your model refutes the bell s theorem about the fact that the local realistic model are possible. So it is mainly about the indistinguishable particles. You consider so the quantum reality with a better completeness.

That implies like you refute the Bell s theorem that you consider a local realism and it is due to the experimental reults with polarisation measurements. You consider also that the observations on particles from an entangled pair are generally also valid for single particles.

It is so mainly about the quantum states before the measurements wich existed already. But is it really a refutation of this Bell s theorem about the local realism ? don t forget that the principles of causalities of course cannot be violated with our actual knowledges and measurements , but if you add deeper parameters and other method of measurements, we cannot conclude in fact simply. The wavefunctions are a result of a cause , and we don t know this cause. We observe and measure emergent effects . So indeed in this case you are right, but if you utilised a different deeper experiment , so maybe there is no refutation of this Bell s theorem. It is still mainly a philosophical problm about the main causes of our local realism.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 20, 2021 @ 09:29 GMT
In fact in rereading your paper quietly, you are good and relevant . You resume well your ideas about this quantum mechanics, the hypothesis of local hidden variables, the EPR , the measurements , the completeness versus the uncompleteness, the quantum states, the entanglements.

I asked me if you have thought about the fact to correlate your works with the general ideas of Rovelli resumng the 5 main interpretations of our quantum mechanics, the born rule, the copenaghain intepretations, the qbism, the relational QM,the manyworlds. I believe personally in my model and it is just my intepretation that the superdeterminism is a reality at all scales but like I said the problem is the philosophy of this origin of our universe and also the fact that we don t know the foundamental objects and if we must superimpose this space vacuum and the cold dark matter. So there is a paradox about the realism and the hidden variables because even if these hidden variables exist, they maybe don t interact or change the actual measurements. So it is mainly about scales of knowledges and scales of technology about these observations and measurements.

The works of Everett about the manyworlds are interesting when we consder this superdeterminism and measurements. Lol Bob and Alice could agree I beleive.

I beleive and it is just my opinion that all the interpretations and even the works of Bell converge if we sort and if we rank the systems. So in fact you are right but Bell also , like the others interpretations, the local realismmust be taken with relativity. The violations are not real in a specific system of measurements but can be violated in an other with depper parameters added. It is like a spectrum of analysis , we just at this moment analyse a part , and even the hidden variables don t act on this actual system that we analyse.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 20, 2021 @ 15:27 GMT
In fact, it is very philosphical all this. We cannot affirm in fact conclude really. We can intepret with the multivers, the manyworlds, the wave pilot , the copenaghen interpretation, the hidden variables,the non localities,the born interpretation, the qbism....in fact we cannot simply conclude and generalise about a theory deterministic local with hidden variables. It gives the road to build...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on May. 19, 2021 @ 21:22 GMT
Re. John Cox edit may 18th "add edit that doesn't read right. The false assumption in QM is that mathematical identity is identical to the physical particle."

Yes, the particle is an absolute beable. From which different relative ('seen this way") contextual (relating to method) limited, fixed, state measurements can potentially be obtained; that is, prior to measurement, as only one measurement result can be obtained. The singular limited, relative and contextual measured state is very different-categorically -different from the absolute, source beable.

In the paper's conclusion it is said (paraphrase) that the measurement values already exist but context can change. Measurements as isolated characterizations come into being upon measurement. They can not be prior to that especially if the measurement method and/or apparatus has an altering effect on the beable or it's behavior. Such as polarizers and Stern Gerlach apparatus do.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Eugen Muchowski replied on May. 20, 2021 @ 06:27 GMT
What exists before measurement is the value of lambda. Together with a particular setting of the polarizers or the Stern Gerlach apparatus the measurement values are determined.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eugen Muchowski replied on May. 20, 2021 @ 07:12 GMT
This is valid for the singlet state. For single photons the measurement value also depends on the polarization which in case of entangled photons is given by the polarizer setting .

