Q: Your use of the term "space": Wouldn't it be better to reserve that for the mathematical framework, defined by a coordinate system? I don't see space as something that can be "made". In your description, it seems to be fields that are made, and in this you seem to be re-discovering the ideas of Stochastic Electrodynamics (seeTrevor Marshall, trevor.marshall@tesco.net: http://www.keyinnov.demon.co.uk/antiqm.htm ).

 A: Before "coordinates" can be defined, the eternal elements of our reality (EORs or monads) must create the very canvas we conceptually represent via a mathematical concept. What is at the core of reality is relations between these elements, no "space" exists by itself. There look at what Einstein saw: Space is warped by its content - gravitation tells us (he wasn't the one who invented "spacetime"- this was Minkowski, his math teacher who did, and this math notion makes no sense physically as Einstein said - it is only a mathematical quirk due to the constant speed of light). For space to be warped, its makeup must be connected to its content somehow, and Einstein saw that, as I point out in my prologue. But, as General Relativity fails to include, this connection is all the way: Space is continually maintained/created by its content! (And Einstein saw that too but couldn't deal with such a thought!) It is not a separate thing at all as our present astrophysicists and quantum mechanicians see, from Hawking to Weinberg. Remember that the notion of "field" was invented by Faraday as a sophism: Electricity appeared AS IF it was following mathematical lines of forces. His sophism allowed Maxwell to put electromagnetism into equations. (Maxwell did praise Faraday for his feat by calling him a "mathematician of the highest caliber.") But still the entire thing is based on a sophism: The concept of "field." The sophism of fields is that through it we see the content of space separate from space itself! It really is a major simplification of our reality. By treating gravitation as a field Einstein missed the physical situations where space is more than influenced by the presence of its content, i.e. (1) when it is created or eliminated, made from or turning into its content, or (2) when its content needs to warp it to satisfy its own evolution needs. I contend that Hubble's redshift is the large scale proof that space is being created/maintained by its content, which is itself eternal (just changing form). The latest supernovae surveys are proving this fundamental fact by finding that the redshift is no longer following Hubble's law past a certain age of the photons connected to the age of our sun, but our theorists of today fail to see that in the data they have collected because it doesn't fit their understanding. I point also (through phase 2) to the independent macromolecular scale proofs of space being created/maintained by its content.

 Q: (Quote from previous answer) "... allowed Maxwell to put electromagnetism into equations. But still the entire thing is based on a sophism: The notion of 'field.' "
I think I've managed to make the field into a real thing. It consists of waves in a real aether.

 A: The aether you take as space could be seen in my approach as the canvas weaved by the eternal elements of reality (monads). This canvas is not a given, it is continually being maintained by the EORs. The waves you see are projections onto that canvas of manifold rotations all at the speed of light. Read my work, please. The canvas can be taken as an arena only under certain conditions. At the scale of galaxies it is no longer so, as well as at the level of macromolecules.

 Q: (Quote from earlier answer) "I contend that Hubble's redshift is the large scale proof that space is being created/maintained by its content,"
Sorry, but many people support many different theories by appeal to the Hubble redshift, and you are not the only person to have realised that observations don't follow the accepted law. The fact that it is not evidence of an expanding universe is now accepted by the members of the NPA (Natural Philosophy Alliance), for example, thought they all have different ideas as to what really causes it. My own current one is that it is simply evidence that the aether is a very slightly dispersive medium. It causes slight damping.

A: I do not contend at all that I am the first to question the meaning of Hubble's Redshift as an expansion of the universe. The critical physical feature I address is whether the redshift follows Hubble law beyond the age of our sun or not. Nobody else has advanced before that such a physical feature could be present, a feature I deduce from my theoretical approach.

 I certainly do not bring another version of the "tired light" speculation, "some kind of interaction of light with matter and radiation - photon-photon interaction - in intergalactic space" by 1966 DeBroglie [1]. This speculation cannot receive an experimental confirmation as a resulting generic redshift because it does not define a specific physical process (my approach addresses this physical process). I note here that, contrary to what is implied in the referenced paper above, this redshift speculation cannot be supported by an unrelated one about cosmic radiation in general by 1926 Eddington, 1933 Regener, 1937 Nernst, and intrinsic redshifts by 1954 Finlay-Freundlich (backed by Born) which could predict a correct Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) temperature decades before the 1949 Alpher and Hermann's big bang hypothesis, itself giving an erroneous value by a factor of twenty too high for that temperature. There I add that Alpher wishfully claimed that CBR proved his line as correct when the phenomenon was discovered in 1965! All corrections to the CBR temperature through the big bang line were all a posteriori from experimental facts. In my study I consider CBR as having no important theoretical value. It can be fudged too easily...

 Also unlike other theses, my experimental base is from new official experimental results: the 1998 high redshift type Ia supernovae surveys. The data shows "noise" in redshift above .33 which has no explanation whatsoever under Hubble law. Also, I do give an explanation under a theory which can have experimental consequences in fields a priori totally separate from Astronomy, unlike other theses. Finally, unlike other theses, I do not present a posteriori evidence: I propose a clear-cut way of attacking the universe expansion theory through future astronomical surveys which can make or break my theory. This is why I claim that my theory is a scientific theory. See my main page.

 Q: BTW, have you read Halton Arp's recent book [2] on the red shift? He presents evidence that galaxies and quasars with various different red shifts come in physical groups. Hence it is statistically just about impossible that their red shifts are evidence PURELY of different velocities. Red shift can happen for reasons other than Doppler effect. I'm not specially happy with his ideas on what does cause the shifts, though. I can't remember them.

 A: Reading the book I will say that Arp has many good observational points (some are heavily debatable) and I won't doubt his professionalism as an experimenter. But he is not a theoretician, and this shows. What I see leaves me in doubt that he does not jump to conclusions prematurely about the nature of all redshifts: 
(1) There are many facts known in astronomy that he does not mention, such as the blue galaxies and the elliptic galaxies. 
(2) He makes a number of unstated assumptions which have no backing, especially in the supernovae area, and supernovae cannot be "sinks of space", unlike AGNs as I envision in my work, and thus cannot have "intrinsic" redshifts as Arp rightfully points to for AGN products. Supernovae are thus ideal for a study of "generic" redshifts, even taking into account Arp's observations.
(3) His main discovery is about a fact that was hinted since 1911 from certain stars in our galaxy that a redshift does not necessarily mean velocity, but generic redshifts (not coming from velocity) besides the intrinsic redshifts he describes are still not excluded.
(4) For me he has identified an observational fact corroborating AGN's as "sinks of space" per my theory. But there is no real detailed theory yet on this matter to make his observations making full sense to our intelligence. My theory is only a preliminary pointer knowing other theoretical facts - it will need detailing, and Arp's experimental input may help there, while the theory he has espoused ("mass aging") is incomplete in a cosmological sense.
(5) My analysis of the type Ia supernovae survey results is not affected by Arp's observations: There may still be redshifts coming from the "maintenance of space," and future survey can make or break my theory, so it is a clear cut way of attacking the universe expansion theory, unlike Arp's approach. (I do not deny that the present survey data I mention is unreliable, it needs additional surveys from higher redshift, but so far the results are an indication of where we are heading, if we are willing to look at the data without bias.)

 In summary, the importance of what I advance with the surveys is that further surveys at higher redshifts can at last break the big bang theory through officially recognized observations. Arp's observations are not of a nature to attack all the observed redshifts as originating from a universe expansion: They may address the question of what AGN's are, back up my theory there and provide further features not theoretically predictable at this point, such as quantized redshifts, but that's all. 

Q: I have just been studying a truly fascinating article written in 1933 by Dayton Miller. If your theory relies on the facts in the text books about evidence for the aether, you MUST read this before going any further! The aether is complicated. Miller established, to my satisfaction, that it exists, but though he found out a lot about it there was much that he knew he could not possibly establish. He could not establish to what extent it moved with solid objects, or if it revolved with the general motion of the planets around the sun. The reason you may not have heard of this work is that it was actively rubbished in order to preserve Einstein's theories. In particular, it was rubbished by Shankland in 1955. (I mention this on my web site.)

