Local hidden variables .... continued

[Austin Fearnley]

I have started an overspill thread as the very interesting recent posts by Mark and Chantal are added to the too-large old thread which breaks my computer's capacity to display on screen.  I could answer direct from my email address but then I cannot find old posts without keeping them indefinitely on my emails.  There are other problems in writing for me as I like to have ipad and PC both open at the same time, and write to a text file on my PC.  All my own posts for the last ten years are on large texts files and are ontologically real to me.  The large thread on this site is transitioning away from my idea of reality as it gets bigger and bigger and not accessible. :)  

[Richard Gill]

Well done, Austin!

Please will all participants exercise some self-discipline. 

1. Make sure you post "on topic" of some thread. If you want a new topic, or a subtopic, or whatever, go ahead and start one. Go to the Google groups interface on a browser and start a new topic. (Google calls them "Conversations")

2. When you "Reply" or 'Reply all", delete unnecessary copies of earlier emails at the bottom of your own email. 

3. When you "Reply" to an individual, but not to the group, I suggest you change the Subject. 

Richard

[Austin Fearnley]

I will add my retrocausal view to the views of Mark and Chantal.
"A measurement at A influences B"
A measurement of an antiparticle at A, sends a retro polarisation vector (vector a or -a) backwards in time from A to O(origin/source).  The onward polarisation vector from O to B is therefore vector -a or vector a, and is measured at detector setting vector b.  This converts the very simplified Bell experiment into a Malus experiment as all particle polarisations in the apparatus are +/-a or +/-b.  Clearly, measurement A is influencing the measurement B outcome.  

"wave collapse"

I do not have wave collapse in my particle model.  But at a measurement the particle's polarisation vector changes direction.  In my gyroscope model the polarisation vector is merely an average of all the vectors (say phase vectors) which are continually precessing/nutating about the polarisation vector according to (say) Larmor precession. At a weak measurement only the phase changes, which is the stage at which the phase vector is at in its cyclical motion around the polarisation vector.  Changing the phase can change measurement outcomes and will cause interference fringes to be affected as in the Aharonov solenoid experiments.

"at the same time"
In my model it does not have to be at the same time as my particles have hidden variable polarisation vectors all the time.  No entanglement of the QM kind. I now fully accept that QM is not trying to be ontologically correct and QM arrives at probabilistic answers. That is excellent as I, as an ex-statistician, support statistical solutions.  Further as it is turtles all the way down, as we try to explain  more and more, we are not likely to get away from statistical solutions in the future.  This may also account for irreducible error.

Can we measure the electron before measuring the anti-electron/positron?  That is a tricky one as until the positron is measured, the electron will not be there as one of a matched pair/or/will not have  received its polarisation direction from the positron.  There is no reason that I can see to prevent the electron being measured later than the positron.

"SR"

Retrocausality and SR are connected.  SR/GR tells us that everyone has their own personal time clock.  And which event happened first is not absolute. But I believe there is agreement on Time's (thermodynamic) Arrow.  The direction of motion of time is an absolute.  My idea (based loosely on an Australian paper [there is a group of Australian retrocausality researchers]) is that the time direction is given by the GA trivector.  I have vague ideas on this which all stem from Joy's model. To avoid cries of strawman I say that these are only my interpretations of Joy's model. GA has a trivector for a curvature direction in overall space.  Joy once had lots of controversy (see Retractionwatch website) about using two different trivectors in the same calculation.  I am using two different trivectors as time directions for particle and antiparticle in the same experiment.  I see dS and AdS as two differently curved spaces and by analogy (as this is not necessarily dS and AdS) particles are at home in dS whereas antiparticles are at home in AdS. So the trivector/curvature of a volume of space controls the arrow of time in that space.  The trivector seems to control the type of particle which will profit most from that curvature, which could explain why particles are dominating in our space, but not exclusively so.

Austin

On Friday, June 23, 2023 at 3:46:30 PM UTC+1 Richard Gill wrote:

Well done, Austin!

Please will all participants exercise some self-discipline. 

. . .