John Hodge In response to your message: I have concluded that the postulates of special relativity are wrong through the analysis of a thought experiment:

Preprint Special Relativity thought experiment

I also take the view that the speed of light is constant but that light actually travels as a wave disturbance of spacetime in the space rest frame (K0):

Preprint Space Rest Frame (March 2022)

The analysis in this space rest frame preprint shows that this view of space as a medium for the transmission of light is consistent with the result of the Michelson Moreley experiment as long as you accept that objects experience length contraction when moving at velocity v relative to K0. This length contraction is explained as resulting from the fact that electrons, protons and neutrons are looped waves in spacetime and these waves occur in rest frame K0. So when an object which is looped waves in spacetime moves relative to K0 it experiences length contraction by sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2).

The important point is that distances do not experience length contraction but moving objects do experience length contraction.

I think the next revolution in the quantum realm is to position quantum theory as a statistical theory designed to predict the outcome of experiments. It does not give any explanation about the true fundamental nature of atoms.

For this you need to find a new theory which accurately describes the fundamental nature of the electron, proton and neutron and light and then show that this physical description is consistent with the experimental predictions of quantum theory:

Conference Paper THE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS (Conference Paper)

Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on the Unification of Physics

So how is quantum entanglement explained in the context of the Spacetime Wave theory? When two particles become entangled they are in close proximity and subsequently separate. The entangled system has to be considered as a single wave entity such that a measurement of one particle causes the collapse of the system into a non-entangled state. Because the particles are waves in spacetime, the collapse takes place at the speed of light in reference frame K0.

There is no violation of causality and no transmission of information faster than light. It is just that the measurement of one particle affects the outcome of the measurement of the other particle.

Richard

John Hodge, I find this opinion of yours really tenable for the future of physics. If we have to save basic rationality and universal causality, we need to admit superluminal velocities.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Thanks for the added note about superdeterminism which suggests the way Bell can be violated as the experiments show is by falsifying ``Statistical independence''. This, as you suggest, is part of the question. Personally, I like the superluminal (Einstein's action-at-a-distance - spooky or not spooky). That is, ALL interactions are non-local. But you are correct, ``Statistical independence'' may have to be rejected, also.

I see we must address the double-slit experiment as applied with ``single particles''. First, we need to assure the particles are actually single particles in the experiment at a time. This is almost certainly untrue for laser light. But larger particles could also be entangled coherently when emitted in at least pairs. So, the ``single particle'' is actually a ``speckle'' of several particles coherently bound. But still, this begs for an explanation of Afshar's experiment and the Hodge experiment.

However, Causation may falsify ``Statistical independence'' by common cause or by similar cause. Either way, the result in a model is a classical type model which is more intuitive to humans. This seems a better approach to me than the quantum weirdness suggested by the wave function representing an ensemble of particles/waves and the resulting collapse and measurement issues. In the causation explanation, the ``spooky'' part is resonance of plenum/ether waves.

I am unsure of your point is ``So QE is by design of the experimental setup. Two same setup measuring apparatus positioned opposite to each other in a QE experiment will generate by design correlated results of an entangled pair.'' The Aspect setup had the measuring equipment set far enough apart such that the change in one side produced a change in the other at a superluminal speed. If you mean to say the wave function of the whole experiment includes both, then one is back to ``spooky''/weird quantum action or superluminal action. The latter is more intuitive and can be consistent with Newton's planetary ``instantaneous'' action-at-a-distance. I submit the latter offers more explanatory ability than the quantum ensemble model.

Olivier Denis

The suggested model of causality and superluminal speed is another approach to modeling reality. Certilnly, this model has yet to adaquately define ``entropy'' especially in a model that suggests ALL interactions, including thermodynamical, are non-local.

The suggested model also suggests a emerging form of physics rather than a reductionist form. Therefore, black holes and thermodynamics emerge from matter as seen in our local universe by causes classically measured. But this is for future development in both your informational universe and this causal universe.

Richard Lewis

Agree with ``For this you need to find a new theory which accurately describes the fundamental nature of the electron, proton and neutron and light and then show that this physical description is consistent with the experimental" observations, but not the `` predictions of quantum theory:'' part. Observation trumps theory.

That is, the Aspect experiment demonstrates a change being transmitted FASTER than light ( the second Aspect experiment referenced above).

The ensemble model of QM as suggested by Emmanouil above. maintains the weird characteristic of QM.

Raphael Neelamkavil

Thanks.

Interference maxima/minima can surpass the speed of light without violating relativity.

John Hodge Hello John. I have taken a look at the Aspect experiment on Wikipedia and my conclusion is that the “faster than light” is not proven.

The experiments performed to date do not convincingly refute the hypothesis that the collapse of the entangled system takes place AT the speed of light in frame K0.

It is possible that the collapse of the entangled system does take place at a speed faster than c in the space rest frame K0. This would still be consistent with the maximum speed of c for independent moving waves in Spacetime.

Richard

John Hodge My point is that the results of the entanglement experiments are consistent with the idea that the entangled system is a wave system spread out in space which collapses when a measurement is taken.

