Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Bob Shour: on 7/16/15 at 13:50pm UTC, wrote Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman, I don't know if a post after the conclusion of...

Eckard Blumschein: on 5/3/15 at 7:43am UTC, wrote Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman, Thank you very much. Not just do the 315...

Edwin Klingman: on 4/22/15 at 18:16pm UTC, wrote Dear Laurence, Thanks for the very gracious comment. I yesterday spoke to...

Laurence Hitterdale: on 4/22/15 at 15:41pm UTC, wrote Hi Edwin, Your response clarifies the situation for me. Although I cannot...

Gary Simpson: on 4/21/15 at 5:28am UTC, wrote Edwin, Many thanks for the encouragement. I see that part of your voting...

Thomas Ray: on 4/21/15 at 1:26am UTC, wrote Edwin, Thank you for the vote of confidence. I am doubly glad that you...

Edwin Klingman: on 4/20/15 at 22:04pm UTC, wrote Dear Jeff, Thanks for reading my essay and for your thoughtful comment. I...

John Cox: on 4/20/15 at 20:58pm UTC, wrote Jeff, Thank-you. That is the most comprehensible concise statement I've...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Joe, sensory products are what is seen. Illumination matters because it..." in The Sudoku Universe, Why...

fally jonash: "It is a well-maintained site where people can learn about various topics. I..." in A Wonderful Outcome

fally jonash: "Your article is very interesting and fantastic, at the same time the theme..." in In Search Of Other Earths

Joe Fisher: "Dear Georgina, The (INVISIBLE) “sensory products” you keep writing..." in The Sudoku Universe, Why...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Georgina, I failed to mention that although conventional chess game..." in The Complexity Conundrum

Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve Agnew, On December 7, 2017, I have emailed : “Dear..." in The Complexity Conundrum

Lena Smith: "All HP printers carry a unique qualities. if the product is still under..." in Conjuring a Neutron Star...

Lena Smith: "All HP printers carry a unique qualities. if the product is still under..." in Conjuring a Neutron Star...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.


FQXi FORUM
December 11, 2017

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: The Nature of Bell's Hidden Constraints by Edwin Eugene Klingman [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 9, 2015 @ 22:28 GMT
Essay Abstract

Viewing Math and Physics as Korzybski's 'map' and 'territory', we analyze their trust-worthiness. Maps derived from observations of the real world bring eigenvalue-based measurement into question. But what to do when the map logic conflicts with our physical intuition? This is often resolved in favor of the non-intuitive, whether simultaneity in relativity or non-locality in the case of Bell's theorem. The subtle nature of Bell's hidden constraints erasing the hidden variable information is the basis of Bell's lack of trust in his intuition.

Author Bio

Edwin Eugene Klingman was a NASA Research Physicist (atomic & molecular). His 1979 dissertation, (now published as "The Automatic Theory of Physics"), describes how numbers and math derive from physical reality and how a robot would derive a theory of physics based on pattern recognition and entropy. Founder of three Silicon Valley companies, he holds 33 technology patents and has published two university texts, "Microprocessor Systems Design" Vol I and II. His recent focus has been on Bell's theorem issues.

Download Essay PDF File




Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Jan. 10, 2015 @ 11:40 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I enjoy reading your high quality essay.

Let’s imagine that Einstein Rosen and Podolski would understand that time has only a mathematical existence. With this understanding they would get the idea that information moves in space only and not in time. Time is only duration of information motion in space from A to B. Space is direct immediate information medium by EPR type experiments. There was no need to introduce idea of “hidden variables”. In this sense Bell is right: “No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics”.

Yours Amrit

attachments: 2_3D_space_as_a_medium_of_quantum_entanglement.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 10, 2015 @ 21:31 GMT
Hi Amrit,

Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure I understand your point about time and information movement, but I'll give it some thought. I wrote on my understanding of information in the 2013 essay contest.

I'm not sure either exactly what you mean by "space is direct immediate information medium by EPR type experiments." If you mean that it is essentially a position measurement, then I agree.

It may depend upon what "all" means in "all of the predictions of quantum mechanics". This is usually, and specifically by Bell, interpreted to be -a.b correlation, and I have shown here a local model that does produce this prediction unless it is prevented from doing so by Bell's constraints.

Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. I will read yours soon and comment.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 18:22 GMT
Ed, is your model realistic?

I agree your model is local -- as you state above -- finding my own local model hiding within yours: see equations (3)-(6) at my local model; version 1.** But there I made a planned second step: introducing realism (and matching QM) with equations (8)-(13).

In other words: In that you and I (as local realists) require a model to be both local AND realistic: the above model was a deliberate pedagogic step to the fully local and realistic version at (8)-(13). See also my essay in this contest when it is available.

So, not seeing how your model is realistic (nor how it moves beyond that first step above), I'd be pleased to learn:

1. What is your definition of realism, please?*

2. How does your model meet that definition?

* Because until we define realism in local and testable terms, our opponents define realism in their own unrealistic terms.

** PS; to be clear: Per my earlier analysis here and comparison with equations (3)-(6) at http://viXra.org/pdf/1406.0184v1.pdf my local model; version 1.

With best regards; Gordon Watson

report post as inappropriate

Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 18:46 GMT
With more apologies: The correct direct link above is my local model -- version 1.

Gordon Watson

PS: I've asked to have this fixed.

report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 10, 2015 @ 12:37 GMT
Edwin,

An excellent read. I'm a bit confused though. I understood that the EPR experiment was the basis for Bell's Inequality and that the SG experiment simply demonstrated that spin states were discrete rather than continuous.

BTW, has the SG experiment ever been performed when the apparatus was moving?

Best regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 10, 2015 @ 21:38 GMT
Gary,

Thanks for your comments. You say the Stern-Gerlach experiment simply demonstrated that spin states were discrete rather than continuous. That is indirectly so. But Bell, in my analysis, treated the SG experiment as if it is directly measuring spin. I discuss why that is mistaken in my essay, and why his +1 and -1 constraints are therefore inappropriate. I show how it is his unwarranted constraints that lead to his conclusion that no local model can reproduce quantum mechanical correlations, which correlations, of course, have been experimentally verified.

To my knowledge, the SG experiment has never been performed when the apparatus was moving. Do you believe that some new effect would appear in this case?

Having been discussing, and arguing, this analysis for months now, it is clear to me that this is quite a complex problem (see the HL Mencken quote) and I thank you for making the effort to read it. My belief is that it is too complex to be understood in one reading, but it's all we can do to read each essay even once. I've printed yours out but not yet read it. I'll comment when I do so.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Gary D. Simpson replied on Jan. 11, 2015 @ 19:26 GMT
Edwin,

You are correct that the topic is fairly complex. My understanding of the distinction between SG and EPR was that SG established two spin states and that EPR established that distance was not a consideration when considering entanglement. Thank you for any clarification. I've read your essay a second time.

Your Equation 2 interests me. It looks to me like it is almost a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 11, 2015 @ 20:43 GMT
Gary,

I can only thank you for reading my essay a second time. I've always found it necessary to read and reread complex topics, if I wanted to understand them. You are correct that equation 2 in my essay produces a scalar, since (non-relativistic) energy is pure scalar, versus the energy/momentum of relativity. I will think about your eq 1.

You're also correct that Bell's...

view entire post





Harlan Swyers wrote on Jan. 10, 2015 @ 16:12 GMT
Edwin,

The quality of the essay is superb! Truly professional!

Now to the harder part...I was wondering if you could expand slightly on why you think we should accept local reality as obvious. My conclusion on these matters are very different, but I am certainly interested in different points of view.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Best

Hal Swyers

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 10, 2015 @ 21:41 GMT
Harlan,

Thanks for your kind comments.

You're right that it is hard to expand on why I think we should accept local reality as "obvious". I prefer the word "intuitive", and I have seen many comments to the effect that non-local "realism" is non-intuitive.

If one believes that intuition is derived from long evolution, then it seems to make sense that the survivors would intuit local causality as "natural" or "obvious".

A major point in my essay is that Bell had the audacity to overthrow what most seem to consider an intuitive feature of nature on oversimplified grounds. As I note, if he had just said "my model fails to produce quantum mechanical correlations" there would be no problem. It is because he claimed no local model could work and concluded that local causality is an invalid concept that his failure became major.

I'm not sure whether you're saying that your conclusion on Bell differs from mine, or that you find non-locality obvious. I can understand the first, but would be curious to hear why it would be obvious.

Thanks again for your above comment,

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Harlan Swyers replied on Jan. 17, 2015 @ 15:22 GMT
Edwin,

Sorry for the late response.

I think locality is a given in that operations that generate a measurement must be local, but our concept of reality is not. More specifically, that while there is an appearance of objects that are physically separable, which we interpret as real objects, these are outcome dependent on local operations. The notion of non-locality is a horrible interpretational problem that has been allowed to diffuse through the physics community at large. The fact that we see quantum correlations in test of Bell theorems does not mean the universe is non-local; there was no non-local operation that generate the correlation. What the measurement did was provide some perceived definiteness to a local observer.

Hope that helps,

Best

Harlan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 18, 2015 @ 03:42 GMT
Harlan,

As best I can tell we are pretty much in agreement on this topic. You note that the notion of non-locality is a horrible interpretation problem based on Bell's belief that "there was no non-local operation that generates the correlation." I hope that you got from my essay that there is now a local operation (as outlined in my essay) that exactly generates the correlation, thereby negating Bell's conclusion about non-locality. It's local all the way.

This has real consequences for the idea of entanglement, such as Susskind's treatment of information loss and the firewall problem, as well as other current ideas about entanglement. If you missed this aspect of my essay, I invite you to look at it again.

I've read your essay and responded to it, and I thank you again for reading mine and for your response.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




John C Hodge wrote on Jan. 11, 2015 @ 17:54 GMT
Thanks for you very interesting line of thought.

I’ve added you book to my cart in Amazon. It seems this book is on point for this topic. Because I order books for free shipping in batches, I’ll look into other books to order - This book is #4.

What is the web address of your FQXi paper on treating the ``wave medium’’ of QM and gravity?

I also tend to view mapping...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 11, 2015 @ 19:52 GMT
John,

Thanks for your well thought out comments.

First: my FQXi paper on QM 'wave medium' and gravity is The Nature of the Wave Function. If I were to rewrite this 2012 paper today a few things would change. At the time I used Tajmar's experiment to assume a very large factor multiplying gravito-magnetism. I have since realized that self-interactive (nonlinear) feedback can yield...

view entire post




John C Hodge replied on Jan. 12, 2015 @ 16:08 GMT
RE: your paper ``The Nature of the Wave’’. I’ll look again, but I don’t see coherence except that a single particle is self--coherent. Interference in the double slit requires coherence in several particles’ waves. I suppose you are having the wave travel much faster than the particle so the wave through the slits is basically redial. A thermal light source near a double slit does not produce interference (not coherent). Such light needs to pass through a slit or travel a long distance to become coherent. Further, if a photon causes a wave before reaching the mask, the field cannot self direct. Other photons are needed, as Newton suggested, to cause the wave field. This leads to having to satisfy Afshar’s low intensity (singe photon in the experiment) observation. To satisfy the coherence observations, I concluded a single photon must cause several coherent waves. Too bad I became interested in FQXi to late for this discussion. All you needed was to have a physical medium in which the wave oscillates where the large--scale gradient produces gravity.

The ``physics’’ (a study field of humans) is linked to territory in the abstract. Physics seems more like a map to me. In the text, this is changed to physical reality. Yes I know -picky, picky. Apologies.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 13, 2015 @ 03:08 GMT
John,

Not at all sure that the linear momentum model you reference will not behave properly in the two-slit experiment, nor that two particles cannot interact in coherent fashion. I simply have not yet modeled these phenomena to that extent. My goal is to model reality with wave-inducing local particles and see how far it can be pushed. I think it will go quite far, but I can't prove it. As I imply in my essay, the spin (angular momentum) eigenfunction and the linear momentum eigenfunction, connected by a tensor product, are essentially separable, so I have focused most recently on developing the local model of spin. I plan to return to the linear momentum eigenfunction and develop it further after I put spin to bed. Most (but not all) of the weirdness in quantum mechanics is associated with spin.

As for a particle-plus-wave model in the two-slit experiment you might wish to look at 'Measurement in the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation: Double-slit, Stern-Gerlach, and EPR-B' by Gondran and Gondran [arXiv:1309.4757v3].

I now understand your question of "physics" versus "physical reality". In the context of my essay I assume 'math' to be the map and 'physics' to be the territory, so I've let 'physics' stand for physical reality. You are letting 'physics' (as theoretical models) be the map and physical reality be the territory. I agree with you about physics being a map, but I have a different usage here, primarily to accomodate the essay theme. (Also, I grew up around the corner from Hodges Street, which is probably why I inadvertently misspelled your name in an above comment.)

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Philip Gibbs wrote on Jan. 11, 2015 @ 22:27 GMT
Edwin, When I look up the map and territory metaphor in Wikipedia they link it to the elephant metaphor that I used, so we should have something in common. However as you pointed out in your comment to my essay we actually think in completely the opposite way!

For you the physical world comes first and is unique while mathematics emerges in its many forms. For me the mathematical world is a unique structure from which many possible physical realities emerge. To you our intuition is to be trusted while for me it is something to fight against.

Well sometimes it is more useful to read the words of people who see things differently in order to challenge our ideas so I try to imagine seeing things your way. I like your use of cluster analysis to understand the way the emergence works.

Your arguments concerning Bell are very detailed and complex so I will need more time to take those in.

It is a well written and thought provoking essay.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 12, 2015 @ 02:57 GMT
Philip,

I have yet to participate in an FQXi contest without learning something. If we all saw physics the same way there would be no contest. I too try to see your essay as you do. As I said on your thread, you have a wonderful talent for presenting ideas that I normally reject in such a way as to seem eminently reasonable to me and therefore cause me to think more carefully about what...

view entire post





Colin Walker wrote on Jan. 12, 2015 @ 01:27 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I like your approach - follow the energy. It is good to see some physics relating to an actual Stern-Gerlach device, having wondered why an *inhomogeneous* magnetic field was required, which you relate to a continuous helicity eigenvalue spectrum. Many discussions on Bell's theorem are purely mathematical, but this really goes to the experimental foundation of Bell's ideas where you have exposed a critical misconception in the formulation of the theorem which constrains outputs to +/-1.

Your local model really seems appropriate for this problem. This ought to be a very popular topic and I expect you will do well in the contest.

Best wishes,

Colin

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 12, 2015 @ 02:20 GMT
Dear Colin,

You have captured the essence of my essay in five lines, something I wasn't sure was possible. Thanks for reading, understanding, and summarizing my essay so beautifully.

My best wishes for you, too,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 12, 2015 @ 22:24 GMT
Edwin,

I have been thinking quite a bit more regarding your Equation 2 and the text in general. Please bear with me.

Should the second term on the right-hand side be integrated? I’m thinking that F dx = dE.

Equation 2 reminds me of the Lorentz Force Equation but the silver atoms of the SG experiment are of course neutral. Is there any chance that the gradient term is a cross product between the two vectors?

Does the following expression have any physical meaning?

((vector mu)dot(vector B)+(vector mu)cross(vector B))/((length mu)(length B))

Are observers Alice and Bob considered to be entangled after the experiment? They each absorbed a different part of the entangled wave-function.

The entanglement is created by the experimenter in his/her frame of reference. The measurements are made in the experimenter’s reference frame. I think the entanglement only exists in the experimenter’s reference frame. Has an experiment been done where one or both of the two observers are moving with respect to the source of the entangled particles?

Many Thanks,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 13, 2015 @ 02:24 GMT
Gary,

I neglected to answer one of your points in your previous comment that is relevant to your latest comment so I will do so now. You ask for clarification of "the distinction between SG and EPR was that SG established two spin states and that EPR established that distance was not a consideration when considering entanglement."

Consider the Stern-Gerlach experiment in 1922, three years before Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck proposed that the intrinsic angular momentum or position-independent spin was half integral. The SG experiment has a twofold character by splitting a beam. Since it's unlikely that the inhomogeneous field could be exactly represented, the specifics of interaction of spin with the local magnetic field was of lesser concern. What counted was the two-fold splitting of the beam of silver atoms, attributed now to spin.

In SG, the gross nature of this two-fold splitting is sufficient. But the EPR experiment, based on comparison and correlation of two SG experiments performed on a singlet state can be treated as a discrete (binary) problem in physics or as a continuous classical physics problem. Bell's gross model requiring binary measurements effectively erases all of the "hidden variable" information of the classical local model. A much finer resolution of the physics of the particle in the heterogeneous field is required to match the predicted quantum mechanical correlation. That is a key point in my essay.

I propose theoretical and experimental exploration of unconstrained and constrained models of EPR. But the fact that my unconstrained model violates Bell's theorem has led to conflict with the simple binary SG model, and consequently quantum mechanical questions, which I answer in the essay in terms of eigenvalues maps.

As for entanglement, it is represented in the figure at the bottom right of page 6 in my essay. Entanglement is the shaded area between the cosine curve ( -a.b ) and Bell's linear curve ( -1 + 2 theta / pi). Bell claimed that local realism could not match measured reality, i.e., the -a.b correlation, because his model failed to do so. I view his model as too simple, and focus on the constraints he imposes on the models.

If a local model, with or without constraints, can exceed Bell's linear prediction, then entanglement will be diminished. And if a local model actually accomplishes the -a.b correlation, then the rationale for entanglement disappears. As you observe in the figure at top of page 7, my local model does produce the required correlation, -a.b.

Entanglement, is weird, mysterious, poorly defined, and, according even to those experimenters who made their reputation showing -a.b, it is "difficult to swallow". My model yields the cosine curve, so there is no shaded area, that is, no entanglement, so that's the answer to your last two paragraphs in the above comment.

Entanglement was invented to explain how correlation could occur that no classical model could produce. If a local classical model can produce the correlation, then entanglement is unnecessary. I say good riddance.

I will look at your equation above, and if I have anything sensible to say will comment again.

Thanks for your continuing interest in this problem.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 13, 2015 @ 11:44 GMT
Edwin,

Many thanks. You have given me a "Eureka" moment and I now better understand the distinction regarding SG vs EPR and the significance of your essay.

Regarding the above relationship, I simple used vectors mu and B to produce Euler's Equation. It might occur somewhere as part of the solution to a differential equation.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate


Domenico Oricchio wrote on Jan. 13, 2015 @ 12:35 GMT
Dear Edwin

I like the Korzybski's idea of math like a map and the physical world like the territory; it is the kernel of mathematical physics.

If I understand, you see the knowledge like a pattern recognition through a neural network.

If I understand clearly, you say that an oversimplification of the Bell's equation in quantum mechanics can give the non-locality interpretation.

I must read more carefully the whole essay, but the quality is excellent.

Best

Domenico Oricchio

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 14, 2015 @ 01:56 GMT
Dear Domenico,

Thanks for reading and responding, and thanks for your kind comment. You have understood correctly the points you mention. I would add that the pattern recognition process is essentially an algorithmic process which can be implemented in any logic machine, especially including neural networks.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




John C Hodge wrote on Jan. 13, 2015 @ 16:06 GMT
Gibb’s comment above notes the two popular views of math and physics.

I suppose I may not have explained the concept well in the introduction.

For me the math and physics emerge together and are the same physical reality. Therefore, properties of math can be used to suggest the physics of reality. The difficult things of math can also imply things that don’t exist in physical reality such as mapping math and infinity. So the quantum math (not real) of Bell is incorrect which is shown by the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation that suggests the ``hidden variables’’ exist. There are few papers written on this. Your paper uses this to highlight how this works. Didn’t Bell question his inequality when he heard of the Bohm papers?

For me the prime thing to understand is the double--slit experiment with the Afshar’s experiments of which--way and single photon interference. This experiment is the key to understanding the world of the small. That was the subject of my previous paper on photon interference and current effort on the single photon interference. Newtonian mechanics must apply to create the wave (Bohm’s weakness) and direct the particle.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 14, 2015 @ 02:24 GMT
John,

In general I agree with your second paragraph in that physics (as the physical world) entails relations (math) in its (emergent) existence. Once the complexity of the physical world reaches neuronal levels, then math goes far beyond counting and geometry to include the many mathematical inventions of the mind. Unlike Platonic-oriented physicists, I do not view all math as either pre-existing or somehow existing 'outside of' the physical universe although if there is or was an intelligent designer, I grant that He understood math exquisitely well. If physical reality just 'pop'ed into being, then math (as geometry) came into being at the same time.

These are awkward concepts, but I believe in a unitary, self-consistent world, not infinite possibilities all disconnected and potential. I do so because of my experience and my intuition. As I believe logic is a property of physical reality, I do not see physical reality either derived from or emerging from logic. Nor, I suspect, did Godel.

I agree with you that the two-slit experiment is key and must be explained by a classical model if classical physics is to have relevance at the microlevel. I considered non-locality a worse problem so I've been working hardest in that domain.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Gene H Barbee wrote on Jan. 18, 2015 @ 04:35 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I read your essay and admire your attention to detail in EPR. I am also impressed with your contribution to intellectual property. I had only about a dozen US patents and am not as educated or recognized as you. However we have a lot in common because we are innovators. I’m afraid that most of the people we deal with now don’t understand innovation. In their view,...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 18, 2015 @ 06:07 GMT
Hi Gene,

Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. As you note, novelty is often suspect. That's actually a good thing, as there are far more novel ideas than there are good or correct novel ideas. We would not want mankind chasing off after every new idea, as some of them lead straight over the cliff. That's why the patent examiners tried to shoot down every one of your patents, if they were doing their job.

That's a different problem from when novelty is opposed simply because it affects an industry of people quite successfully living off doing things the old way.

You answered my question well about the origin of your numerical code. Setting out to 'reverse engineer' the best particle data we have seems quite reasonable to me. The standard model came about from looking at patterns in the data. You said "All I can say is "it works"." There are much worse things than that! It's a great place to start.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




David Brown wrote on Jan. 18, 2015 @ 10:01 GMT
Hello Edwin. In your essay, I am mostly in agreement with your opinion, "Bell's 50 year old proof of the non-local nature of the Universe is an over-simplified solution to a complex problem. As this is generally considered the basis for 'entanglement', it suggests that reappraisal of much of current physics is in order." Bell's proof might be oversimplified or wrong, but I am not sure that Bell's proof can ever be refuted EVEN IF IT IS WRONG. The problem is that the string landscape can be formulated within a conceptual framework in which Bell's theorem is valid, and by means of clever D-brane adjustments the string landscape might be able to provide models of any plausible (or implausible) physics. In any case, my guess is that Bell's theorem shall always be regarded as great. According to Dirac, "The measure of greatness in a scientific idea is the extent to which it stimulates thought and opens up new lines of research."

Regards, David Brown

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 18, 2015 @ 22:39 GMT
Dear David Brown,

Thanks for reading and responding. You suggest that you're not sure that Bell's proof can ever be refuted even if it is wrong, because you believe string theory can be formulated in a conceptual framework in which Bell's theorem is valid. I'm not exactly sure I understand this, but in my essay on 'math and physics' as 'map and territory' I specifically state that I ignore maps that point to no territory. In your essay you acknowledge that "there is not yet any proof that the [string] theory is relevant to physics", which I interpret as saying the same thing. Thus my position is to ignore string theory and we can agree to disagree on this point. That's healthy.

Your other point, that "greatness in a scientific idea is the extent to which it stimulates thought and opens up new lines of research" is more difficult to judge, as it must be contrasted with what would have occurred if thought had not been suppressed for 50 years, and with what advances might have occurred based on a correct understanding of local realism. That is half of the 20th century, the most prolific period in physics. It is hard to think of any real physics, as opposed to thousands of papers, that have come from Bell's theorem. So except for a small industry based on publishing 'entanglement' papers, I'm unaware of just what new line of research has accomplished anything in reality. I don't see the 'quantum computers' that supposedly use entanglement and I don't see much beyond encryption that would really benefit from such, although I know others will disagree on this last point.

In short, I did not expect to convince everyone, but I appreciate your taking the time to read it and think about it and respond thoughtfully.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Anonymous wrote on Jan. 18, 2015 @ 14:56 GMT
Hi Eugene,

Thank you for looking at my essay on Solving the mystery.

I wanted to comment on your essay but my difficulty is a lack of depth in understanding the details.

I would like to talk about Bell's theorem and the issue of whether physical effects are local or non-local and see how this relates to your position on the subject.

For my reference I include the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Richard Lewis replied on Jan. 18, 2015 @ 15:01 GMT
Hi Edwin,

Apologies for sending the previous post as anonymous. I must have been logged out.

Regards

Richard Lewis

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 18, 2015 @ 22:50 GMT
Dear Richard Lewis,

Thanks for your comments. I know of course that my essay is quite complex in dealing with a very specialized topic that not everyone has spent time on. I appreciate your going to Wiki to try and understand my essay, and agree with their summary of Bell's theorem to the effect that "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever produce all of the predictions of...

view entire post




Richard Lewis replied on Jan. 19, 2015 @ 13:25 GMT
Hi Edwin,

Thank you for your feedback which I take as very positive. I am quite relaxed about the idea that Bell's theorem could be false and this would be a great achievement on your part if it becomes generally accepted.