 A: No, I do NOT rely on evidence for the 19th century aether. In effect I bring forth a new concept (but quite old in our philosophical history now): The very continual creation of a common entity - space - by the postulated eternal elements making up our common reality. If you are familiar with Bela Julesz stereo images, you know that our minds create a 3D image by looking at such 2D images. What is striking (contrary to the old 2-color glasses 3D movies) is that, when looking at these images, you immediately realize that your mind picks up elements of the image and literally constructs a 3D space from them, and this from abstract figures! Reality at large may be doing the same thing, and that is my thesis in a nutshell (at least for phase 1). I also study the present experimental literature in Microbiology and discover that many things have been found everyday without a theoretical explanation at all, and this thanks to the popular Intentional Stance sophism I mention below! That part (phase 2) for me is the most enticing because it discusses new phenomena in our universe that complement gravitation, and these phenomena (that allow Life to exist) are totally ignored by today's Science even though they are observed everyday in labs! Again, no math at all there, but imagination and multidimensional concepts must be accessible to the Reader.

 Q: (Quote from previous answer) "What is striking (contrary to the old 2-color glasses 3D movies) is that, when looking at these images, you immediately realize that your mind picks up elements of the image and literally constructs a 3D space from them, and this from abstract figures! Reality at large may be doing the same thing, and that is my thesis in a nutshell (at least for phase 1)."
Hey! Great minds think alike! Yes, I'll definitely put a pointer to you in my site, but I get the impression that what you've just said is clearer than what I've read there so far.

 A: Please remember that before clear concepts are enunciated as I did above, a lot of scaffoldings have to be erected. My thesis is such scaffold. Even Gauss, the famous mathematician of the 19th century, admitted that his main work was to erase the scaffoldings behind his formulae...

 Q: On this matter I've recently met something Maxwell said that seems appropriate. My notes on a passage in Froome and Essen's "The Velocity of Light and Radio Waves" say:
Maxwell's comments on Ampère's and Faraday's methods. Ampère tells us the elegant results, having "removed all traces of the scaffolding by which he had raised it". "Faraday ... shows us the unsuccessful as well as the successful experiments."
Maxwell: " ... therefore read Ampère's research as a spendid example of the scientific style in the statement of a discovery, but ... also study Faraday for the cultivation of a scientific spirit."

 I feel that you are giving us all the scaffolding, and, since this is all just thought and maths and not actual experiment, we don't need to know it! Do I really need to know all about Feynman's ideas if you end up rejecting them? A few years ago, when I discussed this with Trevor Marshall (the first "real scientist" I had managed to get interested in my work) we agreed that it was not wise to get immersed in the modern theories. They damage the mind. One should "dip ones toes into Hilbert space" but be careful not to go too deep!

 A: Thank you for this very apt observation from where you stand! You are touching here on the key problem I faced in exposing my approach. I was looking for having a discussion with a person of your type because when I started the thesis I was initially facing someone very different from you. Being mathematically oriented this person insisted on me describing every step I was taking in my logical analysis of present Physics' theoretical stand. This minutia, characteristic of mathematicians, did influence me. My thesis addresses this kind of people. I am basically not that type. Galileo had to do the same thing in his own time: Answer the low level kind of minds where you are attacked at each little step you take because the fellow cannot see the overall goal. Now with you I have at last to deal with a person who has an overall vista, and then of course my stance is rubbish or inadequate to say the least!

 This being said, I could not start with a priori thoughts when the conclusions were to be so drastic versus present thinking. Even you would have balked at that! I had no other choice but to go back to the various concepts found in history that are the background of my thesis. Examples (from the earliest to the latest):
---Galileo's grip with the unseparable he could not address, and thus conclude that no math can handle true Reality!
---Feynman's grip with the meaning of his method and concluding that everything goes at the speed of light, something a priori far out!
(Just think about these two thoughts how ridiculous I would show my line if I did not identify where they came from first!)

 Also, I do not end up rejecting them. I wanted to build a base from all the question marks these fellows had put out along the centuries. If I didn't do that the experimental consequences I identify later on would be dangling out of mid-air over the chasm of present official thinking. For me it is not enough to declare the big bang as nonsense (and so for Hubble's redshift and universe expansion), I have to speak from a base of understanding shared with others. Gauss and Ampere could remove the scaffoldings around their formulae because math and physics (when based on sophisms) have the property to be expressed solely with such formulae! (BTW this is why a math kind of person has a hard time with my work too: I don't have formulae to summarize the thinking!) When it comes to human understanding, the scaffolds must be left in so others can climb the same mountain to reach my conclusions. If I removed them, the clamor would be: You are dangling up there and you talk pure nonsense! (and you don't have formulae to back them up too!) The Physics I am dealing with, out of sheer necessity from the absence of applicable math, has no longer formulae, only images (such as Bela Julesz'!) that I can bring out to other minds. Einstein (backed up by Goedel) told us that imagination is a lot more powerful than knowledge (i.e. math). But imagination needs the inadequate tool of the language (a classical tool) in order to be communicated - we are not Vulcans (and their mind melt)! Nor can I be a Van Gogh bringing my impressions on a canvas... The kind of road I take is as new as Galileo's in his own time, and people will have to come to grip with that fact if we want to get out of the ditch we put ourselves in in the 20th century by not putting ourselves above mathematical knowledge. The minutia and illusory safety of mathematics did us in, we forgot that in order to apply mathematics to Reality we must assume sophisms, AS IF's, which induce us into a false sense of understanding. When a sophism fits very well (such as the one of fields) we forget its existence to our peril!

 Q: It is the fields around atoms and molecules that lay down patterns that influence the ease with which other atoms and molecules can exist in those locations. As far as I can see, that's all there is to it, at that level! That is the "secret of life"! The "fields" are in fact sets of e/m waves that are constantly renewed, reflecting oscillations of the molecules. At a lower level, I think we need to take account of another layer of waves, which I call phi-waves. These are all of essentially the same frequency and are what keeps the atoms in existence. Atoms (or maybe electrons or more fundamental units) take in random phi-waves and emit ordered ones. They do this more efficiently if the incoming waves are not too random - if they have a certain amount of coherence, so that the receiving particle does not have to move too much or too often in order to resonate with them. This underlying mechanism influences higher levels.

 A: When we get rid of the sophism of "fields" we get to see at last the connection between the various parts of the content through the common entity being maintained by the content as a whole: space. Then Life becomes a lot more understandable, and plausible: It is a set of whole entities in space, not a complex assemblage of local chemical components. When people see DNA splitting itself in two they see a chemical reaction. It cannot only be that: DNA is a very large molecule, while a chemical reaction is a local effect at the atom level. Its collective splitting and collective separation in the cell division (no statistical phenomenon here!) happened eons ago in some pond. This is not classical mechanics at work (as it deals with local effects only!), it is a collective operation which can only come from the nature of space. This is the subject of my phase 2.

 Q: I just want to introduce this idea that it is not space that is being generated but the phi-waves that permeate it being organised into more definite patterns. An existing molecule might be able to lay down patterns that amount to an almost complete copy of itself. It can't be complete because it is formed of moving waves, not standing ones, but sets of moving waves can form stationary interference patterns. These could define at least the key positions, telling the next molecule how to orientate itself.

