although i've only read in this thread sporadically ('smells' too much like
'bait'). i =presume= that the subject is "Bell's Inequality", a thig that,
supposedly, 'verifies' the "Copenhagen' view of 'quantum mechanics'.
it's all so 'curious' to me. none of the excellent Physics refs i have in my
library cite "Bell's". the only stuff i've been able to find on it are
paperbacks, newspaper articles, online discussions, etc. Since it's,
supposedly, such 'earth-shaking' stuff, i find it 'curious' that it can't be
found in standard texts?
but anyway, i dug out my copy of _Einstein's Moon_, by F. D. Peat, 1990,
yesterday, and reread most of it, and got so 'steamed-up' that i 'need' to
comment, a bit.
the first half of the book is an enjoyable, if highly-selective, discussion of
some of the history of 'qm', leading up to Einstein's firm disagreement with
Bohr.
Einstein never did accept Bohr's view that, at the so-called 'atomic' level of
physical reality, things are 'indeterminant'... that things 'atomic' are
'necessarily' uncertain, allowing only measurement of noncommuting variables,
and 'absolutely-random', 'probabilistic', and 'dual' (wave/particle) stuff, and
so forth... all the 'quantum weirdness' stuff.
i agree with Einstein, can demonstrate that, although he never fleshed it out,
his position is True, and that 'qm' is False.
but before i get into Tapered Harmony's replacement for 'qm' (which i'll be
wanting to do in-person, before =Fair= Witnesses who'll just 'report' what
transpires with zero 'embellishments'), i want to make sure my view on Bell's
Inequality is sufficient.
first, something that i find Deeply 'Troubling'. EPR's thought experiment was
originally proposed in order to 'demonstrate' that an experimental condition
that's flat-out prohibited by 'qm' can, in principle, be achieved... the
virtual 'reading' of, say, an "electon's" 'spin' by observing the 'spin' of a
correlated 'electron'.
EPR was (is) a tour de force thought experiment that Bohr, Heisenberg and Pauli
'just' flipped-off without ever addressing... all Bohr ever did was dance
around it's stuff. i've always found this to be lacking Honor.
so be it, then "Bell's" comes along, and (please correct me if i'm wrong), says
the same thing that EPR said (that correlations can be read at a distance), and
it's held to 'support qm', rather than EPR.
what gives?
when one explores it all, one sees that, long after Einstein had passed on (so
he wasn't around to clarify things), the 'discussion' changes radically from
his straight-forward, extremely-delimited 'point' that objective reality
exists, to a bunch of, in my view, wildly-uncorrelated stuff with respect to
'local' vs. 'non-local' variables... and completely away from the one, simple
'point' of disagreement.
Einstein's position, with respect to 'qm' was that, if it 'precluded' objective
reality, 'qm' was incomplete... that it didn't provide a complete picture of
physical reality.
Einstein was correct. i can demonstrate such because, in Tapered Harmony, i've
filled-in what 'qm' missed.
it's all so 'disheartening'. i've been discussing Tapered Harmony, publicly,
for more than a decade. And i've been experiencing myself being 'locked-out of
Physics 'places' =while= i've been witnessing so-called 'qm' being 'reborn' in
the image of Tapered Harmony.
for instance, my read on RHIC, at Brookhaven, is that they are going
afterconfirming the 'encapsulation' dynamics that were described, long ago, for
the first 'time' in Tapered Harmony.
similar things are happening at a number of the world's most-advanced
(most-funded) labs.
then there're things such as this thread, Physics in a Neuroscience 'place',
which are, so-clearly, 'fishing-expeditions' with respect to Tapered Harmony.
i find all of this so 'sickeningly'-Dishonorable... it 'just' has no place in
Science... but there it is.
so, who will allow me to present Tapered Harmony in-person, before Fair
Witnesses?
as i've stated repeatedly in the past, i know of no replicable physical
phenomenon that's not already explained in Tapered Harmony. there's no
'weirdness'... just exact determinism.
i hope someone will say, "Show me."
if no one does, "you'll" forgive me if i have to see, in that, that, presently,
Science has no Existence.
but anyway, if anyone wants to 'educate' me with respect to how one gets from
Einstain's position with respect to objective reality to the so-called
"verification of 'qm'", via Einstein's own EPR argument, please do.
i'd dearly love to comprehend the stuff of the Inversion (AoK, Ap4) inherent.
in other words, what gives?
K. P. Collins