What I am more interested in is the true nature of events in physics and whether interactions can be non-local. Since the spacetime wave theory implies non-locality it is important for me that non-locality be accepted as a physical reality. Then Bell's theorem becomes irrelevant because it is making statements about local hidden variable representations.

One of the issues that arises when non-local effects are taking place is that the implication is that a measurement at A instantaneously affects the possible measurement outcome at B. When we talk about instantaneous effects we have to consider in which frame of reference they are instantaneous. Special Relativity requires us to do this.

This is where we must consider the idea of a unique frame of reference in which non-local effects take place and this is deemed to be the same frame of reference for light wave propagation (as per the spacetime wave theory).

We arrive at a position where the laws of physics (Special Relativity and General Relativity) are constructed based on the idea that all the laws of physics are invariant in all frames of reference moving with a constant relative velocity. Then we find that to accommodate light wave propagation and entanglement effects we have to consider the existence of a unique frame of reference with the possibility (at least in the realm of thought experiment) of identifying that unique frame of reference through a precisely controlled entanglement experiment.

Ultimately, I do think it is acceptable to consider the laws of physics within the scope of SR and GR to be invariant while still assuming the existence of a unique frame of reference for non-local effects.

Regards

Richard

report post as inappropriate


John C Hodge wrote on Jan. 18, 2015 @ 16:30 GMT
Klingman

Thanks for reply on my site. I'd like to propose a task.

Links to my effort my effort.

The book I am thinking of getting is ``The Gene Man Theory’’. I didn’t find it on Amazon and $100 seems a bit tough.

Do you have any papers on the web? I looked in academia.edu, found 3 on Bell and spin in viXra. None on arXiv.

A decade ago I had one in New...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John C Hodge replied on Jan. 18, 2015 @ 16:35 GMT
"http://myplace.frontier.com/~jchodge/">my effort

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 18, 2015 @ 23:32 GMT
John,

Recently published e-prints on viXra, both to support Phil Gibbs' worthwhile undertaking, and because it's fast and does not require towing the status quo line. You mentioned arXiv was okay til you deviated. It's hard to find a greater deviation today than going against Bell. Most recent writings (see the 50 year celebration of Bell) resemble hagiography.

You ask if I have interest in reinterpreting Schrödinger, but the other question is whether I have time. Currently still extracting information from my model and the feedback I've received over the past few months, especially negative feedback, requires time and effort to respond to. And believe me, my theory is vastly improved from some of the negative feedback I received.

I'm also trying to prepare papers for refereed journals, etc. etc. So yes, I'm interested, but no, I don't think anything will come of it. I suggest we go off-line to discuss such -- Klingman@geneman.com.

Finally, I know from past experience that when this contest kicks into high gear it soaks up time like a sponge.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Gene H Barbee wrote on Jan. 18, 2015 @ 18:22 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I am following up on your question regarding the 13.8 MeV quark in the neutron/proton model. The PDG standard model masses and designations follow:



The quarks are not independently observed and standard model correlations are based on protons and neutrons that may have transitioned over time to lower energy states. I studied and correlated meson and baron observations. All except the proton decay and almost all of them decay to intermediate states consisting of lower energy mesons and baryons. The following diagram is from viXra: 1307.0133. The decay paths all conserve energy in their intermediate states, i.e. a high energy quark becomes a lower energy quark plus kinetic energy. For example, the 13.8 MeV quark in your note becomes a 1.87 MeV quark plus 11.93 MeV of orbital kinetic energy.



I detail how the neutron decays to a proton in viXra:1307.0082.

I could bore you to death with the details of meson and baryon decays but pairs of quarks eventually annihilate one another ending up as kinetic energy, electrons and neutrinos. BTW, I went far enough with the meson and baryon studies to understand them and then lost interest. It was very time consuming.

Unfortunately the diagrams would go through.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 18, 2015 @ 23:35 GMT
Hi Gene,

I was hoping you'd respond about quarks. In the past I've used ~5 Mev for up quarks (rest mass) and ~9 Mev for down quarks, but I haven't checked recently to see what latest beliefs are. Obviously most of the energy of baryons is in the interactions and kinetic energies. I'll try to look at 1307.082. I agree meson and baryon studies are time-consuming.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Jan. 22, 2015 @ 15:49 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I tried to carefully read your paper. Let me note first some of its strengths: You have a gift for expressing yourself lucidly, there are several very clear and nice-looking diagrams to help illustrate your points, and you do raise some interesting points, particularly with respect to what you call "Bell's hidden constraints."

I am baffled, however, that though the SG...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 22, 2015 @ 20:40 GMT
Dear Armin,

Thank you for your very kind comments and your extremely well thought-out question. Allow me to respond to your first criticism. You say I "did not address at all that aspect of the experiment for which it is most famous, namely that if you separate out spin up and spin down beams... pass one of the beams through a second inhomogeneous be field with a perpendicular orientation...

view entire post




Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 17:27 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thank you, your reply deserves a careful and thought-out response. Unfortunately, the next couple weeks or so will be very busy for me, so let me just say that I wish to continue our discussion, but there will be a little time lag time before I have a chance to fully engage in it. I do want to do it because this may well be one of those (relatively rare) kinds of discussions where both parties can learn from each other.

Best wishes,

Armin

report post as inappropriate


Demond Adams wrote on Jan. 23, 2015 @ 21:22 GMT
Edwin,

Very interesting read. I agree with your fundamental argument, however I believe it was Bell's intent to define a state of locality in a non-localized field, thereby introducing the constraint as +/- 1. I believe, or my intuition tells me, we are led to a fuzzy paradox when attempt to constrain any bounded state of locality.

I do feel we often describe things in mathematics that we truly can not in physics. Idealistically my argument would contend we only use mathematics as a model to physical reality.

Nevertheless, it was a good essay. Kudos!

Best Regards,

D.C. Adams

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 24, 2015 @ 20:28 GMT
Dear Demond,

Thanks for reading my essay and commenting on it. I'm not sure I understand your comment, but the consensus of Bell's supporters seems to be that the +1 or -1 are simply eigenvalues and that measurements must produce eigenvalues. That is why I have focused on this argument and attempt to show that Bell confused Dirac's fundamental eigenvalue equation with Pauli's provisional eigenvalue equation, which is clearly inappropriate in that it leads immediately to a contradiction.

You say "I believe, or my intuition tells me…". Like you, I do regard intuition as meaningful. Some, as Phil points out above, distrust intuition, and attempt to suppress it from all considerations. There are arguments for both approaches.

You also say we only use the mathematics as a model of physical reality. I agree with this and refer to it as the 'map' that represents the 'territory' in the Korzybski sense.

Thanks for your kind remarks, and good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Robert H McEachern wrote on Jan. 24, 2015 @ 17:02 GMT
Edwin,

In regards to Bell, let me give you something to think about, in the realm of truly macroscopic objects like idealized coins, rather than electron spins.

The correlation given for classical entities is a triangular function. The correlation given for quantum entities is a sinusoid. A triangular function has a Fourier spectrum, consisting of odd harmonics of the sinusoidal...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 24, 2015 @ 20:34 GMT
Dear Rob,

I agree that the correlation given for 1-bit classical entities is a triangular function, versus the sinusoidal quantum correlation. But the classical 1-bit entities do not experience the energy-exchange that yields an analog result.

This "dissipation" can be viewed, as you say, as a low-pass-filter, and this is the difference between the binary result obtained without dissipation and the continuous spectrum obtained with the non-constant field.

You discuss Shannon capacity and the uncertainty principle in the case when only a single bit of information is recoverable from a message. The local classical model is not a one-bit model but a continuous distribution (quantum magnitude but arbitrary 3-D direction). You make a very interesting point that, if the filter is applied to the transmitter, then the 'single bit' is an intrinsic property of the entity, not the 'filter' (the apparatus). But, as I discuss, the actual result is not a single bit, but a continuous spectrum. So I don't see this as applying.

Your next paragraph is more complex, but seems to again assume (as did Bell) a one-bit measurement. As the local model is not one bit I don't see this logic directly applicable (as I understand it) since the assumption that only a single bit exists is not correct. Moreover, as I point out, this physical 'fact' should be experimentally testable, and I plan to work toward testing it.

In other words, Bell's 'one-bit' assumption is inappropriate, based on his over-simplification of the problem, which was itself based on his confusion between the Dirac fundamental helicity eigenvalue equation and Pauli's provisional precession eigenvalue equation.

Thus while I do agree with your analysis (as I understand it) it is premised on "when only a single bit of information exists", which is Bell's fundamental mistake. The physics of the local model (which produces correct results) is not "merely the carrier of the one-bit message".

Thanks for your insightful comment,

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 24, 2015 @ 21:26 GMT
Edwin,

I am not assuming a single bit. I am talking about "constructing" a classical object that only has a single bit. Imagine a coin, to which "noise" is added, via surface imperfections, after which, the surfaces are then blurred, by a physical lowpass filtering operation, to such an extent that, even if you held the coin in front of you, you cannot tell if you are looking at the "head" or tail side. The only process that can tell, is a carefully constructed "matched filter" type of operation, that knows, a priori, exactly what other filter must be correlated against the entire surface of the coin, to "decide" if the surface under consideration is heads or tails; a sort of carefully weighed average over the entire surface, for which the weighting function must be known, a priori, in order to recover the bit without error.

By carefully adjusting the noise level and bandwidths of the lowpass filter, the coin is being constructed such that it obeys Shannon's Capacity relation, for an entity from which only a single bit of information, can ever be recovered (in regards to the heads vs. tails observation) In this regard, it is quite unlike other classical objects. My belief, is that it is not small physical size, but small information content, that cause most of the oddities in quantum observations. Hence, if one were to construct a macroscopic object, that intrinsically has a small information content, similar oddities will occur, when one attempts to determine its observable state.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 24, 2015 @ 22:01 GMT
Rob,

I understand that you are "constructing" a classical object that has only a single bit. This is the 'classical' example of the coin as model of spin one-half.

But my point is that it is this model that is inappropriate. My classical model of spin is not constructed 'of' or 'as' a one-bit entity. It is a continuous entity in that it can point in any 3-D direction. Nor is the measurement one-bit, as can be seen from the iconic 'postcard' data. Instead, it is Bell's assumption of a one-bit entity, and a one-bit measurement that is the focus of my essay.

I'm not arguing with your constructing a classical object that has only a single bit, nor your analysis thereof. I am saying that it is not the appropriate description of my local model which I have constructed as a continuum-based entity, and which I show can and does produce a correlation that Bell claims to be impossible. Nor did I make any claims about small size having any relevance.

I suggest that you have not understood my essay or my comments derived from it, as your arguments seem to miss the point.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 25, 2015 @ 06:39 GMT
Dear Rob,

I have the highest regard for your information theory perspective, which usually agrees with my own info perspective. But this is not the perspective in terms of which John Bell developed his theorem. I have just performed a hurried review of all the references in John Bell's 'Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics', which is the "Bible" of Bell's theorem, and have not found a single reference to Shannon. I know that you tend to see everything in terms of Shannon's info theory, and I generally think this is quite appropriate.

But Bell's theorem is special. For 50 years physicists have been told that no local theory of hidden variables can produce the quantum correlation, -a.b. In my essay I have shown a local theory that does produce these correlations. Bell was searching for a local classical physics explanation of quantum correlations, not an information theory-based explanation. I have provided the local physics-based explanation. The problem is quite complex and, based on about six months of discussion of these problems, I have found that Bell's supporters finally fall back on the eigenvalue arguments that I present in my essay. From above comments on my thread you can see that some of my readers claim they need more study to understand it.

As I view Bell's theorem as one of the most significant aspects of modern physics (non-locality versus locality) I am quite interested in clarifying this problem. I find it very difficult to clarify in the standard perspective that Bell developed. I simply do not believe your comments are clarifying, but, for most physicists, may be more confusing. Your remarks are now on record, and available to the readers of my essay, some of whom may find them enlightening. They do not, in my view, contribute to understanding my local model, nor the error that Bell made in interpreting Dirac vs. Pauli eigenvalue equations. Bell's theorem is not normally viewed as an uncertainty principle problem, and I do not find your first paragraph above relevant to my local model, either in your premise or your conclusions. Nor do I find your second paragraph any more enlightening. I strongly believe Bell's theorem is best discussed in Bell's framework, not your framework as laid out above. The fact that you twice put "information" in scare quotes tells me that the argument you make is not a simple one or transparent. I do not believe your argument about the uncertainty principle applying to 10,000 measurements of local variables as you imply. I suspect our understanding of quantum mechanics differs.

Finally, I have elsewhere addressed the fact that most experiments have been based on photons. It is not necessary to present both a local Stern-Gerlach particle-based model and a photon-based model to counter Bell's claim that NO local model can produce the correlation. I will address photons later, but it is not required to counter Bell's claim.

In short, for a few souls, your translation of the problem may be enlightening. It may be very well worthwhile for you to write a paper presenting your unique perspective. But I do not wish to take a perspective based on John Bell's framework and attempt to reformulate it into your perspective. I don't see that as efficient or effective, nor likely to be successful.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

PS. This comment is not in-line as the FQXi software is having problems with my browser.



Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 26, 2015 @ 00:34 GMT
Edwin,

I have to admit that I am a bit puzzled by your paper, and the angle theta. In your paper, you seem to be defining theta to be the angle between the spin direction and some measurement angle. But in Bell's plot of the correlation vs. theta, theta is the angle between Alice and Bob's detectors, and is completely independent of the spin direction, the magnetic field direction, or the angle of either Alice or Bob's detectors relative to the spin and/or field.

In your figures on page 7, what is the theta angle that you are plotting the correlation against?

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 26, 2015 @ 01:38 GMT
Rob,

Thanks for inquiring about theta. Your statements are correct. In my paper I believe all references in the text are intended to be the angle between the spin lambda and the local field direction, a or b. In other words, for Alice, theta = (a, lambda) and for Bob theta = (b,-lambda). These angles are (on page 4) in Bell's third assumption and implicitly...

view entire post




Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 26, 2015 @ 15:19 GMT
Edwin,

OK, next question (I'm trying to decide if you and Bell are comparing apples to apples, or apples to oranges)

Exactly how are you computing the correlations?

Are you correlating measured angles? Or are you correlating up/down decisions based upon the measured angles? In other words, to use entangled coins as an example, one could either measure the angles of each coin, relative to some detectors, and then compute the correlations between those angles, or one could be required to declare the coins to be either heads or tails, after the measurements, and then correlate the numbers of heads/tails decisions. What are you correlating?

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate


Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Jan. 25, 2015 @ 17:24 GMT
Dear Edwin ! Profesionally, your : Thermodynamics of Freedom, is of great (!)importance to my work. The Bell Essay, about map and territory, is very distant from my knowledge base, although I've the intuition that it could help me in these social science problems as well. I can imagine that: www.lifeenergyscience.it could interest you. Even 'simple nature' does not behave like classical physics, so pleae visit the mentioned website. Best wishes and cordially: stephen

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 25, 2015 @ 23:35 GMT
Dear Stephen,

I'm pleased that you found my ToF essay useful to your work. I've looked at your site, but syntropy to Bretton Woods covers quite a bit of territory, and there's more there, so I've not absorbed all your information. Although I'm sure we will differ on details, I believe that, particularly in your field, going in the right direction is more important than getting all the small details right. Thanks for your comment and my best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Stephen I. Ternyik replied on Jan. 26, 2015 @ 04:38 GMT
Thanks Edwin ! The Website is that of Dr. Ulisse di Corpo (Rome); I mainly thought about his interpretation of the relativity formula and the related work of scientist L.Fantappie. Best: stephen

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Jan. 25, 2015 @ 22:26 GMT
Dr. Klingman,

Your bio says it all, your recent focus has been on issues of Bell's Theorem, which is quite daunting to the uninitiated. It is clear however that your conclusions which come from questioning Bell's underlying assumption of constraints which essentially impose arbitrary unity in the formulation of his arguments, produce the same results as did Joy Christian's questioning of his choice of topological measurement space. However mathematically contrived, spin is related to identifying rotation as a measurement function, firstly on a complex plane, and the integer and half integer values really only assign which quadrant to look in. Your argument that a continuous rotation in 3 dimensions is not a simple bit of information, is I think self-evident. I'm only qualified to 'watch and learn', as the laggards say on construction crews, so I'll gladly rate with the community. Best Wishes, jrc

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 25, 2015 @ 23:37 GMT
Dear jrc,

I've read many of your comments over the years and very much appreciate the above comment. As you note, Bell's theorem is quite daunting to the uninitiated, and not that transparent even to those who study it. I'm glad this FQXi contest allows me to present the ideas contained in my essay. I agree with your statements about spin, from Bell, to JC, to 'not a simple bit of information', and I am happy to have you "watching".

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 27, 2015 @ 19:24 GMT
Dear Rob,

This comment is out of sequence as the FQXi bug will (again) not allow me to enter this comment where it belongs above. I encourage you to write up your view of Bell and QM. You and I have a different understanding of quantum mechanics. Thanks for presenting your perspective. It is not my perspective.

As I noted on your thread, I do find your ideas expressed in your current essay quite interesting, and wish you luck in the contest.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



John R. Cox replied on Jan. 27, 2015 @ 23:08 GMT
Gentlemen,

This has been an interesting and informative exchange, as polite differences generally are. Thank-you. Bell's Theorem seems to be the one topic which concentrates attention on the elusive characteristic of spin. And I say characteristic because it is only because of characteristic behavior both of electromagnetic and particle-like phenomenon that suggests some fundamental physical property. Yet I've found nothing anywhere that seems definitive of what that might be.

It isn't physical rotation, though its treated that way. As a purely classical puzzle it seems to me to be as much about the question of what is it in a field that exhibits apparent motion, as whether there is an induced angular motion in a particle or waveform. It intuitively seems that Spin is more a measure of a physical property that doesn't undergo a coherent rotation. It's weird! :) jrc

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 27, 2015 @ 23:33 GMT
jrc,

Glad you enjoyed it. Rob has internalized the information theory perspective and usually has unique and interesting insights into various fields of physics.

While my local model is essentially classical, and, FAPP may be considered a spinning particle, the QM and QFT 'point-based' particles do have difficulties with this perspective. It's interesting that Dirac's 4-component point-based electron does not yield an eigenvalue equation for spin. Only after the Foldy-Wouthuysen integral transformation to a 2-component wave function as an average over a "Compton-volume" does the fundamental helicity eigenvalue equation fall out. I do have a view of particle physics that is not entirely weird, but I want to stay strictly focused on Bell in this forum. Thanks again,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 28, 2015 @ 03:56 GMT
Rob,

Although I have hinted that we should terminate this exchange, I think so highly of your basic information theory approach that I've tried to understand where our basic disagreement lies. To this end I reviewed your 2012 essay, in which, discussing Bell's theorem, you state, "when 'spin' was discovered, it was assumed to be analogous to a quantized version of angular momentum… [and] to be describable via multiple components… like an ordinary three component vector." You then imply that it is not a 3-D vector but "a single bit of information", and go into your 'two-sided coin' discussion.

Is this still your assumption, that underlies your above comments? It appears to me to be so. In your last reply to me above: on Jan. 27, 2015 @ 15:41 GMT you say:

"Classical statistical mechanics never deals with entities encoding only a single bit of information. That is what makes the quantum case so peculiar, in comparison. When there is only one bit of information in a message, there is nothing to average over, there are no better defined states, precisely because there are no other states at all, by definition of what is meant, by a single bit of information. Since such entities are never encountered in the classical realm, we have no intuitive understanding of how such things behave. But we seem to be observing such behavior, in the quantum case."

In other words, although I have clearly stated that we are not discussing a single bit of information, you seem to insist that we are. If that is the case, we cannot possibly come to an agreement. You ignore the QM assumption of a 3-component vector, putting your own interpretation in its place, and then insist that my treatment, based on the QM assumption is wrong.

Am I misunderstanding you?

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Member Tim Maudlin wrote on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 15:10 GMT
Dear Edwin,

There are many claims in your paper that need to be discussed, but perhaps it is best to start with the main one. You claim to have produced a local theory that nonetheless predicts violations of Bell's inequality. But the theory simply does not appear to be local in Bell's sense. Of course, if one enforces certain global conservation restrictions on a system, that will have...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 16:22 GMT
Tim,

"If I now enforce global energy conservation, so that the energy that disappears from one side must appear on the other space-like-separated side..."

Where does he say that? A particle need not refer to a point exterior of itself to know its initial orientation to its state of motion. That is clearly implied by our definition of inertia globally, regardless of relative local energy transfers. If you are in a closed spacecraft intergalactically and the interior appears to be tumbling around you, is it? Gently, jrc

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 18:05 GMT
Dear Tim,

Thanks for reading my essay and responding. As I understand your comment you make three points:

1. Global energy conservation across space is non-local.

2. Bell's suppression of theta physics is illustrative, not basic.

3. Bell's theorem is about any theory, not just quantum mechanics.

If I understand you correctly, you state that global conservation (compatible with the perfect anti-correlation case) will have consequences for what is observed, but is not local in Bell's sense.

Then you claim that "if I now enforce global energy conservation, so the energy that disappears from one side must appear on the other space-like separated side, then the theory is not local in Bell's or Einstein's sense."

While this is probably a true statement, it has nothing to do with my model, in which there is no hint of energy disappearing from one side and appearing on the other.

My model assumes local conservation of energy; (which, I believe, generates global conservation of energy,) energy does not "disappear" locally. It transforms, which is the meaning of my Energy-Exchange theorem. The precession energy, which locally is transformed into deflection energy is not "lost" locally. It is converted into deflection energy, and can be measured by the position measurements that Stern-Gerlach performs, yielding the initial angle that spin makes with the local field, which is the "hidden variable" in my model.

You also claim that Bell's suppression of this theta physics is merely an illustrative case, and not part of his theorem. While technically this may be true, it is a de facto result of the constraints he imposes in his theorem, and it also illustrates his thinking that underlies his model. The results are the same, whether one considers the suppression of theta a basic assumption or a consequence of another basic assumption.

As for your statement, which agrees with Peres, that Bell's theorem is about any theory, whether the theory uses quantum mechanical formalism or is a completely different formalism in which there is no talk of eigenstates or eigenvalues, I would ask you to explain just how the +1 and -1 constraints show up in a non-quantum-mechanical theory.

To summarize the 3 points:

1. is a mistaken interpretation of my model.

2. the logic is the same whether theta suppression is a basic assumption or follows from another basic assumption.

3. is an editorial point, and has bearing on the logic of my argument only if you can explain why 'any' theory must erase information in a way that mimics imposition of QM eigenvalue constraints.

Finally, I sincerely thank you for stating that if my model is local then I have shown a flaw in Bell's reasoning. You claim my model is not local because "energy-exchange physics" is not local. But that is mistaken because the energy exchange in my model is completely, 100%, local.

Thanks again for your consideration,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Member Tim Maudlin replied on Jan. 30, 2015 @ 06:00 GMT
Dear Edwin,

To say that it is "de facto true" that Bell's example about spin is just illustrative and no part of the theorem does not address the point. The entire discussion of the detailed model makes no contact with the theorem. The theorem holds of any theory at all that is local (in the sense Bell articulates) and makes certain statistical predictions. That these are predictions about...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Bob Shour wrote on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 19:45 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman

I hope you will forgive me for not commenting until now after your comment on my essay.

Bell's theorem, EPR, Bohm's suggested experiment, the 1982 Aspect experiment, all seem very interesting to me. Your essay indicated there are interesting conceptual issues still outstanding regarding entanglement. Although I have some familiarity with Korzybski's general semantics (you refer to him on page 1), I do not feel I know enough about QM to comment on the math in your article.

You write: (p. 2:) One must apply the right map at the right place. You quote: "Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." (P.2).

My comment: Maybe (and I wonder if this might be the case) entanglement would be a simpler problem with an easier to understand solution in a different conceptual reference frame. That seems to be an implicit possibility raised by your article.

Thank you for your article, and all your comments on the various essays.

Best wishes.

Bob Shour

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 20:45 GMT
Dear Bob Shour,

Thanks for looking at my essay and responding. Let me take this opportunity to say again how refreshing I found your essay, and how novel your points.

As you note, Bell's theorem and associated physics and philosophy are quite interesting, but significantly complex. That is why Bell's oversimplified model has stood for 50 years. As I have pointed out, if Bell had simply said, "My simple model does not work," there would be no problem. But Bell attempts to overthrow our intuitive understanding of reality and replace it with a mystical connection. The mere fact that one can graphically illustrate 'entanglement' as the shaded area in the graphic at the bottom of page 6 does not in the least detract from the inherent mystical nature of entanglement.

Of course you may be right that entanglement might be easier to understand in a different conceptual reference frame, but I have no idea what this frame might be, and I am aware of no suggestions as to what it might be.

The gist of the matter is that physicists have interpreted Bell to mean that "no local model can yield quantum mechanical correlations between remotely conducted measurements." I have produced a local model, based on classical physics, that does produce this correlation unless the local information is erased, as is required by Bell. As 'entanglement' represents the difference between the quantum mechanical cosine curve and Bell's (constrained) 'local-model-based' straight line, if a local model can agree with quantum mechanics (and real experiments) then the shaded difference disappears and the very rationale for entanglement vanishes.

Thanks again for your kind remarks, in my best wishes to you.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




basudeba mishra wrote on Jan. 30, 2015 @ 04:33 GMT
Dear Sir,

You have rightly quoted Korzybski to say that math is the map and the physical world is the territory. But the map is not “any” territory - it describes the physical boundaries of a specified territory. This is what we say mathematics is not the sole languages of Nature, but only exhibits its quantitative aspect. We may have many “maps” of the universe, but each represents...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 30, 2015 @ 22:33 GMT
Dear basudeba,

Thank you for reading and for your fine comments. I will address specific statements. You recalled Messiah's quote that "the initial states are statistically distributed over a somewhat extended domain." This fact is interpreted differently according to the two eigenvalues maps usually associated with spin. These interpretations are discussed in detail in Spin: Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Dirac, Bell.

Then you note that my local model does produce the correct correlation, based on energy-exchange physics, and remark that some assumptions of quantum mechanics become questionable, as a statistical model cannot ensure that all relevant parameters have been woven into it.

That is correct, as quantum mechanics does not take note of the initial spins upon entering the field, which determine the scattering or deflection of the particle is it traverses the non-constant field. Thus, as Einstein suggested, quantum mechanics is not complete. This conflicts with the Quantum Credo believed in by many physicists.

Quantum mechanics is a marvelous statistical machine for those situations in which only certain outcomes occur, with energy-based distribution according to the partition function. In such cases it (apparently) cannot fail to predict the statistical outcome. But it is incomplete and there is an underlying level of reality that quantum mechanics does not see. That is in contrast to the current consensus belief that the classical world is a statistical overlay on QM. I discuss these interpretations on pages 104 – 113 in Quantum Spin and Local Reality

Thanks for your, as always, informative comments.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 01:48 GMT
Dear Sir,

We appear to have agreement at the fundamental level. You may recall, after the black hole firewall paradox appeared during July 2012, it is no longer easy to say that both relativity and quantum mechanics (especially entanglement) are correct. One of them must be wrong. We question relativity as conceptually flawed and a wrong description of reality, but question only some of the interpretations of quantum mechanics. But why is the scientific community shying away from accepting facts boldly? If the points raised and examples given in our essay are wrong, it should be openly told and not bye passed. If they are correct, they should be accepted.

Regards,

basudeba

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 22:03 GMT
Dear basudeba,

I only addressed specific issues in your above comment, but I found your comment extremely well written, and very insightful. I would like to address your remark that

"Contrary to general belief, entanglement does not extend infinitely, but breaks down after some distance like a rubber band…"

Susskind at Stanford regularly states that entanglement is weird...

view entire post





Ken Hon Seto wrote on Jan. 30, 2015 @ 14:57 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I congratulate your professionally written essay.

In another thread you said:

"I built first in my mind and then built a theory around. I believe modeling physics in your mind and then describing it mathematically is to be preferred to studying math and trying to guess what physics it describes. I believe that much math does not describe 'reality' in the same sense that much fantasy and fiction do not describe reality."

I agree with this statement completely. I followed this procedure to formulate Model Mechanics. Although we have different models of reality, but that is to be expected.

I believe that there are many assumptions in relativity are wrong. Specifically the idea of Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS). Why? Because it is in conflict with the idea that the speed of light is isotropic in all frames.

Regards,

Ken Seto

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 30, 2015 @ 21:49 GMT
Hi Ken Seto,

Thanks for your nice comment. Based on your essay I'm not surprised that you agree that modeling physics in the mind and then describing it mathematically is to be preferred to searching for physics in mathematics. It is hard to think of any significant physics that was not found in this way.

As for your comment about special relativity, have you seen the following:

Scientists slow the speed of light

The arXiv paper is here: Photons slower than speed of light

This may shakeup things, but then, some things certainly need to be shaken up.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Ken Hon Seto replied on Jan. 31, 2015 @ 17:02 GMT
Hi Edwin,

Doing the math before the physics is the main problem of current string theories. All string theories posit extra space dimensions and there is no experiment to confirms the existence of these extra dimensions.

Regards,

Ken Seto

report post as inappropriate


Gene H Barbee wrote on Jan. 30, 2015 @ 16:08 GMT
Dr. Klingman, if you will send your email address to genebarbee@msn.com, I will send you an excel spreadsheet with all of the meson and baryon energies and decay times almost perfectly matched.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 18:23 GMT
The main thing that I get from your essay is that you have essentially a classical model of the electron. The factoring out of cosθ is due to the fact the quantum measurement of spin does not measure a part of the angular momentum projected along an axis of measurement. That can happen classically, but experimentally this has never been found. So this factoring out is motivated by experiment that is in agreement with quantum physics.

LC

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 19:13 GMT
Lawrence,

With great respect for your acumen in math, could you elaborate enough to make it clear where the physical distinction lies in factoring out (cosTheta/cosTheta) as pertains to Quantum measurement not including a coeffeciency of measure along the spin axis. Doesn't this impose an assumption of a true circular orbit of precession?

Arguably any precession would be physically ellipsoid, or at some point on the axis of rotation, change of direction would become instantaneous. If any precession would naturally follow a 'wobble' of that point avoiding instantaneous angular change, then the statement that it 'has not been experimentally found' is a fallicy of substitution. Classically, it is consistently found that deflection occurs as a three vector, which QM simply does not try to predict. Again, we encounter the arbitrary +or-1, which in this case limits vectors along the axis projection to extend only in parallel to the extention of the eigenvector of results, and excludes any local values between that and perpendicular. Genuinely asked, jrc

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B Crowell replied on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 20:21 GMT
The theory of angular momentum is that the value of the angular momentum measured is a projection from L to -L in increments of 1. A spin 1/2 system can then only have -1/2 and 1/2 along a basis. A boson can have -1, 0, 1 if the boson is massive, and the 0 case is gone for a massless particle. Quantum mechanics does not permit one to measure a spin = 1/2cosθ for some angle other than 0 or π. That is the point of the whole division by |cosθ|. A classical angular momentum, where there is not much meaning to a classical intrinsic spin, can have the angular momentum vector pointed differently than the direction the observer chooses to measure it.

LC

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 22:10 GMT
Lawrence,

Thank-you for your time and attention in response. I'll give it some read. Much obliged, jrc

post approved


Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Feb. 2, 2015 @ 02:16 GMT
For some reason the above post does not show a reply box.

You have a classical model of the electron that does what you say. If you are doing this business of not taking Fcosθ --- > Fcosθ/|cosθ| then you really do not have quantum mechanics. Later text appears to show similar ideas with ellipses and the like.

LC

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 2, 2015 @ 03:31 GMT
Lawrence,

Despite our history of five years of disagreements, you say that I have a classical model of the electron that does what I say. Thank you. What I say is that it yields the quantum mechanical correlation that Bell claims to be impossible for any local theory.

Then you say I really do not have quantum mechanics. As I've stated, my intention was to design a local theory that yields quantum mechanical correlations, which I have done. It implies that quantum mechanics is incomplete.

You said above "Quantum mechanics does not permit one to measure a spin = 1/2cosθ for some angle other than 0 or π." My response is that my energy-exchange theory should be subject to experimental test that could measure just such an angle, and I plan to push for such a test. FQXi is offering grants for The Physics of What Happens. My model explains what happens when the particle is scattered by a heterogeneous field. If θ is measured, then that will simply prove QM is incomplete.

Thank you for observing that the model does what I say.

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Lawrence B Crowell replied on Feb. 2, 2015 @ 11:49 GMT
You don’t have QM in the standard way. The Stern-Gerlach experiment in your setting would not have the discrete sets of spins. You have a local realism where the spin has projections along an axis that can be less than 1/2.

You have a “war” against QM and nonlocality, and of course this is a physics case of Don Quixote on his quest. FQXI has a large number of people who hang on the blogs and contribute to the essays who have similar ideas. There are further people with anti-relativity biases as well. As a result your essays always attract loads of attention and votes. The problem is that science is not really a democracy, and these contests tend to operate that way. I don’t have time right at the moment to look this up, but there are a couple of famous videos of Richard Feynman talking about this. In one of them he talks directly about the sort of ideas you advance and in one of them he talks about “if you don’t like it go somewhere else.”

Actually, if you really think about it, QM is not what is so strange. What is really strange is that on a large scale there is this classical world, which is coarse grained physics built up from QM. QM can’t be understood in a classical sense. The strangeness of QM is due to our insistence on shoving it into a classical setting. Trying to converse to build the classical world from QM is difficult as well, and we might find this not entirely tractable either.

LC

post approved

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 2, 2015 @ 15:43 GMT
In all fairness, both classicists and quants see the other side as arising from their own. In application, technocrats don't care which works, just that it does. jrc

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Feb. 2, 2015 @ 22:11 GMT
Maybe I will just leave this to Richard Feynman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sAfUpGmnm4

LC

report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 2, 2015 @ 22:38 GMT
Definitely a hornet's nest.

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Nick Mann replied on Feb. 5, 2015 @ 21:26 GMT
Edwin,

You used to steer clear of BT as though it were in fact a hornets' net but now you've sort of gone at it with a bat (baseball or cricket depending on the reader's culture).

I'm not sure Korzybski would've would've considered math the map and physics the territory so much as holding that both math and physics are maps and the territory is the actual physical world. He was suspicious of all symbolic representation and physics is that as much as math is. A better icon might have been Eugene Wigner who wrote the classic essay alluded to without attribution in this contest's set-up: "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences". Maybe the FQXi honchos didn't speak his name because they were afraid contestants would go back and crib stuff. So don't do teasy b.s. like throwing out scare-quote hints, guys.

Speaking of Wigner, he also published the first paper by a major establishment scientist (which Bell certainly wasn't at that time) about BT. Back in 1970. Bell cites it in "Bertlmann's Socks and the Nature of Reality" and also incorporates him into what he named "the Wigner-d'Espagnat Inequality". That inequality is a particularly sweet formulation of Bell because it's simple Venn-diagrammable set algebra which anybody can get her or his head around and employ to conduct experiments on classical objects here in the macroworld. When you do that you get no violation. It's a description of a definitive feature of macroscopic ontology. It's pure distillate of local realism. (It has also been used in quantum experiments in which it's violated but for a number of reasons lost out to CHSH.)

Anyway ... isn't it conceivable that the only meaningful objections to Bell experimental outcomes are technical ones ... the need to close the experimental loopholes? Isn't the rest mainly intellectually reactionary metaphysical nitpicking?

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 6, 2015 @ 00:09 GMT
Hi Nick,

Your first point is easy to address. Yes, math and physics are both Korzybski maps if "physics" is defined as the model(s) of physical reality. I was using "physics" to stand for physical reality, but technically you are perfectly correct.

And yes I did steer clear of JC's "topological" treatment of Bell. My essay, while complex, is pretty straightforward. An often repeated and almost universally believed statement is that "no local model can reproduce QM correlations, -a.b." I show that this is not the case. As 'entanglement' is the shaded space in the figure at the bottom of page 6, it disappears if the local model yields the cosine curve rather than the straight line. It only exists to bridge the gap between Bell's local models and reality. If the local model agrees with reality, as mine does, there is no need for a mystical 'entanglement'. The question is then why did Bell always get the straight line, and I argue that he unnecessarily and incorrectly imposes constraints on his models, based on his oversimplified assumptions. Recent scores indicate that this is not a popular argument. Quelle surprise!

I don't know how much effort you put into following my reasoning (backed up by references 2 and 4) but the problem has nothing to do with loopholes. Experimental results, quantum mechanical predictions, and my local model all agree with -a.b. It is Bell's models that don't agree, because he erases the physics that yields the correlations by imposing his constraints. My results imply that quantum mechanics is incomplete, which appears to be as popular as the skunk at the picnic. I've been accused of being "against" QM, and of saying that QM is "wrong". Not wrong, incomplete. Big difference. But there are probably no physicists alive who have not been sold that reality is quantum mechanical, and we only have to show how the classical world derives from it.

As is obvious from comments on this thread, the problem is extremely complex. That's also obvious from the fact that 50 years of Bell has left physicists confused about spin, entanglement, non-locality, etc. I think physicists are pretty bright guys, and would not remain in confusion over a simple problem. It's not a simple problem. I hope you find time to understand my essay, but I know how short time is. Anyway thanks for your comment and it's good to see you again.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Nick Mann wrote on Feb. 6, 2015 @ 01:27 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I think a lot of the negative reaction to calling QM "incomplete" stems from the pejorative attitude that emanated all along from EPR, particularly E, in connection with the word. It was not meant in an objective way. They were singling QM out as historically anomalous, singularly unworthy of scientific status, a leper among theories. The attitude was hostile. Not as dreadful as JJC's, but then he does hold a unique position in the annals.

At best EPR were suggesting that not only was QM incomplete but that as a result it was fundamentally wrong.

I'm fairly laid back about incompleteness. I've studied stats and worked with statisticians. On one level statistics is not a complete theory, because it offers no physical explanation for a vast number of the correlations it presents to the world. Take as an example the Nielsen ratings. What is the causal relationship, if any, between the viewing patterns of a sample population numbering in the low four figures and the viewing habits of the hundreds of millions in the general population which the sample population is purported to reflect on an ongoing basis? Nobody can say or even make a good guess. But empirically we know the correlations are genuine, because you can double-check by setting up auxiliary sample populations and when you do you find those entirely separate groups in agreement. Statistical measurement is valid. It works. You just can't explain why and how except to say it probably has something to do with randomness. QM writ large.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 7, 2015 @ 20:07 GMT
Hi Nick,

In re-reading your first comment above, you bring up Wigner's "Unreasonable effectiveness…" paper, answering which was a key motivation for my dissertation, The Automatic Theory of Physics. The figure on the first page of my essay encapsulates the way in which physical counters, producing natural numbers, can make counter-based measurements (recall that the heart...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 8, 2015 @ 01:46 GMT
Errata: In the above the phrase "performs cluster mapping on involving intercept and interest set distances" should read "performs cluster mapping on evolving inter-set and intra-set distances".

I would blame it on my Dragon voice recognition software, but then I'm the one with the duty to edit my own words. - - - Edwin Eugene Klingman



Nick Mann replied on Feb. 9, 2015 @ 01:29 GMT
Hi again, Edwin,

I'm focusing on Chapter 14 of TAToP (Robot Physics Example) because I like to start with concrete examples and work backward to theory, bouncing around as I go. Also looking for the author's evolution from the older toward the current work. Sometimes I get screwed up doing this, however. If you think that might become the case here let me know ...

Nick

report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Feb. 6, 2015 @ 19:18 GMT
Hello Edwin Klingman,

My initial comment, as I intend to return to make more, is that your effort to demystify the unnecessary mystery introduced into physics at the quantum level is to be encouraged especially given the coherence of your argument. It however seems, you believe that there is a mystery to be solved since you use the same kind of reasoning Bell used only leaving out the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 6, 2015 @ 22:07 GMT
Dear Akinbo Ojo,

I do appreciate your kind remarks, and thank you for reading my paper. I'm very happy you intend to return to make more comments.

I'm sure you understand that I claim John Bell significantly oversimplified the problem, leading to an erroneous conclusion. But even his oversimplification is complex! To go a level deeper, as I have done, makes the issue even more complex. (Actually, I think it simplifies the physics, but in the context of his theorem it requires both the new level of physics plus Bell's model and requires bringing in the Dirac fundamental helicity eigenvalue equation plus the Pauli provisional precession eigenvalue equation plus new arguments and the new Energy-Exchange theorem and local conservation of energy. Thus Bell supporters can either validly miss the point or can obfuscate by ignoring the points.)

As I have noted, Bell's models do not work. Bell could easily have simply stated that "my model fails to produce either the quantum mechanical or the experimental measurements" and it would not have been a big deal. Instead Bell claims that no one's local model can possibly work (a pretty big assumption, if you ask me) and then claims that local reality, one of our most basic intuitions of the universe, is wrong. That is a big deal.

Because Bell formulates this as a simple mathematical model and because his mathematics is essentially correct (his physics is wrong) those who work through his mathematical model conclude that no local model could escape his logic. The fact is that Bell imposes unwarranted constraints as the first equation in his theorem and this guarantees that no local model can beat his theorem. The only question is, are his constraints justified? I argue that they are not.

As I do not assume that you have read all of the above comments, I will repeat a few points. First, Bell (and/or his defenders) make (at least) two false equivalencies:

1.) The assumption that the Dirac equation and the Pauli equation are essentially equivalent.

2.) The assumption that the Stern-Gerlach and the Aspect experiments are essentially equivalent.

The first I have dealt with in detail in my essay and in the ~20 page paper Spin: Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Dirac, Bell, so I won't repeat the arguments here. The second I have not yet written up in detail, so I will mention it here.

It is an error to assume that Stern-Gerlach and Aspect experiments are equivalent due to two facts. The first and obvious fact is the quite different physical nature of the entities being tested. The fact that quantum mechanical kets look similar, or that simplistic models are plane waves obscures this but does not erase the essential difference between charged spinor fermions and uncharged bosons, and no one who is serious can claim that these physical entities are equivalent.

But even more significant, from the Bell's theorem perspective, is the essentially different measurement techniques involved. Despite many comments above, Stern-Gerlach, whether measuring silver atoms or neutrons, produces a distribution of deflections. It is a scattering experiment, whose outputs are position measurements. Aspect-type experiments count photons, and the output is a count. In the deflection measurements, the initial spin (lambda) is indirectly exhibited, and clearly exists. In the counts, the photon-equivalent of the initial orientation is subsumed, and is not evident as it is in Stern-Gerlach. This is one reason I have focused on SG experiments.

On page 84, in Bell's "Speakable…" Bell states "let A be a variable which takes the values +1 or -1 according to whether counter one does or does not register. [and same for B...]" This, whether it is currently realized by Bell defenders or not, is significantly different from his claim on page 15 that "the result A of measuring sigma_dot_a ... [is +1 or -1 ]." One is a deflection, the other is a count. One exhibits the 'hidden variable' in the value of a deflection, the other subsumes it in a count. To expand on this as it deserves would take another essay. The point is, it is overly simplistic to equate these two types of experiments as almost all Bell defenders do. Such a claim is based on either ignorance of the physics, ignorance of the nature of the measurements, or both.

As Nick mentioned above, this battle has often been fought on the grounds of "loopholes", and Caroline Thompson, as I recall, focused on loopholes, forgive me if I'm wrong on this. That argument, I believe, is essentially that the measurements are wrong, and loophole free measurements would agree with local models. That is significantly different from my argument which is that Bell imposed erroneous constraints on local models and that is the reason his local models do not work. I have presented a local model, the physics underlying the local model, a computer experiment based on the local model, and the results of the local model, which agree with experiments and with quantum mechanics. Loopholes play no part in my argument and are simply a distraction. Bell's oversimplified physics is the essence of my argument and I present physics that, as Einstein demanded is "as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Akinbo, yours is a very relevant comment, and to address all your points in one response would require a longer comment, so I'll stop here, and address your other points in another comment(s).

I hope to address two types of readers in this forum – one type is the Perimeter-type, like Pusey and Leifer, "the big boys" in the field who have entered FQXi contests in the past and who contribute to FQXi. I hope for the sake of the FQXi community they respond. You represent the other type – informed, brilliant, interested non-physicists – so I hope you will return with more comments. The effort to move me down in the rankings is, I believe, to decrease the visibility of my essay and my arguments and I consider that a good sign.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 7, 2015 @ 00:35 GMT
Dear Akinbo,

You are correct that I am against mysticism in science. If mysticism is real, it belongs in religion. The mystical has no place in science. In my opinion entanglement is mysticism. Technically, it is represented by the shaded area shown at bottom right of page 6 in my essay. Both quantum mechanics and experiment yield the cosine curve shown, while Bell's constrained local models yield straight lines. 'Entanglement' is the non-local bridge designed to get one from Bell's "local" model to reality. As such, it is a mystical figment that cannot be explained, accurately described, or measured, despite hundreds or thousands of papers that work in the shaded realm. That statement does not make friends in the Bell community, but that does not affect its truth value.

I am not certain what other mysticism you refer to. As noted in my first comment to you, photon-based experiments are essentially different from Stern-Gerlach scattering of magnetic dipoles in an inhomogeneous field. It only complicates things further to deal with the difference, and it is not necessary to do so to "disprove" Bell, who clearly was thinking of Stern-Gerlach as he addressed EPR issues.

Bell's formulation adds a "hidden variable", lambda, that Bell essentially allows to be "anything". The designer of a local theory can choose whatever physical attribute he wishes for lambda. The goal of the game is to compute the physics of the local model, based on a distribution of lambdas input to Alice and Bob's measurements, such that the outputs of Alice and Bob's measurements will be correlated as predicted by quantum mechanics, and as found by (photon-based) experiments.

Your box of black and white balls does not have anything corresponding to lambda, therefore it is not analogous to a Bell experiment. I have spent a short while considering adding colors to your balls and letting Alice and Bob look through a third color filter, but it gets too complicated for a comment. I hope you get the idea however.

In my local model, lambda is the initial orientation of the spin, which can be any vector in 3-D space. If this spin vector is sent to Alice, the opposite will be sent to Bob. As outlined in detail in my essay and references, whatever the initial value of spin vector is sent to Alice, it will align with the field direction (that she chooses) or it will anti-align with the field. But this process of alignment is a dynamic process, that involves energy exchange between the "precessional" energy and the "deflectional" energy modes, in such a way that (since both energy modes depend on the angle between Alice's field and the initial spin direction) the deflection contains information, recorded as position, about the initial value of lambda. That information is absent from quantum mechanics, hence quantum mechanics is incomplete. Not wrong, incomplete.

The question is whether, given the value of this (hidden) variable lambda, a local theory can determine the deflection such that the actual values, calculated locally by Alice (and Bob does the same for the field angle he chooses), when correlated (on a pairwise basis) agree with the statistical quantum mechanical predictions, or not. My local model does agree with quantum mechanics, whereas Bell says this is impossible.

But Bell does not measure deflection – the information is there but he throws it away and says, in effect, "I care only about whether it was deflected "up" or "down", not how far up or down. Thus he allows you to put additional information (the initial direction, lambda) into the problem, and even to calculate the physics with a local theory, but then he erases all of the physical information content in the "how far up or down" by using only simply "up" or "down". (+1 or -1).

Why does he do this? To understand this you need some concept of eigenvalues and eigenvalue equations, and this involves the Dirac and the Pauli equations which Bell apparently considers equivalent (they are not!) In essence, a simplistic idea from 1925, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck's idea that "the projection of spin on any axis is +1 or -1" has added a mystical aspect to spin that no one can understand, and makes spin 'look like' one bit of information instead of a physical spin that simply aligns with a complex local apparatus. It is absolutely not an essential concept of quantum mechanics. If it were it would be an axiom. It is simply more confusion that came about historically and is treasured by those who worship quantum mechanical mysticism. It's got nothing to do with the statistical results of the quantum mechanical formalism.

I hope that the above helps you understand why the black and white ball example is not a good analogy for Bell's theorem.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 7, 2015 @ 00:54 GMT
Akimbo, – I should probably add one more brief comment. The experiment with balls that you describe corresponds to Alice and Bob always choosing the same direction of magnetic field in their respective instruments. In that case, yes, the (anti-)correlation is perfect. The problem of Bell and EPR is when Alice and Bob can freely choose any direction, uncorrelated with each other, and unknown to each other. That aspect of the problem does not show up in your B&W analogy. – Edwin Eugene Klingman




Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 9, 2015 @ 23:03 GMT
Dear Akinbo,

You mention above that I have "carefully prepared the parcels in the so-called 'singlet state' or binary as Tim prefers." As the singlet states are 2-D representations, but include the imaginary i, and Pauli matrices are 2 x 2 matrices, also including i, the operations of the 2 x 2 matrix on the 2-D states can be mapped into a 3 x 3 real rotation matrix operating on a real 3-D vector. Just another way in which quantum mechanics obscures or hides the 3-D nature of spin. (Nothing nefarious implied, just the way things are.)

As you note Tim (@ 03:49 0n 4 Feb above) states

"Send a neutron through a Stern-Gerlach apparatus and report the outcome as either "spin up" meaning "neutron recorded above the midline" or "spin down" meaning "outcome recorded below the midline". The outcome space is now binary and Bell's result applies. This is what is meant everywhere by "doing a spin measurement on a neutron" and it is what is understood by saying "a spin measurement on a spin ½ particle is always either spin-up or spin-down"."

He then goes on to state: "The actual results cluster in a small group well above the midline and a small group well below, and for the purposes of reporting the result the former count as "spin up" and the latter as "spin down". This describes the outcome of every such experiment ever done..."

This appears not to be the case, based on "an actual experimental record of neutron impact positions on the screen." As we non-members are not allowed to post graphics (probably a good rule) I will post the neutron data in such manner than anyone can plot it:

Position, counts

60, 48

50, 130

40, 182

30, 298

20, 364

10, 350

0, 436

-10, 381

-20, 338

-30, 311

-40, 154

-50, 102

-60, 39

Tim Maudlin, in a series of comments above, flatly states that Stern-Gerlach, with neutrons, is a binary measurement, with "actual results cluster in a small group well above the midline and a small group well below..." and further states, "This describes the outcome of every such experiment ever done..." Does this appear to be the case to anyone else? Plot it and see.

Regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Gary D. Simpson replied on Feb. 10, 2015 @ 01:02 GMT
A curious distribution indeed. Not binary but also not a normal Bell-curve type distribution. Here Bell does not refer to John Bell.

I am hopeful that Hamilton might allow those spin calculation to be done in an alternate manner.

Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 10, 2015 @ 20:20 GMT
Gary,

I wonder if what you mean, is that there might be a topological fix to make the asymmetric position plots conform to a symmetrical bell curve? I think not.

The asymmetry looks very much akin to an analemma that one would expect of an orbiting body annually by its declination and time equation. If the precession axis intersects the midpoint of the rotation axis, the resultant...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 11, 2015 @ 22:12 GMT
John,

Actually, my statement was not nearly so complicated. I merely observed that the data is not a binary distribution as Dr. Maudlin insists that it must be. I also noted that it does not look like the usual Bell curve from statistics, and hence statistical analysis might not be useful.

I plotted the data and it looks like a triangle. If position is the x-axis and counts are the y-axis, the data looks like a triangle with the base being at (-70,0) to (+70,0) and the apex being at (0, 436).

Of course, there are no zero count measurements presented, but both sides of the triangle seem to extrapolate to a symmetrical value. Two of the data points are not a good fit but all the rest are.

Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate


Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Feb. 11, 2015 @ 10:26 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thank you for your careful reading of our essay and your comments on it. We will definitely read your essay in the next few days and respond to it.

Best regards,

Tejinder, Anshu

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 11, 2015 @ 23:03 GMT
In an effort to keep the most relevant ideas in one place, I reproduce most of the comment I made to Roberto Mangabeira Unger:

In your essay you state that "causal explanations make no sense outside time; causal connections can exist only in time." This I agree with. But then you say "…the moves in a mathematical or logical chain of argument do occur outside time." I'm less sure of that. A mathematical argument goes from step to step in sequential fashion which seems to incorporate the nature of time. As it does not matter when one steps through the sequence, it is time-independent. Much of physics (the physics covered by energy conservation) is time independent: dH / dt = 0. I do not see this as equivalent to the Platonic vision which does truly seem to proclaim a realm outside time and space.

In similar fashion I view logic as a property of reality that allows the physical structure of AND-gates and NOT-gates. The physical implementation of logic gates, combined combinatorially in space and typically sequenced in time, provide counters that generate the natural numbers and address Kronecker's maxim: "God made the integers, all the rest (of math) is the work of man."

Thus I see logic not as an 'outside' rule or 'law' but as the primary property of physical existence, supporting a single, self-consistent, unitary reality. Physical evolution in time yields math 'circuitry' at almost all levels, but perfected at the level of man. The logical operation of such circuits (in a computer, a cell, or in our brains) is independent of time in the sense that it does not typically matter when the logic sequence is triggered nor how long the steps take, but still, the physical existence and operation is embedded in time. Of course structural changes that 'endure' in time record information, and this too is typically time-independent, but is in no way 'outside of time'. Thus all the basis of math is derived from and 'evoked by' physical reality. This operation of the universe is not "subject to laws" outside time, but we can abstract relations (as I briefly show in my essay) that capture the operations reliably and thus appear to have the character of law, or "timeless truth" -- probably more accurately stated "time-independent truth."

Finally, I fully agree that "mathematics cannot replace physical insight." As an example I show in my essay how mathematics, based on faulty physical insight, led Bell to introduce a mystical 'non-locality' that almost banishes physical insight. And this is not the only 20th century mathematics that muddles physical thinking. I see the correction and clarification of these induced mystical concepts as the greatest need in today's physics. Then we might move forward. Most movement today impresses me as lateral or even backward.

You certainly could have been thinking of John Bell when you stated:

"The less we grasp the non-mathematical reasons for the application of mathematics … the more enigmatic and disconcerting the application of mathematics will appear to be."

Bell did not grasp the underlying physics, and thus based his mathematical treatment on false assumptions. The correct application of mathematics to incorrect physics has certainly led us to enigmatic and disconcerting conclusions. In this sense mathematics is as you say, "a good servant but a bad master."

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Feb. 14, 2015 @ 09:01 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Having read your essay, we will need to revisit it again to form an opinion on your stand on Bell's theorem. In the context of the first two pages of your essay, you remarked in your post on our page:

"I have employed a robot as a vehicle to eliminate bias and "baggage", while providing pattern recognition, learning algorithms (neural nets, self organizing maps, etc.) and have shown how counting, derived from logical physical structures, is essentially (along with simple arithmetic logic circuitry, silicon or biological) all that is required to go from raw measurement data to feature vectors of the quantum persuasion. "

While you do mention that this is elaborated in the early part of essay, and certainly there must be much more detail in your book, it will be very helpful to us if you could explain again how, after deriving counting from physical structures, you build the number system, as well as geometry and algebra. Is there a parallel with the cognitive processes we discuss? And what did you mean above by `feature vectors of quantum persuasion'? Thanks.

With best regards,

Tejinder, Anshu

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 15, 2015 @ 00:02 GMT
Dear Tejinder, Anshu,

Thank you for reading and thinking about my essay. As the issue of Bell's theorem and physics is quite complex and exceedingly important, it's wise to revisit it until it is understood and can be accepted or rejected. References [2] and [4] contain much supporting physics. I do hope you find time and are motivated to understand my treatment of Bell. I believe the...

view entire post




Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 5, 2015 @ 20:35 GMT
Dear Ed,

1. I refer to this comment of yours; cited 2 posts above:

"I have employed a robot as a vehicle to eliminate bias and "baggage", while providing pattern recognition, learning algorithms (neural nets, self organizing maps, etc.) and have shown how counting, derived from logical physical structures, is essentially (along with simple arithmetic logic circuitry, silicon or biological) all that is required to go from raw measurement data to feature vectors of the quantum persuasion. "

Is this a reference to the model that you used to construct the two graphs on p.7 of your essay?

2. Am I correct in thinking that the second graph is a modification of the first graph (via the application of Bell constraints) and not a graph published from a new run of your model under Bell constraints and with new random inputs?

3. Perhaps I'm missing something here, re #2; but I ask because the density of the data-points varies over the range of θ; being low at the extremities. Could this indicate some θ-based noise or bias in your model?

4. In these graphs I take it that you here are using θ as the angle (a,b). Does your model allow a and b to be vectors in 3-space?

Thanks, and best regards; Gordon

report post as inappropriate


Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 08:55 GMT
You've not emphasized the conceptualisation of intuitional notions which results for "Truthful" actions which erases the name "Trick" from the subject.

It's important to explore the True picture!

Good luck!!

Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 22:35 GMT
Dear Miss Sujatha Jagannathan,

While I have stated that intuition should guide our choice of the many mathematical maps applied to physical reality, you are correct that I did not emphasize the conceptualization of intuitive notions. Yet the classical model that yields QM correlation is very intuitive, and it contradicts Bell's extremely non-intuitive concept of non-locality.

Thanks for reading and commenting. I look forward to reading your essay.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Steve Agnew wrote on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 16:39 GMT
First of all, I must admit that I am not a fan of Bell's analysis. There are so many deep flaws in Bell's approach that I do not consider it even useful discourse.

Fortunately, your essay really had very little to do with Bell's arguments and I was pleasantly surprised by the flaws you note in Bell's approach.

And I especially liked your comment to me about Hestenes geometrical algebra. The spin or phase of quantum matter is not something that we normally sense and that makes quantum action a little mysterious. The phase or spin of matter is what is missing from gravity action and that is a real shame.

Your approach is largely based on the reality of empty space just as Bell's was and the typical statement of nonlocality is one that presupposes empty space as an object.

I believe that quantum action does not need space at all and it is much more useful for the concept of space to emerge from action and not be a place for action to occur in the first place.

1.0, entertaining

2.0, well written

1.5, understandable

2.0, relevance to theme

6.5

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 22:33 GMT
Dear Steve,

Thanks for reading and commenting. I would agree with you about 'useful discourse', but Bell has had such a profound effect on our physics, it is necessary to discuss him, useful or not. And I'm glad you were pleasantly surprised by the flaws in Bell's approach. Some responses to these flaws are not so pleasant.

I have found Hestenes' approach very worthwhile, as every entity in his math has both a geometric definition and an algebraic definition, which is a far greater coupling than exists in other maths.

I'm not sure how empty space emerges from action, but I tend to view space as containing at least the gravitational field and hence not being truly 'empty'. But obviously, this aspect of reality is one of the less agreed-upon features of modern physics.

Thanks again. I'm glad you found my essay understandable. That was my main worry.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 17, 2015 @ 10:13 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I read your highly professional essay executed in the spirit of deep Cartesian doubt with a great interest. I have only one question. How you consider when Mathematics ("Queen and Servant") and Physics ("Princess on the pea") lost certainty? When they lost a reliable existential "map"?

Kind regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 18, 2015 @ 00:29 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thanks for your comment. That is a very interesting question! Einstein of course contributed when he confused 'synchronicity' with 'simultaneity', and again when he replaced the gravitational field with "curved space-time". But I believe the biggest disconnect between the math of physics and the intuitive trust in physical reality probably occurred when physicists began believing in "superposition" as if it were a physically real condition rather than a mathematical artifact. I think that's where the train left the tracks. After that physicists felt comfortable simply introducing another 'quantum field' or equivalent whenever a new problem needed to be solved. Today no physicist knows exactly how many 'fields' there are in physics, nor has any idea which fields are 'real'. As so many essays and comments here state, finding physics to fit the math is the wrong way to go. Much better to use math to describe real physics.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 18, 2015 @ 09:22 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Many thanks for your answer! And you can agree with Alexander Zenkin's conclusions in his article SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS ?

Kind regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 19, 2015 @ 03:42 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

I have looked at the interview with Alexander Zenkin. He begins by noting the super-abstractionism of the Bourbaki, leading to two mathematicians working in neighboring rooms but unable to understand each other. Almost all of my math education took place at the peak of the Bourbaki school, and I have been trying to overcome this handicap ever since. The rigor and rigidity is the antithesis of what a physicist should use math for.

As I've noted in a number of places, I do not believe infinity 'exists' in physical reality, so (except for my early math education) I have paid no attention to mathematical treatments of infinity. In the paper Zenkin mentions that Cantor designates 'a series without end' by the symbol omega and then, skipping through the potential infinity of the series, continues to count further: omega +1, omega +2, … Any logic based on such a scheme would seem to bear little relevance to physics.

In short, I am very much in sympathy with the views expressed in the paper.

I would also point out to you that Eckard Blumshein's essay has just posted, dealing with similar aspects of mathematics and its relevance to physics. I highly recommend his essay and think you will enjoy it.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 19, 2015 @ 08:59 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thank you very much for your answer! I think that the philosophical problem of justification "fundamental knowledge" - the main problem today. And above all - this is a problem "foundations of Mathematics". This is "problem of the millennium number 1". "The Queen and Servant" should have a strong and reliable throne…

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." (A.Einstein)

"... Truth should be drawn and presented to" unlimited group" viewers. " (A.Zenkin)

"Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers" (J. Wheeler)


Thank you very much, I'm sure to read the essay Eckard Blumshein!

Good luck in the Contest,

Kind regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 23, 2015 @ 07:01 GMT
Dear Edwin and dear Vladimir,

Nobody and nothing seems to be perfect, not even the fqxi topic number of my essay. I just got its approval and the correct number 2342, not 2346 which I had seen before.

What about my name, Edwin wrote this time correctly Eckard but he Americanized Blumschein to Blumshein. In Russia I was advised to change it into Blumschain, and I signed accordingly ;-). Germans pronounce ei like ai.

I don't think that "the philosophical problem of justification "fundamental knowledge" is the main problem today". Aren't semi-irrational ideologies more problematic? I don't just refer to malign patriotism and malign islamism but also to the suppression of criticism.

Why not sober looking at Weierstrass, Kronecker, Cantor, Dedekind, Hilbert, Einstein, Fraenkel and Bourbaki with the due critical distance?

Yes: "omega +1, omega +2, … Any logic based on such a scheme would seem to bear little relevance to physics", and it has actually been proven entirely useless.

I vote for as many rigor as rationally justified, and I arrived at strong arguments against what I consider unwarranted ideologies like Set Theory, Special Relativity, and Spacetime which I capitalized in order to put them into the same drawer as God.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 04:22 GMT
Dear Edwin

I read your highly technical and beautifully illustrated paper with great interest impressed by what appears to be your definitive highlighting of the fatal flaw in Bell's Theorem. I say 'appears' because while your analysis is technically beyond me, in my 2005 Beautiful Universe theory I followed physical and intuitive reasoning to reach a similar conclusion: local causality embodied in the anti-parrallel angle between the two particles (your green arrows) is maintained from start to finish even though the spin direction theta is random. In other words this anti-parrallelism is still there when when Alice and Bob measure them so of course they are entangled. By the way you say "theta-dependent scattering should be testable experimentally". It will be great if you can explain that. This cracked Bell has tolled hollow for far too long. I wish you and like-minded researchers more power to silence it for good.

I am still writing my essay hope you can glance at it when it is published. Best wishes.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 05:20 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

It's good to see you back. Thank you for your comment. You are correct that the anti-parallel spins retain their correlated directions until they reach the remote measuring instruments. This used to be known as conservation of momentum, rather than entanglement. Once in the measuring device the energy exchange process that I describe provides a further correlation between their initial spin and the direction of instrument, and this is the correlation that yields the -a.b result that both quantum mechanics and actual measurements provide, and that Bell says cannot be provided by local models. Although my local model proves Bell wrong and I explain exactly why and how he is wrong, his word has been gospel for 50 years and that's a brick wall to come up against.

The interesting thing, in terms of this essay contest on math and physics, is that Bell got his math right, but his physics is wrong because he oversimplified the problem. Apparently most of the fighting has been over his math and in the end everyone agrees that his math is correct. As you have noted, the physical analysis of the actual, more complex, phenomena is rather complicated. In fact, even Bell's oversimplification is complicated, so unless one has lots of time and interest in this problem it's just too complicated to fool around with. Nevertheless, it is a problem of major importance, and I am producing more results and working toward an experiment and I'm not going away.

I won't try to explain the theta-dependent experiment here, but it's really a rather minimal variation on the standard Stern-Gerlach experiment. Considering that was done in 1922, I'm sure we should be able to do a reasonably accurate experiment today.

And of course I always look forward to your beautifully illustrated and interesting essays.

My very best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 21:26 GMT
Edwin,

Quite impressive essay. It has the density of a black hole, but mental light escapes with multiple readings. With less erudition and understanding, I believe I make some of the same points. "Math operations on real world features are the basis of the science of physics." We do use our minds to connect math and physics and our intuition to judge the results. Sometimes peer reviews help us not to slip (BICEP2. I like the math maps and the physical territory forming the substance, and applying the right map.

I would like your thoughts on my essay.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 22:28 GMT
Dear Jim,

Thank you for your kind remarks. Yes, it's a pretty dense essay, but you clearly know the secret – which is found in multiple readings. Unfortunately not everyone has the time to read an essay more than once. But that's the only way to understand very complex issues. I thank you for doing so.

As I mentioned to Vladimir above, even Bell's oversimplified analysis is complex. When one tries to deal with the more complicated physics going on when a magnetic dipole interacts with the non-homogeneous field, and view this interaction from the perspective of classical determinism while at the same time keeping in mind the quantum mechanical perspective, it gets, as you say, pretty dense.

Why would anyone even care? Only because Bell, on the basis of correct math applied to incorrect (because oversimplified) physics concluded that nature is non-local. And because no one could find error in his mathematical proof the world at large accepted his physical conclusion. A perfect example of what this essay contest was designed to bring out – the tricks that math can play on physics when one is not paying close attention.

I look forward to reading your essay and commenting on your thread.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 22:15 GMT
On another thread Tim Maudlin noted that "The reason that people stop responding to your incorrect claims about Bell is that you do not pay any attention to what they say."

I responded as follows:

Dear Tim Maudlin,

There is quite a difference between "not paying attention" to what you say, and "agreeing with what you say." For example you have said approximately 15 times that the Stern-Gerlach-type experiments describe:

"Binary outcome space" , or

are "coded as +1 or -1", or

are "outcome1 and outcome2", or

are "spin up and spin down", or

"red light went on" versus "green light went on", or

are "above the midline" or "below the midline".

It's pretty hard to miss that you believe the experiment is based on binary outcomes.

What you have missed, and missed a number of times, is that this suppresses the physics of the situation.

As an example, when particles are collided at LHC, some of the collision products come out 'above the midline' and some of them come out 'below the midline'. Nobody cares -- there is no physics in analyzing LHC scattering experiments in such a simple manner.

I've tried to tell you, in a number of different ways, that Bell ignores the physics going on in the Stern-Gerlach apparatus. And by constraining the outcomes to be simple binary outcomes he throws away the information that can be derived from the physics of the experiment. Physicists care (or should care) about this information. The fact that when this information is thrown away the physical model cannot match reality, is significant. Applying correct math to incorrect physics makes no sense, but that is exactly what Bell has done.

As John Cox remarked, as an academic philosopher, you find it easy to take the physics out of math while leaving the math in physics. As a physicist I don't find it that simple. You have twice stated that I pay no attention to what you say. I have reviewed our comments and find it is difficult to discover any response from you to my valid points. And when I supplied data that contradicted your statement about neutron results, and asked you for any data that would support your position, you said you couldn't imagine why anymore time should be spent on the argument.

In fact, having reviewed your comments, I do have more responses.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




lutz kayser wrote on Feb. 27, 2015 @ 03:35 GMT
Edwin,

really impressed by your insights giving me new ideas.

Applying correct math to false physics is the underlying problem in QM and cosmology.

Please continue your quest of pulling out physics from this 20th-century trap.

Best

Lutz

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 28, 2015 @ 02:05 GMT
Dear Lutz,

Thank you for your supportive comment. There are number of experienced players here who agree wholeheartedly with your take on things.

One purpose (as I understand it) of this FQXi topic is to ask whether math has, or can, "trick" physicists in any significant way. My essay answers in the affirmative. Specifically I claim that John Bell's math is impeccable, else his theorem would not have lasted for 50 years as it has. It is his physics that is not impeccable, due to his significant oversimplification.

At first this may sound suspicious. How could physicists be fooled by incorrect physics for 50 years? Is that conceivable? While it is obvious that his math can be, and has been, checked, why not his physics? That is more complicated.

First, there are between half a dozen and a dozen different "interpretations" of physics. Which one should we apply? Second, most physicists accept the paradigm of Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck from 1925 (before there was quantum mechanics) that

"The projection of spin on any axis is +/-1."

This classically makes no sense, and Susskind and others have acknowledged that this is physically incomprehensible. That is, it is part of the "mystical" tradition of quantum mechanics.

Generally speaking, while physicists have no qualms or hesitation about attacking math errors, few are willing to go to war against mystical aspects of orthodoxy which are best summarized by Feynman's quote that

"Nobody understands quantum mechanics."

[Updated by Matt Leifer to: No one understands the quantum state. (see my endnotes)]

And so Bell's seemingly reasonable, simple interpretation along the lines of Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck, remains unchallenged. Even at the expense of giving up local causality!

An ironic aspect of this is Allain Aspect's remarks in his introduction to Bell's book, to the effect that

"The conventional wisdom among physicists was that the 'founding fathers' of quantum mechanics had settled all the conceptual questions."

Aspect claims that

"Bell's example helped physicists to free themselves from the belief that the conceptual understanding that had been achieved by the 1940s was the end of the story."

Today, of course, Bell is the 'founding father' and once again the conventional wisdom is that Bell has "settled all the conceptual questions."

I argue that this is not the case and it is not an argument that those heavily invested in Bell wish to hear. Hence the "hear no evil, say no evil, see no evil" reception that my essay has mostly received from the establishment.

In political terms this was called, "benign neglect", defined generally as "an attitude or policy of ignoring an often delicate or undesirable situation that one is held to be responsible for dealing with."

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Ed Unverricht wrote on Feb. 28, 2015 @ 17:48 GMT
Dear Mr Klingman,

Excellent essay. I feel the most important part of your essay were the statements "We restore the physics of θ to a classical model by assuming a random particle spin before it enters the magnetic field and we predict the position of the particle after leaving the magnetic field." and "No local model of Bell’s can reproduce QM correlations because he applies the hidden constraints that erase the hidden variable information. Yet Bell’s many followers are adamant that one must apply Bell's constraints. They believe strongly that 'spin' is being measured, that spin has eigenvalues ±1"

I would be very interested in your comments on my modelling of the Dehlinger and Mitchell experiment related to the Bell theory at Dear Mr Klingman,

Excellent essay. I feel the most important part of your essay were the statements "We restore the physics of θ to a classical model by assuming a random particle spin before it enters the magnetic field and we predict the position of the particle after leaving the magnetic field." and "No local model of Bell’s can reproduce QM correlations because he applies the hidden constraints that erase the hidden variable information. Yet Bell’s many followers are adamant that one must apply Bell's constraints. They believe strongly that 'spin' is being measured, that spin has eigenvalues ±1"

I would be very interested in your comments on my modelling of the Dehlinger and Mitchell experiment related to the Bell theory at
http://www.animatedphysics.com/photons/bells_inequality.htm.
I believe we are matching our ideas directly.

Great read, let me know if you would ever like to work on a collaboration along these lines.

report post as inappropriate

Ed Unverricht replied on Feb. 28, 2015 @ 17:51 GMT
Sorry, something went wrong with the link in my post and I dont see any way to correct it.. Hope it is still understandable.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 03:11 GMT
Dear Ed,

Thank you for your kind remarks. I was able to follow your link to the 'animated physics' page. The page, as far as I can determine, is strictly about the photon test of Bell's theorem, so it's probably appropriate for me to remark again on this.

My essay of course concerns the Stern-Gerlach scattering of magnetic dipoles in an inhomogeneous field. I have developed the...

view entire post





Ed Unverricht wrote on Feb. 28, 2015 @ 17:54 GMT
Just reread and gave you a vote of 9.

report post as inappropriate


Alex Newman wrote on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 08:11 GMT
Dear Sir,

If I'm not mistaken, this contest is not about Bell's theorem and quantum mechanics. You tried to disguise some of your ideas about quantum mechanics in a paper about Bell's theorem. You talk about things that this community is not required to know and you have not answered the main questions of this contest. Therefore, I think your paper is of no interest to general audience but only to your peers and I would like to ask you if you have send this for journal peer review and if it was published. Thank you for your effort.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 19:07 GMT
Alex,

I think you are completely mistaken that my essay is not on topic. In the first pages I address several FQXi questions that are answered by my essay. Further, FQXi stands for "fundamental questions", and there are few if any questions more fundamental than whether local causality exists, or not. I believe that my essay is exactly what Templeton hoped for when he funded FQXi.

Your other point, that it is not for a "general audience", is somewhat more relevant. Scientific American also supports FQXi; they of course desire essays that can become articles in their magazine. My essay is too dense for most general audiences, but if you read the comments above you will find that the FQXi community finds it appropriate and relevant.

I hope you did not waste too much of your time before discovering it was not your cup of tea.

Sincerely,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Efthimios Harokopos wrote on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 10:36 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

I truly appreciate your good words about my essay. However, I have a problem with your invitation to read your essay as follows:

Before your comments my community rating was at 6.0 based on two votes. Afterwards, it dropped to 5.0 based on a single vote. This means that someone rate it at 3. There are two possibilities then

(1) Either you rated my essay at 3 despite your good words, or

(2) You did not rate my essay despite your good words.

In either case, I will not read you essay and as a matter of fact I will refrain from judging other essays because such judgment cannot be objective anyway. I will read several essays but not rate.

Thank you. I am not here to get a prize but just to participate and convey my thoughts. I know the process since last time I participated in 2011. My essay was first for two weeks and then in just a few days I got a series of low marks. It ended up in the 35 essays sent for review but to see how some people acted was quite disappointing. I just wish FQXi would use an independent panel of judges and pay no attention to ratings. I think they are smarter than that.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 19:15 GMT
Dear Efthimios Harokopos,

I saw your complaint about scoring on your thread before I commented on your essay, so I knew that you were already upset about scoring. What I had not realized was that you think you can, in general, correlate comments with voting behavior. It is upsetting when low scores are received for no apparent reason. During the first weeks of this contest I was the top paper with a 10 (every time I looked at it I reminded myself that there was nowhere to go but down) and then I received at least two 1s and a couple of 2s. I was of course not happy about this.

There are no rules for how one "should vote". After several essay contests I have a voting strategy that I think is most effective. I typically wish to see all essays before I decide how they should be ranked. I think it is presumptuous for you to assume that my voting behavior should match your ideas of voting but if you are hostile over this point it's probably best you not read my essay.

You have written an essay in an earlier contest, and you should therefore be aware that no one is happy with FQXi voting. There is always some vote trading going on and the best policy is not to discuss votes in comments and not to combine the timing of comments and votes to 'send messages'.

Your implication that I would give high praise and low scores is unwarranted, and there is no basis for you even to suggest this. The fact is that I have not scored your essay, nor most essays, as I have my own policy or voting strategy. I think your complaint about voting is valid, but your assumptions about how I should vote are invalid and not appreciated.

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Efthimios Harokopos replied on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 20:36 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Thank you for your response.

report post as inappropriate

Bob Shour replied on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 21:28 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

I have enjoyed reading your comments on the various essays. I think your approach to voting that you outline in your exchange a good and wise one.

I have also noticed that many of the essays seem at times to be treated unusually well, and some unusually poorly. Unfair voting impairs the standing of the contest and impairs the experience for participants who have made a sincere and time consuming effort, and should be spared tactical downgrades or extreme and unwarranted ratings.

Perhaps, I thought, as a FQXi forum or question, the topic could be a self policing voting system for the essay contest. For example only, suppose at the 6 week mark and the 8 week mark, the voting essayist who is closest the average rating of all essays (that is, find the difference on each essay of the rating essayist from the average rating, and add up the differences) gets an extra 10 vote, and the one second closest an extra 9 or something like that. The idea would be to encourage and reward fair-minded appraisals as opposed to a strategic downgrade, and to discourage outlying ratings. The idea exploits the idea that the average of several ratings is often a more reliable indicator than any single vote.

I suspect my suggestion has various flaws. I think it might be interesting to see what people come up with as rating systems that can circumvent some of the objections to the current system. The issue has been raised by some participants. You comment that 'no one is happy' with the current system. Perhaps collectively we might consider this not a philosophical problem about voting but an interesting problem relating to game theory or voting theory.

With best wishes,

Bob Shour

report post as inappropriate


George Rajna wrote on Mar. 2, 2015 @ 08:46 GMT
Congratulation for such a brilliant essay. You deserve the best.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 2, 2015 @ 22:37 GMT
Dear George Rajna,

Thank you for your most gracious comment.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Jonathan Warren Tooker wrote on Mar. 2, 2015 @ 21:16 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I agree very much that "we use our minds to connect math and physics" and that "math maps imposed on the physical territory form the substance of physics." You asked about process four in my essay Quantum Gravity and it precisely your quoted sentiment that I was hoping to capture with that process.

My main feedback on your very interesting essay is that I was not convinced that "Bell showed a local model cannot produce the correlation -ab." Perhaps I did not fully appreciate your argument, can you explain? (Sorry if this was covered in your other comments, I see there are very many.) This is a non-standard statement of Bell's result that I have not heard before.

I admit to being one of the people who say what you refer as Bell's constraints must be imposed. The lines in the SG experiment will either be up or down so it is natural to impose a binary eigenvalue map on the physical territory of the GS apparatus. How else could one describe a binary up/down result?

Lastly I will point out that in my own study of Bell's result, I noticed an assumption that led to equation (1) which was not included in your list on page four. Namely, the assumption is that spin eigenvectors are orthogonal. I treat the case where they are not orthogonal in my paper On Bell's Inequality. My result agrees with your conclusion that Bell was wrong. However where you derive an error from the connection of the math to the experiment, I derive a trivial mathematical error that shows that Bell's inequality does always allow local hidden variables.

Jonathan Tooker

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 2, 2015 @ 22:34 GMT
Hi Jonathan Tooker,

You are correct that quite a bit of explanation is included in the above comments, but it takes a while to plow through them. The short version is that Stern-Gerlach is not measuring spin directly; it is measuring spin-dependent scattering from an inhomogeneous field. And the inhomogeneous field is not described by Pauli's simple eigenvalue equation, due to the...

view entire post





Leo Vuyk wrote on Mar. 5, 2015 @ 16:06 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thank you for your interesting approach of the Stern Gerlach problem described by J,Bell.

In short I would describe his problem with the fact that there was no so called ”smearing” of particle impacts on the screen observable which indicated that before entering the SG magnet, the particle magnetic moments had to be up or down. Right?

I think I could give you...

view entire post


attachments: Stern_Gerlach_1.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 5, 2015 @ 18:20 GMT
Dear Leo Vuyk,

I see that you have put some effort into studying Stern-Gerlach. I was somewhat surprised by your statement of 'no smearing' of particle impacts on the screen, as there appears to be visible 'smearing' on the iconic postcard that Stern-Gerlach sent to Bohr, and Messiah (a primary QM text at the time of Bell) describes "the appearance on the screen of a more or less spread...

view entire post





Leo Vuyk wrote on Mar. 5, 2015 @ 21:41 GMT
DearEdwin,

Thank you for your extensive answer.

You wrote:

I am beginning efforts to have my experiment performed, and I hope you are doing the same.

I have no connection to university PhD experiments , but perhaps both experiments are perhaps interesting for such a student.

report post as inappropriate


George Gantz wrote on Mar. 5, 2015 @ 22:23 GMT
Edwin -

Thanks for the challenging article! I wonder what Bell would think. I like the map-territory analogy for math and physics - it highlights the difference between abstract proof (math) and empirical claim (physics). Yet it may tend to the platonist (as do I) in the sense that the map is real too.

Thanks as well for reading my essay. Best of luck - George Gantz (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2381)

report post as inappropriate


Sylvain Poirier wrote on Mar. 6, 2015 @ 10:19 GMT
I read your essay since long ago and I did not see it worth commenting earlier because it is pure nonsense. You claim to provide a possibility of something that was famously, clearly and rigorously proven impossible. If there was a consensus on this impossibility, it is not because physicists are idiots having fanciful beliefs that something cannot be done just because they did not have the idea...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Sylvain Poirier replied on Mar. 6, 2015 @ 12:51 GMT
Another possible source of nonsense of your article, and of your ignorance of the problem (that seems to be more precisely your ignorance of what the predictions of quantum physics actually are and how they break Bell's inequalities, so that of course you have no problem to classically reproduce some incorrect description that does not break the Bell's inequalities and in which you misinterpret...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 6, 2015 @ 23:32 GMT
Ed, further to my earlier questions (above): but now re Silvain's comments above.

As you know, I've long maintained the view (and worked toward): "a correct theory of particle-device interactions" will deliver the correct results for EPRB ++ and breach the relevant Bell-inequalities. So Silvain could be a good sounding-board as we work toward that common goal -- given that not many others...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 7, 2015 @ 01:14 GMT
Hi Gordon,

I hope this means that you got your essay in on time. The local model used to generate the data on page 7 in my essay has not changed. The data shown are good and reproducible. Finding different ways to analyze the data does not invalidate or "make it up as I go". Instead of "finding more things", it's probably better to say "understanding more things", and that is as it...

view entire post




Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 7, 2015 @ 09:42 GMT
Nature's grammar, mathematics, settles the physics in Bell-v-Einstein.

So Yes Ed, my essay is in and waiting approval:-

Among other things, I'm hoping to make the point that Nature speaks in many ways - from whispering snow-flakes to falling apples and roaring avalanches; etc. - what I call her many languages. She doesn't speak via mathematics (well, not very often to me). RATHER: mathematics is the grammar that governs all her languages and we must parse those languages to get at the maths -- ie, the LAWS that govern the cosmos.

Re your listed matters:

1. OK, as long as it's all consistent, no problem of course.

2-3. My point was concerning (4) where each θ-dependent x-direction contribution is non-negative?

Now you say: "It is the θ-dependent contribution to the deflection. The sign works out automatically when all terms are combined."

So which term is it that combines with the output of (4) to give the X-plus and X-minus terms, please?

And which term comes from the hemispheric models on pp.73-76 of your QSLR essay?

4. My view was just that θ = (a,b) is the norm in much of the Bell-lit. But see #1 above.

5. NB: The conventional θ = (a,b) is also in your Peres' quote on p.6.

6. "Velocity OF deflection" -- correcting my typo -- see non-typo statement in my #3; the expression was in the reply you sent me when I asked about non-negative (4).

With thanks, and best regards; Gordon Watson

report post as inappropriate

Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 7, 2015 @ 11:34 GMT
Ed, still striving to understand your essay:

1. In conventional terms the expectation E(AB|Z) with Z = EPRB (Bell 1964) is:

E(AB|Z) = P(A+B+|Z) - P(A+B-|Z) - P(A-B+|Z) + P(A-B-|Z) = -a.b. (A)

2. But at p.7 you say: A+ = +1, etc., are "constraining measurement values" due to Bell that you reject.

3. So what is your probabilistic formulation for E(AB|Z), please?

4. What I mean is this: It is one thing to derive E(AB|Z) = [?] = -a.b; but for that output to be a true expectation, the intermediate [?] must be the probabilistic average over all measurement outcomes.

5. So, given your key equation (4) yields X and X' as a function of the relevant θ and θ': your probabilistic weightings must apply to a near continuum of X- and X'-outcomes built from the θ-based X and X'-direction contributions and their final modification by your theory.

6. So is this what is represented in top chart, p.7? And what then are the components in [?].

Thanks; Gordon Watson

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 7, 2015 @ 20:03 GMT
Gordon,

First to your point 5 in your 9:42 comment. Yes, I did miss one. The Peres reference on page 6 does refer to θ = (a,b) and not the local θ defined above. Thanks for catching that exception. I'll now address the rest of your 9:42 comment.

A good number of these essays make the point that it is a mistake to attempt to understand most physics from math. Physicists attempt to understand the physics and use math as a tool. Thus look at the physics of what's happening:

Given the dynamics of a 3-D spin vector with a 3-D velocity in a 3-D field and a 3-D gradient, one can generate some rather complex math. But physically, one sees that, in Stern-Gerlach, the deflection is caused by the force of the gradient on the magnetic moment. If the magnetic moment is aligned with the field, the force is maximum and hence the deflection is maximum. Call this deflection X and calculate that it is given by the first term in parentheses in equation (4).

If the spin is (initially) not aligned, then the force is less than maximum, and I use energy-exchange physics to calculate how much less and show it as x in equation (4). Thus to get the actual deflection you must calculate X-x. I think you'll find that this takes care of the sign you've been so worried about.

Alice's deflection then ranges from full max to full min, based on the local angle θ between her spin and her field, (a,λ).

Next, one might remark that this is the classic continuum and there is no binary splitting. If the length of the device is not sufficient to bring the magnetic moment into full alignment, then this is what is to be expected, and I believe that accounts for the neutron data I presented to Tim above.

But if the SG-device is of such strength of gradient that the moment becomes fully aligned (or anti-aligned) then the contribution from θ ceases, and the maximum force is applied to the dipole until it leaves the device, which means that the magnetic moment continues to be deflected away from the centerline, and a split develops, with separation dependent on the distance from the device to the screen; pure geometry.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Andrei Kirilyuk wrote on Mar. 7, 2015 @ 15:04 GMT
Dear Edwin, I adhere to the "map" metaphor for the mathematical image of physical reality, with the evident strong simplification of the latter within a too low-dimensional map of actual mathematical tools and approaches. In order to avoid the arising contradictions, one should obviously increase the "map" dimensionality, as your analysis seems to imply too. In my own presentation here (Extended Mathematics) I describe a universal way to increase the map (dynamic) dimensionality to that of the unreduced reality, which is equivalent to resolution of all "mysteries" and "difficult" problems, as in this case one can clearly "see" the full, non-simplified image of "dynamically multivalued" reality. In particular, "quantum mysteries" are transformed into non-contradictory but complex (multivalued) dynamics of elementary particles and interactions, after which reduced visions like Bell's theorem become even senseless. This conclusion correlates with your results here, I just add a working version of "full-dimensional map".

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 7, 2015 @ 19:44 GMT
Dear Andrei,

Thank you for reading my essay and commenting. As I noted on your thread, yours is a more general approach to the "unreduced reality" where "reduced" reality typically means models reduced to a lower dimensionality, such as 1-D or oversimplified models. But in some cases even a 1-D treatment represents progress over a 0-D current treatment. For example John Bell analyzes the scattering of a particle in an inhomogeneous field by assuming that the field is constant (thus zeroing out the gradient) and assumes that the resultant scattering continuum distribution is reduced to a binary result. A less reduced (i.e., simplified) local model of the interaction of the particle with the unreduced field produces exactly the quantum mechanical correlations that are impossible with Bell's oversimplified model.

As you say in your comment, when the complex dynamics of elementary particles and interactions is considered, Bell's theorem becomes senseless.

My best wishes for your success in your program.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Michael James Goodband wrote on Mar. 9, 2015 @ 12:56 GMT
Dear Edwin

Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. Looking through the comments on your essay I must admit to some gratitude that you kicked the hornets’ nest first ;-) EPR-Bell has subtleties associated with at least the following points:

1.Local

2.Causal

3.Deterministic

4.The correlation result itself

5.Distinction between theory and experiment

It isn’t possible to address all these in the essay character count, leaving every author who considers Bell hanging on at least one point. I address points 2-5 but am left hanging on the connection between points 1 and 2. I see that your model has the correct correlation result through meeting the JC result: correlation between two results involving S0 over a S2 spatial subspace from comes from S3. I also note that your consideration of point 5 has similarities to mine:

•Dirac eigenvalue map – over underlying-reality in my terms

•Pauli eigenvalue map – over experimental-reality in my terms

As you commented on my essay, my hidden propagator dynamics approach is more general than your specific example, but from your essay I cannot tell if your model would be an example of my general HPD result or not. So can I ask you about your position on:

1.Am I right in thinking that your point about the two eigenvalue maps can be characterised as a distinction between the true underlying physics and what is measured by experiment?

2.From the point of view that these is a distinction between underlying physics and what is being measured, the terms local, causal and deterministic become ambiguous unless it is made clear whether they are referring to the underlying physics or experimental measurements. Although the suppositions you make seem to be that your model is causal and deterministic in terms of the underlying physics, does that actually mean the correlation result is local and deterministic?

Best wishes,

Michael

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 9, 2015 @ 23:20 GMT
Dear Michael,

Thanks for your well thought out comment on my essay. You're welcome re. kicking the hornets nest!

Your five points are well chosen, and, as you say, difficult to nail down in the allotted word count. You ask specifically whether the Dirac eigenvalue map, is over underlying-reality (in your terms) while the Pauli eigenvalue map is over experimental-reality.

First, the issue is covered in much more detail in Spin: Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Dirac, Bell, which I hope you find time to look at. It is my reference (4).

The underlying reality implied by Dirac's relativistic equation is interpreted as 'spin' but, as I note, there is no exact eigenvalue equation for his 4-spinor solution. Instead, the Foldy-Wouthuysen integral transformation is imposed to produce (to any desired order in v/c) a two-component equation that can be put in one-to-one correspondence with Pauli, but does not treat spin, per se. Instead, it is a helicity eigenvalue equation with implications discussed in reference (4).

Pauli, on the other hand, is a constant-field-solution with Hamiltonian based on mu.B, which is a provisional eigenvalue, provided the field is constant; which it is not in Stern-Gerlach. To model Stern-Gerlach appropriately (which Bell does not do!) one must add the gradient term to the Hamiltonian, which does not yield the binary +/-1 eigenvalues, but instead yields a scattering continuum. Because Bell [and his legion of supporters] assume that they are measuring spin directly, and assume that Pauli's equation does apply, they force the experimental results to equal +/-1 despite that the measured scattering is clearly not a point but a continuous distribution. Thus they misinterpret the experimental reality, which is the scattering continuum, in favor of their desired result, which is the spin projection. The results of the experiment do indicate two final spin states, since, with energy exchange, the spins do either align or anti-align, whatever the initial state, but this completely discounts, in effect erases, the additional "hidden" information derived from the initial spin, which is in a random direction.

After erasing the underlying physical reality information, they cannot compute the actual correlation, and draw conclusions of non-locality from this basic mistake. I show that when the actual underlying physics [of energy exchange] is taken into account, my local model yields exactly the -a.b of quantum mechanics and of experiment.

You then ask if my causal and deterministic model in terms of the underlying physics actually means the correlation result is local and deterministic? That's a good question. I had not asked myself exactly this question, but would probably have answered yes. But I'm not sure. The inputs to the experiment are the random initial spin's, and the local outputs are causally determined. But the correlations over these outputs are still a statistical quantity, reflecting, in some manner, the random distribution of inputs. Thus, each run of 300 (a,b)-angles times 10,000 spins per angle [reflected in my results] yields the -a.b cosine shape of the curve but with the nonzero 'thickness' of the lines as shown in my figures. If instead of 3 million points I based the results on 3 billion points, the line should be much thinner. At what point does the statistical data become a cosine curve of no thickness? I don't know. In the limit that's what I would expect. Does that mean the correlation is local and deterministic? You decide.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 10, 2015 @ 00:17 GMT
Gordon,

Above, you claim that "Your E(AB) ... being simply twice* the E(AB|classical), is unphysical."

First, you are deriving a non-local equation by including a, b, λ, and λ' in your equation. These never appear in the same place in a local solution. In my model they are calculated locally and only the numeric result is sent to the statistical module. To understand this, assume that Alice calculates [according to the energy exchange physics] the number 36. Did this come from 1x36, or 2x18, or 3x12, or 4x9, or 6x6? These are local numbers that no one but Alice knows. Similarly for Bob. So when you derive an expectation value with all of the local values in one place, as you do, you have already lost locality in favor of non-locality.

My local model only correlates the actual results, which do not contain explicit local information, but only the results of the local physics. Your analysis, both here and in your other work, always yields a non-local calculation of the correlation.

You are showing exactly the behavior to be expected when the focus shifts from physics to math. Of course the math has to be correct! Bell's math is correct, and my math is correct. It is Bell's physics where the problem lies. And it is your unwillingness to focus on physics, while worrying the math to death that is the distraction.

Do you believe that, for every experiment Bell considers, that (ignoring the actual spread) the experimental results are +1 or -1? Of course not. Instruments must be calibrated, and, in some instances, normalized.

By focusing only on math, you set X = sqrt(2) and claim my result, proportional to X-squared, is off by a factor of two. But if you bothered to think about what X is, you would see your error. X is the term calculated by dividing the field strength by the gradient, and these are not only not known exactly, but extremely difficult to measure, and vary from experiment to experiment, and this does not in any way affect the interpretation of the experiment.

So your assumption that X is constant, which supposedly leads to an error in my analysis, is a mistake you make due to ignoring the physics. A major theme of this essay contest is how math leads physicists astray. Your math is leading you astray. Please stop and think about the physics, before making more such claims.

Bell's theorem mistakenly forces the outcomes to +/-1, but he does correctly insist, per EPR, that when a = b, there is perfect correlation, -1. It should be obvious that this is possible for any gradient only if the result of the correlation calculation is normalized to fit this known data point. When I normalize the data the actual form and strength of the field and its gradient are effectively adjusted (as Bell does!) to yield the physically meaningful correlation. Your math is not physically meaningful, and in fact, by ignoring the physics and focusing on the tool, you have tricked yourself.

FQXi is to be congratulated for choosing a topic that, in many essays, focuses attention on the fact that, as Alma Ionescu says,

"Mathematical physics is only as good as physical insight."

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 10, 2015 @ 07:21 GMT
The Klingman Model (TKM). Problem 1: Alice's calculation.

In all Bell-tests known to me, Alice is the agent (human or robot) that freely sets the direction a of detector A. So Alice is correctly shown "out of sight" in top figure, p.6: for she (normally) has no other role to play.

However, at p.6, Alice calculates local deflection Δxj via eqn (4): which may be written

Δxj = X - X(1-cos(aj)) = Xcos(aj); (1A)

where X is the first term in parentheses in (4).

Given that Alice knows a: how does she make this calculation?

PS: On p.6 it says that "Bob will see initial spin λ' = -λ ...". I'm taking this to be a colloquialism and that such variables cannot be seen?

Gordon Watson: a local realist interested in the physics behind TKM.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 00:31 GMT
Gordon,

Bell states that "since the quantum mechanical wave function does not determine the result of an individual measurement, this predetermination [ i.e., a = b => -1 ] implies the possibility of a more complete specification of the state." In my local model that more complete specification is the initial spin, λ, which has dynamical significance. What is in question is the physics of this "hidden" variable which is 'hidden' from quantum mechanics. It may or may not be hidden from Alice and Bob. Whether or not it is measurable is not specified by Bell's theorem. There are several cases possible. If Alice knows the value of λ, she can compute the deflection. If she does not know λ, the deflection will still be determined by the laws of energy exchange physics, and will be the result as I have specified. In that case, in principle, Alice can recover the value of λ (or at least the value of angle (a, λ) that the spin makes with the local field) from the actual deflection, which she measures and sends to the statistical unit. Same for Bob. It is these measured values, determined by the energy exchange physics, that determine the correlation. In addition the theory can be checked by preparing a known λ and presenting it to Alice, and -λ to Bob.

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 02:06 GMT
Thanks Ed; it's good to see some agreement returning between us. I hope to show that I understand the physics of your local model very well … and that some clarifying simplification is possible. Since we each proclaim ourselves to be "local realists", I suspect that we might only differ when it comes to a definition of "realism".

Now, re simplification: I would have your Alice be exactly the Alice that is discussed in Bell-tests. She simply sets a once -- ie, once for each each experimental run -- and has a snooze.

While she sleeps your "black-box" A will send each Δxj to your module D until an experimental run of N paired-tests has been conducted (N large). Similarly Bob's box B sends each paired Δx'j to your module D.

I accept: (i) independent of Alice and Bob, it is these paired Δs that determine the correlation; (ii) in addition your theory can be checked by preparing a known λj and presenting it to Alice, and a paired λ'j to Bob.

I must run right now (so E & OE), but if you'd let me have your views on the above simplification (I believe it avoids unnecessary complications), I'm keen to move to another.

Best; Gordon

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 03:05 GMT
Excellent job Ed!

You definitely made your point here. I think it's absolutely true that Dirac's approach to helicity is both general and fundamental, while the expression used by Pauli is a special case. I like that you use the word provisional. The subtlety of the error you point out, and its self-concealing nature, mean that you probably have as many objections to deal with as Joy did. But you seem to be up to the challenge, and perhaps with enough of an even temper to refrain from pushing your detractors into defensive posturing.

Good Luck!

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 03:34 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Thank you very much for your kind comment and your encouragement. You definitely understand the point, and you clearly also see the problem.

And of course the problem is subtle, as your brilliant use of the term "self-concealing nature" shows. Only something as "self concealing" as this would keep it hidden from physicists for 50 years. So thank you again. Your clear, clean, wise comment is most appreciated.

I read your essay today, and find that we are in even more agreement than usual. I will comment on your thread soon.

With best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 06:05 GMT
Good show!

I am glad that my insights are valuable. But your paper is deserving of kind attention.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Rowan Grigg wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 11:48 GMT
Hi Edwin,

Through forty years of monthly doses of Scientific American, I've been led to believe that Bell, supported experimentally by Aspect, had a knock down riposte to EPR, so I am very interested to see you have taken him on. I like to think I might one day put the effort into mastering the mathematics required to understand your argument technically, but in the mean time I find the idea of Bell "using the wrong map" persuasive. As you know, I am passionate about reaching beyond instrumentalism in understanding this universe of ours, and I believe you are extending into that realm. I thoroughly enjoyed your essay Edwin,

Cheers,

Rowan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 19:57 GMT
Hi Rowan,

Yes, the popular press reflects the establishment press and, based on acceptance of Bell's oversimplified model of Stern-Gerlach, no one was able to puncture Bell's logic. Thus, when Aspect derived experimental evidence that the EPR correlation actually agreed with quantum mechanical predictions, it was [falsely] interpreted to support non-locality. But there is nothing in Aspect's [or others'] experiments that "supports non-locality". All that the experiments do is prove that Bell's model does not match reality!

I argue that Bell's model does not match reality because he ignores the actual physics that occurs in a non-constant field with his oversimplified treatment of Stern-Gerlach as a constant field, thus describable by Pauli's eigenvalue map, which is the wrong map, as it is based on a Hamiltonian that is missing the key term based on the field gradient.

Thank you for reading my essay and extracting the key point.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Laurence Hitterdale wrote on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 04:37 GMT
Hi Edwin,

Thank you for your comments on my essay. I will respond to them on the page for that essay.

Reading your essay, I find myself in general agreement with your views about how physicists use mathematics. I agree that we can look at mathematical description or analysis of physical phenomena as a map for the phenomena. For any given aspect of the world, there are many possible maps. Then, of the many possible maps, which is the right one?

Of course, the point of interest in your essay is not this general truism, but the specific application you make of it. Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient background to say anything useful about the application. I am well aware that the consensus view among physicists is that John Bell was correct in his understanding of quantum physics. Against this consensus, you state, “Bell simply applied the wrong map to the territory.” Since I cannot render an independent judgment on the matter, I can only wait to see how the discussion turns out. I am glad to see that your essay has received many comments. With this exchange of views, scientists who are conversant with the issues should be able to gain a better understanding of your ideas.

Best wishes for this contest and for your work.

Laurence Hitterdale

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 20:04 GMT
Hi Laurence,

Thanks for reading and extracting the essence of my essay. You are correct when you say "for any given aspect of the world, there many possible maps. Then, of the many possible maps, which is the right one?"

