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.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Display:
 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

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

Robert McEachern: on 8/2/17 at 12:48pm UTC, wrote Hi Olivier, I'll take a look at your paper. You might find my comment...

Olivier Serret: on 8/2/17 at 10:53am UTC, wrote Hi Rob, You write 'So is "spooky action at a distance" just a grossly...

Colin Walker: on 7/18/17 at 21:46pm UTC, wrote As usual, the decrease in system entropy is balanced by an increase in the...

Robert McEachern: on 7/17/17 at 16:37pm UTC, wrote New experiment confirms that Information and Decision-making-processes are...

Colin Walker: on 7/16/17 at 23:22pm UTC, wrote Thanks for explaining the significance of a decision process being involved...

Robert McEachern: on 7/16/17 at 15:51pm UTC, wrote In regards to the "minimum" versus the "maximum" on page 30, they become...

Colin Walker: on 7/15/17 at 21:35pm UTC, wrote From your slideshow: "Quantized Observations result from observations...

Robert McEachern: on 7/12/17 at 14:35pm UTC, wrote Colin, Here is a link to the slideshow: What is wrong with interpretations...



FQXi FORUM
December 13, 2017

CATEGORY: Ultimate Reality [back]
TOPIC: Quickfire Quantum Qs [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 12:53 GMT
This is a place to post quick queries about quantum-related issues.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 09:31 GMT
:) what is a particle ?

report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Apr. 10, 2017 @ 17:25 GMT
It has recently been demonstrated that Quantum Correlations can be Produced Classically with detection efficiencies higher than supposedly possible for any non-quantum system. (Note: The paper reports double-detection efficiencies (0.72) rather than the more commonly reported conditional detection efficiencies. For the model presented, the latter is equal to the square root of the former:...

view entire post


attachments: Classical_and_Quantum_Correlation_Curves_2.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Apr. 10, 2017 @ 22:02 GMT
Thanks Rob..

For taking us to the other side of the (quantum) mirror.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Apr. 10, 2017 @ 22:08 GMT
This would suggest that..

What we are seeing as quantumness is simply nature's truncation (or its failure to represent and/or propagate) the higher harmonics of the (Classical) variational waveform via microscale dynamics.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Apr. 11, 2017 @ 00:27 GMT
Jonathan,

Actually, what it suggests is that nature's "identical particles" have the exact same interaction behavior, that identical submarines have, that are attempting to detect each other, and that results in behaviors identical to "quantum tunneling" and "virtual particles".

If they cannot detect each other's existence, in an ocean of noise, then they can sail (tunnel) right past each other as though the other does not even exist, with no interaction whatsoever. But when they do detect each other, they sound general quarters, "ALL AHEAD FULL! DIVE! DIVE DIVE!" and make such a disturbance that even a distant destroyer (observer) on the surface can detect the sudden appearance of the formerly undetectable, "virtual" subs. But if the subs subsequently lose contact (the ability to detect a single bit of information) with each other, then they return to running silent, running deep (not interacting), and they disappear, back into the ocean of noise from which they first materialized; and the distant observer is left to wonder if they were ever really there.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Apr. 18, 2017 @ 06:02 GMT
Rob,

For the first time, I confirm that a viXra paper the content of which is at least as good as the average in arXiv, and nature communication ones although it just summarizes what you already told us on FQXi.

I am not sure how to better reach those who are not familiar with Shannon and his anti-blockuniverse opinion.

I see similar or possibly even related hurdals in case of the two notions of infinity, the logical Galilean one and the pragmatical Leibniz/Bernoulli one. The former is absolute without a reference, the latter os relative: "larger than any reference".

Your hint to the squared FT seems to confirm my insight that cosine transform yields the same as does FT except for an arbitrarily chosen phase.

