# Bell's Theorem and Nonlocality

Well that would be good.

There is a good article in Forbes that is pertinent. It supports all that you have been saying, and conveys the consensus view of non-locality:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorz...xperiments-that-show-quantum-physics-is-real/

However, the thing about particles is that they have wave-particle duality, and the presence of a wave-particle is caused by standing waves, i.e. the presence is established by inflowing and out flowing wave energy components in the particle space. That wave-particle duality is the exact aspect that the experiments are not considering, given that the apparatuses are composed of particles.

In my model, I maintain that not only do the entangled particles that are passed through the apparatuses have this duality, but also, all of the apparatuses are composed of particles. Those bound particles also have an outflowing wave energy component that spreads out from them at the speed of light and fills the space through which the experimental particles travel, right from the moment of entanglement to the moment of measurement. How do you detect and separate the effect of this ever present and accompanying out flowing wave energy from the apparatuses? And the out flowing wave energy has a density pattern that reveals, in advance, the nature of the apparatus that lies in the path ahead, hypothetically.
I'll go on with that thought: It is a big if, but IF you think particles have both a wave nature, and a particle nature, which I think most people here do, then we can say some things about wave-particles in general:

1) Their wave presence is not likely to be just one wave moving through the medium of space, but they would be standing wave patterns of intersecting waves. Those intersecting waves overlap within the "particle space", and each intersection/overlap causes a momentary and fleeting high density spot to form there because the wave energy of each intersecting wave adds its energy to the space where the intersection/overlap occurs.

2) Since these intersections/overlaps would then typify the action that is taking place within the particle space, when you take the entire particle space into consideration, it is continually filled with an ever-changing pattern of high density spots, as the waves flow in directionally, and flow out essentially spherically from the particle "boundary". It is the continual presence of an internal structure of high density spots that establishes the momentary location of the particle.

3) Particle motion is caused by a directional imbalance of the inflowing wave energy component of the particle's complex standing wave pattern. Inflowing wave energy is coming from all directions, but the density of the inflowing wave energy is not equal in all directions. The particle moves in the direction of the net highest source of wave energy inflow. When looking at the distribution of high density spots within the particle space, they would be skewed toward the highest inflowing wave energy density direction.

I'll go on with that thought: It is a big if, but IF you think particles have both a wave nature, and a particle nature, which I think most people here do, then we can say some things about wave-particles in general:

1) Their wave presence is not likely to be just one wave moving through the medium of space, but they would be standing wave patterns of intersecting waves. Those intersecting waves overlap within the "particle space", and each intersection/overlap causes a momentary and fleeting high density spot to form there because the wave energy of each intersecting wave adds its energy to the space where the intersection/overlap occurs.

2) Since these intersections/overlaps would then typify the action that is taking place within the particle space, when you take the entire particle space into consideration, it is continually filled with an ever-changing pattern of high density spots, as the waves flow in directionally, and flow out essentially spherically from the particle "boundary". It is the continual presence of an internal structure of high density spots that establishes the momentary location of the particle.

3) Particle motion is caused by a directional imbalance of the inflowing wave energy component of the particle's complex standing wave pattern. Inflowing wave energy is coming from all directions, but the density of the inflowing wave energy is not equal in all directions. The particle moves in the direction of the net highest source of wave energy inflow. When looking at the distribution of high density spots within the particle space, they would be skewed toward the highest inflowing wave energy density direction.
That's the kind of nonsense answer that I expected from you. Hope it doesn't discourage the one who asked the question from commencing his discussion.

That kind of description is typical of how I attempt to discuss the mechanistic aspects of the ISU model. Everything is composed of wave energy. The presence of wave-particles is the result of wave intersections which have high energy density relative to the energy density immediately surrounding them. Particles are an accumulation of high density spots within the complex standing wave pattern that establishes their presence. Each spot within the particle space expands spherically out of the high density overlap space, and that expanding spherical wave then intersects with other such waves within the particle space, perpetuating the ever-changing pattern of high density spots that give the particle its location.

