Dove FlyingThe Crud Factory

Free Rubbish for Free Minds.

Contents.

E-books in PDF format.

These books may be downloaded and read for free.

‘Quantum’ physics without silliness.

The majority of quantum physicists claim there exists a mysterious kind of action at a distance, between objects linked to each other by a kind of magic called ‘entanglement’. This claim is certainly false, because it leads to logical contradictions when combined with the totality of human knowledge. (For instance, siblings could not have similar DNA unless born with ‘entangled’ DNA, which of course they are not.) The correlations do exist but are simply ordinary correlations, such as one encounters throughout causation-by-contact-action existence.

The topic is generally credited to have begun with a 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR)—arguing, essentially, that quantum mechanics (QM) could not be the end of all theories. It has been the aim of the quantum physics community as a whole, since, to ‘prove’ that QM is the end of all theories. EPR made a sound argument, and the contrary arguments are unsound. But, in my opinion, all seem to miss a key point. The ‘QM is the end of all theories’ claim is not one about physics, but about word problems. The claim is that a quantum physics word problem can be solved only by the mathematics of QM, and not by other methods—that other methods will arrive at different results. This claim is false on mathematical grounds. The problem is no longer about physics at all. It is now purely mathematical, or can be rephrased as being about red and white balls, boxes of cookies, electronic oscillators, radio signals, etc. Only mathematical considerations matter—and all mathematical methods, applied to the same problem or an equivalent one, must arrive at the same result. I have just proven without question that EPR were correct.

In other words, ugly, ignorant prejudice has kept us from investigating ‘quantum’ physics problems with the full repertoire of mathematical techniques. There is, in fact, no such thing as ‘quantum’ physics: it is all just physics, some of which has falsely been believed soluble only with QM. Though perhaps (and I think probably) it is not by mere accident vast funds have been channeled to ‘quantum’ physics research that might have gone to other research. It is a neat racket when only you have the esoteric but (supposedly) necessary tools for the job.

Furthermore, I have just proven that in papers, such as those of John S. Bell and John Clauser, where classical physics is used to try to solve problems previously solved with quantum mechanics, but results are reached that are not the same as those of QM, there must be mathematical errors. (I shall not belabor this presentation with the hideous details.) Of course, reaching a result different from that of QM was these authors’ goal! They sought ‘proof’ that ‘quantum’ physics cannot be explained by a more conventional physics theory. They managed to prove only that the physics community was ignorant of mathematics. It is impossible for such a result to be correct. The papers should have been unpublishable.

* * *

The physics community also is guilty of a profound dereliction of one’s duty as a scientist: they have not applied scientific method, and in fact hypothesize without making observations. For, with the outstanding exception of a tiny few (Kracklauer, de Raedt, etc.), they have not gone even to the minor trouble of running computer programs or other experiments that would produce the supposedly ‘quantum’ correlations by contact-action. Never bothering to make observations before concocting (and believing) wild hypotheses is gross negligence for a field of science. However, my contributions below are probably among the simplest and best computer programs for producing ‘Bell correlations’ by contact-action, and included is a tutorial on how to write and run such an experiment yourself, if you can program a digital computer. Anyone denying the validity and significance of such an experiment is jousting with reality.

* * *

Below are contributions to the topic by myself and others, presenting their own authors’ opinions at the time of writing. I include a celebrated lecture by John S. Bell—in which he violates the definition of the conditional probability, incorrectly implies that action-by-contact can be expressed only in the form ‘a causes b causes c causes d etc.’, and incorrectly solves even the non-physics problems he contrives to illustrate his reasoning.

Barry Schwartz, Analysis of the two-channel optical Bell test, using multivectors and matrices
Barry Schwartz, Stern-Gerlach Shutters
Barry Schwartz, Problems logically equivalent to Bell tests
Barry Schwartz, How to Entangle Craytons
Barry Schwartz, Quantum Correlations Visualized
Barry Schwartz, bell_test_classical_vs_entangled.adb
Donald A. Graft, Rhetoric, logic, and experiment in the quantum nonlocality debate
A. F. Kracklauer, Entanglement: a contrarian view.
A. F. Kracklauer, Bell’s “theorem”: loopholes vs. conceptual flaws.
J. S. Bell, Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality.

Special Relativity without paradoxes.

Perhaps the infamous ‘Twin Paradox’ is a result of confusing different measurement sticks with each other, when applying Special Relativity.

A. F. Kracklauer, Time dilation contra Hamiltonian mechanics.

Fonts that you can use for anything, without paying anything, and without first asking my permission, even for any sort of commercial project.

Please do not ask permission, because it is already given. Just take and enjoy!

Bonveno.
Fanwood, Fanwood Text, and their italics.
Sorts Mill Goudy and its italic.
Goudy Bookletter 1911.
Juvelo.
Linden Hill and its italic.
Prociono.

Type specimens and other scans (on Flickr).

Contact.

This website, The Crud Factory, is the fault of Barry Schwartz, who may be contacted as follows.

Image credit.

Typeface credit.