++++

report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Jul. 3, 2017 @ 16:08 GMT
This discussion (posts #22 and #23) may be of interest: The connection between Bell's Inequality Theorem and Schrödinger's cat

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Colin Walker replied on Jul. 10, 2017 @ 18:10 GMT
Hi Rob,

"Schroedinger's coin" is an interesting take on the famous cat experiment, given your hypothesis that no more than one bit of Shannon information can be obtained from sampling a quantum process. The 2-dimensional nature of your coin simulation (or the vector model) likely restricts consideration of your idea to 2-d simulations or photon-based experiments. It seems that particles like electrons with Pauli spin matrices would require an extension to quaternions to account fully for their 3-dimensional spin, although I would guess that some experiments could demonstrate quantum correlation.

Your view on interference patterns (discussed previously in this thread) is somewhat in line with that of deBroglie (1926), who found equations for "pilot waves" to guide particles/waves - equations involving the geometry relevant to the experiment. For example, deBroglie could account for the diffraction pattern observed from passing particles/waves through a circular hole. The Wikipedia entry on "quantum potential", a term introduced later by Bohm (1952), is relevant. Subsequently, Bohm and Hiley (1979) reformulated the concept as (Fisher) information potential. That same year, the two-slit experiment was explained in terms of Bohmian trajectories. So there is a version of QM that treats interference something like what you might expect.

The Wiki on quantum potential has a section, "Quantum potential as energy of internal motion associated with spin", which implies that the quantum potential may be energy of some sort. deBroglie thought of all matter and radiation as being composed of tiny "particles". The uncertainty principle dictates that the smallest quantities in terms of energy and momentum require the greatest extent in time and space, thus DeBroglie's vision of tiny particles could also be described as waves comprising a quantum field.

Colin

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 11, 2017 @ 17:18 GMT
Colin,

The determination of the "heads vs. tails" of an ordinary coin is a 3-D problem. I deliberately made the simulation a 2-D simulation of polarity, to greatly reduce computing requirements and to make it directly analogous to polarity measurements made on photons.

I have been working on a "slideshow" to explain how the misinterpretation of quantum theory began (with de Broglie's "association" of a wave with a particle) and why it persists. I have not finished it, but your post inspired me to post it on vixra so we could discuss it; the file is too large to post here. I'll let you know, when it appears.

If you do not already have a copy of David Bohm's book, "Quantum Theory", I would urge you to get one; I am using it to provide context for my own reinterpretation of QM.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 12, 2017 @ 14:35 GMT
Colin,

Here is a link to the slideshow: What is wrong with interpretations of Quantum Theory?

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jul. 10, 2017 @ 23:29 GMT
Colin,

"The 2-dimensional nature of your coin simulation (or the vector model) likely restricts consideration of your idea to 2-d simulations or photon-based experiments."

Actually, there are too many degrees of freedom with 2 dimensions. Rob claims 1 bit of information recovered from each measurement; 1 dimension is sufficient. One records heads (H) at one observation, tails (T) at a later observation, a qubit. Which requires an interval of time.

H =/ T This is an irreducible level of superposition.

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 11, 2017 @ 16:15 GMT
Tom,

"Rob claims 1 bit of information recovered from each measurement" No. I claim that there is only 1 bit of information that can ever be recovered from ANY set of measurements, that obeys the limiting case of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle; that is why both position and momentum cannot be measured.

Also, in Bell tests, no "interval of time" is required: both observers can perform their individual measurement, on their individual member of an entangled pair, simultaneously.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 11, 2017 @ 17:03 GMT
Rob,

I stand corrected.

So far as Bell tests, with two independent observers, there absolutely is an interval of time between them. Entanglement is a convenient fiction.

report post as inappropriate

Colin Walker replied on Jul. 11, 2017 @ 18:24 GMT
Hi Tom,

When it comes down to it, the projection of the coin (or vector) onto Alice's or Bob's rotated instrument reduces each measurement to a single dimension, which is determined by Alice or Bob when they set the angle on their instruments. This measurement is then compared to a fixed threshold to determine whether the polarity is positive, negative, or undetectable.

What I had in mind is that modeling electron spin requires quantum probabilities and, as you say, qubits to determine the state of electron spin. But the decision process ought to be similar, comparing a probability to a threshold to make a decision on the state of polarity.

Colin

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.