The particle's momentum is a response to the shifting location of those internal high density spots as the external directionally inflowing wave energy component of the standing wave pattern causes the spots to shift in the direction of the net highest wave energy density inflow.

It is also part of the mechanics that it is the inflowing wave energy component that guides the particle path. The inflowing component is composed of the spherically out flowing component of the standing wave patterns of surrounding particles and objects. Therefore, particles and objects move in the direction of surrounding particles and objects, and this action represents the mechanism of gravity in my model.

Last edited:
Out here in the Fringe, I think it is appropriate to wait for a reasonable number of "thread views" between content posts. For some reason, though no one is currently participating with me on topic, there are quite a few thread views today.

So I'll make one more post mentioning the mechanics, and then I'll move on the the experiments. When I discuss mechanics of the ISU model, there are two levels of action; 1) The micro level which I have been addressing in the last two posts concerning the wave energy action that causes the presence and motion of particles, and 2) The macro level that I described in the preceding posts about Big Bang arenas that form, intersect, collapse/bang, and play out on a grand scale across the landscape of the greater universe.

In this model, the high energy density spots that form at the intersections of quantum waves at the micro level correspond to the big crunches that form at the intersection of two or more quantum Big Bang arena waves within the landscape of the greater universe. So in the ISU, quantum action and arena action feature quite similar mechanics taking place at the opposite ends the size continuum.

In developing the mechanics over the years, this concept of similar action at the two levels helped with piecing together the mechanics because the action at the macro realm could be hypothesized, and then could be thought through at the micro realm to come up with the corresponding action, and vice versa.

Another benefit of there being such similar action at the two levels in this model is that the presence of high density spots at the micro level gives me the opportunity to elaborate on the mechanics associated with the force of gravity which is a quantum level event that scales up, while the presence of big crunches that collapse/bang into expansion at the macro level gives me the opportunity to elaborate on mechanics of the force of energy density equalization. At that level, energy density equalization takes the form of rapid expansion of the wave energy accumulated and contained in the crunch until the big bang type events occur, but is not so obvious at the quantum level because at that level the focus is on the presence of particles, particle motion, and gravity, not rapid expansion.

Gravity and energy density equalization are the two major opposing forces in the Infinite Spongy Universe model of cosmology. The major action scenarios at the quantum level and the arena level are governed by the mechanical interplay of wave action between those two forces.

(8863)

Last edited:
I am ready to address the experiments and apparatuses in question, so maybe this link will be a good starting point. Cptbork will probably agree:

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/SternGerlach/SternGerlach.html

I propose that the mechanics that I hypothesize could be pertinent to the physics that are taking place in the experiments like these where we have unknown explanations for observations or effects. My interest is to try to speculate and hypothesize about what is going on mechanically in the physics, and evolve my model to be consistent with those observations and effects.

One point to make at the outset is that if a process appears to be random, (that is to say that there is no known explanation for the differentiation in the result) like if an electron in a beam shows spin up or spin down, then I want to look for, or speculate about natural laws and associated mechanics governing that differentiation that we don't yet understand.

They might be peculiar to the way the electron gun works, for example:

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/DoubleSlit/DoubleSlit.html#ElectronGun

or to surrounding influences, etc. In the case of the electron gun, could the spin orientation of the electron be influenced by the path through the gun relative to the edges of the hole; close to the hole vs. more toward dead center, etc?

Each device and set up has a variety of influences, and there are many unknowns as to the causes and effects of the observed results. Before saying that the results are random, I would rather say that though the results seem random, there may be "as yet" unknown physics at work, and explore those possibilities.

(8894)

I propose that the mechanics that I hypothesize could be pertinent to the physics that are taking place in the experiments like these where we have unknown explanations for observations or effects. My interest is to try to speculate and hypothesize about what is going on mechanically in the physics, and evolve my model to be consistent with those observations and effects.
When you start evaluating these experiments, what you see is that: 1) there are observations/measurements that are repeatable, and 2) there are statistical results that certain apparently random processes invariably produce.