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 20, 2021 @ 20:34 GMT
Hi Eugen,

I've found these mentions of lamba near the start in section: " Predicting measurement results for the initial context" "As entanglement connects photon 1 on wing A with photon 2 on wing B by the same value of the parameter λ,..." E. Muchowski "Thus the model correctly predicts the measurement results with perpendicular polarizers on both wings where all photons 1 which hit PA exit α have peer photons 2 hitting PB at ${alpha}+{pi}/2$ . The reason for this is the common parameterλ, and not a non-local action, as we have seen." E. Muchowski

What is parameter lambda? Not just wavelength? Is it a Part of standard entanglement theory? How does sharing this parameter value give the correlated outcomes?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on May. 22, 2021 @ 12:25 GMT
Dear Robert, my intuitive equation considers so this dark matter encoded in our nuclei, and for me the higgs mechanism is activated in this space vacuum coded due to photons creating these fields but the dark matter is activated giving the mass , that makes sense generally. The fact that the photons are lessmass and that this dark matter has a mass permits to explain the mass and also the antimatter and the quantum gravitation more the evolution furthermore. That is why I have this equation E=m(c^2+Xl^2)+ Y . The space vacuum so of the DE possesses the main codes and is a kind of coded energy , and the two others are fuels activating the mass, the fields electromagnetic and gravitational and distribute the matter when the 3 series merge. Now what I asked is like this dark matter is coupled also and that the fact that it is cold and imply the QG more the antimatter and with the higgs mechanism the mass, I search where it is the easiest way to find them in an experiment. The decays and couplings are not easy to measure.In fact if my reasoning is correct, the higgs decays must create the particles of DM even. The problem is the detection dear Robert, have you ideas ?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on May. 22, 2021 @ 20:04 GMT
John, you asked 'how fast is the object going in which direction compared to what, and how fast does time go" The point is there is no singular answer to how fast the object is going. It depends upon how it is measured. A co-moving neasurer can consider it stationary. Direction also depends it could be given as left/ right/ towards/ away compared to measurer or another reference object or compass direction used. How fast does time go seems an odd question here. Fast refers to speed. Speed is distance over time. Time (the changing universal configuration of uni-temporal existence is not travelling a distance divided by the changing configuration. There isn't a singular speed or direction of the change. If by time you are referring to EMr signals that we use for vision and hence updating our seen present, they travel at the speed of light.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 22, 2021 @ 20:27 GMT
Getting back to quantum experiments. The measurement of particle 1 happens after establishment of the relation between measuring and measured 1. That relation which yields the 'property' measured state or value has no effect upon absolute particle 2. Measurement 2 comes from independent establishment of measurer/ measured relation 2. The outcomes are developed locally, where the measurement relations are established independently of each other. There is no outcome determinism after measurement 1, (other than imagined). There is freedom to select any orientation of measurement or non at all; if the future is open (As it is for uni-temporal existence.)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 22, 2021 @ 21:27 GMT
The correlations or anticorrelations found stem from the relation of the absolute particles to each other when the pair is formed. Which is maintained unless the particles are disturbed differently. Their relation to each other is not to do with how one of them is measured. Same measurement tangles for both reveals the particles relation to each other it does not produce it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 22, 2021 @ 21:37 GMT
-measurement angles-

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on May. 24, 2021 @ 00:09 GMT
Okay, thanks Georgina,

I'll give it another go but I do disagree with your concept of how we can imagine time to be. I keep stumbling over the need for me to become an observer of observations to make uni-temporal time meaningful. Physically I see time and space as being existential rather than emergent, without which there is no connectivity for a span of distance to be recognizable to the unobserved particles (object reality) or relate any change to a passage of time. Sorry, we are going to have to agree to disagree. My posts are probably just as less than comprehensible to you, too. C'est la vie. :-) jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 24, 2021 @ 00:37 GMT
John,

Uni-temporal means existence is all at the same and only 'time'. No existent future. no existent past. That has nothing to do with observation. Space-time is obtained from processing of sensory signals. For us primarily EMr. Transmission and processing is not instantaneous -that's how time gets mixed up with observation product space. What you are seeing is emergent, biologically generated, virtual space time.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on May. 24, 2021 @ 02:30 GMT
Thanks Georgi.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 24, 2021 @ 04:20 GMT
John,

Change of the configuration of existence is continual. As a particle moves through space it too is a part of the changing configuration. Each configuration is a time. Change of the configuration has no singular spatial direction. And there is no singular rate of change. Some parts of the configuration of existence are changing spatially more than others. A particular change occurs within the entirety of existence. The movement of clock hands are also part of the change of the configuration of existence. Comparison of a change being investigated can be made with change of clock reading. Timing can still happen.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on May. 24, 2021 @ 13:22 GMT
"As a particle moves through space....?!"

I thought you disavowed a physical necessity for space. That's the same post hoc ergo propter hoc that Isaac Newton explained away by saying 'See the math works".