 A: Watch out there about unstated sophisms! There is a rather recent sophism invented by Daniel Dennett [3], a well-known cognitive psychologist/philosopher, called the "Intentional Stance." In that sophism, molecules in living organisms act AS IF they were moving of their own will toward a certain goal! The present microbiological literature has taken the Intentional Stance and ran with it in the past 10 years, forgetting it is a sophism of the largest magnitude! I advance that the reason for its success is that molecules in living organisms are not individual local elements, they are part of a whole. How does that whole get to exist? Via the nature of space! The confusion with wavelike effects is that we see only the shadow of the phenomenon, as if we were in Plato's cave. Remember that waves are the projection of circular motion. Here the circular motion occurs in higher dimensions. The world created by the EORs is 3 times 3D, not 9D mind you. In my math page I surmise that this dimensionality of the EORs monadic relations comes from their "unseparable" character, forcing them to remain within this limit. It is then in this higher dimensionality process that space gets to be warped as Einstein saw. Finally, contrary to the approach you take above my outlook is precise enough to have experimentally verifiable consequences.

 Q: What's the "axiom of choice"?

 A: It is a technical term to describe the fact things making up our reality may not be separable/distinguishable from each other, and all our math assumes our reality is separable! The notion of "set" as found in classical teaching assumes separability of elements because since Galileo we have dealt only with separable things. Galileo himself agreed that reality may not be made of separable things, but he could not see how to deal with unseparable things. Neither could Newton . What Schroedinger and Born saw in the 20th century was that kind of "unseparable" property in the "electron clouds" but had no mathematics to describe it. So in desperation they took a "statistical stance," a new sophism AS IF the electron was made of a large number of separable things evolving in a statistical fashion. Schroedinger had the math for that. But to this day there is no mathematical justification for such a stance to work (see the math page for more on this matter). The axiom of choice was enunciated in 1904 by Zermelo to at last point out that all our mathematics assumes separability!

 Q: Hmmm... I'll leave that to the mathematical types! Seems a muddle to me.

 A: You CAN'T. This is a key point! It is NOT technical at all. Do you know that the "real line" taught in grade schools is separable? I bet the teachers never told you! All of our mathematics deals with separable things, and yet we try to use that to tackle Reality! Please read my work there.

 Q: Was Galileo really concerned with separability or was it continuity?

 A: Separability! Read the quote I give from him in one of the early sections of phase 1.

 Q: What do you mean by nonlocality? (Hopefully, all you mean is "holism", which is perfectly OK by me, not the dreadful nonsense I'm fighting in the EPR experiments)

 A: Nonlocality is tied to the notion of space built by its content. I mentioned that in Life phenomena above. The description of EPR experiments found in the literature is based on another sophism: the "weird quantum." Since the official quantum mechanical formalism assumes space separate from its content then properties found via that formalism and sophism (the "Statistical Stance" of Schroedinger) lead to weird results: They make absolutely no sense, yet Reality of course displays these "weird" phenomena, by not being fully covered by the "Statistical Stance" sophism!

 Q: So long as you don't assume that holism requires instantaneous effects from the rest of the universe, but you sound too sensible to fall into that trap...

 A: I will agree that this is the hardest pill to swallow with the way it has been presented through the "weird quantum" stance. The present literature has no reasonable explanation. Here is where I may be able to help: Space being built by its content forces a "projection" of phenomena onto the world we see. The content, the EORs, are infinite eternal things. We meet only their shadows via their collective associations. Think of a chair and its shadow on the ground: If you move the chair the shadow will change in an bewildering way, with no apparent reason for the transformations. This is a non-local effect. But the chair is a classical object: it is *separable* from the rest of Reality. The EORs are unseparable, and thus their "non-local" effects are of a very different nature collectively creating space itself. I contend that Life is the result of such effects. A mind is a non-local effect. There cannot be "conscious" robots if they are built with classical things not using the physical effects I am talking about found only in Life! See phase 2 of my study.

 Q: (Quote from previous answer) "A mind is a non-local effect."
I don't think the term appropriate. OK to say that is depends on holistic effects -- in reality I think it depends on microwave fields in addition to direct communications along nerves.

 A: If you read my work in depth (phase 2) you would see that holistic and non-local is the same in my work due to the origin of space from EORs. Before contemplating classical phenomena (such as e-m microwaves) which cannot bring creativity, let's look at unseparable things which can! Such things cannot be seen in our classical reality but we are literally made out of them (our minds)!

 Q: (Quote from earlier answer) "There cannot be 'conscious' robots if they are built with classical things not using the physical effects I am talking about found only in Life!"
Agreed: they need to take account of the fields and this is just too incredibly difficult! It depends on everything being exacly the right sizes, so that standing wave patterns are set up in just the right places, and travelling waves reach their destinations just when needed ...

 A: Then you see Life as a clockwork... as today's established Life Sciences see. I contend in phase 2 that we must first learn what is the physical basis of Life before we tackle the intellect. This area of Science has been taken a priori as not holding new physical effects (in effect being a clockwork), wrong! The ability to self-reflect (think) and creativity are physical effects not part of the dead world, and they are not clockworks. Read my work if you don't see how, that's the point of the detailed scaffolding I expose, for you to at last see as I see.

 I just read the quant-ph/9912082 paper which appears to be the latest at the LANL website archive that you put out. For me it is the clearest of all your papers there. As a theoretician I am impressed with your description of the "locality loophole" in Appendix A. It is a point that ought to be in Zeilinger's paper about what a true QT ought to contain: QT does not address how entanglement "physically" occurs, if it occurs of course. A true QT must identify how the connection across distances occurs, what are the physical means, within its understanding of Reality in order to be a complete physical theory. This I believe is the point Einstein ought to have brought in his EPR paper, instead of sticking to the classical notion of locality - if our world can have non-local effects as QT proposes, QT must tell how they physically occur, otherwise it is incomplete. Making the assumption that "a system when free from mechanical interference necessarily has independent real properties" , i. e. "has local elements of reality" as Einstein said, is contrary to QT (see W. H. Furry's conclusions [6]). I describe the physical means of such a potential non-local property from my hypothesis (with Einstein/Leibniz/Bruno) that space is built from its content, therefore all EOR associations (quanta) are in effect non-local (holistic) as seen from our space - through their contribution to the building of our space! However, their non-local behavior seen from our space is then observable only when such associations are reshaped into submanifolds "touching" our space in different points. I believe experiments in Life will prove that property much better than the EPR experiments can. Such effects are "at home" there, not in the dead world of quantum optics.

 Wolfgang Pauli said it well with his remembering of the "anima mundi" from the 17th century, the world in constant motion (at the speed of light!), as Zeilinger's paper reminded me. This world, and Life, are much more than a clockwork due to their ability to use this character to continually change their own space in order to maximize the size of their elemental collective evolutions, as Life tells us if we look at it as physicists, not as chemists. Non-local effects as experienced from our space are very much part of such an idea, but we need to understand what that means: It is not voodoo, it is not communication faster than the speed of light, it is simply that a non-separated system (what we call now the quantum) evolving in higher dimensions is a whole contributing to the creation/maintenance of our space. The properties that we find connected in EPR are a trace of this make-up. Life may depend on such a higher dimensionality holistic feature which appears experimentally verifiable within Life itself. So let's look at Life in that perspective, at last. I address this matter in phase 2 of my work.

 Q: From what I could read, your work sounded rather mathematical. The way I view things, it is very necessary at this stage to re-assess facts without putting ourselves into a new "straitjacket". As soon as you invent a mathematical theory, this immediately makes it MORE difficult to accomodate observations. Though I want logical theories, I have no need to express these in terms of mathematics as I don't need to do any calculations. Nobody is going to ask ME what direction to send a rocket to launch a probe to Mars!

 A: Then you should have no problem reading my work, I don't do any calculations either! (In the main exposition of the thesis) In fact your position there was described in the Journal of Theoretics and enticed me into contacting you... As yours, my approach is a conceptual one, even though I start from concepts found in advanced mathematical (our present mathematics!) theories. If you take a book from Galileo, such as "Two New Sciences", you may be taken aback with his lengthy discussions using Euclid's Geometry, until you realize the Grand Old Italian really is sprinkling powder in your eyes about being formal in his approach... He is not! He only expresses concepts through Euclid's approach because he has no other means to bring his arguments across, and he is really flimsy at it. Descartes saw that and betched about it at length, but failed to say that Galileo could not do otherwise, not having calculus to use... I am not formal at all (I don't even use Galileo's subterfuge - I only use diagrams where no diagram can be drawn!) and this is the problem I have had for publishing in the normal literature. Remember: You want "logical theories," but such must start without assumed views, either expressed or not. This is where my careful expose takes you aback! In order to be sure there are no unturned stones I require quite a wide technical knowledge from my readers, my text is not nursery lullabies... (you may fall asleep though reading it) even though you won't find equations there. In other words my text is math without equations in some sense! "Logical theories" demand no less.