No one claims that there are mechanical explanations for the cause of the repeatable observations/measurements, but the QM community acknowledges that part of the experiment is observational, and part of it is statistical. In each of the pertinent experiments those two elements are present.

There is no observational evidence, pair by pair; only correlations revealed statistically after a large number of measurements. If we don't understand the underlaying mechanics of quantum entanglement, or of what causes spin to randomly be one of two states, or of what the physical nature of superposition really is, we don't know if there are important laws of nature at play that we are not yet aware of.

If the mechanics of wave-particle duality could be fleshed out, and if by doing so that could add new postulates to the laws of quantum mechanics, then the result might explain entanglement, superposition of states, and decoherence from entirely new perspectives. Given that possibility, the hidden variables interpretation of quantum mechanics would prove to be correct, i.e. that the current postulates of quantum mechanics are incomplete. Until it can be agreed upon that there are no such unknowns, and I can't imagine such an agreement, I advocate that the hidden variables interpretation is preferred.

(8967)

When you start evaluating these experiments, what you see is that: 1) there are observations/measurements that are repeatable, and 2) there are statistical results that certain apparently random processes invariably produce.

No one claims that there are mechanical explanations for the cause of the repeatable observations/measurements, but the QM community acknowledges that part of the experiment is observational, and part of it is statistical. In each of the pertinent experiments those two elements are present.

There is no observational evidence, pair by pair; only correlations revealed statistically after a large number of measurements. If we don't understand the underlaying mechanics of quantum entanglement, or of what causes spin to randomly be one of two states, or of what the physical nature of superposition really is, we don't know if there are important laws of nature at play that we are not yet aware of.

If the mechanics of wave-particle duality could be fleshed out, and if by doing so that could add new postulates to the laws of quantum mechanics, then the result might explain entanglement, superposition of states, and decoherence from entirely new perspectives. Given that possibility, the hidden variables interpretation of quantum mechanics would prove to be correct, i.e. that the current postulates of quantum mechanics are incomplete. Until it can be agreed upon that there are no such unknowns, and I can't imagine such an agreement, I advocate that the hidden variables interpretation is preferred.

(8967)
Nothing to get fleshed out.

Do you understand the concept of space having always existed? Under that hypothesis, the idea of something "coming first" is superceded by the the idea that there was no beginning. There is no scenario that you can describe that explains how space can come into existence without invoking the Supernatural, unless you call it something from nothing. So are you invoking "God did it", or "something from nothing" when it comes to the origin of space? The scientific method does not allow for the Supernatural, so there is no hypothetical scientific scenario that originates with "God did it".

quantum_wave,
I wanted to address your theoretical criticism of my "Original Space transitioning to universal Ether" Model. -The concept of my model is that original space was self compatible, such that spatial point-localities were oscillating with each other in perfect symmetry, then the symmetry was broken due to oscillational fatigue. This produced "Yin and Yang" point-pairs. Their breakage-of-symmetry led in turn to the appearance of elemental ether units, which act by forming resonational connections with each other, via their vibrations (the vibrations being derived from the original oscillations) and via their resonational dipolarity (the Yin and Yang pairs could not themselves have acted resonationally and vibrationally, and thus dipolarly, due to their symmetry.)

In our world, the ether acts as an underlying universal vibrational energic matrix, upon which other energies, such as quantum forces, are superimposed, which act via spin/vector mechanisms. -

Returning to your critical point concerning how a preceding original space could have fit with this kind of ether framework, as its immediate predecessor and progenitor of the ether, I would offer the following concept:

In my Post number 83, I showed how my Model accounts for Time, in our world, as reflecting the vibratory rate of elemental ether units. -The time rate in a given cosmic setting is set by vibratory rate of the elemental ether units within that setting (since everything is made up, ultimately, of elemental ether units.)