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on May. 24, 2021 @ 20:35 GMT
John,

I should have been more careful with my language. Saying instead 'as the particle moves through the configuration of existence'. By 'space' I'm not referring to something with independent existence but the volume of existence,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on May. 24, 2021 @ 23:42 GMT
Georgina,

By volume of existence I am assuming you mean that it is an absolute void with particles and electromagnetic radiation from those particles moving and perhaps colliding with each other. There is no physical connection between any discrete mass or emission other than the subsequent coincidence of ballistic collision or absorption and/or refraction of EMr. And all that we are capable of observing is only a small portion of what is actually actively in existence and observable due to clever contrivances of reception devices or the same responsiveness inherent to human sensory organs. That is your contention (paradigm) of what the existential reality is; am I concisely correct so far? And that there need be no other agency for a particle to be an observable distance from another if there are sufficient EMr emissions recieved, and that time is simply that which we experience as an assemblage of sensory perception and mental processes. Am I correct in that? best jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 25, 2021 @ 02:36 GMT
No absolute void. Fields have be disturbances / changes of distribution of something. I propose a base existence which allows electric, magnetic and gravitational fields to be and EM radiation. We can't see with sense organs or via devices, what exists at Unitemporal-Now. We are only able to experience the products formed. Not the Source objects from which that potential data has emanated.

Object reality is existence. to which We do not have sensory access. Image reality is the products of sensory signal receipts and processing. Compare : the beable particle is an existing thing, Object reality, Absolute as no relative perspective has been applied. The measurement is like Image reality in that it is not the source beable reality but is a limited relative, contextual; product of a process/method.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on May. 26, 2021 @ 03:12 GMT
Muchowsky has inserted a determinate hidden variable into the middle of a causal set of a very complex quantum process and claimed a quantum coup. The hidden variable acts just like an uncertain quantum variable for that one step and so the hidden variable determines the polarization outcome. Muchowsky then claims that this hidden variable shows determinism and not quantum uncertainty.

The quantum outcome of a single photon polarization is the simplest example of Bell’s theorem. Classically, a photon always has a certain knowable polarization and a measurement simply reveals the polarization that the single photon always had before the measurement.

In contrast, a quantum single photon can exist in a superposition of polarizations without a knowable single polarization. A measurement reveals one of two polarizations statistically, but does not reveal any knowable precursor polarization for the single photon.

Muchowsky describes a process where a highly polarized quantum laser single photon results in two downshifted quantum photons by a quantum BBO crystal made up of quantum bonds and quantum atoms. Now after all these inherently quantum processes, Muchowsky inserted a hidden parameter and concluded that there is no quantum fairy and so the universe is really determinate and not quantum after all.

Methinks thou doth protest too much...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on May. 26, 2021 @ 03:28 GMT
The BBO quantum photons have polarizations either perpendicular or parallel to the laser single photon. Thus, Bell’s theorem does not apply since there is no role for quantum phase coherence in this comparison of entangled photons. In fact, there are many versions of hidden variables that also do not violate Bell’s theorem, including McEachern’s finely tuned Shannon noise of missed detections…

attachments: hiddenVariableInQuantum.JPG

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on May. 26, 2021 @ 15:28 GMT
Doc Agnew,

And still no one can say what a photon even looks like. We are stuck with a spread of probabilities that we can only loosely associate with the mutually perpendicular orthogonality of electromagnetic response, and the axial pseudovector that results in a flip decision when two EM fields are in near enough proximity to interact. Call it what we may, we need a new plan, Sam. best jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 26, 2021 @ 16:28 GMT
John, what is a photon indeed ??? a point, a string or a serie of 3D spheres like in my model and what are their changes , it is due to what ? is it due to external fields of this GR or .....

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on May. 26, 2021 @ 16:38 GMT
Onward! through the fog!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 26, 2021 @ 16:49 GMT
aha lol , and the fog is thick , we cannot see our steps .... onward told us the source that said

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on May. 28, 2021 @ 18:05 GMT
Steve, You state: "They are massless travelling at c..."

So do they exhibit properties we associate with mass rather than energy when they are slowed or stopped by entrapment by an energetic EM field or absorbed (slowed to a relative stop) by an electron or nucleon. If so then wouldn't that suggest that density of energy varies in relation with a velocity which references some characteristic of its own discrete (3D sphere) form, rather than some external object for reference? jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 28, 2021 @ 18:39 GMT
Hi John,

I beleive that the origin of our topologies geometries , properties don t come from this GR and the fields in resume, I believe strongly that there is an enormpous philosophical problem in considering these photons like the only one primoridal essence of this universe and that they oscillate , vibrate at this planck scale in 1D connected with the EFE and the GR like a 1D cosmic...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on May. 30, 2021 @ 00:37 GMT
Describe the volumetric shape of a 'photon'.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 1, 2021 @ 04:20 GMT
Is this of any interest?

