One therefore has a choice. Accept usual spin that leads to entangled states and a non-local and indeterministic foundation of Nature. Alternately, you can choose the 2D structured spin which gives both a local and realistic view of Nature. Experimentally, the two cannot be distinguished and so the treatment here is not inconsistent with any experimental results.
Read MoreThat is, these two states are reflections of each other, see the figure, The operation of reflection via P13 changes one state into its mirror image. This is exactly the property sort by Yang and Lee to solve the fact that parity is not conserved for the electro-weak force. Using their example, if cobalt atoms undergo beta decay, and you watch it in a mirror, then the magnetic moments are not reflected, and so parity is violated.
Read MoreBut 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.
Read MoreIn 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 equation. Everything is clear mathematically, but parts make no sense. You have to accept that Nature is non-local. Here are some questions: Does spin remain a point particle vector when not observed? Align a bunch of spins in a magnetic field, and then remove the field. Do those individual spins remain as observed: point particles of spin, or do they...
Read MoreFor 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 gave a way of distinguishing classical from quantum correlation, and although there are dissenters, they are few. According to quantum mechanics, to agree with the 2√2 violation of Bell’s Inequalities, the separated spins must remain entangled, and therefore have non-local correlations. No one can explain how particles remain entangled after they have separated. The point is, I cannot accept that...
Read MoreI 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:
Read MoreHOW 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.
Read More