Then going back, to a setting of "original space," and considering how that would fit with the concept in my model of how time-rate reflects the rate of vibration of the ether units. - In the setting of original space, where point-units of space were oscillating, there would have existed a basic rate of oscillation, This rate would have set a chronological framework for the development of oscillational fatigue, at certain points in the oscillation-process.

I hope this answers your point of criticism, as a mechanism for how original space could have constituted a "timing"-framework, allowing the development of oscillational fatigue of its constituent point-localities, thus breaking the symmetry of space, that process then transitioning to the ether.

quantum_wave,
I wanted to address your theoretical criticism of my "Original Space transitioning to universal Ether" Model. -The concept of my model is that original space was self compatible, such that spatial point-localities were oscillating with each other in perfect symmetry, then the symmetry was broken due to oscillational fatigue. This produced "Yin and Yang" point-pairs. Their breakage-of-symmetry led in turn to the appearance of elemental ether units, which act by forming resonational connections with each other, via their vibrations (the vibrations being derived from the original oscillations) and via their resonational dipolarity (the Yin and Yang pairs could not themselves have acted resonationally and vibrationally, and thus dipolarly, due to their symmetry.)

In our world, the ether acts as an underlying universal vibrational energic matrix, upon which other energies, such as quantum forces, are superimposed, which act via spin/vector mechanisms. -

Returning to your critical point concerning how a preceding original space could have fit with this kind of ether framework, as its immediate predecessor and progenitor of the ether, I would offer the following concept:

In my Post number 83, I showed how my Model accounts for Time, in our world, as reflecting the vibratory rate of elemental ether units. -The time rate in a given cosmic setting is set by vibratory rate of the elemental ether units within that setting (since everything is made up, ultimately, of elemental ether units.)

Then going back, to a setting of "original space," and considering how that would fit with the concept in my model of how time-rate reflects the rate of vibration of the ether units. - In the setting of original space, where point-units of space were oscillating, there would have existed a basic rate of oscillation, This rate would have set a chronological framework for the development of oscillational fatigue, at certain points in the oscillation-process.

I hope this answers your point of criticism, as a mechanism for how original space could have constituted a "timing"-framework, allowing the development of oscillational fatigue of its constituent point-localities, thus breaking the symmetry of space, that process then transitioning to the ether.
Thanks for trying to get that idea through my thick skull. I still have seemingly insurmountable difficulties grasping the mechanics of all of that, but as with my layman cosmological model/hobby, I well know that if it works for you, then you, even if you are the only one who understands it, are satisfied with it .

"Space came first" is the only model that makes sense to me. Going from there, the only possible mechanism I can see would have to involve oscillation in space, subsequent oscillational fatigue breaking the symmetry of space, which then led to the formation of a universal ether.

Big Bang theories don't make sense to me. Everyone has to go with what makes sense to them.

"Space came first" is the only model that makes sense to me. Going from there, the only possible mechanism I can see would have to involve oscillation in space, subsequent oscillational fatigue breaking the symmetry of space, which then led to the formation of a universal ether.

Big Bang theories don't make sense to me. Everyone has to go with what makes sense to them.
Since you have clearly have no education in physics or cosmology, what makes sense to you is pretty meaningless to the rest of us.

"Space came first" is the only model that makes sense to me. Going from there, the only possible mechanism I can see would have to involve oscillation in space, subsequent oscillational fatigue breaking the symmetry of space, which then led to the formation of a universal ether.

Big Bang theories don't make sense to me. Everyone has to go with what makes sense to them.
I suppose that you have some alternative explanation for the raw redshift data, that to me, is the best evidence of a Big Bang. Many alternative explanations have been hypothesized, but an expanding observable universe, accelerating expansion as well, is the conclusion of professionals as far as I can tell, as well as of many amateurs like myself. What is your explanation for the redshift?
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/august-2010/redshift

I suppose that you have some alternative explanation for the raw redshift data, that to me, is the best evidence of a Big Bang. Many alternative explanations have been hypothesized, but an expanding observable universe, accelerating expansion as well, is the conclusion of professionals as far as I can tell, as well as of many amateurs like myself. What is your explanation for the redshift?
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/august-2010/redshift

quantum_wave,

Answering this question would get us into an area I have tried away from, i.e., dogma involving traditional religious trachings that deal with creation, but I seem to be forced into it, here.

