Essay Abstract

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen and Bell arguments are reconsidered with reference to the relativity of space as set forth by Poincare in 1897. According to this doctrine, absolute space has no meaning, so the position or orientation of one material particle can only be discussed in relation to that of another. Defects in both references are found, and the mystery of entanglement is at least partially resolved. It is concluded that there is still room for a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Author Bio

I am a semi-retired technologist with a PhD in physics from Iowa State University. I worked mostly on device physics at Bell Laboratories (lasers and magnetic memories) and Bell Communications Research (liquid-crystal and plasma displays). I also got involved in video communication systems before my main retirement in 1997. After that, I joined Panasonic Technologies to represent them in various standards bodies related to optical storage. I became a part-time standards consultant for Panasonic in 2000.

Download Essay PDF File

report post as inappropriate

Hi Terence Nelson,

You are claiming to have resolved the mystery of entanglement. May I ask you to further explain possible consequences? Do you expect quantum computers working as promised?

If you looks into my essay be not confused by a different meaning of "absolute": I am focusing on the peculiarity that the distance between two points has an absolute zero. Distance is of course a relative measure.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein asked whether I expect quantum computing to work as promised. I do not doubt the science of quantum computing, and I expect the inherent randomness of quantum effects will find good use in cryptography, at least.

The point I tried to make is that Bell's hidden-variable hypothesis and derivation of his famous inequality are both flawed. Therefore it is not necessary to consider spooky action-at-a-distance effects, and there is still room for a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics.

report post as inappropriate

In my essay I mentioned different reasons for me to distrust those who already claimed at least a year ago that quantum computers are available.

Terence Nelson may please explain to me:

- What was wrong with the method of single electron counting used by Gompf et al.?

- EPR referred to complex quantities. Do the imaginary parts really increase the degree of freedom?

- Doesn't Schroedinger's cat just reiterate Buridan's?

Einstein earlier used the metaphor of exploded or not exploded. If I recall correctly, Wigner's friend is one more variant due to too rigorously formalized mathematics.

Does Terence Nelson really just e x p e c t use of quantum entanglement in cryptography? After many decades of research, I guess there was enough money spent as to know either how it works or that it is impossible.

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed reading your essay and I would like to direct your attention to my essay contribution to the FXQi contest listed below. You will find that it has a connection to your area of interest.

Your further comments would be appreciated.

Darryl Leiter Ph.D

--------------------------------------------------------
---------------------

What Is Ultimately Possible in Physics Will Be Found Within An Observer-Participant Universe Where The Photon Carries The

Arrow of Time

by Darryl Jay Leiter, Ph.D

ABSTRACT

In confronting the challenge about what is ultimately possible in physics one must resolve three fundamental issues which occur at the interface between the microscopic and macroscopic levels of the universe: (1) the origin of the arrow of time in the universe; (2) the nature of macroscopic objective reality in the context quantum theory, and (3) an explanation for the emergence of macroscopic conscious minds in the universe. In response to this challenge we argue that the resolution of these three fundamental issues may be found within the paradigm of an observer-participant universe where the photon carries the arrow of time

report post as inappropriate

Terence

I like the way you have posed fundamental questions that reveal flaws in conventional thinking.

In my essay i discuss 10 points why there is reason to doubt the fundamentals of science are perfect.

Point 1 questions the concept of the velocity of a particle. It is relevant to your essay. You may want to have a look.

report post as inappropriate

I looked at the essays by Dr. Darry Leiter and Terry Padden and have one comment, so far. It is that like the principle attributed to Wheeler that "No elementary quantum phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an irreversibly recorded phenomenon." By the way, I would like to have a reference for this.

I suppose one might include memories in human minds among such irreversible recordings. This would seem to make mind at least partially addressable by physics (Padden's Point 3). It also suggests that the arrow of time might be defined (only) as the order that is apparent in our memories (Dr. Leiter's Point 1).

report post as inappropriate

Dear Terence

Entanglement is not clear understood because we think it happens in space-time.

Entanglement happens in timeless quantum space that is a direct information medium between quanta.

I publish about that on vixra - quantum gravity

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate

Dear Terence,

Thank your for these thoughts on entanglement. I didn't understand how Bell's assumptions do not guarantee conservation of angular momentum. Why do you say that the initial state always has zero angular momentum? Doesn't that depend on the way the entangled photons are produced?

You'll find Wheeler expressing that no elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is observed in an interview for Cosmic Search Magazine.

Do you have a reference or an example for the fact that half-odd integer representations of the rotation group change sign under rotation of 360° is a non-classical property? Ordinary physical systems may change sign when rotated over 360°, provided they are rotated in the meantime over 180° about their second spinning axis.

Sincerely,

Arjen

report post as inappropriate

Responding to Arjen Dijksman, Bohm and Bell must have chosen a singlet for the initial state because it is the simplest case. There are then just two possible ways to assign the spin components of the spin 1/2 particles such that they cancel along some common axis. The antisymmetric superposition of these two primitive assignments is the one that forms a singlet. It has no free parameters, so Bell's analysis must be mixing in the symmetric superposition, which belongs to a triplet thus violating conservation of angular momentum. By the way, I just became aware that C.S. Unnikrishnan developed this argument [1] in some detail 5 years ago.

You can prove that half-odd-integer spin states change sign under a roation of 360 degrees by considering the eigenstates of the spin component along the axis of the rotation. These components range from -n/2 to +n/2 for spin n, so if n is odd, n/2 times 360 becomes an integer times 360 plus or minus 180. Since the basis states all change sign, it follws that any other state, being expressible as a linear combination of the 2n+1 eigenstates, also changes sign.

Thanks also to Arjen Dijksman for the Wheeler reference.

1. C. S. Unnikrishnan, Correlation functions, Bell’s inequalities and the fundamental conservation laws, http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0407041v1

report post as inappropriate

Hi Terence. How would you reply to the following?

The core theoretical/actual application and manifestation of the wave/particle duality is evident when thought is more like sensory experience in general. Wave/particle duality occurs in dreams. Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general.

report post as inappropriate