 Q: You mention the possibility of logical disproof, path integrals and a couple of other things with which I have little sympathy, but do tell me more.

 A: You may want to skip sections up to the "missing equation" section in phase 1, (skipping over the Particle Physics area) which gives the meat of that phase 1 for the universe at large scales, and Appendix A on the alternate meaning of Hubble's discovery. Did you read the "History of this Thesis" page at my site? It gives quite an intro on what I cover. Phase 2 demands a deep knowledge in Microbiology, but Appendix A there has a summary of the biological material I used to build my discussion. The work does rely on a large amount of facts found in the scientific literature. As I said earlier, it is quite hard to follow without such background. I deal with Cognitive Psychological concepts in next to last section of phase 2, and again there a knowledge (albeit generic) of that field is required, but through it you may get a new vista about what mental phenomena are in a physical sense. The very last section of phase 2 is a philosophical discussion about formal and informal approaches in the scientific literature. This part may be quite interesting for your own way of seeing things.

 Q: I won't try and read the whole thesis. Must get on with my book, and I've just come across some work I was doing in 1997 that should have been followed up - a theory I have that these dear intelligent quantum opticians are carrying on assuming they are dealing with negative correlations when all the time they have been positive! Their "explanation" is so obscure that they can't tell the difference.

 A: Good luck with your book. It is amazing for me that this story of EPR is still being contested after 65 years (since Einstein's original EPR paper). This theoretical discontent shows the enormous importance of finding out a reasonable explanation for such phenomena. It shows me that the Schroedinger's "Statistical Stance" sophism was far from satisfactory for covering the Quantum in an understandable physical way, and it was only successful in making certain formal deductions. It appears that Dennett's "Intentional Stance" for the field of Life is also a powerful discovery tool there, but has the same lack of explanatory value - in fact it induces people into a very dangerous false sense of understanding potentially stopping the search for the truth. What are these sophisms both missing? I contend: Their ignorance of the origin of space!

 Q: I fear that you have not understood what I've been up to in my EPR studies! Do read one of my articles -- the Tangled Methods one, perhaps, www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/Tangled/tangled.html. There is no evidence that the real world does follow any "weird" phenomena! This is just the result of bad experimental method and analysis.

 A: I contest that conclusion, and this from the larger picture I draw in my study. "Weird" phenomena are an indication that our understanding of Nature is only very partial. Before Faraday came up with his "field" sophism we thought magnetism was a weird phenomenon too. That sophism was so good that even you fell in the trap together with Einstein and the rest of modern physicists! I try to give a logical approach which eliminates "weirdnesses" in the modern phenomena of the Quantum by going to more fundamental things that we may have missed since the beginning of Classical Mechanics through the successive sophisms used by Science.

 I read your work as you sent it. I see your contesting of the present experimental approach in quantum physics, and I do agree on what you are saying about the various biases put on the experimenter. I was in my youth an experimenter myself in Paris-Orsay, Solid State Physics, years before Aspect was there (I was there when Bell came up with his inequalities and attended to one of his conferences), and one of my diplomas comes from there. I did see and handled many photomultipliers in my life. You are indeed giving an excellent critical analysis of the experiments you address. In my work I address other sets of experiments: astronomical surveys and microbiological observations. I question both and give a replacement theory with experimental consequences. The "magic" you dispute from the results in QM is part of my thesis as one side of our world, its content, the quantum side, in phase 1 of my work. I do get there though via larger arguments on the nature of space.

 I have a complex thesis because I look at more basic theoretical positions than the ones you take, dating from Galileo, starting with an assumed "separable" world (and thereby getting to a clockwork world - no Life there..., thus limited from the start). The "magic" of Life as perceived in the second set of experiments is the subject of my phase 2. My goal is as yours: to get rid of perceived "magical" effects. But I proceed a different way from yours. You do attack our present theoreticians as accepting magical results unlike previous ones did, such as Newton who acknowledged the frailty of their theory. I fully agree with that, and this is my stance too! What I do to resolve such matters is different. There are many more problems besides the ones you address in QM, such as black holes, big bang, dark matter for astrophysics, and Life molecules following their own will, Life out of pure statistics, Life not being a clockwork, Life having creativity while the dead world has none, the holistic phenomenon of mental phenomena not found elsewhere in the dead world, etc., etc.

 We may also be in agreement when you question the separation assumed between quanta (single quantum experiments), in particular whether atomic emissions are independent or not. You end up questioning the photon picture that Einstein brought out, and again I agree with you, but see it in a totally different way. 

As you said, QM has been unable to make the wave-particle double system work in a reasonable way. I answer that - it doesn't and I give the reason why: the Statistical Stance sophism ignoring the nature of space. You question Einstein's way of seeing things about the warping of space. I answer that too: the Field Stance sophism (followed even by Einstein!) which detaches space from its content. You think that Faraday's way of thinking in lines of forces is misleading. As I said: Watch out for sophisms, such as "fields" that you still assume representing reality. You must shed these sophisms in order to see beyond them. I know it is very hard, even Einstein fell in that trap!

 You think everything can be resolved via phi-waves. You see a "sea of aether" sustaining these waves. I answer via the concept of space created and annihilated in a multidimensional sea of relations computing the future as a whole between infinite eternal and unseparable elements, giving something much more plausible than "black holes" and "Life out of lightning strikes," and with experimental consequences to boot. 

You are trying to understand, and this is the key: I contend you cannot understand until you shed the prime (classical) impressions of what you have received as information and I contend you cannot make this into a whole with an overall sense until you do get deeper, and especially until you recognize the sophisms you unwittingly embrace. From where I stand, you are not going deep enough in the nature of things. This is the intent of my work to help there. Furthermore, your logical theory must be precise enough to lead you to verifiable experimental consequences, without them you won't go anywhere. No amount of writing will help. This is what the Scholars of the Middle-Ages were doing. That's the whole point of the Scientific Method. So far this method allowed us to tackle a clockworld, but there is much more in our world than this dead machine of Classical Physics. Let's tackle that!

 Q: The real world doesn't need actual nonlocality. What is does need is lots of "radio-control" type mechanisms. Because of the constant interactions via e/m and lower-level waves, things may seem to interact in nonlocal ways. It is possible that some interactions may be faster than light, but NOT logically possible for anything to act genuinely instantaneously at a distance.

 A: I contend that Classical Physics "mechanisms" are applying only to a clockworld, the Classical World, not to Life. As Feynman did, I contend that everything goes at the speed of light, the speed of the computation making our world. Nonlocality and holism are the same thing. Our world is only perceivable as a shadow of a larger universe made out of infinite elements. In my worldview nothing acts instantaneously at a distance, only shadows do!

 Q: Therefore possibly we have a profound disagreement. I find my own picture very satisfying. I don't know of any phenomenon that does not fit it. 

A: My point again is not only to find a satisfying and complete picture, but a picture with verifiable outcomes so that I know I don't build a fantasy world.

 Q: My view depends on fields, but these fields are themselves composed of high-frequency waves, so they are not just static properties of the aether.

 A: Again, what is a "field"? A cornfield rests on dirt. On what do your fields rest? The aether? But then on what does the aether rests? I contend (per your own picture): on an unphysical mathematical concept which is not part of Reality. You stance is then simply unphysical. This may be disconcerting for you, but this is one of the things logic can do to you, show you how naked your approach is, and you may not like that. Sophisms are there to protect from seeing the nakedness of theories.

