Is action at a distance possible as envisaged by the EPR Paradox.

[ThomasT]

According to EPR, there are elements of reality to values which can be predicted with certainty.

Ok, the 'certain' prediction would be the deduction following the application of, say, some conservation law. All this says is that if we can make an accurate prediction by deduction, then we can assume that there was in fact 'something' propagating between the emitter and the detector, and that it had some definite value of a conserved property which caused the detection and allowed us to correctly predict that detection via deduction. The conservation law just specifies a relationship between some property of the co-emitted disturbances. But that doesn't give us any clue about what the precise values of the disturbances incident on polarizer a and polarizer b are.

That would be, per their definition, values for any angles a, b and c I care to chose. If they have those values, what are they? Any local realist should be able to provide an example dataset.

This is the 'unrealistic' requirement that an LR model predict a particular dataset. However, it's the experiments that produce the datasets, and there are LR models of entanglement which correctly predict the rates of detection, but they can't predict the datasets any more than qm can.

I agree that if you try to model entanglement in terms of 'instruction sets', or Herbert's 'coded messages', or just definite values for some property of the polarizer-incident disturbances, then you get inconsistencies. But these aren't the only ways to construct an LR model. That Bell's LR formulation follows the nonviable course means that the violation of BIs rules out the sorts of LR models that follow that prescription, or proscription. You've been presented with LR models wrt which your dataset requirement doesn't apply. I would hope that somewhere along the line you would actually look closely at them. Maybe you'll decide that they aren't local or realistic for some other reason.

Before that however don't forget to read the papers I linked to in post #1098. They're relevant to the argument that billschnieder has been presenting recently.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I'm a casual reader, and I've already formed the opinion that DrChinese is very knowledgeable, you are in the process of learning and are very curious and willing to admit your faults, RUTA has some real experience, and ThomasT is cracked. Don't worry, the text speaks for itself.

Thanks nismaratwork, good to know that I didn’t scare you away.

I think we should add that JesseM has real solid knowledge, and a very fine ability to pinpoint the hilarious character of our good old swindler:

[ThomasT] You are simply wrong here (and given your own lack of knowledge of physics, it's ridiculous that you act so confident), the mainstream view is that the "totality of local realistic conceptions" have indeed been shown to be incompatible with violations of Bell inequalities.

 

[DrChinese]

Regarding the issue of the EPR elements of reality:

Suppose you look at the most basic interpretation: If you can predict only 1 attribute at a time, then there is realism to that attribute. Under that restrictive requirement, QM and LR would agree, and a dataset might look like this:

Alice:
a
+
-
+
-

Because we had Bob as:

a
+
-
+
-

Now suppose we had the idea that there was simultaneous reality to both Alice a and Bob b (by hypothesis):

Alice:
a b
+ -
- +
+ +
- +

Bob:
a b
+ -
- +
+ +
- +

Who could say this wasn't feasible for both QM and LR? This was the situation EPR envisioned. And it is not clear a Local Realistic theory - one more "complete" than QM - might not exist in this scenario. In the above case, the coincidence rate of 25% is as QM predicts when a and b are 120 degrees apart.

But when you take it a step further - as Bell did - it becomes clear that NO local realistic theory can provide a dataset matching the QM predictions with an a, b and c.

 

[DrChinese]

I thought we were just having some fun. Sorry if I hurt your feelings DA. Hey, I don't even know what 'vitriol' means.

Indeed. I'm glad you're such a good sport.

I like the kinder, gentler ThomasT.

 

[nismaratwork]

Regarding the issue of the EPR elements of reality:

Suppose you look at the most basic interpretation: If you can predict only 1 attribute at a time, then there is realism to that attribute. Under that restrictive requirement, QM and LR would agree, and a dataset might look like this:

Alice:
a
+
-
+
-

Because we had Bob as:

a
+
-
+
-

Now suppose we had the idea that there was simultaneous reality to both Alice a and Bob b (by hypothesis):

Alice:
a b
+ -
- +
+ +
- +

Bob:
a b
+ -
- +
+ +
- +

Who could say this wasn't feasible for both QM and LR? This was the situation EPR envisioned. And it is not clear a Local Realistic theory - one more "complete" than QM - might not exist in this scenario. In the above case, the coincidence rate of 25% is as QM predicts when a and b are 120 degrees apart.