The actual speed of the collapse may or may not be faster than c. The important point is that the Spacetime Wave theory is a classical theory which explains the results predicted by quantum theory without assuming instantaneous effects at a distance.

Richard

Richard Lewis

The Wikipedia description of Aspect's experiment 1982 is incorrect. The experiment they describe allows for the Bohmian idea of the ``sock'' experiment. That is, the correlation between the sides is set at the creation of the 2 - at S.

If you view the video recommended, Aspect added another set od detectors. On one side he changed the orientation and noted the other changed, also at a speed > c.

However, The idea that the whole system is one wavefunction and that wave function collapses (instantaneously everywhere) still involves the weird characteristics of QM. The question is, can a classical, intuitive model replace such weird constructs. If so, then understanding could advance much faster and, perhaps, resolve the conflict with cosmology - that is, unite the big and the small.

Olivier Denis

You are correct. I seek a unifying of the big (cosmology) and the small (QM) and the classical Newtonian) realms. I think, as the question suggests, that the experiments of QM with their weirdness and only correlation could be better explained by identifying causality to avoid superdeterminism weirdness. I suggest the weirdness issues are partly at fault for limiting the small realm.

The other part of the quest is to takea hard look at SR. I did that in another paper wherein the experiments that were used to create SR were examined and explained by other model. A model which has superliminal transport of information such as gravity (the realm of the big) in accordance with the van Flandern and as coulomb field in accordance with the de Sangro experiments.

http://www.intellectualarchive.com/getfile.php?file=1lWfpF459fL&orig_file=msesr.pdf

John Hodge I claim to have that classical intuitive model that you describe. I say that the entangled system is a real physical wave in Spacetime. The collapse that I describe is the absorption of the real physical wave by one of the detectors. The effect must take a small but finite time to propagate to the other member of the entangled pair.

It would also be the case that in a real physical experiment where both members of the entangled pair are being measured that one of the two measurements must occur first and this determines the outcome.

Richard

John Hodge In taking a look at Special Relativity you might be interested in this thought experiment which shows that the postulates of SR have to be changed:

Preprint Special Relativity thought experiment

What it comes down to is that the Lorentz transformation of coordinates cannot be used because distances are preserved between moving inertial frames. However, when objects move with velocity v relative to the space rest frame they experience length contraction (and time dilation):

Preprint Space Rest Frame (March 2022)

Richard

Richard Lewis

RE: your comment 55 minutes ago,

``spacetime" is not classical. Neither is the idea of ``collapse''. The concept of ``absorption'' is nebulous.

The idea of causality seems lacking in your model. Is it? But you may be close to mine because ``spacetime'' is like a plenum density. But ``spacetime'' derives from energy/momentum mapping. The plenum has no time component. The plenum density warping is caused by bodies and in turn the gradient of the density causes body movement. This is classical. But I add the experiments like van Flandern and de Sangro to suggest superlunimal speed to the waves in the plenum. Hence, the basics of the question. (BTW ``time dilation'' in my model is c variation as in the Shapiro delay.)

I'll need a little time to examine your thought experiment. I will add comment here.

Richard Lewis

While looking at your thought experiment (SRTE) paper, I needed to look at your Space Rest Frame (SRF) paper. IMO observations a predominant ove theory. Observations rule. Using theory to interpret observations may result in contradictions among theories. In this situation, go back to the observations. The challenge is to have models which explain all observations. Lacking that, the model explaining the widest (size) range of observations should win. So, saying an observation conclusively ``proves'' a model's correctness is always false. Observations only reject modlels.

SRF: 2nd paragraph. This ``conclusion that the speed of gravity is c is based on the ``spacetime'' (ST) side of the GR field equation. This is incorrect usage. The GR field equation is a mapping (math transformation) which means the ST side is abstract such that ct is a unit. The values determined should be reverse transformed to calculate real world measurements which will yield energy measurements. But I can agree with the idea that a medium can be a medium ( my plenum density), but the transformation will yield forces on matter not energy.

IMO the experiments that were used in defining SR should be re-interpreted:

file:///C:/Users/Cam/Downloads/msesr%20(4).pdf

The Michelson-Morley experiment did NOT have a null result. Examine the data they took in their paper. They did measure a value which was too small and in the direction not supported by the ``luminiferous aether '' model. It are these data that must be explained which your suggestion does not do.

file:///C:/Users/Cam/Downloads/msemiller.pdf

SRTE: The usage of the Lorentz transformations is to consider only 1 observer at a point in space. In this golf ball case, this means centered on 1 golf ball - not along a row. By ``view'' I presume you mean by light which has a velocity independent of object (source or observer) motion. That is, the speed is dependent on the medium through which the light moves like sound waves depend on the air conditions not on the source or receiver. There are many who suggest, based on experiment that light speed varies as shown in the Shapiro experiment and some who suggest light speed varies throughout the universe. My STOE suggest c varies with plenum density. But whatever, the time dilation of SR is varying c.