 Q: My fields with their underlying phi-waves are totally real.

 A: I beg to differ. As long as you have not integrated space in your theory (and the origin of gravitation) you cannot claim you are real. Faraday's line of forces are real in a classical sense, but not more than that.

 Q: I don't think you've understood what I mean by "field". I don't accept Faraday's lines of force. I'm talking only about the mathematical concept. A field is something for which a numerical (or maybe vector) value can be defined at all points in space. This concept has validity in the real world. Surrounding a "charged body" one has a "field" in that every position is the subject of a Coulomb force. But what I recognise and not all others appear to is that this kind of statement implies you are speaking on a macroscopic level. This will be true for lab experiments. From the point of view of fundamental physics one ought to state clearly that the value of a field variable is understood to be the average value when some property or other of the underlying phi-waves is integrated over a small volume of space and a small interval of time.

 A: Ok. This is clearer. I see above the concept of "average value": I distinguish here a position identifying Classical Physics as a theory of average values, while this fact was not identified in the 19th century. In other words you see Classical Physics as making the error of confounding mathematical concepts with Reality. Galileo said something to that effect in the quote I use in my thesis: Reality is unseparable while mathematics only deals with separable things, so math is always limited as a tool to represent Nature. This is what I say in my thesis: Let's find out if we can extend math to unseparable things at last. If we can't then our limited understanding will remain limited through the use of math. The 20th century came to grip with the limitations of math, via Goedel and via the existence of the quantum. I add also now via the existence of Life. I go further in the understanding of our world via an imaginative inquiry as broad as I could make it such that I get to a whole worldview. The self-consistency of that worldview is the logical proof it is correct, yet of course consequences must be verified to give us a hint at what the future theory will need to contain. I look at consequences from astronomy to biophysics so I eliminate that way (from a priori separate ideas) the possibility of a fortuitous coincidence in experimental results, or debatable isolated results such as EPR which don't make sense by themselves.

 Q: What happens, I think, is that though atoms themselves are sensitive to my phi-waves, they do not get recognised by any instruments as "electromagnetic waves" unless their source is oscillating, so that the tiny phi-waves act as carriers for a higher-level oscillating pattern. Matter can be said to create such patterns, or one could say that it is not quite separable from the patterns it produces, yet I don't think that is true! You can get hold of an atom and move it and the pattern will follow, in a genuinely causal way, but not vice versa. It is formed from waves that are flowing out from the source, and once gone they're gone.

 A: From the information you are giving me your view can't extrapolate this to the nuclear fields world. You can't answer why nuclear waves are bound in space while e-m ones are not. What is the reason for bounded nuclei of atoms in your view?

 Q:This is something that I don't think we can expect to explain beyond saying that clearly the aether does support this structure. What I seem to have deduced is the existence of quasi-stationary wave centres. Clearly these will be able to co-exist as close neighbours if they form neat lattices. The scale of the lattice is determined by intrinsic properties of the aether -- by the wavelength of its fundamental waves in the conditions prevailing there, i.e. with whatever effective refractive index it has within nuclei.

 A: That's gobbledgook for me!

 Q: How so? All I'm saying it that for stability and compactness you need the various components to be in resonance. Having not made a detailed study of nuclear matters I can't say more.

 A: That's what I said earlier: You approach is incomplete. The key feature of nuclei fields is that they do not appear *at all* away from the nucleus. They decrease exponentially (the Yukawa potential). A e-m approach cannot get to such behavior as e-m waves are always infinite (no bounds). This is why I have doubts that a purely e-m theory can tackle this. I see this phenomenon as fundamental to the make-up of Reality as a separable world. My thesis depends on that.

 The fundamentally bound aspect of the nucleus, and the Yang-Mills field explanation, are something which took 30 years of particle physics experiments to identify, and this is still not understood as of today. This fact has so far not been integrated into a general view of our world, and it must be. The "Standard Model" does not explain that fact. I attempt to integrate it in a general view to make more sense out of it. But of course, if one of the theoretical bases I use, QT, is wrong, then everything I did is wrong. Yet I look at other areas to see where the ideas lead, and I make quite a reasonable whole out of what I see. And of course I am falsifiable through the experiments I propose... So if the experiments confirm, then there is one more base for QT, indirectly. At my site I answer Zeilinger's question in his paper through my own thesis. You may want to do same through your thesis... If he is so wrong as you say, then that way would certainly help communicating ideas for everyone to see.

 Q: (Quoting answer above) "The key feature of nuclei fields is that they do not appear *at all* away from the nucleus."
In my picture, phi-waves become effectively much stronger when they are coherent. They are very short wavelength, so that they can only be coherent, and produce exact resonances, on a very small scale.

 (Quoting answer above) "A e-m approach cannot get to such behavior as e-m waves are always infinite (no bounds)."
That's the problem with formalisms! Forget them! You can perfectly well have a classical Maxwell-type view of the world in which waves are not infinite. All you have to do is build in the requirement that each wave has a real source and travels at speed c (or whatever). "Retarded potentials", in other words.

 But QT has taken over the area of classical theory that covers resonance! (Though they've left radio functioning successfully ...) They've taken over "cavity electrodynamics" -- a theory that Lorentz knew quite a lot about. They talk about atoms in optical traps absorbing photons. Load of nonsense! It's just a matter of resonances, admittedly involving some features that poor old Lorentz didn't know about but the way they present the gobbledgook nobody will EVER understand what really goes on.

 A: I see this as the meat of your approach and it shows its incompleteness. Cavity electrodynamics requires walls made of atoms and nuclei, so your e-m "theory" requires an outside system not part of it, nuclei.

 Q: I've been trying to elaborate on my ideas about the nucleus. I agree that the wall is a problem. One possibility is that the relative motion between the aether of the nucleus and that of the surrounding region creates the effect of a wall. We don't want an impenetrable one, though -- I think the stationary waves inside the nucleus determine the possible positions of moving wave centres (electrons) in the outer regions. Anyway, an analogy that came to mind for the effect of relative motion was skimming a spinning flat stone across water. Any good?

 A: Well, yes, the analogy looks good, but all that you are doing is replacing a problem with another. How do you explain water in that view compared to air? (Wow, we are back to the Ancient Greeks and their elements - we didn't make much progress, didn't we?) Explaining nuclei is not easy with only e-m to play with. Again I use their existence as one of the bases of my theory, and I don't try to explain them away.

 Q: QT started off on the wrong foot with the false idea of the photon and has been wrong ever since! Have you thought about the justification for the photon idea? Of course you have. But if that does not exist then there is no reason to quantise energy and the whole stack of cards falls down. 

A: I knew that from what you said earlier, but photons are not matter, and QT is about matter first! The electron study was what made the QT formalism... You have really only addressed quantum optics up until now and you said that you question EPR results, no other results of QT experiments such as the Davisson-Germer experiment. So what else could I conclude? That you have a different interpretation of QT giving the same results (except for EPR) is not new... If your formalism is different in general then that's where it becomes interesting! But you did not say so up until now. QT relies on more than photon physics: Namely the atomic spectra and the DeBroglie wavelength of matter, which has pretty good verification of its validity, as in the Davisson-Germer experiment. Is there a way to predict the results without the concept of quanta? If yes, then the whole edifice breaks down, and I may be the only one who could support it! How sad...

 Q: It's not worth supporting. People out there in industry "use" it only when they publish brochures designed for academics! Anyway, what is to prevent the "electron" behaving as pure wave, then ( as in low-energy photomultipliers) the apparent detection of each being in fact the result of a local threshold being exceeded?

 A: As I said earlier then you need an alternate theory detailed enough to produce new knowledge.

 Q: What experiments are you proposing, though? Surely QT, in the hands of the virtuouso, is so flexible it can agree with anything you fling at it?

 A: Ha! Well, the virtuoso has missed the big one: QT assumes space as a given, all the formalisms from Schroedinger to Feynman fail to see that assumption. If I put myself in a situation where *space is itself manipulated by its content in a quantum way*, not merely by its presence (gravitation), you will see "magical" things, such as a mega-virus which is a dead polyhedron, going (moving toward) through two membranes and releasing its DNA in the nucleus of a cell (see the article in my New Findings page). There are no flagella attached, and you CAN'T stop it! This polyhedron creates its own space! My history page describes another phenomenon: A supramolecular structure duplicating itself *at right angle* without any means of support under the electron microscope. Its dynamic mass is as large as the cell it is in! You think that EPR is magical, think again! I have many other experiments described in phase 2. Please look at them. That will be one way to the break-up of QT. At different scales, the limited range of the Hubble redshift will be another because there is no way with considering only quanta that you can get to that property, it is against the Born criterion, quanta cannot lose energy continuously... A third area will be the Higgs field of Particle Physics: This is a miscarriage of Science through the fallacy of the field sophism ("effective" field theories as advanced by Steven Weinberg [7] will then fall in the void).

Yet, if you look at the view I am proposing, EPR makes sense in it, so in effect I would support QT in that area (but EPR by itself makes no sense, that's for sure!) QT is just a classical version of a pure quantum theory by missing the fundamental principle (the quantum origin of space) I describe which brings the needed logical sense to the theory.

 Q: (Quoting answer above) "If I put myself in a situation where *space is itself manipulated by its content in a quantum way*,"
Aha! That's more like it! While you were saying space was CREATED by its content I could not go along with you. I still think this is the wrong way round though. Better to say there is nothing in the universe but aether in various states of oscillation. One oscillation causes another. "Open space" is full of the oscillations caused by the "solid matter".

 A: We are coming to a better explanation of our respective positions here: When I state my position as I did above, this is only part of it, the part addressing the molecular scale of our world. The other part about the large scale CREATION of space has to deal with astronomical scales. Lerner [5] thinks that AGNs are electromagnetic balls. I advance that they are "sinks of space." Galaxies CREATE their own space and generic redshift, Arp's redshifts, dark matter all come from that. But that area of course has nothing to do with Life. I appreciate Lerner's position, but for me he misses Life in his worldview, as you do.

 Q: I still don't see the need to talk of creating space. All that I see happening is the creation of better organisation of phi-waves.

 A: Experimental evidences hint at such a need. If you put together why "dark matter" was introduced in the late 70s by Sciama/Hawking (evolution of galaxies not fitting Newton/Einstein), the discoveries by Arp on emission of quasars, intrinsic redshifts, limited range Hubble redshift, cosmic gamma ray bursts, the universe large scale dimensionality 2 instead of 3, etc., together with the limited speed of light which creates space, you will see that our universe is not an overall space but a bunch of separate "space systems" which bathe in a background space maintained by radiation from much older times than the galaxies we observe. The center of galaxies is recycling the space generated by the radiation emitted by the stars in the galaxies. It is easy to confuse space with the fields representing its content. Again space is a canvas of EOR relations all going at the speed of light. I understand your difficulty in perceiving the concept. It took me a long time to see the difference space-fields. Curse the field sophism! The long scaffolding I build in phase 1 attempts to make you see that difference. 

Q: (Quoting earlier answer) "You think that EPR is magical, think again!"
NEVER!!!! What do I have to say to make you change your mind? Don't you see? By accepting nonlocal effects you have fallen into the trap of letting yourself be influenced by something totally unnecessary that crept into an already-stupid formalism back in the late 1920's? Why?????

 A: What you showed me is that EPR is a debatable way to prove that our universe has a higher dimensionality. I agree! You conclude that our universe is not. I do not go that way for many independent reasons. I say on my side that effects in Life are much more evidentiary in that area and lead to a logical whole with our Astrophysics and Particle Physics experimental knowledge. If you knew these other evidences as I describe them in my thesis, you may see the limitation of considering only EPR as you do to understand the make-up of Reality.

 I still believe that if the experiments I propose are run, the edifice will come crumbling down. I feel that not rejecting outright QT and General Relativity but pointing out their limitations has more potential for doing that, an inside job in a sense...

 Q: This is what Trevor Marshall et al are trying to do. I think they are wrong. It has led them to abandon the total honesty that the world needs. They've had to fudge things and to ignore inconvenient experimental facts.

 A: A theory which needs to fudge things is not a theory. Of course, inconvenient facts can kill a theory. I advance a few, and if they disprove me, so be it. All theories must be falsifiable. If yours is not, you are pretty secure... but what can it predict, what is its worth?

 Q: Take Dirac's bras and kets, for instance: he assumes that everything is +1 or -1, but in real life (as well as in man-made instruments such as photomultipliers) you have lots of zeros. Moreover, you can in optical experiments get both + and -. It's a false model so all derivations wrong. All apparent agreements with the real world are as riddled with self-deception as the EPR experiments. About the only thing they possibly get right is some formulae behind atomic spectra, but you can justify this same maths on the grounds of basic notions of waves and considerations of symmetry -- or adopt SED. You say QT depends on Davisson-Germer. My suspicion is that the electron exists as a kind of particle only some of the time. Most of the time we just have formless concentrated phi-waves. These have no problem at all in producing diffraction patterns. We don't need QT for those: they are classical wave effects.

 A: So the key is to develop a formalism which accounts for that experiment. Phi-waves may make sense logically but a formalism needs to be there so we can deduce the wave-particle behavior as experienced, unless, again, the math we know is totally inadequate to cover such phenomena in a true physical sense, a conclusion I present in my study.

 Q: (Quote answer above) "So the key is to develop a formalism..."
Why have a formalism?

 A: To prove the logical argument does not overlook something. This can easily happen. Remember Aristotle. Galileo's thought experiment looked good, but he felt that inclined planes experiments were a better proof. As the pope of his time did you say that thought experiments are enough. Not so. Only as a first step... or a preliminary step, such as the one I take (or Bucky Fuller took in his geodesic domes [4]).

 Q: (Quote earlier answer) "...which accounts for that experiment. phi-waves may make sense logically but a formalism needs to be there so we can deduce the wave-particle behavior as experienced,"
If the "raw energy" that is "electron-matter" is able sometimes to take quantised form (like fixed-size droplets of water?) and sometimes travel across "open space" as a pure wave, what is the point of trying to model it under one mathematical formalism? It seems evident to me that we are up against secrets of aether behaviour that we are by no means in a position to understand. We have to leave this area open, at least until QT has been dead and buried long enough for all the presently-wasted good minds to have turned their attention to trying to find out what really happens (perhaps with a mental picture of phi-waves as a provisional idea, testing out each case -- fractional Quantum Hall effect, Josephson junctions, this and that -- to see how the basic idea can be refined (or rejected!)).

 A: I have absolutely no qualm with that description as a preliminary description! (although incomplete since you admit in it that there are "secrets of aether behavior that we are by no means in a position to understand"!) I only insist on the need for ANY theory to come up with predictions if it claims to be scientific, including empirical approaches (empiricism is always guided by a theoretical view of the world). In Life the "Intentional Stance" sophism is what is being used right now. This last approach for me is totally unsatisfactory, and further leads people to a dead end through a false sense of understanding, as the Scholars of the Middle-Ages. I believe biological empiricism is a very slow process which started millennia ago and is still continuing only now with concepts from QT (with quantum chemistry) to help going further. And since QT is very limited, then this misguided empiricism will NEVER find the real answers about Life. I won't stand for that.

 Q: Do biologists really use any "concepts from QT"? Which and How?

 A: Quantum chemistry and crystallography to study molecular structures. QT appears only as local phenomena in the literature. Only a few biophysicists use semi-classical phenomena such as soliton waves. Vibrations in large supramolecular arrangements are feebly addressed. The assumption is that QT on large scales is not applicable because thermalization. I deal with what is called "quantum protectorates" which would allow large scale quantum phenomena in Life, but not phenomena observed in the dead world, due to special supramolecular structures arrangements not existing in the dead world. Herbert Froehlich in the 1980s analyzed cell components as having a potential for superconducting effects, so in a sense I follow that physicist's path. Phil Anderson has recently hypothesized such protectorates to explain high temperature superconductors (see the New Findings page), but he didn't have a physical process to realize them. In my approach, these protectorates would require considering dual layers of reality (space) where a coherent space would be created free from normal space thermalizations. My phase 2 describes how these protectorates would exist. In the dead world Schroedinger Cat ions have been recently observed at 80 nanometers distance: The same ion is in two places at the same time. This kind of observed behavior backs up my approach claiming the possibility of dual reality space.

 Q: QT is quite right, of course, in that there are waves underlying everything. Where it is totally wrong is in treating the results of measurement by an instrument such as a photomultiplier as if they were the whole story. Take in ordinary interference pattern, for example. I bet you'll find that in real life the intensity does not vary sinusoidally, yet QT is unable to contemplate any other possibility! QT says the pattern is due to interference of probability amplitudes, and these are always sinusoidal. It says that all photons are the same, hence the observed pattern MUST accurately reflect that underlying perfect sine waves. Does it? Who cares! They simply believe the theory.

 A: You have it right according to my theory: Being higher dimensional rotations of constantly changing manifolds ("anima mundi") these sinusoidal waves can only be a rough approximation of a parallel computation results done by the EORs. But the math does not exist for describing such computations. Computer Science admits (Turing) we cannot predict the results of a computation! We just have to run it. We can only maybe obtain a few generic features: the wave result is one, of course not sinusoidal...

 One obvious thing: QT is more than quantum optics.

 Q: I see it as a great fat monster of human fabrication! As Einstein said, it is a theory created with the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Fortunately real physics scarcely depends on it at all. It's supposed to be the "foundation", yet it seems that the bulk of physics is able to stand up -- perhaps floating on this mire. Even if QT is totally discredited, what will remain is large junks of masonry -- the bits of real physics that are used in microprocessing, astronomy ....

 A: Physics must be constantly questioned. I have a diploma in solid state physics, I experimented, and I dealt with coming up with new theoretical approaches. From the beginning I was taken aback by the imagination needed to come up with an understanding of things not in the books to be handled theoretically (such as a quantum system rotating vs another, my 3SAT paper of 1996). Present theories are very limited because they lack imagination. The chunks we have mostly right, such as solidstate physics (our computers are the proof of this...), are still incomplete, witness high temperature superconductors. This area is an example where a larger view of the world must be built to come up with a discovery. I deal with that, and Life gives plenty to think about to expand our views.

 Q: Have you read, incidentally:
Cartwright, Nancy, "How the Laws of Physics Lie", Clarendon Press 1983?
I strongly recommend it. If you did not already realise it, QT is not really a theory at all. Who do you know who can actually tell you what the theory says in any NEW situation? In practice, nobody can "do" any but the standard problems. Certain gurus have acquired the right to proclaim new epicycles, but when you look into it you find more than one recipe for the same situation. Try reading actual papers in PRL! How rigorously does the result actually follow from the maths? How much intuition was needed to write down that Hamiltonian? Is it not the case that so many approximations had to be made, and assumptions about boundary conditions etc, that no real sign of QT remains?

 A: As I said earlier, I know firsthand the lack of imagination QT displays. In my study I make a theoretical development using it in a "weird" set-up and it took me a year to come up with something meaningful. Yet when I tried to publish it back in 1994, it was refused because the reviewer could not see the importance of what I did since no numerical values could be obtained from it, but theoretically it was important, and he could not see that... My conclusion there is that QT cannot be used in scales larger than a small molecule, and there with plenty approximations. After all, dealing with shadows is quite hard when you don't see the object making the shadow... I was in that situation. I couldn't believe it! Again look at one of the appendices of my study. This is what made me suspect originally that QT was REALLY incomplete. A story of shadows can only be incomplete... and manipulating shadows makes no sense at all... But that does not mean the formalism is incorrect. It just lacks the principles to make it sensible... Then QT is not a theory, and Zeilinger in effect says so.

 Q: (Quote answer above) "...suspect originally that QT was REALLY incomplete. A story of shadows can only be incomplete..."
It's definitely incomplete! It deals with everying as +1 and -1, then finds it has to pile up infinite sums of probabilities in order to get formulae that agree with the real -- analogue -- world. Because it deals with +1 and -1, it has no hope of ever dealing correctly with real instruments. For real instruments things are ALWAYS going to be too complex for a full model -- you simply have to recognise the need of empirical calibration. One can try and understand the mechanism, but what's the point of "formalising" it?

 A: I thought that predictions are the goal of Science, so that ultimately engineering constructions can be made to handle Reality for our benefits. In Microbiology there is no formal work in the literature, only a set of facts. This is an empirical field by excellence, and this because there is no other way to go further. Empiricism was used long before Science arrived, and it is definitely much slower than mathematical knowledge if such can be obtained.

 Understanding our world is a prerequisite of handling it. But Science needs a feeback to tell if we are on the right track in that understanding. Aristotle was wrong in the story of falling bodies, and Galileo showed he was wrong via a *thought* experiment (not by dropping objects from the Tower of Pisa). But the thought experiment was incapable of differentiating quantitatively how fast the bodies were going. He had to turn to inclined planes. There he could see the quantitative differences to go further in the *precision* of the understanding which led to Newton's formal work. 

In a number of instances, qualitative predictions are all that is necessary, such as in Architecture. Bucky Fuller's geodesic domes were found via imagination [4], but hard computations were required in order to build them. A theory which has only qualitative results is in general incomplete in order to tackle reality (but not always). This is the main criticism I received from the world during the year of presentation I made on the web. I had to explain that first we must obtain an understanding with a few verifiable consequences to tell we are on the right track, and of course this can only be a preliminary approach... You will not be asked to build a rocket to go to Mars, but you will definitely be asked what your theory predicts. A theory without prediction is not a theory.

 Q: Another paper I'd recommend (and I note that Zeilinger doesn't mention it, any more than he mentions the work of Marshall et al) is:
Clauser, J E, "Experimental limitations to the validity of semiclassical radiation theories", Physical Review A 6, 49 (1972).
The ONLY experimental results that Clauser said could not be covered by semi-classical theory were the EPR ones.

 A: I agree that the key result of QT is EPR since not predictable by any other theory (because, I contend, other theories still only see the shadows of a larger universe). Einstein saw that. EPR is thus the key to QT as to its validity and to the existence of a larger universe, BUT ONLY IN THE DEAD WORLD. If you look at Life you will find much more with a non-local character, but there QT can't handle them. See earlier.

 Q: I strongly disagree! The nonlocal correlations are totally illogical and deserve no place in any theory, whether dead or alive. Life needs interactions with all neighbouring wave centres, that's all.

 A: I tried earlier to advance to you that non-local *in our space* may be an indication of a higher dimensionality world where what we see are only shadows, and that in this higher dimension world *there are no non-local effects*. The higher dimensionality hypothesis has consequences OTHER THAN EPR, much more obvious both practically and theoretically. I am asking to look at these other consequences, and they happen to appear in Life.

 You deny that Life has anything new to offer in Physics. This is where you rejoin the fellows I had to fight when it comes to the physical principles behind Life, they ARE the Establishment (!): You described earlier Life as a clockwork, so in effect you agree with them, you are thus part of the Establishment on that matter. It is my turn to strongly disagree! Years ago, I was like Nietsche, I revolted on the idea I was a clockwork. That very difference of Life vs the rest of reality is this unexplained FACT (the same kind of philosophical stand as Descartes with his Cogito ergo Sum). This fact CANNOT be explained via "Complexity" and classical "Chaos." The Establishment wishes such an explanation to work, but it doesn't! I dealt with "Artificial Life" for a number of years. I saw that Life demands a lot more than a classical understanding of our world. I cover this fundamental question thoroughly in phase 2 if you care to see the details of the argument. I won't try to convince you, as of course this goes against your beliefs (which are motivating your fight about poor experiments on EPR), so I will leave this matter alone. From the start I felt I was dealing with a subject totally different from yours anyway: You fight EPR experiments and you may be right as to their poor definition. I deal with Life observations, and I may be right there. The two rights may make a bigger right even though they appear to be in conflict.

 Q: I'm afraid I class your extra dimension as another unnecessary conceptual difficulty. If I can make do with 3+1, why take on more? What is it about Life that you think demands more?

 A: Now you may understand why my study takes 200 pages... You need a lot of scaffoldings to get to a point where unrealized ignorance becomes obvious ignorance! Our world is simple from its origin but its various consequences are simple only if you ignore a lot of things. In the past 50 years we have seen a lot of the details of Life, but we yet have to understand why such details operate in the way we see them. The Intentional Stance sophism is there to make us believe we understand, but we don't.

 Look at the New Findings page article on viruses to get a start. If you were familiar with the microbiology literature you would already know all the "hypothesis non fingo" a la Newton being present in that literature as in the article found in that page. And you would immediately see all the failed attempts to distinguish "mechanisms" a la Newton in living material. You would see that the explanations given make absolutely no sense. Truly angels are moving molecules in that field! Or at least that's what the literature wants to make you believe. Early in phase 2 I describe mitosis, the split of a cell in a physics way that nobody else has described before.

 Separately (a later section in phase 2), Neurobiology is put in question: How can you imagine ion motions ("nerve impulses") make a mind? We are billions of cells yet I can see my keyboard (another trillion set of atoms) and push a key. What is most amazing is that from my analysis of mitosis I can see immediately how! Mitosis is a phenomenon requiring more than 3D. The electrical effects (ion motions) relate long distance cells, so such a higher dimensional process must have spread to all the cells forming the tissue.

 How could I answer your questions above except by asking you to read my phase 2...? My understanding is based on years of studies and reflections as well as observation. Textbooks in Microbiology want to have the reader believe Life is all but a stochastic process via waves magically resonating somehow at specific locations. Their descriptions are indeed very close to your description of phi-waves for nuclei of atoms! As for your description there is absolutely no basis for such bound phenomena in a classical understanding of local, separated things diffusing and concentrating somehow. In fact in Life the known medium (cytoplasm) physical structure prohibits such mesoscopic scales stochastic phenomena! So, as for your explanation of nuclei, you need to ignore a lot of things to make such explanations sensible. There are in fact observed cases where the precision of the observed choreography immediately excludes such and the experimenter did recognize the stochastic explanation as invalid.

 Of course my thesis is much more than the sketch above. Please do not judge my position from the small description I provide here! Again, do read my phase 2 and look at the diagrams there and the experiments I propose. Of course if you reject a priori the QT formalism and what it tells us there is nothing there to interest you, and you can bask in your limited unverifiable view of our reality. Fantasies are always self-serving.

 Q: I can understand your rejection of computer-simulated "artificial life". The real world is analogue, for a start, and all molecules are surrounded by continuous intricate sets of waves that carry information about them to the rest of the world. I think this is enough. My idea of the aether itself is that it carries within itself it's own ultra-simple genetic code: the main thing it needs is the ability to oscillate at one standard frequency when a threshold is exceeded. Then it needs a mechanism that compels the wave-centres formed by this process to try and remain oscillating by adjusting their positions to those most favourable in relation to incoming waves. I don't see how we can expect to delve deeper than this. Even developing the consequences of these assumptions is beyond us. The theory is necessarily at a preliminary stage -- unless someone else has the right knowledge! I most certainly don't.

 A: Do not leave to someone else the judgement about our world by claiming ignorance! There you give up. Life is as important, if not more than the dead world, and physical effects there are NOT found elsewhere contrary to what you have been told. This is the fundamental mistake Physics is making in our generation.

 Our world is a computation at the speed of light between all identical infinite eternal elements similar to the mathematical "real line" (but made out of unseparable "ultrareals" - see my math page there - something Galileo and Newton could not think about). How simpler can this world be? Yet by being able to act on its own space Life can produce non-clockwork evolutions, and unseparability of the evolution allows creativity, imagination, and all that jazz...the stuff of Life.

Q: What I'm aiming at is extending ideas such as Lerner's and Marshall's and all the classical e/m ideas that went before them, most of which were pretty good. I believe that there is a simple description of the universe that is there for the taking. It has no paradoxes. Removal of all paradoxes and conceptual difficulties is my prime aim. So long as these are incorporated in a theory, they will act like cancers, damaging the brains of all who encounter them.

 A: My aims are identical! But I take a larger and deeper view than both Lerner's and Marshall's. I do not admit a pre-existing space. I do not admit any pre-existing aether, and nothing exists except relations between eternal infinite elements. In a sense we are in Plato's world of ideas, but the ideas relate to each other in an infinite parallel computation. And I relate this worldview to our present theories, finding a logical whole that contains all of them.

 Lerner put out "The Big Bang Never Happened" [5] for the layman, and his book was brandished by US congressmen and senators to stop funding for the SuperCollider being built in Texas... He succeeded. What do you want to stop? Much more importantly, what do yo want to start to progress in our knowledge of Reality?

 Q: All I want is a return to sanity -- to rescue the current generation of humanity from subjection to paradoxes and nonsense proclaimed in the name of science. I am not trying to produce anything mind-boggling because I think that if we look carefully at the facts we shall find them even more comprehensible than Einstein thought. More comprehensible than Marshall et al, because we don't need strict Lorenz Invariance and we do need an aether. Hopefully I'm producing something more complete than Lerner, as I link e/m fields with the detailed structure of the atom.

 A: I agree with such a goal - the KISS principle. But let's not fall in the trap of a clockwork world! Be sure that Life is included... Otherwise tragedies are generated from such a worldview, witness our history.

 I perceive your approach as a negative approach so far since you have not identified what you want to start. In his critical essay Lerner was identifying Plasma Physics as a way to start. What is yours?

 Q: I did not feel negative until you said this! My morale had been low and fell lower. It has revived a bit today -- I've just been speaking on the phone to the organiser of a worshop to be held in Brighton in January. HE thinks my ideas are good and could even be useful to the practical people who will be there. The aim is to develop cleaner energy. He reckons Global Warming will be making life pretty unbearable in as little as 10 years, so let's not waste our energy trying to understand the nature of life at any profound level! Humanity needs to fight for survival.

 A: How about if I told you that my study is the base of a proposal at NASA to develop a way to explore our galaxy, and thus expand our small planet beyond its global warming?

Q: BTW, when I talked of mathematical coordinate systems, I was not implying an absolute space. You can define an absolute space with respect to any coordinate system you like, but the best choice will depend on where you are and what you want to do -- what scale you want to consider.

 A: Your space then does not correspond to anything in Reality, it is only a mathematical concept such as the distance between objects, even though you invent the supposedly physical aether resting on this sophism! My space does have an independent reality and it can be created, annihilated, and transformed into matter/radiation. Remember that it is a canvas of relations moving at the speed of light, not some "ordinary aether fluid" resting on nothing but a mathematical concept! Remember also that the consequences of its existence are verifiable. It is then a lot more "real" than your aether, which has no verifiable consequences.

 Q: I've an idea that your ideas are unnecessarily complicated, semi-mystical, probably influenced by those wretched quantum mechanics people and the irresponsible philosophers! Don't trust them!

 A: I don't, but you may want to examine there your own position. The philosophers have a lot more influence than you can assume not only in everyday life but also in the latest scientific papers, remember the "Intentional Stance" and older sophisms, such as Faraday's "fields" of which you are very fond! The QM people are a lost bunch since Schroedinger's and Born's "Statistical Stance" when it comes to the meaning of their formalism, but this does not make it wrong. Anyway, you must read my entire work, and this with an open mind, before you can make an assessment of the sort you just made. Preconceptions and dogmatism have always been ways to keep us from making progress out of darkness.