Redder-than-expected redshift data, indicating a greater acceleration of the farthest-distant galaxies than expected, is currently explained by cosmologists as being due to the expanding nature of our universe ("starting from a Big Bang"), and also due to a hypothetical "negative" kind of energy, that is driving the bodies apart at rates greater than expected.)

My ether model would take a very different view of those observations. -The increase in acceleration of these distant bodies is explained instead as being due to the ever-closer approach of our universe to another, younger, "stronger," universe, which is pulling, ever more strongly, on the outermost bodies of our universe. -There is no "negative" type of energy involved.

This requires going into the question of more-than-one-universe, and Creation. -In my ether model, after space produced an ether (according to the oscillational-space-to-vibrational-ether model I have described), the next world (the one before ours) featured energic entrainments of vibrating, resonating, ether forces, and then, confluent foci of these intense, etherically-super-refined forces. This produced foci of transient magnetic energy. where the first sapient entities, as well as the first biological entities, arose. -However, these energic foci consisted of transient magnetism, which, in the absence of any controlling macrocosmic organization of the smaller energic foci, meant that the transient magnetic foci were unstable and brittle.

The next thing that the sapient being(s) brought about, creationally using their intense etheric forces, was a system of universes, where there would be a controlling, organizing, more-stable, system of macrocosmic forces. There were a few macrocosm universes, created by mental projections of powerful etheric forces. These universes interact, and when one universe gets "tired" internally, another, stronger, universe is attracted to it and re energizes it. -That's why we have "strange" redshift data with outlying bodies in our universe.

Correction: In the next-to-last paragraph of my latest Post, I used the phrase "first sapient entities," as in plural. -However, it should have read "first sapient entity," as in singular, inasmuch as it would have to have been a singular event.

Michael Anteski,
So the first sapient entity was genereated naturally from precondtions conducive to that occurance, and then ... .... I just can't discuss that with any kind of enthusiasm or support. I suppose it is enough encouragement to you to have been able to get that said, and read. Very mystical.

Michael Anteski,
So the first sapient entity was genereated naturally from precondtions conducive to that occurance, and then ... .... I just can't discuss that with any kind of enthusiasm or support. I suppose it is enough encouragement to you to have been able to get that said, and read. Very mystical.

The idea is that etheric forces are super refined, can be super intense under certain cosmic conditions, and thus could be capable of producing phenomena that our familiar earthbound quantum scale forces cannot. The model I presented, though unproven, is consistent, and goes from A to Z.

If you counter that I did not prove the model, the questions remain, of how sapience arose, biological life arose, and how the universe arose (notwithstanding "a Big Bang").

The idea is that etheric forces are super refined, can be super intense under certain cosmic conditions, and thus could be capable of producing phenomena that our familiar earthbound quantum scale forces cannot. The model I presented, though unproven, is consistent, and goes from A to Z.
Maybe, but I have some thoughts about that post. You said:
If you counter that I did not prove the model ...
Don't worry that you didn't and can't prove the model. That is not expected. What is expected, to the extent possible, is that it be falsibiable, meaning that it makes predictions that can be tested, and shown to stand up in repeatable experiments, or that can be falsified.
... the questions remain, of how sapience arose, biological life arose, and how the universe arose (notwithstanding "a Big Bang").
All of which are what I call the "imponderables", meaning that they are not easily answered scientifically, but are fertile ground for speculation, hypothesis, and discussion out here in the fringe.

quantum_wave, I appreciate the links you provided regarding the recent (apparent) loophole-free confirmation of Bell inequality violations. I mentioned something like a year ago that such tests were being anticipated on this time frame, but I hadn't looked into it much lately and was actually expecting there would be delays and potentially significant technical difficulties. The news is certainly exciting although not surprising, and it should help with future discussions since we don't need to worry about the loopholes issue anymore (or at least we won't upon independent confirmation of the latest results).

