Another look at EPR and Bell's Inequality.

There is an enormous amount of modern literature concerning the various subtleties of quantum mechanics (QM) including completeness, separability, entanglement, locality, and hidden variables.  In the literature each of these terms is more or less defined relative to QM because that is where they first arose. One famous example in this literature is Bells Theorem: No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. In Einstein’s debate over the incompleteness or otherwise of QM he felt very strongly about the probabilistic nature of QM. He felt that the mathematics should be deterministic. Einstein’s opinion was summed up in the paper authored by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) which was a thought-experiment written in 1935. Bell in 1964 came up with his theorem to counter Einstein’s EPR paper about the completeness of QM.  Bell’s theorem was felt to be a ‘no-go theorem’ that countered Einstein’s objections to QM.  Either Bell’s theorem or a theorem based on local hidden variables was wrong, both could not be correct, one was wrong. OR more precisely, one or BOTH were wrong.

We will not delve into the minutiae of the mathematics nor the philosophical implications (and there are many) of these issues from the history of the 20th century, just on 50 years ago. We shall note that there are many who believe in some strange physics, truly ‘out there’. The main impetus of such beliefs is the ‘faith’ that the mathematics of QM is correct at all levels; reality for such adherents is a reflection of the mathematics of QM, nothing more and nothing less. Can we obtain anything more about this seemingly bizarre world via SFT?

What we will do is to give some physical substance to the various terms that crop up in the historical literature:

(1) completeness: In mathematics there are various forms of completeness; in the case of QM, Einstein felt QM was incomplete because it was not able to deal directly in conserved quantities like energy and momentum, but only ‘observables’. Consider the air in a room. As far as ordinary measurements are concerned, the air forms a continuous fluid. When sound propagates in air, waves of compression and rarefaction move through the air. We now have a theory of air and sound only using the representation of air as a continuous fluid that now works as pressure waves that are used in the physical model; we do not have molecules which are not seen at the macroscopic domain.

(http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/quantum_theory_completeness/)

(2) entanglement: Einstein as described in the EPR paper discovered the phenomenon of quantum entanglement within the equations of quantum mechanics, and realized its utter strangeness including its essential non-classical nature.

(http://www.gizmag.com/quantum-entanglement-speed-10000-faster-light/26587/)

(3) separability: two systems separated in space have independent existences, so that the state of one can be specified fully without consideration of the second.

(4) locality: a measurement at A cannot affect a system at B  if  A  and B are separated in space; otherwise a communicating signal propagating from A to B must take place faster than light.

(5) hidden variable: a gas may be described in terms of temperature, pressure, and volume; the velocities and masses of the individual atoms in the gas would be hidden variables.

The mathematical findings of SFT are enough to counter the many philosophical claims such as the ‘many-worlds’ interpretation of QM; once we find an analytical solution for the hydrogen atom this in effect forms a ‘no-go theorem’ for both QM and uncertainty. Why did science go so wrong for so long?  It is possible that we were hung up on our terms and definitions – too much legalism and sophism and not enough physical intuition.

That said, what is surprising is that the physics behind self-field theory (SFT) gives  interestingly similar concepts to these terms but in each case we must define the terms relative to SFT and not QM.

(1) completeness: In brief SFT sees physics and biophysics as a fractal.  We can think of a (truncated) series for example the well-known Taylor series going from the photon to the universe, or even the multiverse. But there is no reason to think that the series starts with the photon nor ends with the multiverse. Un other words, we appear to be talking about an infinite series. So ‘completeness’ must be considered to be the sum of the infinite domains. We do see that that the ‘spooky action at a distance’ Einstein was referring to is now seen as faster-than-light signal seemingly a signal at a speed around 10,000 times the speed of light (http://www.gizmag.com/quantum-entanglement-speed-10000-faster-light/26587/). This corresponds to the sub-photonic level structure SFT sees within the composite photon.

(2) entanglement:  The picture given by SFT is that the entire universe is ‘entangled’ and has been since the Big Bang.

(3) separability: In the fullness of matter we cannot treat entities including particles and fields (which are particulate) as individual entities without there being some error. While we can do this as an approximation, the ‘complete’ nature of physics means we cannot do this other than a mathematical or engineering  approximation.

(4) locality: For similar reasons we cannot treat any subset of reality as ‘local’ as distinct from ‘non-local’. We can only do this if we understand we are approximating reality to within a sub-section of its complete nature. We find that this means we have signals that flow between all domains and all matter within domains. This includes what we think of as gravitational forces

(5) hidden variable: In SFT we see photons as bispinorial; but there is one spin or rotation that is hidden (at the terrestrial domain) because it is internal. We do not see this internal rotation because it has a very tiny radius.  Sometimes the photon is ‘captured’ inside atoms and here it has two internal motions where both radii of rotation are very tiny. There is reason to believe that other particles such as electron, protons, neutrons etc are composed of photons or their sub-components (a part of photon chemistry).