But when you take it a step further - as Bell did - it becomes clear that NO local realistic theory can provide a dataset matching the QM predictions with an a, b and c.

Isn't it correct to say that this is the commonly accepted view in this matter? There may be no ontology to replace local realism that feels god, but the math and experiments speak for themselves... unless someone believes in superdeterminism heh.

 

[ThomasT]

... it becomes clear that NO local realistic theory can provide a dataset matching the QM predictions with an a, b and c.

Theories don't provide datasets, they predict rates of detection.

If you consider detection attributes as being in one to one correspondence with an underlying reality, then of course you'll get inconsistencies. This is clearly illustrated by GHZ as well as Bell.

But this tells us nothing about reality, because it isn't required that detection attributes be in one to one correspondence with an underlying reality.

 

[ThomasT]

I'm a casual reader, and I've already formed the opinion that DrChinese is very knowledgeable, you are in the process of learning and are very curious and willing to admit your faults, RUTA has some real experience, and ThomasT is cracked.

So you start out by calling people names? What happened to all that stuff about "an exchange of ideas not vitriol".

 

[DevilsAvocado]

But when you take it a step further - as Bell did - it becomes clear that NO local realistic theory can provide a dataset matching the QM predictions with an a, b and c.

Thanks DrC, for bringing this down to Earth again.

I’m trying to get this into my little 1-brain-cell-head, and you know I like it simple.

Could a analogous view on the situation EPR envisioned be that if the polarizers a & b are aligned parallel (0º,0º / 0º,180º) or perpendicular (0º,90º) – it is not possible to violate Bell's Inequality, and the Einsteinian Local Realism (LR) still holds.

The genius move of John Bell was to extend the 'test' to all possible relative angles (0º-360º) between a & b, and by this he did violate Bell's Inequality, thus proving that nonlocality and/or nonseparability is a fact.


(One thing that still puzzles me: Why didn’t Einstein or Bohr think of that...??)

 

[DevilsAvocado]

I just did a miraculous scientific discovery! I made my own little "theory" by assigning Malus' to both (not entangled) Alice & Bob, and guess what?? IT DID PROVIDE ME WITH A DATASET! OH MY GOD!

[B]Angle	Malus'	Alice	Bob[/B]
------------------------------
0º	100%	111111	111111
22.5º	85%	111110	111110
45º	50%	111000	111000
67.5º	15%	100000	100000
90º	0%	000000	000000

 

[DrChinese]

If you consider detection attributes as being in one to one correspondence with an underlying reality, then of course you'll get inconsistencies. This is clearly illustrated by GHZ as well as Bell.

But this tells us nothing about reality, ...

According to EPR, it does. The realism assumption is directly deduced from that. The question is whether or not the requirement the elements of reality be simultaneously predictable is reasonable. EPR thinks NO, they do not need to be simultaneously predictable.

You, on the other hand, think they should be simultaneously predictable because otherwise there is nothing but the results of measurements. That would put you squarely in the quantum mechanical camp. According to standard QM, there is no deeper reality than what can be observed (i.e. nothing deeper than the limits of the HUP). Glad to see this more sensible side to this discussion from you. You can call officially yourself a Bohr Local Realist.

 

[DrChinese]

I just did a miraculous scientific discovery! I made my own little "theory" by assigning Malus' to both (not entangled) Alice & Bob, and guess what?? IT DID PROVIDE ME WITH A DATASET! OH MY GOD!

[B]Angle	Malus'	Alice	Bob[/B]
------------------------------
0º	100%	111111	111111
22.5º	85%	111110	111110
45º	50%	111000	111000
67.5º	15%	100000	100000
90º	0%	000000	000000

Cool. I wonder why some people have such a hard time of it. Heh.

 

[ThomasT]

I just did a miraculous scientific discovery! I made my own little "theory" by assigning Malus' to both (not entangled) Alice & Bob, and guess what?? IT DID PROVIDE ME WITH A DATASET! OH MY GOD!

[B]Angle	Malus'	Alice	Bob[/B]
------------------------------
0º	100%	111111	111111
22.5º	85%	111110	111110
45º	50%	111000	111000
67.5º	15%	100000	100000
90º	0%	000000	000000

Why this doesn't work has been quite extensively discussed in this thread. This is a misapplication of Malus Law. It doesn't predict individual results. Attributing specific values to polarization vectors causes Malus Law to break down.

LR and QM models of entanglement don't predict datasets. They predict rates of detection.

Entanglement stats are produced by entanglement experiments (or valid simulations). This is the only source for datasets that might be used to evaluate the relative accuracy of competing models.

 

[nismaratwork]

Why this doesn't work has been quite extensively discussed in this thread. This is a misapplication of Malus Law. It doesn't predict individual results. Attributing specific values to polarization vectors causes Malus Law to break down.

LR and QM models of entanglement don't predict datasets. They predict rates of detection.

Entanglement stats are produced by entanglement experiments (or valid simulations). This is the only source for datasets that might be used to evaluate the relative accuracy of competing models.

How on Earth does Malus' Law apply to this in the slightest?

 

[DrChinese]

LR and QM models of entanglement don't predict datasets. They predict rates of detection.

I think DevilsAvocado has proven you wrong. Cause there is one for us to look at right there on the page. I see it. If that model is not a QM consistent dataset, perhaps you will point out the elements which fail.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Why this doesn't work has been quite extensively discussed in this thread. This is a misapplication of Malus Law. It doesn't predict individual results. Attributing specific values to polarization vectors causes Malus Law to break down.

I don’t agree. Yes, Malus' gives a percentage for the probability at a certain angle, but does this fact make it impossible to predict individual results? Definitely no, it’s possible indeed to predict the individual results.

For the first angle 0º we only 1 possible combination, 100% all the time:
111111

For the second angle 22.5º we have 6 different combinations:
111110
111101
111011
110111
101111
011111


For the third angle 45º we have 20 different combinations:
111000
110100
110010
110001
101100
101010
101001
100110
100101
100011
011100
011010
011001
010110
010101
010011
001110
001101
001011
000111

For the forth angle 67.5º we have the same combinations as for angle 22.5º, i.e. 6 different combinations.

For the fifth angle 90º we have the same combinations as for angle 0º, i.e. 1 combination.

This gives us a total of 1 x 6 x 20 x 6 x 1 = 720 combinations.

I know, and you know that it’s very possible to print these different combinations, and predict with 100% certainty every time we run this test, that one of the combinations will occur.

It’s like winning on the lottery every day!


(Maybe someone who is better in math than I am, could tell me if it’s just a fluke that 6! = 720 ??)

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Cool. I wonder why some people have such a hard time of it. Heh.

There are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in philosophy.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

How on Earth does Malus' Law apply to this in the slightest?

cos^2(a-b)

 

[nismaratwork]

cos^2(a-b)

I think you covered the relevance of how it doesn't interfere with the results a couple of posts ago.

 

[ThomasT]

LR and QM models of entanglement don't predict datasets. They predict rates of detection.

I think DevilsAvocado has proven you wrong. Cause there is one for us to look at right there on the page. I see it. If that model is not a QM consistent dataset, perhaps you will point out the elements which fail.

So, what are you saying DrC, that qm predicts the results of individual measurements? That's silly. Or do you just say these sorts of things to confuse people?

Your 'dataset' requirement for LR models is nonsense. It's nonsense, it has nothing to do with any of this. If you think it does, then write a paper on it and get it peer reviewed. Otherwise, stop presenting it in these forums.

And for DA's idea that specific values of polarization vectors are in one to one correspondence with experimental results -- I'm sorry but we have no way of knowing if that's the case.

So, I'll repeat MY mantra. LR and QM models of entanglement predict rates of coincidental detection. No more, and no less.

 

[DrChinese]

1. Your 'dataset' requirement for LR models is nonsense. It's nonsense, it has nothing to do with any of this. If you think it does, then write a paper on it and get it peer reviewed. Otherwise, stop presenting it in these forums.

2. So, I'll repeat MY mantra. LR and QM models of entanglement predict rates of coincidental detection. No more, and no less.

1. You can consider my dataset requirement more of a crackpot filter. And I think it's working!

2. Then perhaps you will show us your LR formula, and by the way, why don't you give us a sample dataset so we can see it in action. I will gladly do the same for QM's model.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

a crackpot filter. And I think it's working!

 

[DevilsAvocado]

And for DA's idea that specific values of polarization vectors are in one to one correspondence with experimental results -- I'm sorry but we have no way of knowing if that's the case.

So, I'll repeat MY mantra. LR and QM models of entanglement predict rates of coincidental detection. No more, and no less.

Okay, I’m not stubborn, running over people with my own little skewed view.

Let’s do it real simple:

[B]Angle	Alice	Bob[/B]
--------------------
0º	100%	100%
22.5º	85%	85%
45º	50%	50%
67.5º	15%	15%
90º	0%	0%

This is the "prediction rates of coincidental detection", or the correlation between Alice & Bob. Angle is the relative angle between Alice & Bob. And there are no individual results, just statistics.

Happy?

Now, please deliver your LR model and percentage for the correlation, as above.


P.S. Please, don’t forget to explain in detail how this will be achieved in the real world!

 

[ThomasT]

1. You can consider my dataset requirement more of a crackpot filter. And I think it's working!

Your dataset requirement is itself crackpotty. You're requiring models of entanglement to do something that they're not designed to do. To reiterate, neither LR nor QM models of entanglement predict datasets. They predict rates of detection.

In another recent thread you used your 'dataset requirement' to 'show' that LR models of individual results are incompatible with QM -- a 'result' which stands in direct contradiction to Bell. None of the other posters in that thread had any idea what you were talking about either.

2. Then perhaps you will show us your LR formula, and by the way, why don't you give us a sample dataset so we can see it in action.

You've been given the opportunity to look at and critique several purported LR models, but you've refused to do so. Maybe you can present an argument that they're not local or not realistic, or that they're neither. But you can't do it by requiring them to produce datasets, because they don't predict datasets -- any more than QM does. What they do is match the QM prediction regarding rate of coincidental detection.

I will gladly do the same for QM's model.

Well, that will be a neat trick, since afaik QM doesn't predict datasets, but only detection rates.

 

[ThomasT]

Now, please deliver your LR model and percentage for the correlation, as above.

There have been at least a couple, authored by working physicists, already presented in this thread.

P.S. Please, don’t forget to explain in detail how this will be achieved in the real world!

They predict the same results that QM does for applicable experiments. As I mentioned to DrC, you might present some reason(s) why they shouldn't be considered LR models.

 

[JesseM]

There have been at least a couple, authored by working physicists, already presented in this thread.

What posts are you referring to? Are you talking about models that exploit loopholes, or are you claiming there are local realist models that predict BI violations even in loophole-free experiments of the type imagined by Bell?

 

[DrChinese]

There have been at least a couple, authored by working physicists, already presented in this thread.

Let's see a peer reviewed reference when it comes to non-standard science. I missed any that meet that criteria.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

There have been at least a couple, authored by working physicists, already presented in this thread.

Oh yeah, could please give me a link, or are we exercising that famous swindlin' again?

Edit: I think I’ve found it:

... So, there's some room for speculation there (not that there's any way of definitively knowing whether a proposed, and viable, 'realistic' model of 'interim' photon behavior corresponds to reality). In connection with this, JenniT is developing an LR model in the thread on Bell's mathematics, and Qubix has provided a link to a proposed LR model by Joy Christian.

Okay, so JenniT (a PF user) is the "working physicists" + Joy Christian alias "Mr. Disproofs", who have no working LR model, but a http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Joy+Christian/0/1/0/all/0/1"...?

Anyway, it isn't like these are easy question/considerations.

Well, this statement seems to be a contradiction to the first line in this post: "There have been at least a couple, authored by working physicists, already presented in this thread."

... Wrt to your exercises illustrating the difficulty of understanding the optical Bell test correlations in terms of specific polarization vectors -- yes, that is a problem. It's something that probably most, or maybe all, of the readers of this thread have worked through. It suggests a few possibilities: (1) the usual notion/'understanding' of polarization is incorrect or not a comprehensive physical description, (2) the usual notion/'understanding' of spin is incorrect or not a comprehensive physical description, (3) the concepts are being misapplied or inadequately/incorrectly modeled, (4) the experimental situation is being incorrectly modeled, (5) the dynamics of the reality underlying instrumental behavior is significantly different from our sensory reality/experience, (6) there is no reality underlying instrumental behavior or underlying our sensory reality/experience, etc., etc. My current personal favorites are (3) and (4), but, of course, that could change. Wrt fundamental physics, while there's room for speculation, one still has to base any speculations on well established physical laws and dynamical principles which are, necessarily, based on real physical evidence (ie. instrumental behavior, and our sensory experience, our sensory apprehension of 'reality' -- involving, and evolving according to, the scientific method of understanding).