Your setup has both rows equidistant. From the observer on one of the golf balls, the light takes differing times to reach the observer in another (moving) row. The further away a given golf ball is from the observer, the small the angle of observation. That is the more the movement is in direction of the row movement and the greater the Lorentz correction factor (which the STOE supports). So, although the setup can have the balls staying coordinated, the observer will not see it. So, now the ``my opinion' part: The observation is not real. The balls in the moving row do not warp or change position as the observer sees, but the measurements and any influences of the other balls on the observer will change.

This is the point of the question. The cause is emission of photons or gravity waves as the signal. These signals travel to the observer with each ball in the moving group taking a different time to influence the observer. Causation followed by signal followed by impact on the observer.

So, the conclusion that SR should be changed is in agreement, but the model is different. The STOE model can explain van Flandern and de Sangro measurements and Faster than light effects.

In my recent article posted on the RG "Review force general conjectural modeling transforms formalism physics" per my peer-reviewed publication Iyer R. Review force general conjectural modeling transforms formalism physics. Phys Astron Int J. 2022;6(3):119‒124, the multiphase nature of superluminar plenum, vacuum, and observable matter universe are brought out. Vacuum then exists only as dynamic phase that get formed from faster speed of light superluminar phase. Speed of light is constant only in vacuum with a value of c. In observable matter universe, light speed has less than c value in general.

John Hodge I use the term Spacetime as in the context of General Relativity. I use the term “classical “ to mean not quantum.

I am trying to explain the experimental results of quantum theory using classical theory. To this end I have explained the quantisation of the electron and the quantisation of light using the idea of classical waves in Spacetime.

You can see an example of how this is applied to the hydrogen bond in the paper in my profile.

Preprint The Hydrogen Bond (June 2022)

As regards the special relativity thought experiment, I was very careful to make sure that all observations are made at zero distance so that the speed of light does not get involved in the observations.

The key point in the Spacetime Wave theory is to understand that space is a medium for wave transmission. Maxwell understood the need for a medium in his paper on electromagnetism and he also proposed that the same medium was responsible for gravity.

Then Einstein showed that space is the medium which delivers gravity through Spacetime curvature.

Unfortunately, the postulates of special relativity are incompatible with the idea of space as a medium so SR has to be discarded.

Richard

Richard Lewis

``Spacetime'' has a term ct and is calculated from energy/momentum measurements. This results in the maximum speed of anything using the spacetime side of GR will be c. So, mathematically, one should inverse transform a calculation to energy/ momentum measurements. So, the wave in the real medium must have a speed >>>c. So, spacetime cannot be the math for the medium.

But the GR field equation is a math transformation of making calculation simpler by removing 1 math dimension from the calculation by turning it into geometry. There is nothing limiting its use to other parameters. I suggest use force parameters rather than energy parameters. Then the transformed side may be something real. Better yet is to calculate with 2 real components of the universe. One is a Newtonian medium he suggested in his book ``Opticks''. That is the STOE.

So, you have your model -fine. Now describe the many ad hoc and mysterious (not fit by any accepted model) observations. I have come to the conclusion that time change cannot be part of the real components (I know this is a bit odd and difficult to explain - hence the question). Indeed, all that exists is NOW. Certainly, the past and the future do not exist now. What does exist is the matter and the plenum density at the now. I think there may be some correlation with your model, but I don't understand how your model is going to deliver those many problem observations - number measurements such as asymmetric rotation curves or explain the coherence of the Afshar experiment and the Hodge experiment or pick other measurements.

John Hodge The rationale for considering space as a medium for wave transmission is as follows. We have observed gravitational waves which result from such events as neutron star mergers. These gravitational waves are wave disturbances of Spacetime propagating at speed c. Spacetime is therefore the medium for gravitational wave propagation.

The observations also detect gamma radiation coming from the same event at the same time. This implies that gamma radiation and other radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum are also wave disturbances of Spacetime. If the electromagnetic waves were propagating in a field independently of space then there would be no reason for the radiation to arrive at the same time.

One specific observation was over a distance of. 130 million light years of expanding space. This means that the recession velocity of the event is around 3000 km/sec. The gravitational waves travel with space as the medium so it must also be the case that light travels with space as the medium.

Richard

Gravity changes have been observed - but that they wave in spacetime is model dependent and may be explained as simply waves in a medium without a time component. That is, its an assumption.

Richard Lewis

How does your model explain the van Flandern observation? He used masses to determine the direction of gravity and noted a difference with the direction of light from the sun. If gravity effects travel at the speed of light, Why the measured difference?

The next generation of quantum physics could perhaps calculate under the rationally justifiable axiom (not merely an assumption) of Universal Causality and the acceptance of a range of superluminal velocities, each being the highest in its own specific world. If the cosmos is of infinite content, it would have an infinite number of finite-content worlds, and hence an infinite number of superluminal velocities.

Raphael Neelamkavil

IMO observations only reject models/theories. Nothing is ``proven'' by observation/experiment. Thus, there are many experiments that reject the pure wave nature of light (infinite or otherwise).