Bohmian Locality as an answer to Bell's inequalities

[JosephStang]

Imagine a Toroid spinning like a wheel in its plane, and also twisting in the cross-section. Now imagine it spinning at the speed of light. A travelling wave on this geometry will go faster than light even though none of the Toroid is going faster than light. Travelling waves of smaller and smaller wavelength can be added on top of the first travelling wave, and there is no limit to the amount of smaller waves that can be added. I call this the Holonomic Toroid. It doesn't disprove Bell's inequalities, but it is a geometry that can be engineered to accomplish the superposition space. Bohm thought of this possibility but didn't imagine a geometry that can accomplish it. This geometry can. Here's a technical description.

 

The Holonomic Toroid.

 

Summary: A 3d Real Local Hidden Variable Theory with one force. It overcomes Bell’s inequalities with Bohmian style locality by mediating FTL information without energy using a spinning ring.

 

Description: Each electron/proton is a ring. The ring is pure velocity. The velocity is the substance and the motion. The only law is like attracts and unlike repels. The ring spins at light speed. The energy spins in the circumference as it twists in the cross-section. These two velocities create the electric and magnetic force effects. The ring is at equilibrium when the attractive force generated by the twist in the cross section counteracts the repulsive force generated by the spin in the circumference.

 

In the presence of another ring, these two force effects create waves in each other. The waves are deformations in the shape of the energetic ring. Just like waves that move on a rope when you wave it up and down, these waves travel along the circumference of the ring, and because the ring spins at light speed, these waves travel faster than light, without any energy travelling faster than light. This information is energyless FTL information. The waves create precessions in the ring. The precession in the gravity direction is gravity. The precessions in all other directions are nuclear bonding and inertia.

 

The waves on a ring can phase lock with other rings and this causes entanglement. The precessions of each ring define its Heisenberg Uncertainty Sphere. Each ring has a finite amount of circumference to transfer between its precessions, its circumference, and its cross section, and this causes relativity.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 19 by JosephStang
Misspelled

[Bufofrog]

3 hours ago, JosephStang said:

The ring is pure velocity.

I'm sorry but none of this post seems to make any sense.

I'm curious about this though, what is your definition of 'pure velocity'? 

[JosephStang]

25 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I'm sorry but none of this post seems to make any sense.

I'm curious about this though, what is your definition of 'pure velocity'? 

Good question. I guess just "Ether" but not the field kind. More like pure flow. It's a bit tenuous, but 3D flow is clearly a superior theory than higher dimensional theories as long as it explains everything. 

 

Which part of the geometry doesn't make sense. It's a 3D geometry. Do you not understand the description?

[joigus]

4 hours ago, JosephStang said:

Description: Each electron/proton is a ring.

Protons are nothing like electrons. We do know as much.

In what sense is this "holonomic"? "Holonomic" means integrable, exact, it goes back to itself after a loop. I don't see anything holonomic here.

I can't fathom what's Bohmian about it, or local/non-local, as the case may be, as no mention of how position variables function in the "theory" can be spotted.

Summarising, it very much sounds like word salad with no maths underpinning it. No calculation, no formal-mathematical justification.

21 minutes ago, JosephStang said:

Do you not understand the description?

What description?

Edited March 19 by joigus
minor addition

[JosephStang]

13 minutes ago, joigus said:

Protons are nothing like electrons. We do know as much.

In what sense is this "holonomic"? "Holonomic" means integrable, exact, it goes back to itself after a loop. I don't see anything holonomic here.

I can't fathom what's Bohmian about it, or local/non-local, as the case may be, as no mention of how position variables function in the "theory" can be spotted.

Summarising, it very much sounds like word salad with no maths underpinning it. No calculation, no formal-mathematical justification.

What description?

Your response is word salad. The described geometry has infinite information depth. It is a 3D geometry. Why would I have to specify position variables while describing a 3D geometry? I agree there is no math. Geometry is not math. 

 

I think it's clear from your response that you did not understand the description of the geometry, or you don't understand the difference between geometry and math.

 

As far as electrons and protons being nothing alike, please Google the Compton radius.

[swansont]

5 hours ago, JosephStang said:

The ring is pure velocity. The velocity is the substance and the motion.

Pure velocity? Pure nonsense.

29 minutes ago, JosephStang said:

As far as electrons and protons being nothing alike, please Google the Compton radius.

What do you think that shows?

[JosephStang]

Pure nonsense is not a logical response to a Holonomic 3D geometry. 

 

The Compton radius shows that electrons have a scattering radius just like protons. 

 

Please provide sane logical responses. Thanks.

