But two times? The first is the usual linear time that differs in different inertial frames. The second is a rotational time which rotates in the plane of the 2D flat space. This is a phase time or a frequency and accounts for the different relative rotations of 2D objects in different inertial frames.
A. Logically Non-locality makes no sense.
Undeterred by rejection of EPR paper.
A Local Realistic Reconciliation of the EPR Paradox – Research Paper
Most recent articles
In the next few posts, I am going to describe spin in an entirely different way. Immediately you should be skeptical and doubtful that spin could be anything else from its present description: a point particle of intrinsic angular momentum. Do an experiment: Stern-Gerlach; coincidence photons; delayed choice, then spin is observed to have two pure states and these are defined with respect to the laboratory frame of reference. Think of NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) and MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). In these experiments, spins align with magnetic fields and their polarizations are measured. In quantum mechanics, spin is postulated, but it arises naturally in quantum field theory from the Dirac...
For many years now (since 2006) I have been studying spin 1/2 that has structure. People think the idea is crazy because spin is firmly established by the Dirac Equation. Recently I found that the two dimensional structured spin I have been advocating is just as firmly based in its own Dirac equation with a different algebra. I will come back to that later. Non-locality, going back to Isaac Newton, has always been unacceptable, at least until modern times. Instantaneous action-at-a-distance is physically unpalatable and always belies a deeper theory. So why does almost every physicist believe in it? To be clear, I do not suggest that Bell’s Theorem is wrong. Bell...
In one example I use bond energies to calculate the energy per mole of sucrose and TNT (the explosive trinitrotoluene). Most students expect that TNT has more energy, but it turns out the two have about the same. So why is TNT an explosive (actually a conflagration)? TNT burns rapidly and involves a huge volume change. It is the rate of reaction (chemical kinetics) and the rapid volume change that causes the explosive damage. Then I can move to the thermodynamics overview.
I am sure the reviewer is knowledgeable about the EPR paradox and the foundations of quantum mechanics but he missed or dismissed a departing point of my approach: quantum mechanics is a theory of measurement and I find states that exist only when not measured. These undetected states account for the quantum correlation usually attributed to non-locality. Although the reviewer’s comments are easily answered, I was not allowed a rebuttal:
When I start into heat capacity I contrast the temperature of a substance with the feeling of hot and cold. A thermometer will tell you the temperature of a substance, but that does not tell you how much heat is present. If you touch something, you can tell if it is hotter or colder than your hand, but what about two substances at the same temperature?
Suppose outside it is -10 C (14 F) and there you find a piece of steel and a piece of Styrofoam. Which is colder? If you touch the steel it feels colder than the Styrofoam, but they are both at the same temperature. If you placed the steel on the Styrofoam, no heat will flow between them (Third Law of thermodynamics). Since your hand is much hotter than the objects, heat must flow from your hand into them.
Although the obvious “pro” of recording is to give students the chance to listen numerous times; review the material; and listen to missed lectures, there is a huge “con” and that is they skip class and opt to listen to my lectures at home. Last year the attendance dropped to half because lectures are available on line, but this year the time has been shifted to 8:30 a.m. from 10:30. I am going to predict that very few will want to attend at that hour.
Thermo does take time to become familiar and I try many ways to get these ideas over. I think that it helps some when I tell them that when I was a student taking thermo, I failed my first midterm.
One question I pose every year to my physical chemistry class of life science students in the first lecture is “Where is chemical energy stored?” Almost all of them say in chemical bonds. Ask how the energy is released, and they say “When bonds are broken.”
a required course on physical chemistry that deals with entropy and laws, ugh this is not what they want to know and, besides, “How useful will it be?” they naively ask. The problem is that it is impossible to avoid the use of mathematics, and they are not motivated to work through simple derivations.
HOW do we know the other particle “magically assumes” the opposite state, rather than it just had the opposite state all the time?
The answer is “nobody knows because it makes no physical sense”. When a physicist is asked how this happens, they indeed invoke the word “magic” as in quantum magic or quantum weirdness.
But if the model does stand up, what have I accomplished? There is presently no experimental way to distinguish between one or two axes of quantization. Including counterfactual coincidences can be rejected out of hand and quantum mechanics still viewed as complete. The mechanics of applying quantum will not change. Having the option to accept local reality might have a salving effect on those generations of physicists who have been brought up believing the Copenhagen Interpretation and Bell. One can sigh a sigh of relief that non-locality is history and Nature is both real and deterministic, at least for spin. That would make a lot of people happy.