And of course you are correct that the consensus now among physicists is that John Bell was correct in his understanding of quantum physics. And, in general, he was. But in the specifics of Stern-Gerlach his "constant-field" model leads to an immediate contradiction, as a constant-field Stern-Gerlach apparatus yields zero, not ±1. This seems like the first hint. The second hint would be the actual data, shown on the iconic postcard. The third hint would be the extremely counter-intuitive concept of non-locality.

As Aspect points out in his introduction to Bell's 'Speakable…', Bell went against the conventional wisdom among physicists that "the 'founding fathers' of quantum mechanics had settled all the conceptual questions." Aspect claims Bell "helped physicists to free themselves from the belief that the conceptual understanding that had been achieved [20 years earlier] was the end of the story." How ironic that now Bell is the 'founding father' and this belief in the 'end of the story' is now 50 years old!

Thank you sincerely for your kind comments and best wishes.

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Laurence Hitterdale replied on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 15:41 GMT
Hi Edwin,

Your response clarifies the situation for me. Although I cannot evaluate the details of your argument, it seems to me that you are making a point which is specific enough and clear enough that it should be possible for physicists to reach a definitive answer. Your essay has received a large number of comments, and a large number of ratings, mostly favorable in each case. These figures, and the content of the discussion, suggest that your ideas on this matter have a good chance of becoming accepted in physics. As I said, I do not have the background to be able to make an independent judgment, but the outlook does seem promising.

Best wishes,

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 18:16 GMT
Dear Laurence,

Thanks for the very gracious comment. I yesterday spoke to Zeilinger, who was presenting a talk at Stanford. I noted that Bell derived and described and explained his theorem in terms of particles in Stern-Gerlach, and he concluded that "NO local model could produce the QM correlations." I asked whether, despite the fact that most experiments are done on photons, it would be significant if a local model of spin in Stern-Gerlach could produce the QM correlations. He answered, "It would be fun."

What a difference from the usual response I get from theoretical physicists! Maybe I need to spend more time with experimentalists.

Thanks again for your comment and your wishes.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 15:18 GMT
Edwin,

Thanks for your kind comments on mine. You give a great presentation and analysis of the same truth from a slightly different viewpoint which is so logical I'd expect the majority of believers in weirdness to simply look away and even run away rather than try to understand and argue. (they'll stay lost as they have the wrong map!)

I do now understand your references to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 20:10 GMT
Peter,

Thanks for reading my essay, and thank you for finding it so logical that you would "expect the majority of believers in weirdness to simply look away and even run away rather than try to understand and argue." You sure got the "simply look away" part right.

You are also correct to observe that Bell's theorem is based on assumptions. And I agree that my approach does not counter his "Theorem", which is a valid mathematical treatment of his faulty assumptions. It only challenges his conclusion, that "no local model can produce quantum correlations."

I look forward to reading the link you have provided with Bell's quotes plus all flawed assumptions identified. I will comment on it after I've read it.

As I'm sure you are aware, "simply looking away" is merely a delaying action, not an effective argument. We can hope that the "drip, drip, drip" of truth and logic that year-by-year appears in FQXi essays is slowly acquiring critical mass, to the point that it will no longer be possible to "look away". But, as Thomas Erwin Phipps remarks in a comment on his thread (February 26, 2015@21:33)

"Worldwide Professors United, though not a recognized organization, nevertheless exists and knows how to close ranks in defense of the status quo. This means that progress can occur only from inside, and at a snails pace."

Thanks again for your thoughtful comment,

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




En Passant wrote on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 22:35 GMT
Edwin,

I apologize in advance for the length of this comment.

Great essay and equally fascinating comment sequence. You evidently don’t need any help defending your ideas (and theory).

I realize how busy you are, but if you could somehow squeeze in an answer to at least some of the points that I will make here, it would be greatly appreciated. Perhaps it might clarify for...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 23:40 GMT
En Passant,

Thank you for your kind remarks. Before answering the questions in your comment, I would like to relate my reply to your essay, which only Michel Planat and Gary Simpson have so far appreciated. In your essay you note that it is not the 'number' that has significance in physics, it is the quantity of 'something' and

"The correct selection of somethings and the appropriate selection of the numeric relations among such somethings is physics."

Stern-Gerlach measures the scattering of particles, depending upon the initial spin, i.e., the spin upon entry to the device. But Bell believes that it is directly measuring only the final spin output from the device, which is (usually) in one of two states, aligned or anti-aligned. Thus, instead of using the 'actual' position measurement, which contains and reflects the physics that goes on in the device, he [mistakenly] assumes an 'idealized' measurement, and, lo and behold, he cannot make his physics model match the actual correlations. Quelle surprise, en passant!

One must select the right 'somethings' before establishing the relationships.

You further state:

"Math without consideration of whether it mirrors the outside world is always tautologic… Once it starts to speak about the world, it becomes physics. At this stage, it can be validated (or not) by experiment, which is the final arbiter of whether your physics is right."

Bell's physics, of course, is not validated by experiment, but, instead of simply stating "my model fails to produce the correct result", he decided to overthrow local realism. And the physics community went along with him and has continued to go along with him for 50 years. It is downright embarrassing at this point to be forced to go back and look at the actual physics.

I will answer your questions in the following comment.

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 15, 2015 @ 00:19 GMT
En Passant,

Your first question relates to Tim Maudlin's initial critique, stating that "enforcing the global conservation [of energy] means that the theory is not local in Bell's sense…"

That merely reflected the fact that Tim does not take any challenge to Bell [about which he has written books and papers] as worthy of serious attention, because my Energy-Exchange Theorem [proved in the essay, but with one obvious typo] is not about global energy conservation, but about local energy conservation.

The precessing particle contains local energy of configuration that does not exist once the particle is aligned with the field. Where does this energy go? The particle initially enters on a horizontal axis [say] and exits deflected up or down, with an upward or downward component of velocity [proportional to the initial spin angle] and hence with energy associated with this deflection. Where did this energy come from? I show that, by use of the standard Hamiltonian, it is easy to prove that the energy of one mode is exchanged with (or 'into') the energy of the other mode, in this case from precessional energy into deflectional energy. While this analysis is new to Bell's theorem and to Stern-Gerlach, it is well-known that molecules exchange energy between modes, for example rotational- to vibrational-modes, so I am not making up completely new physics, simply applying it where it has never been applied before.

After I explained this local conservation, Tim essentially accepted this by never mentioning global conservation again, and never claiming again that this leads to my theory being "nonlocal" in Bell's sense.

I hope the above answer clarifies your first question, but if not I'll be happy to try further.

I think I'll address your next point in the following comment.

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 15, 2015 @ 01:13 GMT
En Passant,

You next interpret Tim Maudlin's statement that my model "makes no contact with Bell's theorem" [BT] as implying that Tim thinks I should have made contact via logical argument "(rather than by actual worldly facts, albeit those are at present only via [my] model.)" This reflects the fact that, after acceptance of Bell's oversimplified "physics" as "realistic", all focus changed to the "logic", and a small industry of such "quantum logicians" has arisen, with the 1979 analysis by d'Espagnat in Scientific American having essentially established the 'rules of the game'.

You are correct, I deal "in physics" and Tim, a respected professor of philosophy and math, would seem to prefer logic dissociated from physics. This is what would appear to be behind his repeated efforts to deny that Bell actually had any classical or other physics in mind when he set out looking for an alternative and more complete picture of physics that could also yield quantum correlation predictions. There are too many examples of this to review here, but they can be found in Tim's comments above.

Stern and Gerlach measured silver atoms, but when Tim claimed that neutrons are also "binary" I searched and the only neutron data I found is not binary (in Tim's sense) but pseudo-Gaussian or triangular [it's hard to tell with only 13 data points].

If I understand your question about reclassifying each of the 13 outcomes in the binary form, you are thinking about pairs from Alice and Bob, and asking if the desired correlations would express significant physics. Unfortunately, this is yet another example of the complexity of the issue, as the only neutron data is derived from a single Stern-Gerlach device, while the EPR experiment requires a 'pair' of coupled neutrons and two Stern-Gerlach devices, one for Bob, one for Alice. So EPR has never been done for neutrons, and it's not at all clear to me it's ever been done for other particles. For particles, it is much more an exercise in logic, based on Bell's Stern-Gerlach assumptions, than it is actual physics. And the physics of photons, and of photon detecting counters of the Aspect type, change so many aspects of the problem that there is no one-to-one correspondence in any meaningful way (except "logically", ignoring physics).

I do agree with you that, if Bell's theorem were accurately stated, it would state that "no local model that is constrained to binary results can reproduce quantum correlations", as stated in my last sentence on page 11 in my essay.

I would not dispute your final point, as everything about academia is political these days.

Thank you for your effort to understand and clarify these issues. It's been a pleasure.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Than Tin wrote on Mar. 15, 2015 @ 18:46 GMT
Dear Edwin:

I want to thank you very much: first, for a generous characterization of my essay, and second, for a critical reading of my observation concerning the phenomenon of duals. With respect to the latter, let me clarify what may have been obscure in my original submission.

We know for a fact that duals are everywhere, but some of us are curious to know why is it so: Why two? And why everywhere?

In my essay, I have used a thought experiment most intuitively familiar to us as human beings, viz. vision system and the concept of figure-ground within it (and of course its inevitable shadow, the concept of nothingness). Next I have tried to go one step further: I assumed the aforementioned separation of figure and ground must have energy expenditure, which cannot be too large or too small (for the reasons given in the essay).

I am sorry if I gave the impression that the “bundle of energy” required for separation obtained in the manner described is precisely the physicists’ Planck constant, which you correctly points out needs to be in the units of (energy) x (time).

My speculative conclusion – not very original I’m afraid since I already know how Planck himself obtained his constant – is that my “bundle of energy” looks very much like the Planck constant!

Despite the analogical nature of analysis, this new perspective on Planck constant as a Mother of All Dualities can help us view:

(1) Quantum theory and its manifestations less mystically, and

(2) Mathematics and Physics as a Dual similar to many others. (Freedom-Determinism if you like: mathematics as a free creation of mind whereas physics is not complete without grounding in the results of experiments.)

Best Regards,

Than Tin

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 15, 2015 @ 20:54 GMT
Dear Than Tin,

I believe yours is the only essay to focus on duality as an unmistakably significant aspect of logical, and analogical thought. I very much appreciated your essay, and, in another context, which I hope to write up later this year, agree with you that, in some sense the Planck constant may be considered the "Mother of All Dualities". I would encourage you to continue pursuing the approach you have taken.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Neil Bates wrote on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 01:53 GMT
Edwin,

It might be helpful to readers here to repeat some of my response to you at my own essay. My argument about electromagnetic mass (in spaces of various dimensions) is somewhat complex but starts to come together for anyone with solid background who just follows along carefully. I appreciate that you are another of us, who realizes that math cannot just be glibly substituted as map for territory. There are many ways for the project to go wrong, both in terms of practical effect as well as deep questions of mind, determinism versus free action, etc.

Yes, quantum mechanics is one such area where the effort can be a morass. I read your essay awhile ago, but at this point to appreciate your basic claims and line of critique. You put a lot of effort into analyzing and teasing apart the background physics, the experimental procedure and results, and the interpretations usually provided and their weaknesses. I admit I'm not yet convinced that you are right, or if anyone can be fully correct in this difficult aspect of physics. Yet your efforts deserve credit for the amount of work you put in, and their audacity, and I see you have been rewarded here accordingly.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 22:03 GMT
Dear Neil Bates,

Thank you for your kind comment. As I noted on your thread I find your views generally compatible with my own, and found your treatment of dimension fascinating. I especially liked your statement

"All that math knows and can tell us in effect, is about math. When we think it is telling us something about "the world", we are just finding out about the model that we're using."

In my essay I discuss Bell's over-simplified physics model of Stern-Gerlach based on precession in a constant field, which leads to a null result; 0 not ±1. This contradiction is the basis upon which Bell builds his model, with well-known "logical" consequences. My model, of course does not lead to such a contradiction. Instead, it leads to local realism that produces the same correlation as quantum mechanics. As you indicate, the model did not fall together overnight, but the pieces do fall into place, after, as you say "teasing apart the background physics." It is a complex problem, and, as Jonathan noted above, of a "self-concealing nature", so I do not expect everyone to be convinced right off the bat. It does go against 50 years of gospel. But I am gratified by the number of people who make the effort to understand.

Thank you sincerely for your kind observations,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Gary Valentine Hansen wrote on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 02:36 GMT
Dear Mr. Klingman,

Your comment "We use our minds to connect math and physics" confirms the correctness of my essay heading Mind Over Matter. "Math arises in the physical world, not the other way around", and "the essence of math is awareness of relations and patterns," further confirm my understanding.

I suspect that your definitions, e, g, Theoretical Physics, Quantum Mechanics and Entanglement, are very helpful to a "well-educated but non-specialist audience" but your reliance upon mathematical equations, symbols, graphs and other diagrams to support your arguments must leave many wondering about the distinction between tricks and truth.

The name Alexander Graham Bell rings a bell, however it isn’t until one reaches page 12 that one understands that the references to Bell in the text are to J. S. Bell or John Bell, and only after reading the Bertleman reference is one given to understand that J. S. and John refer to the same person.

I enjoyed what I understood and misunderstood what I did not enjoy! That seemingly is the crux of mathematics and the sciences generally.

Good luck with your submission,

Gary Hansen.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 22:09 GMT
Dear Gary Hansen,

Thanks for reading and commenting. As you note in your first paragraph, we do agree on the overview. Your second paragraph observes that my essay is rather technical and mathematical for a "well-educated but non-specialist audience". I plead guilty to that. I'm sure you are correct that many in the audience must be left wondering about the distinction between tricks and truth.

Unfortunately, the local audience of other authors, which is the one I tend to address, generally have no problem identifying Bell, as he is almost a saint in the community. But they have been tricked by Bell for 50 years, and it is necessary to become quite technical to reveal the trick. Even then, many find it hard to believe, because it has been ingrained into them that local models cannot produce quantum results. After 50 years this has become a visceral conviction, and can not be successfully addressed with a physics-lite treatment.

I'm very glad that you enjoyed what you understood. It is unfortunate that everything cannot be understood at first reading [not by me at least] but very fortunate that re-reading complex essays increases their understandability.

Thanks for plowing through my essay. It's appreciated.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 03:42 GMT
Dear Edwin,

It’s a very good expression of Mathematics to map the physical states of structures, but for mapping the Mystery in the Map, I think we may have to map the beginning of the Universe, where the Mystery exists, while your argument on the exclusion of multiverse is true.

‘Spooky action at a distance’ may be interpreted differently in String-matter paradigm of Universe.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 22:12 GMT
Dear Jayakar,

Thanks for your very clear statement about use of math to map the physical state of structures. I agree that it is best to recognize mystery at the beginning of the universe, and not in our basic theories via such a mystical ideas as "collapse of the wave function" and "non-local entanglement".

I will read your essay and respond. I'm very biased in favor of "continuum mechanics", but against "string-matter" [as I understand it] and look forward to seeing how you manage this.

Thank you for reading and responding.

Best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 03:59 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I would like to now fulfill my promise that I made to discuss your theory further. I do not wish to duplicate points that you have discussed with others, and in light of the extensive discussions you have already had, there is really only one thing that strikes me about it.

It appears to me that much of the opposition you are running into is due to the fact that your...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Gordon Watson replied on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 05:49 GMT
Ed,

I accept that there is merit in Armin's view: It appears to him that "much of the opposition you are running into is due to the fact that your idea presents an answer to a question that nobody is currently asking."

But I write to reinforce my own view. "Your opposition in part arises from this fact: you do not answer questions that are asked by me, a fellow local-realist...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 00:01 GMT
Dear Armin,

I regret that the thread of your well formed comment was broken by nonsense.

Thanks for returning after you've had more time to review my essay. You boil it down to opposition arising from my presenting an answer to a question no one is asking. You you are probably correct in this. The treatment of Joy Christian, for example, has certainly deterred many from asking this question. It has apparently even prevented many of the establishment from reading my essay, and certainly from commenting. In short, it is a taboo question to ask whether Bell was wrong.

You correctly observed that "in order for someone to seriously consider [my] argument, they have to first be willing to question whether the Stern-Gerlach experiment really has been misinterpreted all along for the last 90 years, which is what [my] assertion amounts to."

You suggest that I collect all the SG data and statistically analyze it to show that interpreting its outcomes and binary terms is a mistake. You make a good point. But as I have a personal subscription to Phys Rev Letters, I am not in a university environment with access to all different journals, and therefore I frequently run into pay-walls. Moreover, there is abundant evidence on other FQXi threads (JC's, specifically) that people will argue statistics until the cows come home. So while your suggestion is a good one, it seems not best for me with neither access to the data nor much competence in statistics.

I certainly agree with you that the burden of proof is on me. And as others have reminded me, great claims require great proof. In my opinion, it will be easier to conduct a new SG type experiment to explicitly test for θ-dependence than it will be to gather all data and statistically analyze it, so it is my intent to perform or have performed this specific experiment. Of course, even experiments can be and are ignored, if they go against the grain (see, e.g. Martin Tajmar).

On the other hand, I think it is incontrovertible that Bell's interpretation of Stern-Gerlach leads to a contradiction. He interprets SG as a constant field through which dipoles precess, which leads to zero deflection, while the entire content of his theory requires ±1 deflection, an obvious contradiction. And it does not take much to see that when the non-constant (gradient) term is added to the Hamiltonian, then Pauli's eigenvalue equation should be affected. These are simply issues of logic that any physicist should be able to follow, and one would think they might be caused to wonder about this aspect of Bell.

In addition it is easy to show that the local model I derive does reproduce the quantum mechanical correlations [see page 7] against all gospel, and one would think this would arouse curiosity among 'real' physicists, especially when the correlation fails if Bell's constraints are imposed.

Finally, there is matter of intuition. In this contest at least Phil Gibbs and Ken Wharton have expressed that "intuition" is a thing to be wary of. Most of us are familiar with the theory that says we evolved in a macro-sized world, and therefore our intuition – whatever it is – is simply not suited to the microworld and should not be expected to be so. But my own theory of consciousness does not view consciousness as an artifact, but more as inherent in nature, not quite panpsychism, but close, and in this view intuition is less 'scale-dependent' and more in tune with the true nature of the world, in which case the intuitive rejection of non-locality is not to be dismissed.

Nevertheless, you have put quite a bit of effort into analyzing the context in which my theory is presented, and have made quite sensible suggestions. For this I thank you sincerely. Yet, as Tom Phipps remarks, the establishment knows how to close ranks in defense of the status quo, and "this means that progress can only occur from inside, and at a snail's pace."

I am not quite as old as Tom, but I am not well suited to a 'snail's pace' at my age. Better to present the logic, the history, the analysis, the model, the results, and the interpretation that contradicts Bell and then focus on an experiment that will prove [or not] my theory.

Thank you very much for your well thought out and friendly, supportive, suggestion.

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Anonymous replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 00:41 GMT
Gordon

Last year, you sent me several papers for review and comment, and at that time it appeared you may have shown the mathematical basis for my physics-based Bell argument, and you have been given full credit for your relevant contributions in my QSLR paper [reference 2]. However after several months of examining that path, I became convinced that your math did not solve the Bell problem, and yours is, in fact, a non-local approach as you depend upon bringing both Alice's and Bob's remote settings into your local calculation, as does quantum mechanics. As I am only interested in a local model, this disqualifies your approach as far as I'm concerned. As to this paper, I have properly credited all the contributions and sources.

After developing my computer simulation, I realized that it is Bell's insistence on suppressing the physics by imposing the ±1 constraints that is at the root of Bell's error. As you continue to apply these constraints, your model does not resemble my model in any way, nor does it address the problem. You have a formal, non-physical, approach that yields a non-local calculation of Bell's theorem.

As witnessed on other threads, when the code from models is introduced, all physics discussion goes out the window and the topic focuses on coding. My objective is to provide enough insight into the physics that others, skilled in both physics and computing, can independently generate the same results by following the logic I lay out, without being influenced by whatever code I have used. Bell's theorem must be discussed at the level of physics. It is not a math problem, per se, nor does your mathematical approach, devoid of physics, solve Bell's problem.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


Christian Corda wrote on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 11:33 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene,

As I told you in my Essay page, I have read your interesting Essay. I have a couple of comments:

1) I did not know Korzybski's work, thanks for pointing out it. I will take infos about.

2) Although I am not sure that the main claims of the Essay are correct, I find the work interesting and important within the debate determinism/randomness, classical/quantum physics. I find indeed the randomness of quantum mechanics to be neither completely satisfactory nor the final physical answer concerning our understanding of the world. More, the reading enjoyed me. Thus, I will give you an high score.

I wish you best luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 22:25 GMT
Dear Christian Corda,

Thanks for reading my essay and responding. I'm glad that you have discovered Korzybski. His 'map' and 'territory' is always a good distinction to keep in mind.

I'm even more pleased that you both enjoyed my essay and found it important in the context of the issues currently debated in physics.

The issue of Bell is far too complex to be understood and decided on the basis of one essay, so I am not surprised that most of the serious physicists who have looked at my essay remain "unsure". That is quite appropriate. What I hoped for was to introduce the idea that, whereas Bell's math and logic have been tested for 50 years, his oversimplified physics has been accepted without question, because it agrees with the 1925 Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck view of 'spin' and with Pauli's simple constant-field eigenvalue equation. As Jonathan notes above, the problem has a "self-concealing nature" that must be seen through before progress can be made.

And I hoped that, by showing that a local model that takes the inhomogeneous field into account actually yields the quantum mechanical correlation unless the physics information is thrown away by enforcing [unreasonable and unrealistic] constraints, it would catch the attention of serious physicists, who might then be stimulated to wonder how this is so, and thus begin the process of looking beyond Bell's overly-simply physics model. Valid math and logic applied to a faulty model, based on faulty assumptions, produce faulty conclusions, such as "no local model can...".

Thank you very much for reading and providing very valuable feedback to me.

I wish you the best also.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Pankaj Mani wrote on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 14:17 GMT
Dear Eugene,

As you have mentioned in your essay :FQXi asks why math is so ‘unreasonably’ effective in fundamental physics.

The above feature extraction is based on distances obtained from these simplest math operations, and these math operations are easily constructed from physical structures ( atoms, molecules, DNA, proteins, cells, organisms, neural nets, and logic machines )...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 22:28 GMT
Dear Pankaj Mani,

Thanks for your comments. We seem to agree that the math maps physical structures and that "math maps on physical territory form the substance of physics."

I will look at your essay on vibration. As I tend to a continuum-based interpretation of reality, vibration certainly plays a significant role in my physics, but I will study your essay and respond on your page. I have some difficulty envisioning Bell's non-locality as purely vibration-based, although for the photon-based experiments I do not rule this out.

Thanks for your kind words about by essay.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Cristinel Stoica wrote on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 16:33 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thank you for commenting on my wall and inviting me to read your essay. I just read it, and I have some questions. I apologize if they may seem naive to you.

1. Is there a typo in your proof of the energy exchange theorem, in the box at page 4?

2. Is theta the angle made by the particle's magnetic moment with the external magnetic field? This is what I understand from page 4. Or is it the angle between a and b, the directions in which Alice and Bob measure (this is what I understand from page 6)?

3. Do the two particles share the same theta?

4. When you apply the energy exchange theorem, what are the two modes M0 and M1? Are they the particle and the magnetic field of the SG device which measures its spin? Or they are the two particles?

5. Could you show me more precisely where you derive the Bell correlations from your theory?

6. Is your theory local? If so, where exactly you explain locally the correlations?

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica (link to my essay)

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 23:09 GMT
Dear Cristi Stoica,

Thank you for reading my essay, which I know is in conflict with your current view. Thus I'm really grateful to you for making the effort. I will try to answer your questions.

1. Yes, there is a typo in my energy exchange theorem, as I note above on Mar 15, 2015 @ 00:19 GMT. My essay posted on Jan 9 and I tried to submit a corrected version on Jan 10, but the [correct] FQXi policy is to not change essays after they post. It is an obvious typo and has not seemed to throw anyone off, as it is cancelled in the same line.

2. Also, as discussed in one of the many comments above, the angle θ (with one exception) always refers to the local angle between the spin and the magnetic field in the local Stern-Gerlach apparatus. Only in the figures on page 7 [where θ is shown as the horizontal axis) does θ represent the angle between Alice's setting a and Bob's setting b, which is the angle that appears in the QM correlation, -a.b. I apologize for any confusion. In Stern-Gerlach sources the angle is usually θ = (λ,B) while in Bell sources θ = (a,b).

3. No, the particles do not show the same θ. The local θ in Alice's device is θ = (λ,a) while the local θ in Bob's device is θ = (-λ,b). Only the local θ has relevance for the local physics that leads to the non-±1 scattered deflection.

4. The energy modes M0 and M1 are local. M0 is the θ-dependent precession energy associated with configuration -λ.B that is initially not aligned but vanishes when the spin λ aligns with the local field. M1 is the θ-dependent vertical component of the kinetic energy that did not exist when the particle entered on the horizontal axis with only horizontal velocity. Thus the precession energy vanishes and the deflection energy appears locally, and the local conservation follows the Energy-Exchange theorem. And as the deflection is θ-dependent, this dependence can be seen in the measurment data, but is not present in the [incomplete] quantum mechanical formulation, hence is 'hidden'.