A lot of personal speculations, but still no working LR model. If there is one, please provide the link.​

They predict the same results that QM does for applicable experiments.

Interesting, could you please describe where the "on/off button" for entangled/not entangled pairs is situated in your LR model? And how does it work?

I take it for granted that you are aware that not entangled pairs produce completely different statistics, and I want to know what your LRM has to say about that?

(If you refer to earlier posts without linking, I take it for granted you have no answer.)

 

[ThomasT]

There have been at least a couple, authored by working physicists, already presented in this thread.

Oh yeah, could please give me a link, or are we exercising that famous swindlin' again?

Swindle these:

Failure of Bell's Theorem and the Local Causality of the Entangled Photons
Joy Christian (Oxford)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4932

Disproofs of Bell, GHZ, and Hardy Type Theorems and the Illusion of Entanglement
Joy Christian (Oxford)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.4259

Can Bell's Prescription for Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?
Joy Christian (Oxford)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078

Disproof of Bell's Theorem: Further Consolidations
Joy Christian (Perimeter and Oxford)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1333

Disproof of Bell's Theorem: Reply to Critics
Joy Christian (Perimeter and Oxford)
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703244

Disproof of Bell's Theorem by Clifford Algebra Valued Local Variables
Joy Christian (Oxford)
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703179

Possible Experience: from Boole to Bell
K. Hess (Beckman Institute, Department of Electrical Engineering and Department of Physics, University of Illinois)
K Michielsen (Institute for Advanced Simulation, Julich Supercomputing Centre, Research Centre Julich)
H. De Raedt (Department of Applied Physics, Zernike Institute of Advanced Materials)
Published in: EPL, 87 (2009) 60007
http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0767

Extended Boole-Bell inequalities applicable to quantum theory
H. De Raedt (Department of Applied Physics, Zernike Institute of Advanced Materials)
K. Hess (Beckman Institute, Department of Electrical Engineering and Department of Physics, University of Illinois)
K. Michielsen (Institute for Advanced Simulation, Julich Supercomputing Centre, Research Centre Julich)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.2546

Bell's Inequality: Physics meets Probability
Andrei Khrennikov (International Center for Mathematical Modelling in Physics and Cognitive Sciences, Linnaeus University)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.3909

A Mathematician's Viewpoint to Bell's theorem: In Memory of Walter Philipp
Andrei Khrennikov (International Center for Mathematical Modelling in Physics and Cognitive Sciences, Linnaeus University)
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0612153

Quantum nonlocality or nonergodicity? A critical study of Bell's arguments
Andrei Khrennikov (International Center for Mathematical Modelling in Physics and Cognitive Sciences, Linnaeus University)
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0512178

Quantum correlations from local amplitudes and the resolution of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen nonlocality puzzle
C. S. Unnikrishnan (Gravitation Group, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research)
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0005103

There is no spooky action-at-a-distance in quantum correlations: Resolution of the EPR nonlocality puzzle
C. S. Unnikrishnan (Gravitation Group, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research)
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0001112

Three-particle GHZ correlations without nonlocality
C. S. Unnikrishnan (Gravitation Group, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research)
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0004089

Law of Malus and Photon-Photon Correlations: A Quasi-Deterministic Analyzer Model
Bill Dalton (SCSU)
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0101127

Bell's inequality violation due to misidentification of spatially non stationary random processes
Journal-ref: Journal of Modern Optics, 2003, Vol. 50, No. 15-17, 2465-2474
Louis Sica (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D. C.)
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0305071

Bell's inequalities I: An explanation for their experimental violation
Journal-ref: Optics Communications 170 (1999) 55-60
Louis Sica (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D. C.)
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0101087

Bell's inequalities II: logical loophole in their interpretation
Journal-ref: Optics Communications 170 (1999) 61-66
Louis Sica (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D. C.)
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0101094

Correlations for a new Bell's inequality experiment
Journal-ref: Foundations of Physics Letters, Vol. 15, No. 5, 473 (2002).
Louis Sica (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D. C.)
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0211031

There are a couple of purported LR models in the bunch. When you've finished reading and critiquing these, and given us your conclusions and recommendations, then I have some more for you to look at. Some of them go back quite a few years, but then Bell's papers were published almost half a century ago.

Of course, nobody was too worried about nature being nonlocal pre Bell, and it seems that nobody's too worried about it post Bell either. After all, there's really no way to know. It's all in how one interprets the logic involved. So, be sure to pay particular attention to the papers that address that.

Anyway, it isn't like these are easy question/considerations.

Well, this statement seems to be a contradiction to the first line in this post: "There have been at least a couple, authored by working physicists, already presented in this thread."

Exactly how do these statements contradict each other? Logic, or rather illogic, of this sort will undoubtedly lead you down the wrong path.

A lot of personal speculations, but still no working LR model. If there is one, please provide the link.

They've been in the thread for quite a while. Why am I not surprised that you didn't read them? They're included in the links above. After you read them, to be fair, I think that we might both agree that calling them LR models is a bit of a stretch. Anyway, whether an LR model of entanglement is possible isn't going to tell us that nature is local any more than a nonlocal model of entanglement tells us that nature is nonlocal. The important question is: how can we infer anything about fundamental reality from the arithmetized Boolean logic constituting Bell, GHZ, and Hardy type theorems? And the point of most of the papers linked to is that we can't. This is actually good news for those who have chosen to believe that nature is nonlocal. It means that they can remain steadfast in their belief, or rather faith, that nature is nonlocal (whatever that might possibly mean). It's also impossible to 'prove' that entanglement correlations are or aren't caused by really fast sub-quantum bike messengers -- though there are some very good reasons not to believe that, just as there are some very good reasons to believe that entanglement correlations can happen via fundamental dynamics constrained by the principle of local action.

They predict the same results that QM does for applicable experiments.

Interesting, could you please describe where the "on/off button" for entangled/not entangled pairs is situated in your LR model? And how does it work?

I don't have an LR model, and don't recall ever saying that I did. However, some professional physicists do. Their models are linked to above.

(If you refer to earlier posts without linking, I take it for granted you have no answer.)

Well, now you have some stuff to look at. Have fun.

 

[DrChinese]

Swindle these:

...

However, some professional physicists do. Their models are linked to above.

That's actually a very poor list, but I will give you this: it's about as good as you could possibly come up with. So you get an A-. I can give you some more names if you like. In fact, Khrennikov had a new paper this week on how 4th order effects cause photons not to be detected.

Most of those are the same authors, and only a few are peer reviewed. The only one I think worth reading is the De Raedt, and that is simply because it is a computer model. If you study it, you will realize how difficult the modeling issue really is. Bell is respected with it - the only one of the lot I believe. Which is to say that their model does not claim to match QM.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Swindle these:

Why 19 papers? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!

Exactly how do these statements contradict each other? Logic, or rather illogic, of this sort will undoubtedly lead you down the wrong path.

Well, if you do have 19 papers proving the same (or 19 different) fully functional LR models, the LRM subject could hardly be characterized as: "Anyway, it isn't like these are easy question/considerations."

You, I and anyone else would then completely natural have stated: "Well, it may look like a difficult question, but that fact is that there are 19 papers proving a working LR model, in detail. So the LRM question is already solved, and perfectly clear to the scientific community."

Capice?

They've been in the thread for quite a while. Why am I not surprised that you didn't read them? They're included in the links above.

Why should I read all these 19 papers?

After you read them, to be fair, I think that we might both agree that calling them LR models is a bit of a stretch.

Ahh! Sorry, you’ve already gave me the answer: "calling them LR models is a bit of a stretch"

Conclusion: There is absolutely no reason for me to spend time, looking for a working LR model in your 19 papers – because there is none. Thanks for saving me the time!

I don't have an LR model, and don't recall ever saying that I did. However, some professional physicists do. Their models are linked to above.

I do think you need that break you were mentioning https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2820096&postcount=24", because now you are making contradictory statements in the same post:

calling them LR models is a bit of a stretch

??

Well, now you have some stuff to look at. Have fun.

I don’t want to hurt your feelings – but I’m laughing already!

Take a break. Think it over. Come back as a new man, in possession of that wonderful word "Maybe".

Take care!