NEOCLASSICAL PHYSICS AND QUANTUM GRAVITY
Imagine that nature emerges from a Euclidean 3D void space populated with immutable oppositely charged Planck spheres, which we call the electrino and the positrino. These are the only carriers of energy, in electromagnetic and kinetic form. They observe classical mechanics and Maxwell’s equations. Nature overlays Euclidean space (Map 1) with a lightly interacting Riemannian spacetime æther (Map 2). 𝗡𝗣𝗤𝗚 is compatible with GR, QM, and ΛCDM observations, while providing a superior narrative that explains nature and the universe.
For 𝗡𝗣𝗤𝗚 basics see: Idealized Neoclassical Model and the NPQG Glosssary.
I was thinking about EPR, the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen paradox. I think I may have found the solution. The issue is around quantum uncertainty in quantum mechanics, and quantum entanglement which is also related to ‘spooky action at a distance’. In NPQG these issues are hardly mysterious, and in fact they are ordinary.
The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox (EPR paradox) is a thought experiment proposed by physicists Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR), with which they argued that the description of physical reality provided by quantum mechanics was incomplete. In a 1935 paper titled “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?”, they argued for the existence of “elements of reality” that were not part of quantum theory, and speculated that it should be possible to construct a theory containing them.
Resolutions of the paradox have important implications for the interpretation of quantum mechanics. The thought experiment involves a pair of particles prepared in an entangled state (note that this terminology was invented only later). Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen pointed out that, in this state, if the position of the first particle were measured, the result of measuring the position of the second particle could be predicted. If, instead, the momentum of the first particle were measured, then the result of measuring the momentum of the second particle could be predicted. They argued that no action taken on the first particle could instantaneously affect the other, since this would involve information being transmitted faster than light, which is forbidden by the theory of relativity. They invoked a principle, later known as the “EPR criterion of reality”, positing that, “If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity”. From this, they inferred that the second particle must have a definite value of position and of momentum prior to either being measured. This contradicted the view associated with Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, according to which a quantum particle does not have a definite value of a property like momentum until the measurement takes place.Wikipedia
The EPR paradox relates to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. At this point, I won’t go into the notion that quantum mechanics is unaware of electrinos and positrinos and composite particles, but it is also unaware of the structure of spacetime æther. These aspects of NPQG may inform this EPR paradox even further.
Introduced first in 1927 by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, the uncertainty principle states that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be predicted from initial conditions, and vice versa. The formal inequality relates the standard deviation of position σx and the standard deviation of momentum σp to the reduced Planck constant which is the quantum of electromagnetic energy.
The flaw in the QM logic is that they really believe in quantum uncertainty as they have conceived it, and they have conceived uncertainty incorrectly. Uncertainty relates not to the particles, but to the electromagnetic gravitational waves in the spacetime æther. We are talking Planck sphere particles and conservation of momentum and energy and so forth, per Emmy Noether.
There is no uncertainty at all as regards the electrinos and positrinos. Now, that said, the reason the world can be random and we have free will is that you never know what wave is coming in from afar via the spacetime æther. So you can have a tough decision and in your mind it is very close, and you actually could go either way. How do you think that is decided? A reaction is borderline and could go up or down between h-bar levels. The reaction is teetering at h-bar/2, one half a revolution or transit of a wave equation. Gravitational waves and fields from distant sources can cause the decision to tip one way or the other. It seems that Quantum Mechanics misconstrued this ‘floating ground’ of the æther as quantum uncertainty. Ooops.
So QM still gets uncertainty but for a different reason. That means QM needs to examine every case where the root cause of uncertainty makes a difference.
And the reason it is is because it is whether to kick up one more revolution per unit time or not.
I want to point out that not only is this a logic proof of EPR in NPQG, but it is a falsification of the definition of the uncertainty principle. Physicists still get to keep their uncertainty in some reactions but not for the reason physicists thought. So physicists need to patch up all their logic and math where it is wrong. Uncertainty is from the gravitational electromagnetic waves transmitted by the spacetime aether from all ‘participating’ particles which most definitely includes those outside of causal contact. Note that quote on participating. That is important as well. Mach was wrong too, not all matter-energy participates in presenting its mass to the æther as gravitational waves.
J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : July 21, 2020 : v1