EPR Experiment

 November 3rd, 1984

Dear David,

I have delayed answering your letters about the EPR experiment because I wanted to have a chance to think about the situation first, and I have been so busy with the details of getting my new book into production, that I have not had time to do the necessary thinking. However, the book has now gone to the printer, and I have time for other things.

The explanation of the EPR phenomenon, that I gave at Salt Lake City, can be expressed as follows:

A photon occupies a position in the three-dimensional spatial reference system and also a ‘position’ in the analogous three-dimensional temporal reference system.

If two photons originate coincidentally in such a manner, that they separate spatially, they may remain coincident in time; that is, in the same time unit or an adjacent unit.

In this case, a change, that takes place in one photon, will cause an appropriate change in the photon, to which it has a connection in time, just as it would if the two were connected in space.

This idea, that contact in time is subject to the same considerations as contact in space is not new to students of the Reciprocal System of Theory. It enters into a number of physical situations, particularly in the reverse application, where contacts in space are maintained unchanged when separation takes place in time. As an example, I am enclosing a copy of page 385 of my new book, The Universe of Motion, in which I point out that this explains the containment of the high speed matter in the interiors of the giant galaxies.

With respect to your question as to how the two photons vibrate, I would say that if they originate in the same time unit, (which appears probable), they would have to utilize different scalar dimensions, like the basic vibrations of the atoms.

In considering your question as to the possibility of producing an event in the material and cosmic sectors simultaneously, it should be recognized that existence in one sector or the other is entirely a matter of speed. If an event takes place at a net total speed of less than one unit per dimension, it is in the material sector. If the net total speed is greater than one unit, the motion is in time, and it is in the cosmic sector. The photon movement is one-dimensional and takes place at unit speed. This is the sector boundary, and the photon movement is therefore effective in both sectors. Observationally, there is a difference. A high frequency photon in the material sector is a low (inverse) frequency photon in the cosmic sector, while a concentrated beam of photons in the material sector is a widely distributed diffuse radiation in the cosmic sector. The same is true in reverse. The so-called ‘background radiation,’ which is currently believed to be a relic of the hypothetical Big Bang, is actually radiation from cosmic stars and other cosmic sources.

If the net total speed of an object in all scalar dimensions is below one unit per dimension the object remains in the material sector, even though it may be moving at greater-than-unit speed in one dimension. In this case, the motion in time, (measured in speed), merely modifies the speed in space, rather than existing as an actual motion in time. This is the explanation for many of the `mysterious' astronomical objects, such as quasars and pulsars. I have discussed this whole situation at length in the new book.

I doubt if the EPR experiment will be accepted as a ‘crucial experiment’ in the sense, in which you are suggesting. The difficulty here is that the adherents of the quantum theory have, what they regard, as a satisfactory explanation in the context of their own theory. It is not the kind of an explanation, that would have been given serious consideration at the time it was originally proposed, if traditional science had been prepared to offer an alternative. But now that the quantum theory has become the orthodoxy, its shortcomings are minimized. As David Bohm points out, “there seems to exist a widespread impression that the principles of quantum mechanics almost certainly will not have to be changed in essence.” Bohm, himself, is not convinced. “I have never been able,” he says, “to discover any well-founded reasons as to why there exists so high a degree of confidence in the general principles of the current form of the quantum theory.” But he is in a minority.

For a crucial experiment we need something, in which the factors, that enter into the experiment, are well understood, and in which a clear distinction can be drawn between the results, that are expected on the basis of the two different theories. The EPR experiment does not supply us with this kind of a clear-cut distinction. In fact, some physicists are even questioning whether the recent experiments, that report positive results, are actually testing the proposition, originally stated by Einstein and his collaborators. An extended discussion of these issues appears in Karl Popper’s book Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics. You might be interested in taking a look at this.

I think that producing the answers to such questions as that proposed by the EPR experiment is important from the standpoint of helping to give the members or our organization more confidence in our theory, but I believe that the most effective argument in dealing with outsiders is that we are producing simple and logical explanations for a host of items, that have no acceptable explanations in terms of conventional theory. Such items are particularly numerous in astronomy, which is why I have given the astronomical volume of my ‘Structure of the Physical Universe’ series precedence over the volume that will be designated as Volume II.

The EPR experiments have some interesting implications that deserve to be considered further. I would be glad to hear from you with respect to any ideas that you may have in this area.

Sincerely yours,   

International Society of  Unified Science
Reciprocal System Research Society

Salt Lake City, UT 84106

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer