WGUGLINSKI writes: To: Dr. Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize in Physics/ University of Cambridge
Dear Dr. Josephson,
You are the leader of the Mind-Matter Unification Project developed in the University of Cambridge.
Obviously you can have success in your attempt of getting the unification mind-matter only in the case that nothing is missing in the laws adopted for the Quantum Mechanics. But if the current Quantum Mechanics is incomplete, it ‘s hard to hope your theory can be successful.
So, I would like to ask you: do you think the quantum entanglement is really a phantasmagoric phenomenon, as considered in Quantum Mechanics?
As you know, in 2011 an experiment has detected the Aether:
Moving mirrors make light from nothing
suppose that the Aether influences in some laws of Quantum Mechanics.
For instance, suppose that the quantum entanglement is promoted by the
Do you believe is it possible to develop a successful mind-matter unification by neglecting the influence of the Aether?
suppose that you consider the quantum entanglement in your theory. But
in the case the entanglement is really promoted by interactions with
the Aether, do you think your theory can be correct?
about the quantum entanglement has changed after 2014, when the journal
Nature has published the experiment led by Dr. Gabriela Barreto Lemos.
In my book The Missed U-Turn, published in Amazon.com, the mechanism proposed for explaining the quantum entanglement is wrong.
That’s why I wrote a new mechanism for the quantum entanglement, as shown ahead.
17- THE EPR EXPERIMENT
In 1998 the entanglement was the subject of a talk between me and my
friend Dr, Claudio Nassif, at that time a student of Physics. According
to his understanding, there is only one way to explain the entanglement:
by considering that two particles very far away one each other can
interact (via an interaction very faster than light speed) thanks to an
entanglement between them promoted by the Aether.
I did not accept his conjecture, because in my opinion the sort of
entanglement promoted by the Aether would have a longitudinal feature,
and therefore unable to promote the change of the direction of the spin
of a particle. And that’s why I tried to find another sort of
explanation, published in 2006 in my book Quantum Ring Theory.
According to that explanation, the entanglement does not exist.
However two experiments have changed my mind about the existence of the
entanglement. The first experiment was regarding the entanglement
between photons, and it was led by Dr. Gabriela Barreto Lemos and
published in the journal Nature in August 2014:
Entangled photons make a picture from a paradox
There was no way to explain Gabriela’s experiment by considering the
interpretation proposed originally in my book Quantum Ring Theory in
2006, and so in August 2014 I have realized that my belief that the
entanglement does not exist was wrong. Her experiment was the subject of
a discussion between me and some readers of the Andrea Rossi’s blog
Journal of Nuclear Physics, and then I sent to Dr. Gabriela two emails
suggesting to her new versions of the experiment, so that to help us to
understand the nature of the entanglement. A resume of the discussion
is published in ZPEnergy.com:
The second experiment which has proven the existence of the entanglement
without any doubt was regarding the entanglement involving photons and
electrons, and published in August 2015 in the journal Nature:
Quantum ‘spookiness’ passes toughest test yet
So, face to the experiments proven the existence of the entanglement, I
had to change my interpretation based on my belief that the entanglement
does not exist. And therefore only one way was available so that to
explain the phenomenon: by considering the interaction between two
particles far away one each other due to the Aether, as has supposed my
friend Nassif in 1998.
But a problem has arisen: how does explain how can the entanglement
promoted by the Aether to change the spin of a particle, since that sort
of interaction between the two particles would have to be only
Ahead in 17.1 is explained the interpretation proposed originally in my
book Quantum Ring Theory, and in 17.2 is proposed the new interpretation
based on the entanglement promoted by the Aether.
17.1- The 2006 interpretation proposed in my book QRT
If something bored Einstein more than the random character of quantum
theory, it was its subjective character. In the interpretation of Bohr
and Heisenberg, reality is created by the observer and Einstein’s
question to Bohr, mocking the subjetive reality of quantum theory “Do
you believe that the Moon only exists when you look at it?” became
famous. For Einstein, “The belief in an external world independent of
the subjective perception is the base of all natual science”, and the
Bohr-Heinseberg interpretation of Quantum Mechanics contradicted this
For Bohr, when Einstein criticised the subjective reality, the father of
relativity placed himself on the same footing as those critical of his
own theory of relativity. An irony, according to Bohr, because it was
Einstein who made the physicist perceive that time and space are not
absolute but relative, dependent on the status of motion of the
observer. In the same way, insisted Bohr, he and Heisenberg simply
followed this same line of thinking by going one step further and
recognizing that their own reality also depends upon the observer. It
seemed incomprehensible that Einstein refused to accept that natural
extension of his own ideas. After much discussion, Einstein agreed with
Bohr that the quantum theory correctly describes all the conceived
experiments up to that point in time. If Bohr and Einstein had been
able to take cold fusion into account, the discussion would have ended
with Einstein’s victory. This is possibly an additional reason why
quantum physicists may dislike the idea of cold fusion so much because
they all share the conviction that Einstein’s conclusion that quantum
theory correctly describes all the conceived experiments up that point
in time is one that, until today, has never been contested. To continue
with this viewpoint, they need to deny cold fusion.
However, even if he did agree that quantum theory correctly describes
the experiments, Einstein then criticized the theory on the grounds that
it would be incomplete. Niels Bohr replied with a new attack by
defending the theory, stating that, even allowing for it’s statistical
nature, quantum theory was complete and the uncertainty in quantum
theory, that Einstein criticized as being a defect, was actually a
virtue because if uncertainty is a reality in the world, then the
theory describes reality rigorously. It would be insane to look for an
accurate description of an inaccurate world.
In showing that quantum theory was incomplete, Einstein had the help of
the physicists Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen and they discussed an
imaginary experiment, which became known as EPR experiment
(Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen), that generated a paradox known as the EPR
paradox. Proposed in 1935, the EPR experiment was conceived to be
performed using electrons. Later it was performed with photons, using
polarizated light. If you ask to a physicist what polarized light is, he
will not know how to respond. He can tell you how the polarized light
is obtained, what experiments can be carried out with it, etc., but he
does not know what the phenomenon is. This ignorance is due to the fact
that there is not a model of a photon in Modern Physics. For
physicists, light is an abstraction whose properties are described by
Maxwell’s equations. Not having a model for light and, therefore, not
knowing what light is, how could they know what polarized light is?
The EPR paradox is a thought experiment that demonstrates that,
according to Quantum Mechanics, the result of a measurement made on a
part of a quantum system can have an instantaneous effect on the result
of another measurement made on another part, independently of the
distance that separates the two parts. It contradicts the principle of
special relativity according to which information cannot be transmitted
faster than the speed of light. Later the physicist David Bohm
converted the initial thought experiment into a nearly practical
A solution for the paradox, according to Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen, would
be to consider Quantum Mechanics as incomplete, in spite of its success
in a large variety of experimental contexts. So, there would be a
yet-to-be-discovered natural theory, from which Quantum Mechanics would
emerge as a statistical approach. Differently from Quantum Mechanics,
this new complete theory would contain variables corresponding to all
the elements of reality. Some unknown mechanism would be acting on the
variables producing the observed effects. It is known as the theory of
The EPR paradox has occupied the thoughts of many thinkers that, like
Bohr and Einstein, tried to find a resolution. Nobody succeeded and both
Einstein and Bohr were dead when John Bell deciphered the enigma, in
1964. According to him the problem was in the presupposition of
locality. In the 60’s Bell examined critically a proposal of Von Neumann
on the non-existence of hidden variables. It was the point of
departure for proposing a theorem that became famous and known as Bell
Theorem, which consists of a class of inequalities and he demonstrated
one of them. Bell showed that the predictions of Quantum Mechanics in
the EPR thought experiment are always a little different from the
predictions of most hidden variable theories and that Quantum Mechanics
predicts a statistical correlation a little stronger from the results
obtained than that obtained from the hidden variable theories. These
differences became known as Bell’s Inequalities and they are, in
principle, detectable experimentally.
In short, Bell’s theorem offered a form of quantificating some concepts.
Bell’s inequalities suggest that the hidden variable theories must be
discarded because the predictions of Quantum Mechanics produce better
results. His theorem establishes an absolute distinction between Quantum
Mechanics and Classical Mechanics and implies that there is no regime
of hidden variables which can produce all the results of Quantum
Mechanics. In 1982 Alain Aspect performed an experiment whose results
were interpreted as confirmation that Nature acts through the non-local
principle. In the experiment two photons interacted instantaneously at a
distance. When the polarization of one of them is measured, the other
instantaneously adopts that same polarization. If the experiment was
carried using two photons, one here on the Earth and the other on
another far away planet, even so they should still interact
instantaneously as if they were connected through space.
But let us analyze the facts.
The initial hypotheses of the EPR paradox were the following:
a) The predictions of Quantum Mechanics are correct
b) Nothing can propagate faster than light.
c) If, without disturbing a system, we can predict the value of
a physical quantity with certainty, then there is an element of
physical reality that corresponds to this quantity.
According to Bell’s theorem, any theory that intends to describe reality
and which, by satisfying the hypotheses “a” and “c”, necessarily
violates hypothesis “b”, must to be non-local.
Observe the hypothesis “a”: “the predictions of Quantum Mechanics
are correct”. The fundamental pillar of the theory is de Broglie’s
postulate of wave-particle duality, However, if the duality is not a
property of matter but a consequence of the helical trajectory of
particles, then everything thought about the EPR paradox will be
Put another way, when one departs from the initial point that “the
predictions of Quantum Mechanics are correct”, it is admitting that a
theory of hidden variables will be developed also on the basis of de
Broglie’s postulate of duality. Without considering the helical
trajectory, von Neumann’s proposal really makes sense because it is
impracticable to think of hidden variables if the particles move
classically with rectilinear trajectories. But the proposal loses its
validity if we consider the helical trajectory predicted in Dirac’s
equation. Put another way, those who had proposed theories of hidden
variables obviously retained the validity of de Broglie’s postulate.
So, the amendment became worse than the original. This sort of
hidden variable theory is equivalent to concocting an odd mixture of
classical and quanta concepts so that the results will have to be worse
than those obtained from quantum theory itself, - something predictable
that the Bell’s unequalities have only confirmed.
As one sees, all the great paradoxes of Quantum Mechanics depend
on de Broglie’s postulate. It is the Achilles’ heel of the theory. If
wave-particle duality is really a consequence of the helical trajectory,
then Quantum Mechanics is invalidated because de Broglie’s postulate is
the point of departure from which all the theory has been developed.
Quantum Mechanics is really a non-local theory because it was developed
by starting from de Broglie’s postulate and, according to what we have
verified from Bell’s theorem that it satisfies hypothesis “a” but
violates hypothesis “b”, it must be non-local. Nevertheless, if
particles move along a helical trajectory, hypothesis “a” is not
satisfied in Nature or, in other words, Nature acts locally. However,
Quantum Mechanics is non-local; that is, Nature does not act according
to the theory.
The fundamental error of the 20th Century theoreticians was to
consider de Broglie’s postulate as an absolute incontestable truth.
By seeing where Bell’s theory fails, let us analyse the EPR paradox by
considering the helical trajectory. Let us begin by explaining what the
polarization of a transverse wave is. We will use a string for the
Fig. 35 shows a string whose left-hand end is rotating in a circle to
propagate transverse waves in all directions. By placing a plate with a
vertical slit in the path of the waves as shown, the slit will filter
out all of the waves except the one that propagates vertically. We say
that the wave of the string is vertically polarized. In this case, we
used a mechanical polarizer which is the plate with the slit.
In fig. 36, an additional polarizer plate with a slit inclined at 45o to
the vertical is introduced and the wave in the string disapears.
The light is polarized when it passes through some translucent
materials. If we perform the experiment of fig. 36 with light and use
optical polarizers, it is seen that the light may, or may not, pass
through the second polarizer. The probability that light, polarized 90o
by the polarizer 1, also passes through polarizor 2, is 50%; that is,
half of the photons cross the polarizer 2 and, in this way, they acquire
a new polarization of 45o. The other half one does not
cross though, implying random behavior. It was this random character of
light that convinced Einstein and Dirac that it would be impossible for a
theoretical model of the photon to exist. A photon with well defined
physical structure which, therefore, could be represented by a
theoretical model could not produce that statistical behavior.
Ahead we see how the Alain Aspect experiment was carried out.
An atom emits two photons A and B, as shown in fig. 37.
The two photons are identical. Photon A goes one way and its twin
brother goes another; for instance, photon A goes to a room where there
is a laboratory and photon B goes to a different room where there is
another laboratory. Both of them pass by the same process; first they
pass through a 90o polarizer and, after that, they pass through a 45o polarizer.
When they fall upon the 45o polarizer, the chance of each
passing is 50%. In this case we can have the following situations after
the falling of each of them into the respective 45o polarizer.
a) photon A passes but photon B does not pass
b) photon B passes but photon A does not pass
c) both pass
d) neither passes
One perceives easily that the chance of always obtaining the same
result; that is, either both pass, or both do not pass, is only 50%.
In half of measurements made with several groups of photons A and B, we
have to expect that photon A passes and B does not, and vice versa.
However, there is a mystery. In the experiments carried out by
Aspect, the result was always the same. Only situations “c” and “d”
were verified. When photon A passes, so does B and, when A does not
pass, neither does B. The situations “a” and “b” never occurred.
The interpretation, as known, is that photon A, when it is measured, at once transmits information to photon B, saying: “Look, I passed. Then you have to pass too”.
According to quantum theory, photon B doesn’t even need to be measured
at once. It can be travelling in space for years but, at the instant
somebody makes a measurement, it is found that it coincides with photon
A. It also does not depend upon the distance, the two photons can be
separated by thousand of kilometers, and the information from A arrives
at B instantenously, at the same instant when photon A is measured. It
is called entanglement. Physicists hoped to apply it to developing a
new technology for computers.
Tha last news I read on the subject said that the researchers were
disappointed and it will not be possible to make computers by using
entanglement. It seems that it does not correspond to what the
Let us see if we can keep the local action principle, which Einstein
refused to reject, when interpreting the EPR paradox and the Aspect
experiment through the model of the photon proposed in QRT.
According to QRT the photon is composed of two corpuscles; a particle
and its antiparticle, which move in a helical trajectory, rotating in
The polarization of light depends upon the position of the two
particles when they cross one another. In the left of fig. 38 we see
the vertical polarization, in the central part of the figure we see the
horizontal polarization, and on the right we see the 45o
polarization. When a photon is emitted, we don’t know the relative
positions of the particle and the antiparticle; that is, we don’t know
how the photon is polarized. Only after we make it pass through a
polarizer, and it acquires the polarization of that polarizer, do we
begin to know its polarization. Each photon also has another
characteristic: the distance between the particle and the antiparticle,
as seen in fig. 39.
In the photon Ph-1 on the left, the distance between them is
minimum. In photon Ph-2, the distance is “a” and, in photon Ph-3, the
distance is “b”. As each corpuscle produces electromagnetic fields, the
phase shift, or delay, between the fields in a photon depends on that
distance. Also the polarization of a photon depends upon that distance
between the corpuscles because the polarization is a resonance
phenomenon between that distance and the atomic planes of the crystal
polarizer. If the distance between the two corpuscles does not resonate
with the distance of the atomic planes, the photon will not cross the
polarizer. Up to now, even a child can understand the result of Aspect’s
experiment because as the two photons are identical, they have the same
distance “d” between particle and antiparticle and, as it is this
distance that determines whether or not the photon crosses the
polarizer, it is clear that, if one passes the other ones passes too,
and if one does not pass the other one does not pass either. End of the
SCHRÖDINGER’S CAT AND SUBJECTIVE REALITY
As well as Einstein, Schrödinger also used to conceive imaginary
experiments for mocking the subjective aspect inherent to the
Bohr-Heisenberg interpretation of quantum theory. He conceived an
experiment that became famous and is explained as follows
A cat is placed within a box that is closed in order that the observer
performing the experiment cannot know what is happenning to the cat
inside the box. A bubble with poison is also placed in the box. A
mechanical device that can be activated by a sample of radioactive
element breaks the bubble if the element decays and the cat will then
die. If the element does not decay, the device will not be activated
and the cat will survive. The cat’s life depends, therefore, on an
event of a statistical nature. After half an hour the observer will
open the box to find what happened.
From Quantum Mechanics, the quantum phenomenon depends on the observer.
The phenomenon becomes real only when the observer obtains knowledge of
the fact; that is, while the box is not opened, the phenomenon of
decaying, or not, does not exist. Whether or not it happens will be
decided when the observer opens the box. As a consequence of this
dependency of the phenomenon on the observer’s consciousness, the life
or the death of the cat will be decided at the moment the observer opens
the box; if the cat is alive, the element did not decay, otherwise the
decay has happened. Durng the thirty minutes it stays in the closed
box, the cat will be held in a life and death situation. It will be
released from this situation when the observer opens the box.
Many sttudents and even several physicits think that Schrödinger has
conceived this experiment to illustrate and emphasize the aspect of
subjetivity of reality in the quantum theory. Nevertheless, he has
conceived the experiment to emphasize the ridiculous aspect of the
theory. Naturally details such as these are not divulged. Schrödinger
has discovered the most famous equation of Quantum Mechanics. It is not
flattering to quote him as a sarcastic critic of the theory.
The first time I read of the dead-alive cat, the author of the text has
exhibited the paradox as if Schrödinger intended to emphasize this
aspect of the quantum theory and that he really did believe in those odd
principles of the theory. I remember that I could not avoid asking
myself: “Could it be possible that he believed in this silliness ?”
I knew that he was a vigorous opponent of the Bohr-Heisenberg
interpretation, - also known as the Copenhagen interpretation. An
injustice that many commit against Schrödinger is to mention him as if
he agreed with that which others were doing with the quantum theory.