Measuring the shape of a Photon

"The idea is to “mix” the photon to be measured with an intense laser pulse, allowing the photon and the pulse to interfere and either reinforce or cancel one another, depending on their shapes. The closer the shapes, the more likely it is that the photon will be detected." FOCUS, physics.aps.org, August 3, 2012, Physics 5, 86

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Jun. 2, 2021 @ 18:38 GMT
This reference is really quite good, but unfortunately, does not include spectral as well as temporal photon plots. The photon is an oscillation in space and time and so photon volume is likewise an oscillation in space and time.

Is that okay? Classically, there is no classical photon, only semiclassical. But photon volume only makes quantum sense as electric field amplitude and polarization or as the orthogonal magnetic field amplitude and polarization.

For an unpolarized single photon, the electric field has both polarizations with uncorrelated phase and so photon electric field volume is an nice average of those oscillations.

For a linearly polarized photon, there is much less width to the photon volume, but of course, never a zero width. Therefore all photons have an electric field volume as well as a magnetic field volume that oscillates in time.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Jun. 2, 2021 @ 19:52 GMT
Doc,

Ahh! I get what you mean by 'there is no classical photon'. True enough in that by the book, classicism treats light (EMR) as a transverse wave which conflicts with the observed LOS photoelectric effect. So 'semi-classical' I guess will have to do.

Could you elaborate on "an unpolarized photon", wouldn't there be an attendant magnetic field which is simply undifferentiated by lack of an axial rotation? Such ideas are of course conjectural, but may be clues to sorting out the confusion of the Transition Zone. jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Jun. 2, 2021 @ 16:29 GMT
Georgina,

How about this as a semantic bridge between philosophy and science terminology:

Your link to experimental efforts towards observation of an actual realistic shape of a photon is quite relevant and there are a few efforts I've come across over time that seek to isolate a single photon, the most recent was a credentialed protected source at U. of Maryland several years ago which claimed empirical success down to 4 photons.

In experimental physics, there is such a thing as "confounding variables" as opposed to "hidden variables" in theoretical parlance. Such can be illustrated by the clear implication of the photoelectric equation (e=hf) that any single wavelet will carry the Planck value quantity of energy, so it suggests a model of a wavetrain of same frequency solotons is the physical phenomenon of EMR and that intensity is confused with rapidity of of energetic transfer in an experimental regimen that only counts time span on the detector and assimilates multiple wavetrains as one. Conventionally there is the std model that the photon is a single entity, These are conflicting views but as of yet no experiment satisfies the dispute; hence we lack a definitive result.

So, okay, Kant's definition of noumenon rather than phenomenon could apply. Yes EMR is existential as a phenomenon but as yet is not predictably explained in an experiment based model. Does that distinction satisfy your criteria? jrc

p.s. Steve D's recognition that if the volume remains constant to any frequency of EM but the shape changes is, I think, quite important. And I myself found years ago that just following the math as I modeled an e=hf wavetrain, produced a constant volume across all frequencies. (My pet, but I'm not satisfied that its paper trained yet)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 2, 2021 @ 19:46 GMT
Hello Georgina and John,

Thanks John, I beleive indeed strongly that the volumes are important and the poincare conjecture more a conjecture of a pure volumic 3D preserved could be a key at my humble opinion. The strings could converge even and an other point that I utilise in my theory is instead of a ricci flow for the deformations the symplectomorphsims preserving these volumes. That could be relevant to correlate the external and internal causes in differenciating the GR and the space vacuum coded.It is there that my humble theory could converge between the geometrical algebras of lie, clifford or hopf considering the vectors, tensors, scalars with points or strings and the GR and my model with the space vacuum , the 3D spheres, the two fuels encoded and the spherical topologicval geometrical algebras. In resume, what we observe and measure and extrapolate with the strings, geom alg, the GR can permit by a kind of holography to reach my 3D spheres and the space vacuum , the dark matter and the quantum gravitation. There is like a conjecture and a bridge if I can say in logic. Friendly

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 3, 2021 @ 04:26 GMT
John,

the EMR is existential. We agree on that, there is evidence from its effects. A photon of EMr isn't the "thing appearing to view" For a visible light photon. the effect could be a seen flash of light. Generated from the signal sent by a stimulated photoreceptor cell. That effect is a phenomenon; known by the observer, who might call the experience seeing a photon. It is the knowable effect not the Source noumenon, the particle entity. Re. quantum experiments: Starting with the noumenon entity, a relation is formed with it and a property born from that relationship, that specific perspective, is revealed by generation of a knowable phenomenon. Eg, exposure of a film emulsion or click of a photomultiplier. Relevant to the measurement problem.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Jun. 5, 2021 @ 02:58 GMT
The photon oscillates from positive to nonexistence to negative in electric field and 90 degrees out of phase with the perpendicular magnetic oscillation. So the photon never really disappears during its oscillations but simply goes from electric to magnetic and back again.

Radio wave dipole antennas do a similar exchange and even planetary gravity elliptical orbits exchange potential and kinetic energy in a gravity oscillation as well.

In fact, there is an extra vector gravity associated with the mass loss of star emission that couples star motion in galaxies. This extra gravity term is called dark matter but is really just the gravity analog to vector magnetization.

The pilot wave stuff is popular for photons, but seems completely unnecessary since photon diffraction is really not that mysterious...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jun. 9, 2021 @ 21:53 GMT
Thinking more on the relative field orientations of EMr and photons. If the electric field acts out at 90 degrees to direction of travel; and the magnetic field encircles electric field at 90 degrees to direction of travel; the two fields are acting at 90 degrees to each other while taking the same wave path. Not two waves 90 degrees separated. That is a picture unlike convention. Like a boa constrictor encircling and being impaled by a porcupine.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jun. 10, 2021 @ 00:33 GMT
Georgina, that's a creative idea and would be worth fleshing out. I was browsing earlier for info on BBO crystals and there is a striking similarity. The entanglement is circular with one circle emission on the vertical plane and the other on a horizontal plane and entanglement occurs at the points of intersection of the two circles. The emission produced is conical rather than a spherical spread. The crystal element though, is made by sandwiching two Beta-Barium-Borate discs with a 90* rotation of one in relation to the other, so its still a 5mm x 1mm flat disc. So you might be onto something, there. :-) jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 10, 2021 @ 03:34 GMT
The advantage of the configuration given is that it gives the 90 degree relative orientation of fields and vector addition of fields as if one is a zero vector, as the field wave paths are the same. Not either or but both.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 10, 2021 @ 06:34 GMT
Its hard to not to confuse the graphical representations with something in 3D space> I think I'm struggling with that. I have thought about representations of field strength (and curl). At least the girth of both animals is small at the head, large at the middle and small at the tail! ?? Reversal of field strength?? The animal analogy gets bizarre with inward pointing spikes and reverse coiling snake.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jun. 13, 2021 @ 05:43 GMT
John, you wrote, "I take the coins from my pocket and put them on the counter and flip all the pennies so they show heads. Now all the pennies in your pocket are tails up. jrc"" John Cpx My reply got burred.

John, I don't believe that. Heads up is a relation between observer and observed brought about via the experimental method or protocol. The coins in my pocket have not undergone the coin calling protocol or yet been observed. So there are of limited, fixed relative, contextual outcome states in my pocket. Isolated face outcomes are not the material coins. Beside them not being 'entangled'. Measuring B does not alter V. You are talking as if the theory was fact. Measuring B fixes what the matching measurement of V must be. That is not the same thing.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 13, 2021 @ 05:50 GMT
Bother, I forgot to correct the typo. That should say 'So there are no limited [etc.]'

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Jun. 13, 2021 @ 12:14 GMT
Georgi,

That was a simple analogy of the one direction transmission of a Quantum Key codicillary exploited by the Chinese Quantum Experiments at Space Scale. The sequence of entangled singlet pairs is produced on board the satellite and the Bejing lab manipulates the vector of Spin on the photons it recieves. The Vienna lab does not manipulate the Spin vector of the paired photon sequence it recieves a short uni-temporal time interval later, V only records the Spin vector that has been altered on that leg by the manipulation of the vector by the Bejing lab. It apparently worked well enough that they could transmit a video protected by the Quantum Key code without anybody decrypting the video signal. And that was 4 years ago.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Jun. 13, 2021 @ 19:13 GMT
It goes without saying that the only way the Vienna lab could know the vector sequence would be if the theory is fact. There is no other connection between the two labs than the reception of the sequence of singlet pairs produced on board the satellite. That sequence can be preprogramed as either all same vectors, or as any variant of differing vectors, but the only info the Vienna lab had was what that the pair production vectorization was. And when Trump made his State visit to China in 2017, his conditioned reflexive exaggerated body language deserted him. He changed what he was mumbling in mid sentence and leaned on the podium like a Frat pledge puking into the toilet. In the U.S. entourage only James Mattis, old Jar Head that he is didn't look like a deer caught in the headlights. He at least was willing to accept the best assessments of the Defense Intelligence Estimate. jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.