I haven't had a chance to go through your arguments in detail yet, but it seems to me at a glance that you're attempting to resort to an old form of "superdeterminism" as discussed by John Bell himself, in which nature essentially conspires with the separate detectors in advance in order to fool the experimenter into thinking they're observing quantum behaviour. While this would essentially be an extraordinary claim in itself, resorting to a vague and baseless universal intelligence rather than accepting the simple postulates of quantum nonlocality, it would have to be all that more extraordinary now that present experiments solve the "memory loophole" by randomizing detectors according to stellar data that is only just reaching us at this very moment after travelling through space for billions of years. Maybe you've got some other idea in mind, we'll have to see. Unfortunately I haven't had much time to spend discussing this stuff and I mostly just come around to talk politics these days, but hopefully we'll get back into the mix soon enough.

quantum_wave, I appreciate the links you provided regarding the recent (apparent) loophole-free confirmation of Bell inequality violations. I mentioned something like a year ago that such tests were being anticipated on this time frame, but I hadn't looked into it much lately and was actually expecting there would be delays and potentially significant technical difficulties. The news is certainly exciting although not surprising, and it should help with future discussions since we don't need to worry about the loopholes issue anymore (or at least we won't upon independent confirmation of the latest results).
In spite of our opposite views on it, it is an interesting topic. You did mention loop-hole free testing, and I didn't doubt it. I agreed with the math that you presented.
I haven't had a chance to go through your arguments in detail yet, but it seems to me at a glance that you're attempting to resort to an old form of "superdeterminism" as discussed by John Bell himself, in which nature essentially conspires with the separate detectors in advance in order to fool the experimenter into thinking they're observing quantum behaviour.
No, nature doesn't conspire to do anything, nature works the the way it works, and we don't yet understand it.

This "superdeterminism" sounds a lot like supernatural, and I have long said that anything that seems supernatural has natural causes that we don't yet understand. But the point I was making is that in my model, particles have an internal composition that we have not yet been able to detect to the degree sufficient to quantize; it is a flow of energy into and out of a particle that sustains the particle presence as "standing waves"; my view is that the particle is a complex pattern of standing waves with two components, inflowing and out flowing gravitational wave energy.

The "advance detection" that you suggest is a superdeterminism, or a conspiracy of nature, is accomplished without any conspiracy. The out flowing gravitational wave energy from the detectors carries information about them and flows out of them into the surrounding space at the speed of light in the form of the out flowing wave energy component of the particles and objects that make up the apparatuses. That out flow becomes inflow to the photons, or electrons that are used in the experiments. And I have said that my model is speculative and hypothetical, and is not science, just layman ideas that are internally consistent and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data that are understood. By "understood", I am referring to the mechanics.
While this would essentially be an extraordinary claim in itself, resorting to a vague and baseless universal intelligence rather than accepting the simple postulates of quantum nonlocality, it would have to be all that more extraordinary now that present experiments solve the "memory loophole" by randomizing detectors according to stellar data that is only just reaching us at this very moment after travelling through space for billions of years. Maybe you've got some other idea in mind, we'll have to see. Unfortunately I haven't had much time to spend discussing this stuff and I mostly just come around to talk politics these days, but hopefully we'll get back into the mix soon enough.
If you actually read my stuff you wouldn't have to be ignorant of what I have been saying, and you wouldn't characterize my position as resorting to a vague and baseless universal intelligence rather than accepting the simple postulates of quantum nonlocality. My view is not that there is some universal intelligence at work; I maintain that the universe as it is, and has always been the way it is, i.e. no beginning, no supernatural creation, no "something from nothing". I also describe my view of speculative and hypothetical mechanics at work in my thread called "Fleshing out wave-particle duality", which is ideas about mechanics for discussion.