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, JosephStang said:

Your response is word salad.

You owe me the price of a new irony meter, mine exploded after that.🤣

1 hour ago, JosephStang said:

Which part of the geometry doesn't make sense.

All of the parts after this:

5 hours ago, JosephStang said:

Imagine

 

[JosephStang]

You don't have the ability to imagine? What if I said visualize? Can you do that?

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, JosephStang said:

You don't have the ability to imagine? What if I said visualize? Can you do that?

Well, the first thing you ask us to imagine is a massive object moving at the speed of light, which is non-physical. Then you talk about velocity as if it weren't a property, but rather a substance. It's easier to imagine things that are possible and physical. 

Anyway, you get 5 posts on your first day as part of our anti-spam measures, so you won't be able to reply until tomorrow. 

[joigus]

2 hours ago, JosephStang said:

Why would I have to specify position variables while describing a 3D geometry?

The very moment you posit that your theory is local.

7 hours ago, JosephStang said:

It overcomes Bell’s inequalities with Bohmian style locality by mediating FTL

(emphasis mine)

A theory is or is not local depending on a postulated interaction, or else by way of an ad hoc postulate or axiom. Yours is neither. It is neither non-local, nor is it local. It's only named "local" by you.

And forgive me having overlooked this, but, what do you mean it overcomes Bell's inequalities? Quantum mechanics as is already overcomes Bell's inequalities, ie, it violates local realism. Bell's inequalities are a consequence of local realism.

So again, what do you even mean?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, JosephStang said:

Pure nonsense is not a logical response to a Holonomic 3D geometry. 

I commented specifically on the phrase “pure velocity” which is nonsense.

You had an opportunity to explain what you meant. I notice you did not take it.

1 hour ago, JosephStang said:

The Compton radius shows that electrons have a scattering radius just like protons. 

Having a compton radius doesn’t mean they are the same. They both have charge and mass. There are significant differences between them.

1 hour ago, JosephStang said:

Please provide sane logical responses. Thanks.

Please provide support for your claims 

[MigL]

The responses by members indicate that either you did not explain yourself very well, or, you posted nonsense/word salad.

When you come back, I suggest not arguing against the 'nonsense/word salad' responses, but rather, take the time to elaborate on your explanation. Please clarify some of your non-standard terms; words have precise meanings in science and using them incorrectly results in perceived nonsense.

[joigus]

5 hours ago, JosephStang said:

Geometry is not math. 

 

It is a branch of math.

https://www.britannica.com/science/geometry

Quote

Geometry, the branch of mathematics concerned with the shape of individual objects, spatial relationships among various objects, and the properties of surrounding space. It is one of the oldest branches of mathematics,

The branch is part of the tree, although the tree is not the branch.

[JosephStang]

The Toroid is not "massive". Mass is an effect of the first order wave, gravity of the second, and dark matter/energy of the third.

 

As far as pure velocity, we use to believe in an ether. The pure velocity I describe is like the ether, but contained in the shape of the Toroid.

 

I didn't say the Compton radius proves the electron and proton are the same. I said it proves they both have classical radii.

 

I'm happy to answer questions that relate exactly to words I have said. When responses do not relate to words I have said, and it's clear there is animus behind them, I respond with animus. That's fair.

 

The competing theory was despised by every big name quantum Physicist because it was not real and local. In other words, 3D. This locality is achieved by Bohmian Holonomy. In other words, all the hidden variables are represented by the 3D geometry. Because it is a 3D geometry, it is inherently superior to any non 3D theory. Since it can be engineered to accomplish all the QP strangeness, it logically claims the high ground.

 

When you respond, you should make it clear that you understand that the proposed geometry is a completely new description that is a self contained system regardless of the math used to describe it. This is true because the geometry is a real geometry without any need to resort to math for its description.

Edited March 20 by JosephStang
Misspelled

[JosephStang]

I'd like to speak further on the claim of animus. 

 

I described a geometry. I said "This geometry has 3 straight lines and 3 angles."

 

In response, someone accused me of providing "word salad," because I included no math. 

 

The two possible explanations for that accusation are animus or inability to recognize the unique geometry. Responding with the accusation due to inability is a form of animus.

 

Regardless of the geometry's ability to model Quantum Physics, the geometry itself is existential beauty. It shows how information can be carried at faster than light speed without any of the geometry going faster than light. It deserves respect.

 

If you cannot show the proper respect to the geometry, that is a personal failing of yours. Please act accordingly.

[joigus]

I'm sorry I was disrespectful to the geometry[?!].

I think you're trying to talk about the Arahonov-Bohm effect. Now I'm positive that's how you connected the words "Bohm" and "holonomy".