5. The theory [based on energy exchange] calculates a local deflection for Alice denoted by A(λ,a) where both the spin λ and the setting a are randomly generated. Similarly for Bob. These produce scattering or deflections represented by the local θ-dependent position of the particle on the detecting screen. A(λ,a) is read from Alice's screen (as calculated by the theory) and B(-λ,b) is read from Bob's screen, (also calculated by the theory.) It is these two values that are multiplied in pairwise fashion to produce the correlation. But the definition of the expectation value also contains the distribution of values AB, so, as A and B are calculated for 3,000,000 sets of random numbers, the distribution of the results is determined by computer, not from a formula, but from actual data, in a multichannel-analyzer-like analysis. This is used to compute the correlation shown on page 7. The basic formula or definition of expectation value is

< AB > = SUM [ p(AB) (AB) ]

6. Yes, my theory is local, in that critical settings a and b never appear together, unlike quantum mechanics where a and b do occur in the expectation value. Of course a goes into the calculation of A(λ,a) but it is combined into a product term and cannot be factored out, so it is not present as a in the result. [Just as, if a = 4 and λ = 9, the product term 36 implicitly contains both a and λ but they cannot be explicitly factored out.] Nor is b factorable from Bob's numeric result B(-λ,b). Thus only the [computed or measured] numbers,not containing a and b, are used, and yet, given the physics of energy exchange – based on local conservation – the correlation that results is -a.b. Mine is the only theory that is truly and provably local.

The above is a very subtle point, and if you still have questions on this point I will be happy to try to answer them.

Thank you for your best wishes, and especially thanks for taking the time to read and study what you viewed ahead of time as almost certainly a waste of time (kind of like perpetual motion).

My best wishes for you Cristi,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 18:09 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thank you for the answers. Although you provided detailed answers to my questions, I still don't get it. I think I need more details. Could you please show me the formula by which Alice and Bob calculate A(λ,a), and what are the inputs? Then how to calculate from these the expectation value, so we can see if we get the same correlations as QM? Perhaps if you have a concrete example, that would be great. Sorry for not being able to find these myself, I also looked in your references [2,3], but I missed them.

Best regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 18, 2015 @ 02:08 GMT
Dear Cristi,

I am grateful that you are making the effort to understand my theory, and will try hard to assist you. It is only people like you who can actually end up accepting my theory.

Before describing the local deflection formula, let's discuss the inputs. Alice will input a, representing the orientation of her Stern-Gerlach magnetic field axis, and Bob will input b, the orientation of his device. The spins input to each are assumed to be random, and denoted by λ for Alice and the anti-correlated spin -λ for Bob.

ALL of these parameters, a, b, and λ are generated as random unit vectors in a Bloch sphere.

As you now understand, the local angle θ = (λ,a) between the local spin and Alice's (any) local SG device initially precesses, then aligns with the field, and the energy of precession is exchanged with (converted to) a vertical component of velocity, hence kinetic energy. The vertical deflection is shown to be proportional to θ, with a contribution x = X(1-cos θ) as given in my equation (4).

Now consider that the maximum force of the gradient on the dipole occurs when the dipole is aligned with the field, and this can be shown to be X where X is the first term in parentheses in equation (4). This occurs when θ = 0. So the maximum deflection will occur if the particle enters the device aligned with the field and will be X. If the particle is initially not aligned, then the deflection will be less than maximum by the amount x (eqn 4). Thus the maximum minus the θ-dependent contribution is

X - X(1-cos θ) = X cos θ.

This is the θ-dependent deflection Bob and Alice will calculate according to my energy-exchange theory. [ Noting that Alice's angle θ = (λ,a) is different from Bob's angle θ = (-λ,b)].

This formula yields a number, essentially, X cos θ, which will be sent to the statistical unit which accepts Alice's number A(λ,a) [and similarly Bob's number B(-λ,b)] and stores them as a pair for later statistical processing. As I emphasized in my previous answer, although the number was "derived from" a and λ it does not contain a or λ and therefore Alice's a and Bob's b are never present in one place, as they are in the quantum mechanical calculation of the expectation value. Thus the model is truly local.

So Alice's A output and Bob's B output, neither of which are +1 or -1 as Bell requires, are multiplied to obtain the number AB, and we ask what is the 'average' or 'expectation value' of the ABs?

The definition of this expectation value is

< AB > = Sum [ p(AB) * (AB) ] over all i

where the sum is over all ABs. [I calculate this expectation value based on 10,000 random spins for every pair of settings a and b.]

Now the AB values are easy – they are computed by simply taking Alice's deflection reading and Bob's and multiplying the two together to obtain AB. But what is the probability distribution of these ABs? As the 10,000 spins per pair (a,b) are generated randomly, the AB values cannot be calculated by a closed form analytic formula, but they are very easily grouped into bins in the manner of multichannel analyzer measurements, and from the distribution of the numbers in the bins, a probability distribution is easily generated. This is the p(AB) for a given AB over all ABs, 10,000 per (a,b) in the case shown in figure 7. This is done for 300 different values of the angle (a,b) which is labeled θ in the figure.

To summarize: if all spins entered the SG device aligned with the local field, the gradient-based force would be maximum, and the deflections would all go to the same point on the screen, normalized to +1 or -1. This is what Bell assumes. From this simple model Bell is unable to derive quantum correlations.

But the spins do not enter aligned. They enter with a random orientation, so the deflection is not maximum, X, but is proportional to the angle between the spin and the axis, and is X cos θ. This, not +1 or -1, is the deflection A (or B) sent by Alice (or Bob) to the statistical unit. For a given pair of settings (a,b) 10,000 spins are calculated, and 10,000 numbers AB are generated, and plugged into the sum, weighted by their probability p(AB). This entirely numerical procedure produces the correlation shown, -a.b, which Bell claims to be impossible.

It is a very simple classical model, which produces the quantum correlation, based on the 'real' physics of the inhomogeneous field (i.e., nonzero gradient) instead of Bell's 'unreal' constant field model which does fail to produce the quantum correlation.

Let me thank you once again for giving my theory this much attention. I am honored.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Alma Ionescu wrote on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 10:22 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Sorry for taking so long to come back but this isn’t a facile topic. I had to read your paper a few times, revisit both Bell and SG and then go through (almost all) the comments, since I had some questions and I suspected I can find the answers there (and I did). I can say it was an interesting and exciting read so I felt motivated to put some effort into understanding...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Alma Ionescu replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 11:15 GMT
I realized that I forgot to ask you something. I tried to search online for new revisions of the SG experiment but for me it proved impossible to find relevant information. Upper on the page in the comments, there’s mentioning of a serial SG where particles are prepared in one spin position, then go through a second field and still end up in both the upper and the lower half plane. Do you know if that experiment has ever been performed and what’s the result? I know you did a lot of research on the topic, so I tried to find answers to my questions in the references you used in the other two papers but couldn't; there’s just too much information. If you encountered a paper that acts as a hub and points out the most known SG type experiments, can you please tell me which one is it?

I know you already have lots of comments and I’m sorry to burden you further but you made me curious and you're very nice and answer everyone.

Alma

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 16:01 GMT
Alma,

If I may interject, it is frustrating finding reference to SG experimentation and I've noticed that there is often more about deflection of electrons than there is about neutral atoms with a magnetic moment. I think in searching, one must be aware that the focus is on the typical shaping of the magnets themselves which produces an inhomogeneous field intensity, whereas uniform magnets...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Alma Ionescu replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 17:10 GMT
JRC,

Thanks for your comment. I am not sure why you mention electrons. I explicitly mentioned uncharged particles so, worst case scenarios, I was thinking neutrinos or you haven't read my comment :)

All of my 2 questions to Edwin are genuine and I am not making any assumptions. I asked what kind of experiment would he make should he receive funding and if he can point me out some direction for further reading. I'm sure he would gladly answer the first and if he won't answer the second I guess I'll just remain curious, tough luck. I did spend a lot of time trying to understand his work (because it's very interesting) and reply to him and I am sure he does rather appreciate it. Thanks for wishing me good luck in finding SG type experiments. Cheers Alma

report post as inappropriate


Joselle Kehoe wrote on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 17:22 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Your thorough and well-presented technical argument is something I need to spend more time with. But the point of the essay is very interesting and probably worthy of a good deal of discussion. When I began studying mathematics I was most intrigued by, what my teachers often called, counter-intuitive results. I enjoyed the fact that a formalism of our own making could produce these kinds of surprises. There was some non-obvious thing about the relationship between mathematical thought and intuition. This relationship is even more interesting when one recognizes the crucial role mathematical intuition plays in developing mathematics. And so while I very much enjoy the way you use mathematics to bring a physical idea more in line with our intuition, I think I will be slow to accept that the counter-intuitive ideas are incorrect.

I do appreciate your comment on my essay and hope we find opportunities to continue to communicate,

Best,

Joselle

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 20:52 GMT
Dear Joselle,

Thank you for reading my essay closely. As you state in your essay,

"Statistics is not only intuitive, but part of our intuition. Biologically, the brain seems to be good at a kind of statistical calculation."

As I indicated, this is quite compatible with my own understanding of the brain and consciousness. But you state specifically that when you began studying mathematics you were most intrigued that your intuitive grasp of mathematics could lead to counter-intuitive results. Thus you think you "will be slow to accept that the counter-intuitive ideas are incorrect."

I think perhaps I should state more clearly that I am not opposed to all non-intuitive results of math and physics, only those that do violence to such powerful intuition as local realism. This is the most basic intuition of nature.

On the other hand I am thoroughly convinced that quantum physicists and other physicists are missing some fascinating physics exactly because non-linearity is non-intuitive and thus few can employ their intuition to profitably exploit non-linear phenomena. This is, perhaps, a matter of degree, but it is still significant from the aspect of physics. For an example of this, I refer you to the figure on page 4 of my 2013 FQXi essay: Gravity and the Nature of Information. The curve becomes almost 'straight up' at a certain point. This does not happen with linearity, for which our intuition is finely tuned.

So I highly value non-intuitive non-linearity and hope to extract real gold from this field. At the same time I reject non-locality for the physics reasons I describe in my essay. I hope this makes you a bit more comfortable with my approach to intuition.

Thank you sincerely for reading and communicating,

Best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 20:32 GMT
Dear Alma,

Thank you for the effort you have put into understanding my theory. As you note in your essay

"Mathematical physics is only as good as physical insight."

The mathematical physics surrounding Bell is primarily logic-based and is based on very simple physics that leads to a contradiction. You note in a comment that "it's easier to find a certain logical theory – one only needs a brain – than build the LHC – one needs a bit more than a brain."

Fortunately, answering the physical questions underlying my theory will not require an LHC-size expenditure of money or effort, and, from my perspective, it will have greater payback than LHC has had. The Higgs has been assumed for years, and now supposedly exists, although proving 'zero spin' should be interesting. SUSY has also been assumed for years and apparently doesn't exist. So years-long assumptions in physics do not always imply much for reality. The 50-year long assumption that "local models cannot produce QM correlations" can be overthrown by just one model that does produce QM correlations, as I have shown. But, in the spirit of FQXi, one must ask whether I have just played another mathematical trick on physicists. That is best answered by experiment, which you focus on in your comment.

As John noted, and as you had correctly qualified in your comment, Stern-Gerlach is based on uncharged particles, as the interaction of charged particles with the magnetic field is so strong as to effectively swamp the signal (deflection) from magnetic moment interactions with the field. Like me, your brain may decouple from your fingers, so that when you thought neutron, your fingers typed neutrino. I mention this because neutrons are uncharged but do possess spin and magnetic moment, the moment deriving from the charged quark constituents. Neutrinos are, as far as we know, fermions with spin but not possessing a dipole moment as they are not constructed from charged constituents. Thus neutrinos perfectly exemplify Dirac's fundamental helicity eigenvalue equation, but Pauli's provisional spin eigenvalue equation, based on the interaction of the moment with the constant field, does not apply at all. Very interesting. If that was a typo, thank you for making the typo.

Referring to the iconic postcard [p.3] it is obvious that the distribution of deflections [positions on the detector] cannot be characterized as a "point", +1 or -1. But the question is "What causes the distribution?" The assumption, for 90 years, has apparently been that variations in temperature, hence velocity, of the atoms is responsible for the data spread. Thus the key to an experiment to test θ-dependence of deflection is to 'fix' velocity, which should not be overly difficult.

If, as I assume, and as fits the facts, the spin of the particle exiting the SG-device is aligned with the field, then one can "prepare" a known spin, say 'up' in the z-direction. One must then select particles with very tightly controlled velocity and input such particles to a second Stern-Gerlach apparatus, oriented it angle θ to the z-axis, and obtain precise position measurements from the second SG-device. By varying the angle θ and comparing the deflection observed to that predicted by my theory, it should not be difficult to determine whether my theory is confirmed or not.

One assumes that, using 2015 technology, it will be possible to obtain much better results than did Stern-Gerlach in 1922. There is anecdotal evidence that it was Stern's cheap cigar whose sulfides were responsible for oxidizing the silver atoms and making them visible. We could probably do it today without the cheap cigar.

As you mention Alice and Bob, I should clarify that only one spin is needed to prove θ-dependence, whereas two (anti-correlated) spins are required for the EPR correlation test. Thus my experiment requires one SG-device to prepare the known spin, a filter to restrict velocity input to the second SG-device and a sensitive detector of position.

Alma, your bio implies that you are a non-physicist. It is fascinating to me (and very admirable) that you could work through my essay several times, and all comments above, and obtain the understanding you evidence in your comment. Contrast this with world-class experts some of whom are participating as authors in this contest who apparently will not look, let alone comment. This speaks to the social control of the established institutions, who control funding, and publications, and do not like rocking boats.

Your third paragraph in your 10:22 comment above is very well stated and proves that you clearly understand my theory. I would modify only the statement that "the spin is not necessarily quantized" [which is correct] to state that spin is a vector with magnitude and direction. The magnitude is quantized, but the direction is not. In a constant field the projection of spin on the field axis is also quantized, but this changes in an inhomogeneous field.

Your second question is the harder of the two to answer. There are very many quantum textbooks available, most of which present the classical Bell picture of precessing particles described by Pauli's eigenvalue equation and then generate the simple qubit eigenvalue equation, [see my endnotes, page 11] and go from there. In my references [2] and [4] I include more specific references. I think you might either start with my reference [2] or perhaps with, JR Stenson, 2005, “Representations for Understanding the Stern-Gerlach Effect”, thesis BYU, both of which are available online free.

Let me repeat how pleased I am that a non-professional-physicist can read my essay, understand it, summarize it in a brief paragraph, ask intelligent and relevant questions that had not been asked before, and look for further information. That has brightened my day.

My very best regards

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 22:47 GMT
Dear Alma,

There are so many interesting questions and comments, for all of which I am grateful, that I believe I missed a key question in your Mar 17@11:15 comment.

You first look for new revisions of the SG-experiment and have not had much better luck than I in finding such. It appears that from Aspect's 1982 experiment on, most, if not all experiments have been photon-based, which is another can of worms that I have not yet analyzed, as there are very significant physical differences despite the simplistic +1 and -1 logic applied. Binary counters subsume the θ-information that is quite evident in the Stern-Gerlach position-based results.

But you also mention

"Serial SG where particles are prepared in one spin position, then go through a second field and still end up in both upper and lower half planes."

You are very astute to catch this. You ask if I know whether that experiment has been performed and what is the result?

What you are describing is the scheme invented by Richard Feynman and used to develop spin-based quantum mechanics in his 1964 Lectures in Physics, vol III. It is also used to introduce quantum mechanics in JJ Sakurai's Modern Quantum Mechanics and more recently by John Townsend in A Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics, wherein he states, on page 7 that this "modified SG device" was "introduced as a thought experiment" by Richard Feynman.

It is my belief that this is still only a "thought experiment". Moreover, Feynman often stated that the fundamental mystery of QM is captured in the "two-slit" interference experiment, and he was apparently trying to construct a spin-based analog of the two-slit interference experiment. Therefore, in my opinion, Feynman assumed that the quantum mechanical treatment of spin paralleled the two-slit quantum mechanics and proceeded to present this modified SG device as if it were true!

I have recently begun questioning this in terms of my theory, and am currently developing a simulation based on energy-exchange physics to try to model this.

I consider it entirely possible that Feynman just got carried away with his analogy and made up this physics which has been accepted as gospel for lo these 50 years. [You read it here first!] I believe it may be possible to actually perform a version of this experiment, and, although it's too early for me to be sure, I rather expect his physics to fail.

Feynman was such a genius, and so sharp-witted and sharp tongued, that I'm sure no one called him on this, as the analogy is almost perfect. But is it true? Stay tuned.

Thanks again for your exceedingly valuable questions.

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Alma Ionescu replied on Mar. 18, 2015 @ 20:25 GMT
Dear Edwin,

A pleasure to read your answer! Thank you for your very kind and encouraging words :) I was just as happy as you that I was able to follow through the argument; otherwise I would have been in a delicate position when it came to commenting, haha

It’s very true that I sometimes type something else than I had in mind, and usually a word that’s similar to the one I want...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 19, 2015 @ 04:03 GMT
Dear Alma,

After I posted my last reply I re-read your comment and saw that you said "worst-case scenarios, I was thinking neutrinos…" which implies that neutrinos was not a typo. But it was too late to change my remarks. I continue to like your brand of humor.

You ask if the distance between the devices (an experimental test of my theory) is important. I don't think so. Distance traveled can amplify the apparent deflection, but I am assuming strong enough magnetic fields that this should not be needed.

I very much appreciated your bringing up Feynman's gedankenexperiment, as I am cautiously optimistic that this may be a significant difference between QM and the classical local model, and, as such, a very important test. As I noted, I will first try to simulate it.

Your final sentence correctly uses the word "trapped". Fortunately, I have been independent for long enough that I am not trapped, and therefore can afford to break taboos.

Finally, I do not expect to convince many people that Bell is wrong with my essay. My hope is that I will convince a number of people that Bell may be wrong, based on my analysis. This would represent a very significant change from today's situation, in which Bell's [erroneous, imo] conclusions are stated as fact. I believe that time and effort spent on understanding my theory will call Bell's physical assumptions into question and I have faith that once the questioning begins, the right answer will be forthcoming.

My best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Neal Graneau wrote on Mar. 18, 2015 @ 00:06 GMT
Hello Edwin,

As far as the testing of Bell's theorem, you clearly have more intricate knowledge than me. I only know the old school IAAAD arguments of Bell, Bohm and Vigier etc. However, it strikes me that you are claiming the eliminating the +/- 1 eigenvalue restriction allows a local theory to explain the results of Aspect and other related experiments. This does not rule out that it may still be a non-local quantum potential that also explains the results. It may just be that Bell's inequalities are no longer able to determine whether interactions are local or non-local. I am quite prepared to believe that.

Congratulations on a very thought provoking essay.

Regards

Neal

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 18, 2015 @ 02:42 GMT
Hi Neal,

Thanks for your comment on my essay. I have analyzed Bell's model extensively. Bohm's model was essentially spin-less, and his 'quantum potential' would seem to go against your position on fields. As I indicate on page 9 of my essay, it is important to keep in mind that the linear momentum |p> and the intrinsic angular momentum |s> are connected only by a tensor product, which is just a trick for keeping them operationally separate while appearing to be 'joined at the hip' into one state vector |ps>.

My position is that Bell's inequalities are meaningless, as they are derived based on a simple physical model that begins with a contradiction, and goes downhill from there. If your theory is correct, then the entire universe is "non-local" (IAAAD) so Bell is small potatoes. Else, Bell is non-local in an otherwise local universe.

Thanks for reading and commenting, and thanks for your response to my questions on your thread.

Best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Cristinel Stoica wrote on Mar. 19, 2015 @ 08:25 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thank you for your patience with which you answered my questions.

You wrote "I know I have a long way to go to convince the physics community, but it begins with being taken seriously and with discussion of the theory and potential experiments."

I think you should be the one to make the effort to explain and prove your theory, and I think I know what you should do....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 20, 2015 @ 03:56 GMT
Cristi,

You've been more than fair in critiquing the work that generally goes against your beliefs, which is admirable. I will respond to your points below.

1. If by "calculation of the angles" you mean "derivation of the formula", I agree. As for the hundred and 34 page reference, I wrote this after understanding the physics of energy exchange, but before I built a model and...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 22, 2015 @ 21:56 GMT
Hello Ed,

I had to think for a while, before I could answer the deep questions you asked on my essay page, but I finally replied briefly and I copy my reply below, as it is a self-contained unit.

JJD

Jonathan said:

You give me quite a lot to think about. I think the biggest determiner of what (Math) fundaments find expression in Physics is that structures must be consistent both internally and externally, both globally and locally. That is; a form must agree with itself, and also with the space or universe it inhabits, including any fields the space or its forms might contain.

I see self-agreement of this type and the self-similarity in fractals to be harmonious concepts. There is an internal symmetry to the star-like sunburst shapes, for example, but they conform at the periphery to the surrounding space. This reflects a similar sensibility to your comments, as what is observed from the macro scale is always an inexact symmetry, but asymptotic to an exact and ideal symmetry at the core.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 10:39 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Following further thoughts and the light thrown on the subject, I will be posting a follow up where I left off above.

I may also be posting on a more public forum for others to comment, but not sure about that yet.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 05:29 GMT
Dear Akinbo Ojo,

I'm glad you've returned. I will respond in-line above. -- Edwin Eugene Klingman




Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 17:06 GMT
Hi Ed,

I am re-posting this entry from the general contest forum here, because my reply to Sylvain Poirier relates directly to your essay, and I speak in defense of your ideas. More broadly speaking; this also offers support to Michael Goodband's contest essay and some of the ideas expressed by J. Christian, but I felt the comment I'm replying to was overly dismissive. Briefly; he claimed that both you and Kadin are in denial because "local deterministic realism has been refuted."

Regards,

Jonathan

Jonathan J. Dickau said:

There is a sensitive dependence..

Precise definitions of 'local' and 'realistic' are required, and must be applied consistently throughout, because points that are close initially or appear identical, diverge later as any line of reasoning is followed. This could allow two different conclusions, with no logical missteps, because the bounding surface is a chaotic attractor.

Did you grasp that Ed Klingman is using Dirac's criterion Sylvain, instead of Pauli's? If you accept Dirac's formula, it naturally follows that Pauli's criterion in QM has a restricted codomain - which is only reasonable if the Physics of the experimental setup demand it. This is what Edwin Klingman calls into question, and changes the outcome if all other logical steps are the same.

So while, in some limited sense, local deterministic realism has been refuted, this does not speak to all of the subtle questions raised by EPR, and only applies if we use precisely the same definition used by Bell. I do not question that you may be correct; but I am universally skeptical of claims that various principles are decisively proved or refuted, and I look for further evidence that affirms or calls these claims into question.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 05:38 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

I appreciate your comments here and on other threads. And you do it so well, with the same insight that showed when you labeled the problem 'self-concealing'.

If there has been specific argument about facts, I have missed this. Instead, I'm accused of being a "denier", which is the current approach one takes when one wishes to dismiss another's arguments. More specifically, I'm accused of denying "established truths". Of course the only relevant truths that have been established by experiment is the fact that Bell's model, on which he bases his conclusions, fails to agree with either the quantum mechanical predictions or with experimental results. Bell concludes from this that no local model can produce quantum mechanical correlations but my essay presents a local model that does just this.

No one is arguing with me about the fact that Bell assumes the precessing particle, leading to an inherent contradiction with experiment, is precessing in a constant field and produces no deflection, while the experiment is based on deflection.

Akinbo Ojo said it best when he asked for a short list of "established truths" that must not be opposed according to the particular critics "professional way of doing physics."

Have fun,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Jonathan Khanlian wrote on Mar. 23, 2015 @ 19:11 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I'm a little jealous that you haven't made it around to my Digital Physics movie essay yet. Don't you have the time to thoughtfully comment on every essay? :)

Also, all this talk of Bell's Inequality without mentioning Leggett's? Are you familiar with that experiment? Any thoughts on that?

Jon

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 06:47 GMT
Hi Jon,

Thank you for your lighthearted comment. When I first reviewed your essay, I did not find that much physics to remark on. But after seeing a number of your comments on other threads I decided to go back for a second look, but had not done so yet. Having quickly glanced at your essay again, let me say that I find your set of questions at the back very worthwhile. I believe it is hard for most people to ask good questions and yet a properly phrased question can lead to new insights.

I made similar movies in the 70s, so I understand your urge, but mine had only minor local success [i.e., local colleges, etc.] I wish you the best of luck with yours. It's a hard field to break into.

I have not extensively studied Leggett's inequality. I reject his two-state version for the same reasons I describe in my essay, it is physically unrealistic – at least for Stern-Gerlach experiments. And I have not analyzed photon-based experiments to the same level that I have SG experiments. I have not studied Leggett's N-state version. I believe it gets into "quantum decoherence" arguments and I am not impressed with this program. Most such arguments also depend on counterfactualism, about which I also have severe reservations. Finally, I tend to agree with Bell when he noted that the only thing impossibility proofs prove is a lack of imagination.

Did you have any reaction to my arguments in my essay?

Best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




James W Baldwin wrote on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 02:18 GMT
Mr Klingman:

You have a very impressive resume - your understanding of physics is quantum levels above mine (pun intended). But let me take the role of Simplico to your Galileo and make a few notes and ask a few questions about your essay.

We're on the same path when you say that "math is the map and the physical world is the territory." And there are many maps, some of which describe the territory very well and some (to jump to your conclusion) apply the wrong map to the territory.

I did notice your thought that "Multiverse maps point to no observed territory. Nor do string maps." I have thought this to myself as well, but these theories seem like sacred cows and that to suggest they might be incorrect seems akin to blasphemy. I glad that someone who knows a lot more about this than I do seems to believe the same thing.

Now onto your main thesis, the discussion of Bell's theorem. What I know of this theorem comes from the book "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Gary Zukav (1979). He summarized the theory as two particles A & B head off in different directions. If the spin of particle B, which is now far from A, is changed, then particle A also changes its' spin accordingly. And it seems to do this instantaneously (faster than light). This created quite a stir in the "New Age" community as providing evidence that everything in the Universe is connected.

So, based on this, does your theory accept or reject this ? Is there truly a communication faster than light ? And, perhaps most importantly, can we test it ?

That's my Simplico view.

Jim Baldwin

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 24, 2015 @ 07:15 GMT
Dear Jim,

I very much enjoyed your essay and recommend it to others. As you note there is considerable overlap in our views. You are also correct that not everyone recognizes that multiverse maps point to no observed territory, but, on the other hand, quite a number of us do. And yes, for many they are sacred cows.

I'm familiar with Zukov's book (or was in 1979) and, in short, do not require entanglement to realize that everything in the universe is connected. The gravitational field, for example, connects everything in the universe. But as far "instantaneous" connection, as implied by entanglement, my theory rejects this. If you view the figure at the bottom of page 6 in my essay, the difference between Bell's local model [the straight line] and quantum mechanics and experimental results [the cosine curve] is shaded. It is the shaded area that represents 'entanglement'. Bell concluded [based on the failure of his own oversimplified local model] that no local model could produce the cosine curve [mine does, see page 7]. Thus there had to be "something" to explain reality [i.e., the cosine correlation] so entanglement was invented. If my local model produces the cosine curve [it does] then the shaded area vanishes and there is no need for entanglement. I have not yet analyzed photon-based experiments sufficiently to draw the same conclusion, but I expect that will be the case.

The issue of "communication faster than light" in terms of entanglement, is a little more complex, and people argue over the exact meaning of 'communication', but my theory rejects entanglement in the Bell sense, at least where it relates to Stern-Gerlach experiments.

Thanks for reading and commenting, and thanks for entering your excellent essay in the contest.

Best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Steven P Sax wrote on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 08:26 GMT
Edwin, your essay is excellent and very stimulating to read - it offers a fascinating approach to Bell's theorem and to reclaiming the intuition of locality. I really liked how you gave a fresh analysis while covering all the technical background very informatively. It reminds me in many ways of the style in your other essays and comments. My essay also addresses intuition and "changing the map" via different representations. Also, I discuss how non-locality can instead be understood as the physical manifestation of superposition expressed through alternate universes and invoked from a self-referential operation, and I back this up technically. Your focus was a little different, and I like your take on expanding what otherwise was considered to be restraints in measurement theory - your ideas are very inspiring.

Thoroughly a great contribution to the forum and I rated this very highly, the top. Please take a moment to check out my essay and to rate it as well.

Thanks, Steve

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 18:26 GMT
Hi Steve,

Thanks for your very kind remarks on my essay.

I very much enjoyed your essay. While ordinarily I tend to think of coordinates as simply a labeling convention, your discussion of inertia and the fact that "Any mathematical representation still depends on physical assumptions, and changing the mathematical representation changes the physical explanation we use." And, per gravity, changing the physical assumptions changes the mathematical representation of space-time.

This perspective certainly applies to Bell's theorem. When one changes the physical assumption from "precession in a constant field" to "scattering in a non-constant field" the representation changes from Pauli's provisional binary map to a continuum-based scattering spectrum, with consequent changes in correlation.

Your treatment of computation is excellent, beginning with "every finitely realizable physical system can be perfectly simulated by a … computing machine…" My Automatic Theory of Physics explores this point and [page 10 in my essay] I show how the automaton's 'next-state-address' corresponds to the physics 'potential' by linking the canonical automaton to Feynman's QFT kernel.

Your explanation that undecidability of self-referential statements can be traced to endless loops that destroy causality is excellent. Your further discussion of half pulses, not gates, and your insights for future research are fascinating. Thank you for your essay.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




En Passant wrote on Mar. 25, 2015 @ 21:26 GMT
Dear Alan/Edwin,

I am sorry to “borrow” your respective essay pages to make the following points (and I sincerely hope it does not affect your ratings adversely).

Mathematics is our investigation into our own brains (codified in the language of mathematics). It requires great creativity for it to be fruitful. Physics, then, would be the attempt to express (explain) in a “language” (usually mathematics) how things behave in the universe.

Let’s not forget that the referents of “mathematics” and “physics” did not exist prior to human existence. We get to define what those terms mean.

Much is being made of the success of mathematics (being taken to its logical conclusions) in “predicting” certain results that are later confirmed by experiments (or aligned with physics theory). This should not be a surprise. It is not mathematics alone that derived the said conclusions. The terms (i.e. qualities) at first established to have mathematically valid relationships are just “rehashed” (using mathematics) into new physical relationships. Those physical relationships existed prior to that, and the mathematical “machinations” simply converted the already known relationships into ones that existed in physics, but had not yet been expressed in their new form.

I am only writing this for those who can understand it. Please don’t ask me to explain it.

You cannot have a scientific theory that is based on probability, and expect to derive new physical relationships from there indefinitely. Only deterministic physical theories (i.e. ones that can be taken to logical conclusions without “end”) will work in the long run.

Soon, our garden will melt, and I will be busy interacting with the universe “first hand.”

En

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 26, 2015 @ 02:01 GMT
Dear En Passant,

You make a very interesting observation:

"You cannot have a scientific theory that is based on probability, and expect to derive new physical relationships from there indefinitely. Only deterministic physical theories (i.e. ones that can be taken to logical conclusions without “end”) will work in the long run."

Edwin Eugene Klingman



En Passant replied on Mar. 27, 2015 @ 00:27 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Considering your response to my comment, I will “improve” upon my comment.

If the universe was not what we ordinarily call deterministic, it would have disappeared by now.

I am sure this will invite many contrary opinions.

En

report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on Mar. 27, 2015 @ 03:26 GMT
En,

That sounds true to me but I don't think you can prove it. Wait, where have I heard that before?

Best Regards,

Gary Suimpson

report post as inappropriate


William T. Parsons wrote on Mar. 27, 2015 @ 17:22 GMT
Hi Dr. Klingman--

A truly excellent essay! Congratulations. I have always loved Korzybski's dictum, "The map is not the territory". I think that you applied it perfectly to the question of the relation between physics and math. Maps are merely tools to aid in our navigation of the terrain. Just so, math is a tool to aid in the navigation of our physical world. In terms of the Big Picture, I align with you.

As to the issue of Bell's Theorem, I confess that your grasp of quantum mechanics (QM) far exceeds mine. So, permit me to ask the proverbial stupid questions: How does your energy exchange model handle space-like entanglement situations? Do space-like correlations entail more-or-less instantaneous exchanges of energy? If so, how does that work, especially with respect to Special Relativity?

I suspect that you have already answered these types of question someplace in your ~300 posts and threads (which has to be some sort of record and leaves me overwhelmed!). If so, just point me to the right thread and I'll take it from there.

Once again, a great essay. I really liked you diagrams, too.

Best regards,

Bill.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 27, 2015 @ 19:28 GMT
Hi Bill,

Thanks for your very positive comments. I'm glad you enjoyed my essay as much as I did yours.

As I understand your question, you are interpreting energy-exchange as a global phenomena between remote particles. Instead, it is a local exchange between two modes of the particle: the precession-mode (rotational) energy and the deflection-mode (linear) kinetic energy. [Think of molecules that exchange energy between their own vibrational and rotational energy modes.] As the dipole moment aligns with the field, the precession energy vanishes, while the particle is accelerated up (or down) and this component of kinetic energy increases. This exchange of energy correlates with the output of the Stern-Gerlach experiment; the particle is scattered in an inhomogeneous field. So there is no energy exchange between remote particles, only between modes of each local particle. The amount of energy exchange depends upon the initial spin direction, i.e., upon the angle θ between local spin and local field, hence the output position is θ-dependent. Bell suppresses and does not consider this θ-dependent physics.

As a result of the θ-dependent physics, the position of the scattered particles varies, and is not +1 or -1 as Bell insists. Thus the correlation between Alice's and Bob's outputs does not yield Bell's straight line, but instead yields the cosine curve -a.b predicted by quantum mechanics and found by experiment.

Entanglement was invented to explain the difference between Bell's local model and reality (the end-to-end correlation). But my local model does not differ from the real correlation, hence there is no need to either invent or invoke entanglement. Therefore, local energy-exchange between local particle modes and the lack of entanglement for my local model means that there is no 'instantaneous' global (end-to-end) exchange of anything, hence no need for entanglement, hence no special relativity issues.

The remainder of my essay examines why Bell ignored this θ-physics, and I concluded that, by assuming a precessing particle in a constant field instead of a particle scattered by a non-constant field, he applied the wrong (Pauli's provisional) eigenvalue 'map' to the physics problem. It's complex, and as Jonathan Dickau remarks, a "self-concealing" problem. So most of the analysis of Bell's theorem for 50 years has focused on probability, math, logic, and counterfactualism, and simply accepted that Bell's 'constant field approximation' was correct. But it is not appropriate, and thus one should not draw such hugely non-intuitive conclusions as 'non-locality' from an inappropriate approximation.

Thanks for putting the effort into understanding a complex essay. [It's not as if your own essay was simple!]

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



William T. Parsons replied on Mar. 30, 2015 @ 16:46 GMT
Hi Dr. Klingman--

Yes, you correctly interpreted my question. Thank you for taking the time to provide an answer. It was very clear. I wish you all the best.

Bill.

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 30, 2015 @ 15:33 GMT
Dear Dr. Klingman,

I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally well written and I do hope that it fares well in the competition.

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 7, 2015 @ 02:43 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher,

Thank you for your kind remarks. I have responded as you asked on your essay page.

Best Regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Apr. 6, 2015 @ 19:11 GMT
EEK,

Well researched worthy of scientific publication. Addresses a thorn in everyone's side i.e. non-locality.

- You integrated well a few FQXI questions in the body of your discourse.

- My take on bell's experiment; Once one addresses a single photon polarization, this polarization becomes a quantum number which, under the constraint of the analyzer (measurement) must assume only discrete values: 0 or 90 degrees... Other values are to be rounded off to these two values... My understanding of QM.

very good job,

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 7, 2015 @ 03:04 GMT
Dear Marcel,

Thanks for reading my essay and commenting so graciously. As you imply, most Bell-type experiments are performed with photons, which I've not yet analyzed in equivalent detail. But Bell's basic model was based on the Stern-Gerlach experiment on particles in a magnetic field, and all references that I've seen in the literature state that "no local model" can yield the quantum correlation. Thus, while I've not yet analyzed photon experiments, I have shown that the general statement about local realism in the physics literature is incorrect. One might hope this would cause physicists to ask why they have been wrong for 50 years about particles, and perhaps not be so absolutely certain about photon-based experiments. That doesn't seem to be happening.

I still consider your essay on the logic of the substantial universe to be one of the best ever.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



John R. Cox replied on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 19:37 GMT
Dear Doc,

I'm taking a bit of a break, I have a low saturation point, but look in on a few things. Analysis of Aspect type 'photon' experiments opens the classical vs. Quantum can of worms, and either way is structured on the premise that the Planck quanta is indivisibly a fundamental energy action quantity, and a lot of times theoretically taken only as the energy term instead of erg...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 23:36 GMT
Dear jrc,

I agree that Aspect opens a can of worms, and the θ-dependence that is visible in the SG deflection measurement is subsumed in the "binary" photon count. Which means it will be even harder to convince Bell's followers that the model is oversimplified.

As for Constantinos Ragazas' treatment of Planck's constant, I too am very impressed, but I too am unsure of its ontological implications. In my view of physics, the basic quantum is that of action (energy x time) and this is a very basic ontology, not a mathematical theorem. I haven't sorted these issues out to my own satisfaction.

I have tried to interpret the "staged half pulses" and have not found the descriptions sufficient for this. Perhaps the 87 page thesis you linked to will explain it better. I'll also try understand your comments on 'precession'. I'm actually working on precession now with regard to Stern-Gerlach models and energy exchange, in order to better define the experiment to test my theory.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




sherman loran jenkins wrote on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 06:01 GMT
Edwin Klingman,

Your essay does a good job addressing the subject and of suggesting experiments that could contradict Bell’s theorem. There is ample reason to question the long standing reign of Bell’s conclusion. I do have a question which I will post in responce to your comments on my essay.

Sherman Jenkins

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 23:05 GMT
Dear Sherman Jenkins,

Thank you for reading my essay and responding as you have. I have responded further on your essay page.

My best wishes for you,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




KoGuan Leo wrote on Apr. 17, 2015 @ 01:34 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thanks for your kind comment in my blog.

I always enjoy reading your erudite essays that combine humanity and science. Yes, we do have similar worldview that I think is simply logical, rational and shockingly simple. I agree with you that reality is a brute force one cannot ignore: you put it bluntly: "The physical world does exist, as anyone can prove by jumping from a high place." Another I also believe in: "Specifically, what should we do when map logic conflicts with our physical intuition? I believe that the physical world can be trusted."

I know community find my essay is too abstracts with many Chinese, Shakespearian and Greek philosophy that difficult to understand but actually it is so simple based on reality as it is like yours. I believe in nature is infinite, thus, everything is paradoxically true like both local and non-local communications and events of nature. I describes this phenomena in KQID. Therefore, your conclusion that Bell's non-local entanglement could be explained also in local causality make sense to me. I believe this is correct. You have done great work and path a new insight of nature as it is.

Let us work together to make our world a better place for all, including aliens, cyborgs and self-conscious robots and androids. I would like to visit your Caligornia sunny hut and together every morning we declare: we are in paradise! I voted your piece the highest score possible and good luck my friend.

Best wishes,

Leo KoGuan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 17, 2015 @ 20:48 GMT
Dear Leo,

Thank you for reading my essay and for your gracious comments. I agree that we share what is essentially a simple view of physical reality, as both real and trustworthy. Your essays always celebrate the infinite goodness of this marvelous world with classic wisdom and with modern concepts, which sometimes makes it hard to grasp the specifics of your ideas in a short essay, but the overall idea is quite easy to grasp. We live in Paradise.

My warmest regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Richard Gill wrote on Apr. 17, 2015 @ 05:49 GMT
It is nice that Edwin Klingman confirms Bell's theorem: when, in his local hidden variables model, he forces a reduction of A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda) to binary (+/-1) he sees correlations which satisfy Bell's theorem bounds.

I think he should take a look at the state-of-the-art experiments done with photons. Where the outcomes certainly are binary: a detector either clicks in some time...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 17, 2015 @ 21:02 GMT
Dear Richard Gill,

Thanks for your comments. It's good to hear from you. You are quite knowledgeable about Bell's theorem, and you have grasped a major point of my approach, which is that my theory does confirm Bell's theorem that quantum correlations cannot be matched when Bell constrains the outputs A(a,λ) and B(b,-λ) to ±1 .

My further point is that this mathematical restriction is non-physical, based on Bell's oversimplified model, at least in the case of Stern-Gerlach-based experiments.

Of course you are correct to observe that I should also analyze photon-based experiments, which I hope to do in the future. I am currently attempting to model my proposed SG-experiment and I'm working with others to perform the experiment.

Thank you for including the links to the Christiansen and Giustina experiments, with a brief overview of these. I'll check them out.

I also appreciate your comments on the last 50 years of Bell's experiments and I agree with you that it is likely that a new experimental era of Bell's experiments will make a lot of the discussion of the last 50 years superfluous.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman



Richard Gill replied on Apr. 19, 2015 @ 11:59 GMT
Thanks Edwin for the appreciation.

Bell's theorem (the inequality part) is mathematically speaking a complete triviality. Hence (of course, IMHO) your model confirms that quantum correlations cannot be matched when the outputs are constrained. Yes. The theorem is about binary outputs.

Some people identify "Bell's theorem" with a metaphysical statement about non-locality of QM. For...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 20, 2015 @ 01:04 GMT
Richard,

I'd like to address several of your points:

a.) The essential triviality of Bell's inequality, based on binary outcomes.

b.) The metaphysical implications: realism, locality, logic (or conspiracy).

c.) The meaning of your fifth case, "that QM is wrong?"

To avoid a very long comment, I will limit this comment to a.).

I certainly agree that (the inequality part) of Bell's theorem is, mathematically speaking, a complete triviality. And, as you note, my local model of spin in a non-constant field shows that quantum correlations cannot be matched when the outputs are constrained. As Tim Maudlin repeats above in many different ways, "the theorem is about binary outputs."

The question (to a physicist) is what is the relevance of the theorem about binary outputs to physics? The implication seems to be that QM predicts ±1 and that the QM correlation agrees with experiment. Is that true?

My interpretation of Bell's model is that he applies the wrong quantum mechanical map, Pauli's equation, which is applicable only to a constant magnetic field. The correct QM map would include the deflection energy in the Hamiltonian and would produce a split continuous spectrum of outputs (as observed in Stern-Gerlach), not a binary output. My local model does produce this continuum, and the values are correlated as both QM and experiment imply.

The first objection to this might be simply that "the binary model of QM works!" But is that a consequence, or is in an obvious coincidence?

The question is whether the 'binary' (±1) nature of Bell's (mis-)interpretation of Pauli has anything to do with the correlation? I believe it does not.

Where, in the QM singlet-based expectation value (see eqn (1) in my essay) does the binary nature exhibit itself? One might claim, and even believe, that the sigma-dot-a and sigma-dot-b must be ±1, but the same correlation is obtained from measurements yielding the X cos(θ) values that my model produces.

Discussion of Bell's theorem seems to assume a quantum mechanical 'calculation' based on actual measurement values (assumed identically equal to eigenvalues.) But that is not how the calculation is performed. Instead, the formal QM expression is written down [see the singlet eqn (1)] and the formalism assumes that the correct eigenvalues are being measured. Then, the usual approach to calculating the expectation value [see Peres, page 162 or JJ Sakurai, page 165] is based on an identity that is essentially a geometric relation, independent of the values of a or b or sigma-dot-a, etc.

What is often forgotten is that (per MJW Hall) Bell's theorem includes the physical requirement of perfect anti-correlation when a = b. This implies normalization, since the -1 correlation must obtain, whatever the actual energy eigenvalues. [In fact the 'numbers' are E = ±hw/2, not ±1. I.e., normalization is built-in.]

I think that it is difficult, on a physical basis, to prove that the expectation value -a.b derives from the binary nature of the Stern-Gerlach measurement. And, having briefly looked at the links you provided above, it is also difficult for me to relate the rules:

'+1' stands for "one or more detector clicks",

'-1' stands for "no detector clicks",

to any underlying physics, whatever the statistical significance.

But, as I have noted, I have yet to perform an equivalent analysis of photon physics [equivalent to my SG-analysis]. On the other hand, Bell's derivation, description, and explanation of his model is primarily in terms of Stern-Gerlach, so I don't think SG can be just 'written-off' as some seem inclined to do.

Thanks again for your observations,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 19, 2015 @ 23:33 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I don't doubt your conclusion that "Bell's 50 year old proof of the non-local nature of the Universe is an over-simplified solution to a complex problem". But I partly disagree with your map/territory analogy, and I disagree with what you say about numbers. (However, I'm glad we both seem to agree that consciousness is fundamental and physically real, and that there is no...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 20, 2015 @ 01:46 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

As you rightly note, we agree on the big things, and the small things will work themselves out.

From my imposition of mathematical 'maps' on physical 'territory', and my trust in the physical world to tell us (in essence, by answering our experimental questions) which maps are valid and which are not, you seem to conclude that I imply that the nature of the underlying physical world cannot be known.

As a physicist, developing theories to communicate models of reality to others, that is probably a reasonable conclusion. But as a living individual with consciousness, experience, and intuition, I have a personal understanding of the underlying nature of reality. One of the greatest physicists, Richard Feynman, said that, in essence,

"More can be known than can be proved."

I generally agree with your third paragraph. As for numbers and counting, I believe you are looking at a level above the actual physical phenomena that counters "do". As I understand biology, there are number of "counting" operations that occur at the protein level. And silicon counting chips are really quite simple, despite that they did not evolve but were designed by complex consciousness. But I think your last paragraph conveys what you're trying to say here. I did not mean to imply that individual fundamental particles count. But I don't think that many particles must be put together before a primitive count, applicable to local circumstances, can occur. The more generalized counting, as performed in computers and brains are of course very high level, as you insist.

Thanks very much for reading my essay and for giving me these comments.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Apr. 20, 2015 @ 19:04 GMT
Edwin,

Thank you for the well-written and interesting essay.

In Einstein relativity, an object must be local, meaning a particle cannot be at one location one moment and a different location the next moment going faster than light in the process. Quantum mechanics is non-local, meaning a particle can be anywhere in its associated matter wave (some locations are more likely than others). Bell’s inequality shows that (if quantum mechanics is correct) a local unknown variable cannot exist. Some non-local variable can exist and stay true to Bell’s inequality. Some feel that is non-local variable in the form of entanglement could be instantaneous. Although instant communication is not disallowed by Bell’s inequality it is not require by the inequality, instant communication does violate relativity and has not been found experientially.

All the best,

Jeff Schmitz

report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Apr. 20, 2015 @ 20:58 GMT
Jeff,

Thank-you. That is the most comprehensible concise statement I've read about the Bell controversy. jrc

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 20, 2015 @ 22:04 GMT
Dear Jeff,

Thanks for reading my essay and for your thoughtful comment. I agree with your statement about relativity being local. The question of the non-locality of quantum mechanics is less clear and would appear to be interpretation-dependent. A key question is whether the wave function is ontological or epistemological, which, according to my endnotes quotation from Matt Leifer, is currently not known. My own opinion is that the wave function is ontological, and further, is induced by the linear momentum of the particle, |p> providing both real particle-and-wave aspects, as opposed to particle-or-wave. In this perspective, although the actual location of the particle may be known (quantum mechanically) only probabilistically, it is in reality relatively local. My picture is 'Bohm-like' but is not identical to Bohm's.

Of significance in this picture of a local particle-plus-wave is the particle's spin |s>. As I point out on page 9 of my essay the standard QM wave function |ps> is actually a tensor product |ps> = |p> x |s> which is a mathematical trick to keep these separate entities joined-at-the-hip while making sure that the mathematical operations on the entities remain separate. Although the same quantum formalism is applied to linear momentum |p>, and intrinsic angular momentum, |s>, I do not perceive spin as inducing the deBroglie-like "matter-wave". Much of the weirdness of quantum mechanics is actually associated with the treatment of spin 'as-if' it also had an associated matter wave.

In other words, I view quantum mechanics as a powerful statistical theory of real particles, not an essentially mathematical, almost non-physical, and rather mystical phenomenon. I agree with jrc that you have concisely summarized the prevailing perspective on QM. If, as I propose in my essay, Bell's model is actually oversimplified, then it is not clear what physical significance Bell's theorem actually has. Of course until I can treat the case of photons, most physicists seem reluctant to doubt Bell. As you noted in your response to my comment on your page, "a useful model is a wonderful thing".

All the best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 01:26 GMT
Edwin,

Thank you for the vote of confidence. I am doubly glad that you did vote, because I had read your essay early on, and neglected to rate it, so I am happy to do that now that you brought it to my attention..

I just couldn't think of what more to say. Though our mathematical methods differ widely, there are many physical principles on which we agree.

All best in the competition,

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 05:28 GMT
Edwin,

Many thanks for the encouragement. I see that part of your voting strategy is to vote late. You are a wise man:-)

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on May. 3, 2015 @ 07:43 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Thank you very much. Not just do the 315 postings concerning your essay so far clearly demonstrate the by far dominating interest in your essay. I also appreciate the very numerous and utterly helpful comments on essays by other contestants. Here you did not just address the essence quickly and precisely. You even decided to read some essays again after a while and provide an even more expert judgment.

I see you the uncrowned king of the contest.

All the best,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Bob Shour wrote on Jul. 16, 2015 @ 13:50 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

I don't know if a post after the conclusion of the contest will reach you, but I am hoping it will.

In retrospect, your essay was the most substantive for me because it dealt with quantum entanglement. I have a speculation about the role of dual reference frames in reference to entanglement. Might you care to read it? It is posted on ResearchGate as Entropy, Dimension, Reference Frames. I would be interested in your views because your article seemed to be skeptical about the 1982 experiment in a learned way, and because some of your comments in the article seem to resonate with ideas in the RG article I posted.

Best wishes

Bob Shour

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.