Dear Gary Simpson.
Thank you for your post and for your insightful comments and questions. You clearly have background and knowledge in the field of quantum theory and physics of quantum particles. I can also see from your own essay that you have extensive mathematical skills and understanding. I also see that you’ve read and that you understand the gist of my essay. Your questions...
view entire post
Dear Gary Simpson.
Thank you for your post and for your insightful comments and questions. You clearly have background and knowledge in the field of quantum theory and physics of quantum particles. I can also see from your own essay that you have extensive mathematical skills and understanding. I also see that you’ve read and that you understand the gist of my essay. Your questions seem to be right on and I’ll try to respond as briefly as I can.
First of all, my essay deals with two related areas: 1. Whether or not our universe can possibly be defined as a stochastic process design, and 2. The question of how does the current Quantum Mechanics model of quantum particles fit into a physical real-world design process since the QM model contains non-physical and what appears, to me, to be “magical” kinds of phenomena. These phenomena include “quantum entanglement,” the existence of the “qubit,” and that “simultaneous multiple paths” are taken by a free particle in traveling from one point in space to another point.
In studying the universal design question, I examined the published arguments and proofs given by modern atheists and other scientists that the universe is “not a design.” I believe that I can show that their arguments are flawed, but I won’t go into that here. I also based my suggested conclusions of universal design on my own experience in designing stochastic processes of physical systems.
Now to your comments and questions regarding the QM versus my suggested physical model of quantum particles which includes the “pure spin” model:
Simpson: “Stochastic methods are an interesting way of approaching this problem. A normal distribution is defined by both an average value and a standard of deviation ... so presumably you must use values for both in your models.”
My model is based on assuming that Schrodinger’s wave probability function f(x) applies in my physical model as it does in the QM model. The main difference in the two models is in the interpretation of the variable x in f(x). In the QM model, x is assumed to be the true particle position which is hidden, actually existing in real time in a probabilistic state. (I personally do not understand what this really means; that a physical property can exist in a probabilistic state.) In my physical model, I assume that x is a “random variable.” Random variables are only possible future outcomes of some event resulting from a measurement or experiment which have associated probabilities f(x) of occurring, but only in the future. The average value and, of course, the standard deviation are direct properties of the Schrodinger function f(x). In my physical model, the average value of x, derived from the Schrodinger wave function, is actually the true physical position of the quantum particle that exists in real time. It’s like the center of gravity of an asteroid. The standard deviation of the function f(x) has no direct physical interpretation that I can give it in the quantum particle case. The QM model, on the other hand, has no real time physical position and is assumed to exist in a probabilistic state.
Simpson: Your next comments concerned the Stern-Gerlach measurement of electron spin in which you suggest that the spin analysis I gave for twin photons might not be applicable to electron spin.
I really think (strictly an opinion at this point) that there can be only one physical model for quantum particle spin; the pure spin model. Only this model can directly satisfy conservation of angular momentum in real physical objects which include both electrons and photons. Of course I directly equate the spin properties with angular momentum. In the pure spin model each quantum particle that has spin, has a fixed spin about an axis that is directionally fixed in space. As a free particle travels in space, its spin axis remains fixed as does its angular momentum, thus satisfying conservation principles. In a stream of particles, the spin axis direction can vary randomly from particle to particle, but alway remaining fixed within any given particle. On the other hand, the QM model claims to satisfy conservation of angular momentum by including, in an entangled system, two twin particles that are separated by unlimited distances, a phenomenon which I just cannot understand.
Measurement of spin, whether it be Stern-Gerlach for electrons or some other technique for photons, actually only yields a component of the original true particle spin. In the SG measurement, for example, only the hemisphere on one side of the measurement plane, which contains the true original spin axis would measure a positive spin, or negative, whichever the case may be. SG does not measure component spin in the same manner as in the twin photon experiments. But that doesn’t negate the pure spin model for electrons.
Here’s the bottom line; by assuming the pure spin model, analysis of spin components yields the exact same statistical results that were obtained in the usual twin photon particles experiments conducted that supposedly confirmed quantum entanglement in the first place.
Simpson: “Are you familiar with Bell's Theorem and Bell's Inequality? If so, how does your stochastic model compare?”
Here’s the problem: Bell compares spin components about different directional measurement axes by assuming that these components are probabilistically independent of each other. If a quantum particle is in a pure spin states about a fixed spin axis, like a soccer ball spinning on its axis, then the component spins measured about different axes are not independent. Bell’s inequality, therefore, does not apply to pure spin particles. If it’s of interest, I can give more analysis.
Simpson: “Does the stochastic model make any testable predictions that differ from those made by QM?”
The most significant prediction made by the pure spin model (what you call the stochastic model) is when it is applied to the experimental correlation studies of twin photon particle spin components involving Bell’s theorem and performed initially by Aspect, Freedman, Clauser and many others. Spin measurements are separately made about different component axes on twin particles and the results compared to each other. Without going into details, the percent of matches measured for a particular experimental setup was 50%. The predicted percent of matches based on assuming the pure spin model is exactly 50%, a perfect prediction. Assuming the QM model, however, a greater than 66.66% matches is predicted. The discrepancy with test data for the QM model can be explained only if one can assume the existence of the phenomenon called “quantum entanglement.”
I’m sorry if I didn’t explain things very well.
Thanks again for your observations and comments on my essay and on my attempts to understand quantum theory. I appreciate your insights and welcome any other thoughts or questions that you may have.
Ron Racicot, Fellow Engineer
view post as summary