It's about this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov–Bohm_effect

Aharonov-Bohm holonomy has nothing to do with realism, locality, or any of that, even though the word "Bohm" appears there too. It's the De Broglie-Bohm theory that does.

Kinda like the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution has very little to do with Maxwell's equations, except for Maxwell.

Do these comments help a little bit?

[swansont]

3 hours ago, JosephStang said:

As far as pure velocity, we use to believe in an ether. The pure velocity I describe is like the ether, but contained in the shape of the Toroid.

The ether was discarded, as it did not match with evidence. Are you sure you want to describe your conjecture in that way?

 

3 hours ago, JosephStang said:

I didn't say the Compton radius proves the electron and proton are the same. I said it proves they both have classical radii.

That wasn’t the objection.

 

3 hours ago, JosephStang said:

I'm happy to answer questions that relate exactly to words I have said. When responses do not relate to words I have said, and it's clear there is animus behind them, I respond with animus. That's fair.

!

Moderator Note

the objections are not personal and they are related to what you wrote; the interpretation of animus assumes too much. What you write is insufficiently supported with valid science. You may have been expecting a credulous audience but you don’t have one. Leave the animus out of the discussion and focus on clarifying and supporting your claims.

 

 

 

 

[JosephStang]

Bohm's response to Bell's inequalities specifically dealt with the definition of locality. In its essence, Bohm described a pilot wave that perfectly carried the hidden variables that Bell's inequalities claim cannot reproduce quantum effects with sub light information. Bell was correct. Bohm is also correct. The pilot wave caused by the Holonomic Toroid is the Haramein field. It works in both STL and FTL.

 

To discuss the Holonomic Toroid correctly, we have to start from first principles. This is true because the HT radically reinvisions all QP theory.

 

As for specifics regarding all measured quantum strangeness, we need to program it and with math. I'm not a mathematician. For that I would need help.

It was correct to discard the ether. I'm not supporting it. I'm describing pure flow constrained to the shape of the Holonomic Toroid. Ether is a useful word to describe pure flow.

As far as the Aharonov-Bohm effect, it should be easy to engineer a scenario with the Holonomic Toroid such that lower order waves in phase with higher order waves interact without the higher order waves interacting.

[joigus]

25 minutes ago, JosephStang said:

The pilot wave caused by the Holonomic Toroid is the Haramein field.

Sorry, pseudoscience is beyond my scope. I'm out.

[JosephStang]

When I say Haramein field, I'm not talking about his math. I just mean a toroidal pilot wave. Your knee jerk accusation of pseudo-science is illogical in the face of a geometry that would clearly create a toroidal pilot wave that accomplishes Bohmian Holonomy. 

 

If you can't approach this totally new geometry with anything other than Occam's razor, you should definitely exit the discussion.

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, JosephStang said:

Regardless of the geometry's ability to model Quantum Physics, the geometry itself is existential beauty. It shows how information can be carried at faster than light speed without any of the geometry going faster than light. It deserves respect.

That is a huge claim.  Could you demonstrate how that works?  

If you can show how information can move faster than light then your method will get plenty of respect.

[JosephStang]

Please reread the description of the geometry. It's very clear. The circle spins at light speed. There is a travelling wave on it. Because the circle spins at light speed, the wave goes faster than light without any of the circle going faster than light. 

 

To demonstrate, get on a train. Make a wave with your arm. The speed of the wave on your arm will be its speed relative to your body plus the train's speed. This is simple geometry. 

[swansont]

43 minutes ago, JosephStang said:

Please reread the description of the geometry. It's very clear. The circle spins at light speed. There is a travelling wave on it. Because the circle spins at light speed, the wave goes faster than light without any of the circle going faster than light. 

A circle spinning at light speed is a poor description. Spinning is a rotational effect, and light speed is a linear measure. Any spinning circle will have a range of linear speeds, depending on the distance from the point of rotation.

If others indicate you are not being clear, you should believe them. 

Quote

To demonstrate, get on a train. Make a wave with your arm. The speed of the wave on your arm will be its speed relative to your body plus the train's speed. This is simple geometry. 

But you just said that nothing was going faster than light.

2 hours ago, JosephStang said:

It was correct to discard the ether. I'm not supporting it. I'm describing pure flow constrained to the shape of the Holonomic Toroid. Ether is a useful word to describe pure flow.

What is “pure flow”? You’re just substituting one ill-defined term for another

[JosephStang]

Right. Toroid, not circle. Thanks for the correction. The rest of it is just you admitting you can't visualize the geometry.