17.2- The new 2015 interpretation based on the entanglement promoted by the Aether
In 2015 some new elementary particles were incorporated to the
structure of the Aether proposed originaly in the book Quantum Ring
Theory published in 2006, so that to eliminate some philosophical
inconsistence of the model.
The harder philosophical inconsistence of the model was its inability to
explain why the even-even nuclei with equal number of protons and
neutrons have null magnetic moment, in spite of those nuclei have
rotation in the ground state. As the protons have electric charge and
they rotate, those nuclei would have to have magnetic nuclear moment.
But experiments have shown that those nuclei have null magnetic moment,
and therefore there was need to look for the explanation. Such paradox
did not exist in the Standard Nuclear Physics, because before 2012 the
nuclear theorists have used to suppose that the even-even nuclei with
equal number of protons and neutrons do not rotate in the ground state.
But after 2012 some experiments have shown that they have
rotation in the ground state. For instance, in 2012 the journal Nature
has published the paper How Atomic Nuclei Cluster, where it is
shown that even-even nuclei with equal number of protons and neutrons
have ellipsoidal shape. First of all, by considering the laws of the
Standard Model is impossible to justify why those nuclei have spherical
shape, because according to the Standard Model they would have to be
spherical. But non-spherical nuclei have non-null electric quadrupole
moment, while the even-even nuclei have null quadrupole moment. Such
second paradox can be explained only by considering that the even-even
nuclei rotate in the ground state. Thereby the ellipsoidal shape of the
even-even nuclei detected in 2012 debunks the Standard Nuclear Model,
because as they rotate they cannot have null nuclear magnetic moment,
but experiments show their magnetic moment is null.
So, in order to explain why the even-even nuclei with equal number of
protons and neutrons have null magnetic moment in the ground state, new
particles were incorporated to the structure of the Aether proposed
originally in the book QRT published in 2006. The new structure is
published in Peswiki:
Aether Structure for unification between gravity and electromagnetism (2015)
The Figure 2.4 ahead belongs to the article published in Peswiki, and it
shows how strings of gravitons G(+) form the gravitational field of
The Figure 2.5 of the paper published in Peswiki shows that magnetons m
(+) cross the body-ring of the gravitions G(+), in the structure of the
gravito-magnetic field of the proton.
Now let us see how occurs the entanglement of two electrons, by
considering the new structure of the Aether. In the gravito-magnetic
field of the electron, the strings are constituted by gravitons G(-)
crossed by magnetons m(-). The Figure 39-1 shows the gravitational
interaction of two electrons (in order to simplify the figure, it is
shown only two strings of gravitons G(-) ).
In order to know what string belongs to each electron, the two electrons
are shown with different colors: red and green. The green string
belongs to the green electron, and the red string belongs to the red
electron. We note in the Figure 39-1 that the two magnetons m(-) moving
in the red strings and in the green are moving in contrary direction,
and therefore in the ordinary gravitational interaction between two
electrons the influence of the magnetons is null.
The Figure 39-2 shows two electrons situated in the ZY plane, and the
Figure 39-3 shows what happens with the strings situated along the ZY
plane, when two electrons get entanglement: between the bodies of the
two electrons all the magnetons m(-) move in the same direction, from
the electron green to the electron red. The magnetons m(-) move in the
same direction and all them have the same spin equal to the spins of the
two electrons, and such alignment of spins promotes the entanglement of
the two electrons. The Figure 39-4 shows the entanglement promoted by
the alignment of spins between the electrons and the magnetons m(-).
In the experiment made in the Delft campus in 2015 there was no direct
entanglement between the electrons. In that experiment there was
actually an Entanglement swapping, as explained in the journal Nature:
“The researchers started with two unentangled electrons sitting in
diamond crystals held in different labs on the Delft campus, 1.3
kilometres apart. Each electron was individually entangled with a
photon, and both of those photons were then zipped to a third location.
There, the two photons were entangled with each other — and this caused
both their partner electrons to become entangled, too.”
The Figure 39-5 shows how the two electrons have aligned their spins,
although they were in two laboratories separated by a distance of 1,3km:
In 39-5(A) the researchers started with two unentangled electrons
sitting in diamond crystals held in different labs 1 and 2 on the Delft
campus, 1.3 kilometres apart.
In 39-5(B) each electron was individually entangled with a photon, and both of those photons were then zipped to a lab 3.
In 39-5(C) the two photons were entangled with each other in the lab 3 —
and this caused the alignment of the spins of their partner electrons
in the lab 2 and lab 3.