Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Jan 24, 2015 in Quantum Mechanics A to L | 3 comments

F. My Black Swan

The book called The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb finds many events are unpredictable and occur suddenly, and therefore have a large impact on our lives and thinking.  All swans in Europe were white, leading to the paradigm that all swans are white. However the discovery of one black swan in Australia,  changes all this leading to a new paradigm about swans.  Black Swan events in history, geopolitics and science often occur ; they are unpredictable, they have a large impact, and they are usually only explained after the observation.

Basically Taleb believes that our lack of knowledge is as important as our knowledge. If we know too much, then we make predictions which are usually a continuation of our present history.  We really cannot predict: the stock market, world wars, epidemics, down to a sudden illness or a personal crisis: all are black swans.  They can indicate either positive of negative events, but in all cases it is their suddenness that takes us by surprise and only then can we start to deal with the impact.

Structured Spin Black Swan

I believe that my 2D structured spin falls into the category of a Black Swan event. Other events in physics are Black Swans: the world is not flat; the Earth is not the center of the universe. Then we have the ultraviolet catastrophe of Black body radiation, explained by Planck, which ushered in quantum theory. There is the impact of relativity, then Black Holes and the Big Bang. These events, and others, shaped our view of Nature and the present paradigm which contends that quantum mechanics (or quantum field theory) is the most basic description of Nature.

I would say that Bell’s Inequities and his theorem (that any Local Hidden Variable Theory be non-local) are also Black Swans, because the existence of quantum correlation leads to the violation of Bell’s Inequalities.  This has been interpreted, (incorrectly in my view) that entanglement must persists when entangled states are separated.  Hence Nature is to have non-local interactions-how?

Before Bell, ( say in the mid 1960’s) everyone believed Nature to be local, although not deterministic.  Today non-locality, or instantaneous-action-at-a-distance, is accepted by most Physicists, and the experimental evidence rests upon one type of experiment (photon-coincidence).

Clearly the non-locality Black Swan is mind-boggling because no-one understands it.

But I believe it to be wrong.  This does not mean that I believe Bell’s mathematical proof of his inequalities is wrong, although doubters exist.  I also completely believe the experimental results from photon coincidence experiments.  I do not believe, however, that the interpretation of the experimental results is correct.  My spin gives a local and realistic view of Nature. I think choosing that makes more sense that accepting the absurd.

Consequences of the Black Swan of structured spin.

If my 2D spin were accepted, and people started to study it, I am certain many more problems in physics, unknown to me, could be resolved.  What impact is there to Nature if the magnetic moment of an undisturbed electron is √2 larger than can be measured?  Certainly I have used this successfully to account for the violation of Bell’s Inequalities without entanglement–that it gives a resolution of the EPR paradox. Similarly I believe that quantum information theory (computing, teleportation and quantum cryptography), are not moving along very well.  I believe that emphasis should be placed on controlling the LHV and not entanglement.  But there are many more problems that exist: the double slit experiment, dark matter, parity breaking in beta decay and prediction of mirror states;, etc.

If we suppose the standard model is correct, then I have a problem. The standard model is composed of 16 particles )[excluding the Higgg’s boson), and they all have spin of either 1/2 or 1.  All these particles are considered to be point particles.  Hey, even the Black Hole that exploded to form our universe is treated as a singularity in the theory.

You can imagine the opposition I receive when I say that these 1/2 spin particles  (all 12 of them in the standard model) are not point particles, but have a 2D structure.  Well, it seems that in the initial Big Bang, what  happened in the first 10-37 seconds is not understood.  Maybe in this early stage, the two axes of my structured spin 1/2 were formed as a condensate to produce those 12 spins. However to suggest that spin has structure, means that the Standard Model needs to be looked at some more.

Another impact of a 2D spin is that it means that Quantum Theory is not the most fundamental description of Nature.  Physics is and experimental science, and if the 2D spin exists, then it must lie deeper than quantum mechanics. For me, although measurement is critical for us to obtain knowledge, measurement is simply another interaction in Nature.  Nature does not care if we measure, so it seems to me there is nothing fundamentally wrong in assuming there are structures below our ability to measure.

Entanglement, said Schrodinger in 1936, is not a difference between classical and quantum mechanics, but the difference.  I agree but go further and state that entanglement is a property of quantum mechanics, but not of Nature.

Local Reality

Finally, of all the other points I can make, the structured 2D spin restores locality and determinism to Nature and this makes me very happy, and I believe would be accepted, especially if many other problems in Physics can be rationalized using the structured spin.

That is why I see my Black Swan as paradigm changing.  For me it is a no-brainer to do away with non-locality and indeterminism, but then others, who have not gone through my objective developments, like in parts A to E in this series, will simply accept the status quo and in most cases, usual spin causes no problems.

Still it would be nice to get our understanding of Nature right.

I will add other blogs later in which I will show some aspects of the Coincidence Photon experiments, and how the structured spin leads to two simultaneous coincidences, although only one can be detected.  This means that half the EPR correlation cannot be detected and, big surprise, Bell’s Inequalities are no longer violated.




  1. Why not simply have structures that make up electrons, photons, etc. These then can move faster than the speed of light. Just throw out that old speed limit. GTR looks wrong now days, from it’s fundamental derivation to the data from NASA satellites. Go back to ideas from Oliver Lodge and use an electric type force for gravity to keep everything in sync. Get rid of the light speed limit, it is to slow. This way you do not have spooky action at a distance and you get tid of Einstein’s nonsense and all that big bang, black hole and singularity bullcrap.

  2. Chinese physicists measure speed of Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’: At least 10,000 times faster than light.

    So you have locality but stuff can travel faster than light BUT not instantaneously. Maybe your two 2d model only indicates that there is more substructure to photons and the are not indivisible entities.

  3. Clearly something is wrong with your result, unless you believe Relativity is wrong. Also, nice measurement, but what conclusion do your results lead to?

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *