Search FQXi

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: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

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 Fund.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Steve Dufourny: on 8/4/12 at 15:30pm UTC, wrote Hi Tom, At this momment I study the p-adic numbers and the K theory. It...

Steve Dufourny: on 8/3/12 at 19:05pm UTC, wrote sorry it was from me Hello Tom, I thank you very much for this answer.It...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Thomas Ray: "(reposted in correct thread) Lorraine, Nah. That's nothing like my view...." in 2015 in Review: New...

Lorraine Ford: "Clearly “law-of-nature” relationships and associated numbers represent..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Information Channel. An example from Jon Barwise. At the workshop..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Please clarify. I just tried to put a simple model of an observer in the..." in Alternative Models of...

Lee Bloomquist: "Footnote...for the above post, the one with the equation existence =..." in Alternative Models of...

Thomas Ray: "In fact, symmetry is the most pervasive physical principle that exists. ..." in “Spookiness”...

Thomas Ray: "It's easy to get wound around the axle with black hole thermodynamics,..." in “Spookiness”...

Joe Fisher: "It seems to have escaped Wolpert’s somewhat limited attention that no two..." in Inferring the Limits on...

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
February 23, 2018

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: The Perfect First Question. by T H Ray [refresh]

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jul. 3, 2012 @ 11:34 GMT
Essay Abstract

We question the widely held assumptions that physical reality is inherently probabilistic and observer-created. If these assumptions are false, the mathematics of Bell’s theorem cannot be separated from its experimental validation; therefore, the conclusions of conventional quantum theory are inductive and not foundational.

Author Bio

A technical writer and editor by trade, Tom Ray is an independent researcher with a primary interest in the mathematics of complex systems.

Georgina Parry wrote on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 02:37 GMT
Hi Ray,

very well written and interesting essay. You seem to have set out the arguments very clearly and nice illustrations too.(I will read it again carefully to try to fully understand everything you are saying.) Good luck in the competition.

I find the idea of 20 questions without an original solution an interesting thought. A bit like the game where you draw the head of an animal then fold the top of the paper over and pass it on, then the next person draws the body and the next the legs and the next the feet. The outcome is something (often monstrous, often funny ) that had not been decided prior to its completion.

Your ending for some reason made me think of the end of the book "Falling for science, asking the big questions" by Bernard Beckett. The ending is a story about a little girl who is crying . An evolutionary biologist, a biochemist and a string theorist each give their scientific explanations of what is occurring. Then her 4 year old brother hands her his ice cream. Quote:" It wasn't his ice cream that fell. He wasn't that careless. Then again she is his little sister, and she is crying, and he can make it alright. He thinks about this, takes one last delicious lick and passes over the dripping cone. The crying subsides. The sister looks up and smiles. Such is the art of living."

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed wrote on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 06:55 GMT
Tom

The given is physical existence. The physical truism given that start point is that that must occur one at a time (in any given sequence). The ‘first question’ is therefore: what was physically existent at any given point in time. Practical problems in answering that do not detract from the fact that at any given point in time there was a definitive physically existent state.

Also, we do not sense that which was physically existent. What we receive is, of itself, a physically existent phenomenon. But it resulted from a physical interaction with that state and another physically existent phenomena. It is all physics. It is just that, with the evolution of sensory systems, what is physically received, has an acquired functional role, ie it provides a representation to the sensory system of the physically existent state which was involved in the physical interaction which resulted in the physically existent phenomenon received (notwithstanding that it may have been physically altered in some respects due to physical interactions with other physical phenomena during its travel).

On the subject of that cat. If one follows the flawed logic through, then it will be the cat that is fundamental to what occurs, not a human observer later. But sensing in no way whatsoever has any effect on what physically existed, because that is not what was received, and it occurred before it was sensed. I just find it amusing that the cat was denied its sentient rights.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 09:15 GMT
Paul,

Thanks for reading, though I think you take too much for granted. What we're aiming at here, is the origin of the physics, not the interpretation.

Tom

Paul Reed replied on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 06:58 GMT
Tom

“the origin of the physics”

Now that is an interesting way of putting it. The origin (or the basis) of physics must be how physical reality occurs (as far as we can know it, which is a superfluous caveat, because that is all there can be, but worth noting for clarity, ie we are not involved in religion or philosophy). Which is what I referred to as the given. And in the simplest of terms: physical existence is a sequence, and it is independent of sensory detection. And by definition, for any given point in a sequence to occur, and then subsequently re-occur differently, can only involve ‘one at a time’, because for the latest to occur, its predecessor must cease (this presumes there is some fundamental ‘stuff’, which there must be, otherwise there cannot be independent physical existence, which there is).

Since physical reality is so complex, that sounds naïve, but the monitor in front of you must have had, at any given point in time, a definitive physically existent state. It would be impossible for us to discern that, with the sheer volume of data, let alone ensuring the differentiation of that state from others, which actually occurred at different points in time. But our ‘failure’ is just that, a failure. The physical reality is unaffected.

Development of sensory systems in organisms involves the functional use (from the perspective of the system, actually it is yet another physical process) of certain physical components of this physical existence, thereby enabling them to have an ‘awareness’ of it (aka knowledge).

Paul

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 11:30 GMT
Paul, "the origin of the physics" is the only way to put it, not merely an interesting way. I repeat -- you take too much for granted. When one assumes properties of reality (e.g., "physical existence is a sequence, and it is independent of sensory detection") especially so categorically broad that one's assumption can be demonstrated by experience alone, one risks the delusion of naive realism.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 09:12 GMT
Hi Georgina,

Thanks! I didn't know of the drawing game. Wheeler's idea, though, is just the opposite--not creating something by adding to it; rather, discovering something essential by peeling away the layers of whatever is disguising it.

Thanks also for the book reference. Sounds like something I would enjoy -- and indeed, you have captured the essence of the cooperative enterprise we call science, and which cannot be divorced from life itself.

Best,

Tom

Joy Christian replied on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 09:31 GMT
Hi Tom,

I second Georgina's remarks. What a wonderfully well-written essay! I now understand your complex argument much better. In just ten pages you have managed to convey an oceanful of thoughts.

Good luck with the contest.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 10:57 GMT
Joy, thank you so much! In spite of these last couple years of fierce wrangling over minutiae, I remain confident that the end will turn out just as Georgina described in her story, and science will be the stronger for it. You've inspired a generation -- and I'm just a little sad not to be young enough to see those ideas flower fully, though I feel privileged to witness the first buds.

Best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 00:45 GMT
Hi Tom,

I don't think the book "Falling for science, asking the big questions" by Bernard Beckett, is your cup of tea. It is to do with the questions of being alive, relevant to the finale of your essay, I thought - but the emphasis is on the search for meaning and therefore is a somewhat sceptical look at science, and the stories that we tell ourselves. Quote- "There is a world of difference between understanding the physics involved in floating, and lying back in a sparkling bay, soaking in the sun and feeling at peace with the world" Bernard Beckett.

I also didn't explain the game very well. The game ends when the paper is unfolded and the complete animal, which no one has previously seen or chosen, is revealed to everyone. The amusement is partly in the surprise, which would not happen if anyone knew what the other participants had drawn.If there is ever a dull moment to fill.....

Not important, but I didn't want to feel that you had been mislead by my earlier comments. I hope your essay gets lots of interest and positive feedback, which it deserves. Good luck.

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam wrote on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 15:25 GMT
Brilliant Tom!

James

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 15:56 GMT
James, you are so kind. Thanks! I'll have some comments for you soon. I think I am getting closer to understanding your model.

Tom

Karl Coryat wrote on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 19:09 GMT
Tom, thank you for commenting on my essay. Wheeler's idea of "the game of twenty questions in its surprise version" fascinates me. I'm behind in the essays, so I've only scanned through yours, but I look forward to reading it closer. Best of luck in the competition.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 23:18 GMT
Tom,

Was re-reading your essay. A thought occurred to me. What is one example of what you might have included if the page limit was sufficiently larger?

James

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 14:40 GMT
That's a great question, James. I know I had something in mind the moment I released the essay, and I either didn't write it down or if I did, can't remember where I left it. It seemed important at the time. :-)

There's plenty in my notebooks, though, that I would expand on given the opportunity: an entry from February and March is labeled "Topology, spin statistics and a classical twist." It relates to the role of topology in Joy's model. Text follows.

In a nice short exposition in the American Journal of Physics, Roy. R. Gould (http://nonlocal.com/hbar/spinstats.html)explains non-integral spin with variations of the Feynman plate and Dirac belt trick--in the topological context where they properly belong: "The existence of spin 1/2 follows from the marriage of relativity and quantum theory (primary source: K. Gottfried and V.F. Weiskopf, *Concepts of Particle Physics*). But it is topology that underlies the Fermi statistics, and therefore the Pauli exclusion principle -- and by extension the existence of atoms and ourselves."

I would have used Joy's treatment of the Dirac belt trick in its classical framework, to explain how the complete (4 pi) rotation is angle preserving (conformal) to infinity.

Tom

James Putnam replied on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 21:00 GMT
"I would have used Joy's treatment of the Dirac belt trick in its classical framework, to explain how the complete (4 pi) rotation is angle preserving (conformal) to infinity."

I hope you do sometime. Your breadth and depth are amazing!

James

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 00:40 GMT
Thanks, James. Honestly, though, it is only in the last couple of years that these disjointed elements of knowledge acquired over many years have come together in a meaningful way. I think it shows the power of one great idea to make sense of a thousand little ones -- I hadn't imagined, and I know of no one else who had imagined, that topology -- through application of continuous global properties and patterns of a compact space, could describe discrete local measurement results without a probabilistic structure.

With the greatest demonstration of intellectual courage, Joy has blazed a trail for us through this thick wilderness where no one else dared to go. Long after the controversy is forgotten and buried, this idea will still be affecting fields of science from cosmology on one extreme, to brain mechanics and consciousness on the other.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Candice wrote on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 15:11 GMT
Good work Tom!

I've been a fan of your work for way too many years & this does not disappoint - both content & style. Very impressive. I'm hungry or more!

-C

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 19:45 GMT
Thanks, C! A little encouragement from the right person goes a long way. :-)

Tom

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 01:44 GMT
Hello Thomas glad you participated again in this year's contest.

And I am very glad you are Alive - as you have proven mathematically beyond any reasonable doubt !! If you follow my argument in Q6 of my present FQXI paper, based on older arguments in my papers referred to therin, you will see that I believe that quantum probability is a mathematical interpretation of a very unprobabilistic local, causal world of wave-like diffusion in a universal lattice In other words in EPR and Bell the photons have identical phase from start to finish, but it is the random state of the detectors that create the illusion of probability.

For this reason although I could see how deeply and learnedly you have gone into these questions, I do not want to take that route myself. I would like to learn about Poincare's circle, though - I have renewed respect for his ideas - and will google accordingly. Thanks and good luck.

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 13:37 GMT
Thanks, Vladimir! As an artist, you probably appreciate the idea of infinite hyperbolic geometry in the form of some of M.C. Escher's drawings which were inspired by Poincare. The mathematics of it is explained in this link.

I will get over to your essay as soon as I can. For the record, though, I am not saying that probability is an illusion; I am saying (following Joy Christian) that quantum entanglement is an illusion. In other words, the phenomenon of quantum correlations may be explained in non-probabilistic terms, which obviates quantum entanglement (and therefore, the assumption of nonlocality) as a foundational premise of how nature works. We can still put probabilistic measure schemata to good use in approximating discrete system outcomes in bounded local time intervals (in fact, that is how semiconductors and logic gates function).

Tom

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 05:39 GMT
Dear Thomas

Yes I know the Escher circle you mean - he is great. Thanks for the link to the Poincare geometry - I do not know if this is significant in any way but in Fig. 9.2 all the construction circles on the tangent are bow waves see my Bow Wave paper here - these waves are the same shape as far-field dipole wavefronts as described in my United Dipole Field paper linked from the same page. I have argued for having the electric field in these waves as the source of quantum probability - in other words quantum effects are due to the spread of real dipole bow waves in the ether. Easy to say and looks good in a diagram (attached diagram from my Beautiful Universe paper), but of course to prove it convincingly (or disprove it?) is not that easy!

I will have to study Joy's work. I am not saying a probabilistic interpretation does not work as a mathematical nuts-and-bolts method to describe physical situations, but that this 'probability' is an outcome of an ordered, local, causal process. Thanks again for appreciating my art. My physics needs some more work!

attachments: BUFIG28.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 07:49 GMT
Dear Thomas for some reason I missed seeing your comment on my page till today, and have answered there - sorry for the delay. I value your opinions.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 16:55 GMT
Tom

I congratulate you on an excellently written essay but even better content. It seems I'd misjudged you as a reactionary, probably my fault by not admitting to 'knowing' anything, leading you to 'direct me' back to a quagmire I'd just spent years rising above! But I see you can be very open minded and reject majority 'wisdom' when appropriate. The work certainly deserves a much better score than at present.

I like your fresh view that it's the 'Bellites' who are determinist, and of questioning the assumption that reality is (only) observer created. I also noted your post about better understanding of Georgina's thesis of two apparent 'realities', each observers being only subjective.

I extend this to derive two distinct classes of observation. One by direct detection or (particle coupling) interaction with the phenomena being measured, and a different 'apparent only' class equivalent to Minkowski's "imaginary c+v" (1908). The mechanism is explored in detail but an analogy is TV i.e. The Enterprise taking off at warp 3, (or as I said to Paul, the Keystone cops dong 100mph). They all have a secondary mechanism in between the original reality and the detection, but the real signals to and from the TV all do c. Only one uses 'Proper Time', and gets the real result 'c'. I quote Lorentz expressing his doubt about 'excluding' this apparent c+v in 1913.

This physical analysis using quantum logic turns out very analogous to your metaphysical approach supporting Joys mathematical one. Even down to the 'handedness', which is evident in Chirality, IFR, and the orientation of the CMB anisotropic flow of Smoot etc. A wide range of astronomical anomalies are resolved including ballistic free relativistic stellar aberration matching observation which the IAU have been seeking since abandoning the 'constant' in 2000, and resolving the outstanding ecliptic plane issue.

I do hope you find time to read mine and can spot the consistencies, if from a totally different viewpoint. It is dense and probably tries to explain too much as it will test any intellect. 'Kinetic thinking' is unfamiliar. I've put in in a slightly theatrical setting to lighten up the read a little. I greatly look forward to your views.

Best of luck

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 18:11 GMT
Thanks, Peter! You're very kind.

I'm not reactionary. I'm just not very ambitious, and that may seem conservative to some. :-)

I'll write more later. And I promise to get over to your essay site for comment as soon as I can.

Best,

Tom

Daryl Janzen wrote on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 07:36 GMT
Tom:

You've done a wonderful job with this abstract topic. Due to the subject nature, and my lack of familiarity in the area (which I want to remedy!), I've found your essay challenging each time I read it---but, those limitations aside, I thought you did an excellent job of presenting an enjoyable, even poetic argument, in which a number of interesting bits fall neatly in line.

Good luck!

Daryl

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 18:05 GMT
Thanks, Daryl! Since I complimented you on your essay site for following clearly stated premises to a logically closed judgment, this is a good place to insert a link to a paper by Tobias Fritz recently posted to the arXiv that I think shows pretty clearly the consequences of defining things in a way that guarantees validation by observation, in effect rigging the game -- or loading the dice,...

view entire post

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 21:11 GMT
Steve, you wrote in Ronald Bennett's forum, to which I offered to reply here:

"Indeed Tom , but apparently a lot of scientists do not really love the critics. Tom, could you help me to be accepted in an university in USA? I d like have my doctorate in physics. I could imrpove my works.I d like also learn engeniering and computing. I do not know all you know Tom, I have never said that I...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 19:03 GMT
Hello Tom,

I thank you very much for this answer.It permits to better understand you.

You know Tom, me also I have had a difficult life more my health. But the most important like you say is to continue to learn more still and always. I have still a lot of parano and this and that but I try to relativate.

I d like continue my universities. I must found the correct places in fact with good teachers.

I am going to search a good university with the good professors and I will learn and I will imrpove my works. I have learned a lot on net ,here on fqxi or on other platforms. But I must learn more.

I thank you Tom still for your sincerity and your advices.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 19:05 GMT
sorry it was from me

Hello Tom,

I thank you very much for this answer.It permits to better understand you.

You know Tom, me also I have had a difficult life more my health. But the most important like you say is to continue to learn more still and always. I have still a lot of parano and this and that but I try to relativate.

I d like continue my universities. I must found the correct places in fact with good teachers.

I am going to search a good university with the good professors and I will learn and I will imrpove my works. I have learned a lot on net ,here on fqxi or on other platforms. But I must learn more.

I thank you Tom still for your sincerity and your advices.

Regards

post approved

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 4, 2012 @ 15:30 GMT
Hi Tom,

At this momment I study the p-adic numbers and the K theory. It seems relevant when the groups are well distributed.In a sphere of course, evolutive. I ask me how I am going to make detrministic correlations in a pure 3D and the proportions with rotations.I ask me how I can converge with Qp the commutative body of these p-adics numbers.The serie of uniqueness has its secret in this line of reasoning. The p-adic analyse seems relevant when the groups are finite in their pure general universal serie of uniqueness.

I believe strongly that a real taxonomy of spheres can be made.with a correct fractalization of our 3D. I see that the axiom of dimension is not verified for the Ktheory. I beleive that the correct superimposing is a 3d, there in logic it is ok at my opinion.

Could you explain me Tom why the non-commutative tori in superior dimensions have the same Ktheory.Is it due to the projective of irrational superimposings ?

Regards

post approved

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 15:23 GMT
Hi Tom

Having started to get to grips with Joy Christian's work, I can appreciate what a superb job you have done in producing such a well-written and easy to read essay that discusses the meaning of such complex issues.

All the best in the competition,

Michael

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 16:39 GMT
Thanks, Michael! Much appreciated.

Tom

J. C. N. Smith wrote on Aug. 12, 2012 @ 14:37 GMT
Dear Tom,

First, thank you very much for this well-written and thought-provoking essay.

I've been feeling a heavy guilt trip for not commenting on your essay before now, especially in light of the very kind and thoughtful comments you left on the blog for my essay. Not to make too big a production of it, but the reasons for my failure to comment here are a bit complex. I've now read your essay four times, and it makes me feel incredibly stupid/obtuse to say that I still cannot claim to fully understand it. Your thought processes obviously are very subtle and refined. My thought processes, by contrast, tend to be what I think of as being at the more naive and primitive end of the spectrum. I'm convinced that both modes of thinking are important and useful, and certainly not necessarily mutually exclusive. That said, the subtlety of the argument in your essay has left me perplexed.

To offer just one example of my obtuseness, could you please give a few specific, concrete examples of the sorts of questions which might be asked in Wheeler's version of "20 Questions"? Even that basic point has left me unsure that I comprehend the underlying concept. Any help greatly appreciated.

Btw, I've been following with great interest the discussions you've been involved in over on George Ellis's blog on top-down vs. bottom-up causation. Fascinating stuff! Don't know whether you might have noticed a couple of posts I left there on the nature of sentience as it may relate to that topic. How could anyone not be deeply intrigued by all this?

Good luck in the competition!

Regards,

jcns

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 02:41 GMT
Hi JCNS,

It doesn't matter what the questions are. What really matters is the sensitive dependence on initial condition. And in this case, the initial condition is completely determined -- You know Wheeler's famous drawing, shaped kind of like a U with an eyeball on the thicker left horn? That is a generalization of what many scientists call the weak anthropic principle -- i.e., a universe suggestively conscious of itself, which obviates the "equally likely" hypothesis of a probabilistic world. And which answers Einstein's question, "Did God have a choice?" If God (Nature) did not have a choice in creating the world, we would not have a choice in observing it.

I don't really mean to be that subtle. I hope to do better.

Thanks, and best of luck and good wishes to you, too.

Tom

J. C. N. Smith replied on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 13:25 GMT
Hi again Tom,

"I don't really mean to be that subtle. I hope to do better."

For the sake of clarity, my earlier comments were not intended as a criticism of your essay or your subtlety, but rather as an admission of my own obtuseness. Subtlety in this case may well be synonymous with brilliance. Having noted that the overwhelming majority of comments others have posted on your blog reveal no hint of befuddlement, I've concluded that my lack of fuller comprehension is probably due in large part to the inadequacy of background knowledge I bring to the topic.

If you're willing to help me along a bit, I'd welcome a relatively concise statement of the "bottom line" message you want readers of your essay to come away with. Call it "T. H. Ray's Essay for Dummies" if you like. I know we're constrained by length limits as to what we're able to cram into our essays, but these blogs can offer a welcome opportunity to expand on the essays. If you're so inclined, I'd welcome a bit of schooling. Recognizing how busy everybody tends to be these days, however, I also won't be offended if you're not so inclined. We've got to pick and choose how to spend our all-too-limited time. Thanks.

jcns

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 02:30 GMT
Thank you, jcns! The inadequacy really is mine, I'm afraid. The takeaway message is that the source of all information is a point at infinity.

Perhaps you've taken an art class, and understand how the artist creates the illusion of perspective by choosing a point at infinity, and focuses all lines toward it. We don't actually see the lines, but the perspective is projected toward us when we view the painting and we get a sense of three dimensions though the picture itself exists on a flat two dimension plane.

Similarly, stand anywhere (though an open field or ocean or lake shore would be best, so that the horizon is visible) and imagine that all the three dimension objects in this 360 degree world that surrounds you -- all the way to the horizon -- simultaneously collapse into a flat plane and are sucked into a single point no matter which way you turn (of course, "you" are now an imaginary point equidistant from all points of the horizon). All of the information that you had access to "before" the collapse is still there "after" the collapse; were you to suck it back into view -- so to speak -- the landscape would remain unchanged. The information is a projection, but on a 3 dimension screen. (If you know a little bit about holography, this will be familiar.) There is no physically real collapse, in other words.

Where does this point at infinity exist, physically? You know that in 4-dimension (Minkowski) space, the point source of creation is any point you choose; the source of the big bang is everywhere. (That's why we are bathed in a mostly isotropic sea of background radiation.) More generally, though, a *unique* point at infinity differentiates the space of R^3 from that of the topological S^3 -- so a topological framework (Joy Christian's) informs us that a local observer's choice of a point at infinity is globally self-similar to the unique point of creation.

Does this help? I hope you stick around for more dialogue.

Best wishes to you in the contest, too! Personally, I've never been more enthusiastic about an FQXi activity.

Tom

nmann wrote on Aug. 12, 2012 @ 23:44 GMT
"It turns out to be Bell loyalists who are the actual determinists, believing that reality is determined by probabilistic measure schemata, by which they assign equally likely outcomes to [']... the experiment not done...[']..., and thereby limit the questions that can be asked, to an assumed domain of perfect knowledge."

Not necessarily. Now here's a Bell loyalist who REALLY thinks outside the box:

"... In a truly non-causal world, Bell's Theorem cannot be formulated because in such a world elemental events are not stable enough for Bell-type non-locality to even be defined. ....

"Bell showed in 1964 that this cosine-squared dependence of polarization correlations is incompatible with a local reality. Therefore any reality (quantum reality) that lies behind these facts must be non-local. It is important to realize that Bell's Theorem is based solely on the facts not on the details of quantum theory so that if someday quantum theory is falsified or replaced by a better theory, Bell's Theorem will still be valid. Even if quantum theory is wrong, reality must be non-local.

"Although Bell's Theorem is based on facts, it goes beyond facts to make confident assertions about the reality behind those facts. Because it deals with reality, not facts or theory, Bell's Theorem is metaphysical, not physical, and hence is vulnerable to certain metaphysical assumptions about the nature of the world that are essential to Bell's proof. If we live in a world where these metaphysical assumptions are not justified, then Bell's theorem cannot even be formulated. Here I examine a class of worlds in which Bell's Theorem does not apply, and in which non-locality, in the way it's defined by Bell, does not even make sense."

NOTE: Nick Herbert's use of the word "reality" might need clarification. He employs it in the Kantian sense of "noumenal reality" -- i.e., the Whatever beyond or behind the phenomenal ("factual") world of our perception.

A SIMPLE REFUTATION OF BELL'S NON-LOCALITY THEOREM (CAUTION: VALID ONLY IN SOME WORLDS)

Interestingly, the guy also believes that in a singular manner Bell managed to stick a finger through the veil:

SEE SPOT RUN: A SIMPLE PROOF OF BELL'S THEOREM

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 02:07 GMT
Thank you kindly for reading my essay and for the links, nmann. I am familiar with Nick Herbert's work. I have enjoyed his writing very much over the years.

One question though:

Where, exactly, did Bell define "nonlocality?"

Best,

Tom

nmann replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 16:59 GMT
THR: Where, exactly, did Bell define "nonlocality?"

nmann: I should ask what's your point? (one senses a game is being played here) but anyway he definitely defined "locality" --

"The direct causes (and effects) of events are near by, and even the indirect causes (and effects) are no further away than permitted by the velocity of light." (from "La nouvelle cuisine", 1990, in "Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics", Cambridge, 2004, p. 239).

One of the assumptions, of course, built into BT. I'm not confident he "defined" nonlocality except inferentially or by referring to Einstein's "Spooky Action" or to Bohmian pilot waves. I'd need to look back over a lot of material. But he was, as we know, a Bohmian of a sort, and Bohm (plus Hiley) offer a definition in the Abstract of "On the Intuitive Understanding of Nonlocality as Implied by Quantum Theory" (1975, well before Bell's death):

"We bring out the fact that the essential new quality implied by the quantum theory is nonlocality; i.e., that a system cannot be analyzed into parts whose basic properties do not depend on the state of the whole system."

Think JSB went there?

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 17:36 GMT
John Bell defined non-locality as a negation of his factorizability condition for the joint observation AB(a, b, L) = +1 or -1 made by Alice and Bob,

AB(a, b, L) = A(a, L) x B(b, L),

where Alice's measurement result A(a, L) = +1 or -1 remains independent of Bob's measurement context b as well as his measurement result B, and likewise Bob's measurement result B(b, L) = +1 or -1 remains independent of Alice's measurement context a as well as her measurement result A.

John Bell then concluded that no realistic theory satisfying his factorizability condition can reproduce all of the statistical predictions of quantum theory, or even the strong EPR correlation -a.b observed by Alice and Bob.

In this conclusion John Bell was simply wrong.

Attached is an explicit model satisfying the above factorizabilty condition and yet reproducing the strong EPR correlation exactly. The second paper attached contains a completely general theorem that proves that, not only the EPR correlation, but ALL stronger-than-classical quantum correlations can be reproduced purely local-realistically, maintaining both the reality and completeness conditions of EPR as well as the locality or factorizability condition of Bell.

Yet, the myth of Bell's theorem is likely to remain with us, because we love worthless waffles in physics much more than concrete facts and explicit demonstrations.

Joy Christian

attachments: 16_disproof.pdf, 10_Origins.pdf

report post as inappropriate

nmann wrote on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 20:11 GMT
In the Intro to the iconic 1964 paper we see this, which is what I had in mind when I said "inferentially":

"Moreover, a hidden variable interpretation [who else could this be but Bohm?] of quantum theory ... has been explicitly constructed. That particular interpretation has indeed a grossly non-local structure. This is characteristic, according to the result to be proved here, of any such theory which reproduces exactly the quantum mechanical predictions."

THR: So what IS your point? Bell used the term. His meaning is pretty obvious. The word was never put into his mouth by others.

Joy: You're starting the resemble "Outraged in Tunbridge Wells" in the letters columns of the old Daily Telegraph or summat. You're a extraordinarily bright guy. Ease up!

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 20:38 GMT
You are right about both of your points:

(1) Yes, Bell's motivation and inspiration for his theorem came from the non-locality in Bohm's theory, of which he remained a big fan throughout his life.

(2) You are correct to recognize that I am outraged. This is because of the kind of treatment I have received from some parts of the physics community during the past five years, and especially during the past few months. I don't know about you, but Tom has witnessed some of this mistreatment. Needless to say, what you see on the Internet is only a fraction of what goes on in the real world. But nevertheless I will try to "ease up" if I can.

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 21:19 GMT
nmann, Bell's program was never anything but classical. All the who shot John arguments over the false necessity for nonlocality, by inference and assumption, do nothing except disguise the fact that Bell's choice of measurement domain renders the theory incoherent unless one assumes nonlocality. This isn't rational science. Some prime defenders of Bell's result -- including Richard Gill and Tobias Fritz -- really do see the problems of this assumption. They would like to save Bell's theorem from nonlocality and free will, by substituting probability measurement as an apparent physical law. Just substituting one indefensible assumption for another, IMO.

Yes, I agree with Joy.

Tom

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 22:11 GMT
nmann,

Happy to know that it exists rationalists !

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Michael James Goodband wrote on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 12:45 GMT
Hi Tom,

In the spirit of questioning hidden assumptions, there is an assumption in these considerations that the background metric doesn't change on you. As I commented to Edwin, a change in the signature of the background metric can turn local into apparently non-local in classical physics (see attachment for a toy model that demonstrates this). This effect has the potential to explain the odd Quantum Theory feature of non-local identity without non-local causation, which incidently probably won't conflict with Joy Christian's work [currently waiting for his book to arrive].

This feature explicitly arises in my demonstration that quantum field theory can be derived *from* classical physics, on the condition that QT is due to a representational change to continuous variables. This chagne is necessary because the classical physics theory over discrete physically-real variables is proven to be subject to Godel's incompleteness. Thus QT is the result of a *necessary* change in functional description of the dynamics which leads to local causation of observables.

Michael

attachments: Local_to_nonlocal.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 14:14 GMT
Hi Michael,

Nice illustration!

Let me make a minor clarification, however. You do mention this distinction above, but for other readers let me point out that what you demonstrate in your illustration is a *signalling* non-locality due to a possible signature change in the space-time metric. In Bell's language this type of non-locality has to do with a linkage between the experimental parameters a and b of Alice and Bob. Quantum theory, on the other hand, harbours a peculiar *no-signalling* non-locality, which in Bell's language has to do with a linkage between the measurement results A and B observed by Alice and Bob.

In my view the latter non-locality is only an apparent non-locality, because not only the quantum mechanical description of Reality is incomplete, but Bell's supposedly compete analysis of it is also quite incomplete, with the incompleteness in it creeping in from the very first equation of his famous paper. Thus the kind of possible explanation for the no-signalling non-locality you are suggesting is a bit heavy handed from my perspective. Within my framework such a non-locality is no more mysterious than the non-locality observed in Dr. Bertlmann's socks.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 16:05 GMT
On second thought, there is something interesting about your illustration.

The signature change you induce from g = (-,+,+,+) to g = (+,+,+,+) in the space-time metric is quite similar to the change in the orientation of the 3-sphere from (+,+,+) to (-,-,-) I take as a choice between two initial conditions in my model. So there seems to be a closer link between what you are saying and the fundamental hypothesis of my model.

--Joy

report post as inappropriate

Michael James Goodband replied on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 16:36 GMT
Hi Joy,

The metric reversal illustrated also has the effect of converting normal light radiation m^2=0 in normal space into virtual radiation m^2

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 06:51 GMT
nmann,

The question is not about liking or not liking Bell's theorem, or liking or not liking entanglement, or liking or not liking non-locality. The question is about whether these ideas, or unicorns or UFOs, have any relevance for the real physical world, or for the future theory of physics. We had a perfectly cogent concept known as phlogiston---a truly beautiful concept. Unfortunately it turned out that it had absolutely no relevance for the real physical world. Similarly, Bell's theorem, entanglement, or non-locality has no relevance for the real physical world. As Tom says in different words, in the real physical world what matters are the correlations among a set of measurement events---or among the clicks of a set of detectors.

Now Bell claimed that for local functions of the form

A(a, L) = +1 or -1 with 50/50 chance for any a in R^3

and

B(b, L) = +1 or -1 with 50/50 chance for any b in R^3,

together with

AB(a, b, L) = A(a, L) x B(b, L) = -1 when b = a,

it is mathematically impossible to construct a model that can reproduce the correlation

E(a, b) = -a.b.

It turns out that Bell was wrong (but not trivially so). It *is* possible to mathematically reproduce the correlation E(a, b) = -a.b if we take the physically and mathematically correct co-domain for the functions AB(a, b, L), A(a, L), and B(b, L); namely a unit parallelized 3-sphere. The proof can be found in the attached paper.

It is scandalous to continue to believe in Bell's theorem despite this explicit one-page proof showing exactly what Bell thought was mathematically impossible. Further details and implications of the proof can be found in my book.

attachments: 19_disproof.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 10:36 GMT
Continuing the dialogue from Ed Gillis' essay site:

nmann worte:

"Tom,

If BT proves out, as it does, and brilliantly, in macroscopic logical tests and physical experiments, it's relativistic. And professionals have known since the get-go that the theorem involves double-negation. That only seems to bother people who don't like BT for ideological reasons. It kind of resembles sqrt-1 in that regard.

You're wrong that the validation of Bell's theorem is (fully) relativistic for the mere fact that the experiments are conducted in the macroscopic domain. As we've made a point of saying, no one here denies the result that no classical theory of quantum correlations can be derived from quantum mechanics. This finding does not obviate that quantum correlations can be explained in a (locally real) classical framework -- and that's what Joy has done.

The biggest problem with a nonconstructive proof (in this case, the weakest form, double negation) is that it cannot produce a closed logical judgment of what it predicts. (An example of such a judgment is Einstein's famous equation of special relativity.) That is why, in fact, that a theory of quantum mechanics cannot be fully relativistic --it cannot be mathematically complete, as general relativity most certainly is, in the classical domain.

Joy's example of phlogiston as a failed scientific theory is excellent. Before Lavoisier showed that fire is identical to rapid oxidation -- there were two forms of phlogiston, positive and negative. Negative phlogiston caused combusted materials (such as wood) to lose mass; positive phlogiston caused non-combusted materials (such as iron) to apparently gain mass, in the form of rust. These were in the days before scientific method recognized that such contradictory beliefs are irrational. The case of Bell's theorem -- or rather, those who believe Bell's theorem is physical law -- is the same. One wants to believe that reality is both determined and probabilistic. That one can "prove" that by double negation -- just as ancient chemists proved the existence of phlogiston by observing fire and rust -- such a proof does not advance our objective knowledge of how nature really works.

Tom

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 17:50 GMT
yes of course, templeton becomes crazy and makes irrational extrapolations, yes of course, and the lected is ...no but frankly, and what after ? a beer from belgium in a spherical 24 dimensions.

Now you are going to make your intelligent with your humor.

All is said and the team is known !!!

Universal , yes of course.

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 03:18 GMT
My "First Question", regarding experiments pertaining to Bell's theorem, would be:

Is it the case, that the number of components I am attempting to measure correlations between, is not equal to the number of components that I should be measuring?

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 12:15 GMT
Robert,

How many pair correlations do you expect you will measure at a time?

Tom

Robert H McEachern replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 14:22 GMT
Thomas,

None.

I expect that there are no pairs, because I expect that there are no components. I expect that if a physical entity manages to encode only a single bit of information into an observable attribute, then all attempts to measure correlations between it's components, will merely produce correlations between something other than components. I expect that an observer will indeed observer correlations. But I expect the observer will one day come to the realization that the correlations do not mean what he or she believes them to mean.

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 15:45 GMT
Sorry, Robert. I find your explanation logically incoherent. For if there is no correlation of one point to another, there is no information.

Tom

Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 12:13 GMT
Because I expect Vongehr may delete it (he's already deleted Joy Christian's comments on his site), and because it is relevant to my essay, I want to reproduce here some comments by nmann and my reply:

nmann wrote:

To the best of my imperfect knowledge, this is the only recorded comment or commentary by (Ludwig Wittgenstein) directly in re: QM. It feels like it's saying much the same...

view entire post

Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 14:11 GMT
As predicted, the posts from Sascha Vongehr's site have disppeared. What has not disappeared, is the reason why one should care about whether Vongehr's idea of science is rational -- and whether it is important that the scientific enterprise should continue to be based on rationalism.

Vongehr advocates a postmodern social constructivist view. I would bet that most scientists are not even...

view entire post

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 16:40 GMT
Not only is Vongehr's program philosophically bankrupt, it is mathematically and physically flawed. In rallying his "fanboys" -- an epithet that Sascha is fond of hanging on me -- to the cause of irrational science with his "quantum Randi challenge," he appeals to the digital magic of the computer:

"Some have suggested that (hidden variables) are 'topological' and related to hyper spheres. This is entirely irrelevant, because there is no difference for a computer whether it calculates relations applicable to our usual Euclidian three dimensional space or something else. Many strange geometries and topologies (e.g. black holes and worm holes and the SU(2) double covering that Fermions modeled. Computers have no idea about which of those worlds is the one they happen to actually compute in." (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.5294.pdf)

Here's
a prime example of one who knows a lot about computers and next to nothing about computing. The series of logical operations that go into simulating a physical phenomenon only implement the expected result, not the physical experiment. Vongehr's claim is identical to a claim that a computer simulation of the Einstein light-bending experiment in 1919 proves special relativity.

That's the problem with those true believers who want Bell's theorem to be enshrined as a physical law -- their models prove what their models assume.

If science is a rationalist enterprise (which means that elements of the mathematical theory correspond 1 to 1 with elements of the physical result, where the mathematics is independent of the physics) -- this ain't science.

Tom

Sascha Vongehr replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 11:37 GMT
Tom, I responded to your ranting against me on T. H. Ray: Care about Vongehr.

Just the gist concerning that particular comment up there:

"one should care about whether Vongehr's idea of science is rational"

Thank you for telling the world that caring about my ideas is relevant.

"Vongehr advocates a postmodern social constructivist view."

Perhaps somewhat true when it comes to certain areas, but wrong when it comes to my essay. There is no social component to the ultimate limits of description as such, or if there is, I have not invoked it.

"an objective model is not interpreted into existence by the language of the observer, nor is it dependent on such language for objective validity."

Nor did I ever claim such.

"Vongehr's strawman argument -- in which he asserts with absolutely no support that most scientists are naive realists"

Never claimed that. My name is not Tom Ray, who arrogantly claims that most scientists do not know social constructivism.

"Wheeler's utterly simple idea is to assume the quantum ..."

Given the smallness of my paragraph that suggests Wheeler's 'simple idea', this is the reading comprehension of a ten year old. Moreover, it is the "idea that *demands* the quantum". How could it possibly just *assume* it?

"... and accept nonlocality as physical law."

I defined apparent non-locality and described it as emergent from something strictly Einstein-local. Here perhaps we can see most clearly how some of those who rant against my ideas are not just mistaken but maliciously out to smear people with lies.

report post as inappropriate

Sascha Vongehr replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 11:49 GMT
You cite my work (ref. 4) via a cryptic "with better than 50% random success". 50% is not sufficient; even 55% happens often by coincidence; and the Quantum Randi Challenge demands reproduction of the QM Bell violation (99%). The proper reference is arxiv.org/abs/1207.5294 .

Moreover: If you allow missed anti-correlation, the QRC paper already gives a simple example program that violates Bell much more often than 50%, also described here: QRC Solved?.

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 13:17 GMT
"After many months of libelling Joy Christian in a public forum with falsehood and innuendo, and suborning others to do the same..."

It is far worse, Tom, it is far worse. Mr. Vongehr has resorted to activities that border criminality.

He has twisted my words and even fabricated words in my name. He has simply manufactured some posts and email correspondence as if they were by me and posted them on his blog, with active help of the proprietor of the Science20 blogs, Mr. Hank Campbell. Wrongful defamation in the public forum is a crime in many countries, and---as you already know---Mr. Vongehr has committed this crime many times over.

You are giving respectability to this man on your author page which he does not deserve.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 13:40 GMT
Member Joy Christian

Сould you please tell me about your attitude to my interpretation

Parmenides and Heraclites approach?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 15:02 GMT
Joy, you're right, of course. It isn't my intention to elevate the position of Vongehr's frivolous ideas to the level of a serious scientific discussion.

What has always stuck in my craw is the moral implication of what he and Campbell are about. Disguising a gossip blog in the clothes of science is hardly the noble undertaking that it is advertised to be.

In a famous confrontation at the Cambridge Moral Science Club in 1946, Wittgenstein wielded a fireplace poker in the face of visiting lecturer Karl Popper. The details are unclear.* What is not unclear, is that Popper's withering criticism of Wittgenstein's philosophy led Wittgenstein to demand an example from Popper of a "moral principle." Popper's reply: "Not to threaten visiting lecturers with pokers."

Someone has to, as Bertrand Russell is said to have done -- at the moment Wittgenstein took the red hot poker from the fireplace and waved it at Popper -- say, "Wittgenstein, put down that poker at once!"

To not say so, is as serious a moral breach as the threat itself.

Tom

*_Wttgenstein's Poker_, David Edmonds & John Edinow, Haper Collins 2001

Joy Christian replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 16:10 GMT
Tom,

What a wonderful example!

You have made a convincing argument. It is necessary sometimes to be in Bertrand Russell's shoes. It would be a serious moral breach otherwise. I cannot but concur.

Thanks,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 13:37 GMT
Dear Thomas,

I have read your essay and I appreciate your viewpoint. Your essay is very well-written, interesting and highly relevant. I wish you good luck in the contest.

Recently, I have noticed some wild variations in community rated list of contest essays. There is a possibility of existence of a biased group or cartel (e.g. Academia or Relativists group) which promotes the essays of that group by rating them all 'High' and jointly demotes some other essays by rating them all 'Low'. As you know, we are not selecting the 'winners' of the contest through our ratings. Our community ratings will be used for selecting top 35 essays as 'Finalists' for further evaluation by a select panel of experts. Therefore, any biased group should not be permitted to corner all top 'Finalists' positions for their select group.

In order to ensure fair play in this selection, we should select (as per laid down criteria), as our individual choice, about 50 essays for entry in the finalists list and RATE them 'High'. Next we should select bottom 50 essays and rate them 'Low'. Remaining essays may be rated as usual. If most of the participants rate most of the essays this way then the negative influence of any bias group can certainly be mitigated.

I have read many but rated very few essays so far and intend to do a fast job now onwards by covering at least 10 essays every day.

You are requested to read and rate my essay titled,"Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space". Kindly do let me know if you don't get convinced about the invalidity of the founding assumptions of Relativity or regarding the efficacy of the proposed simple experiments for detection of absolute motion.

Finally I wish to see your excellent essay reach the list of finalists.

Best Regards

G S Sandhu

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 22:42 GMT
Thank you kindly, Gurchan. I will read your paper when I can -- yes, getting through all these fine compositions under deadline is a daunting task. Thanks for reading and commenting on mine, however ... much appreciated!

Tom

Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 22:32 GMT
Sascha Vongehr complains on his blog: "Experts agree that solving the

Quantum Randi Challenge would deserve the Nobel Prize. However, experts also keep demanding to reformulate the challenge with a variation of the Bell inequality called 'CHSH'."

I should hope so. The experts are the ones who have studied EPR/Bell and its CHSH extension to a considerably higher standard than an...

view entire post

Fred Diether replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 22:51 GMT
Hi Tom,

Solving (defeating) his dumb challenge would be beyond deserving of a Nobel Prize since it is rigged to be impossible. Sheesh, De Raedt et al, already busted Bell with their mathematical model and Joy has busted Bell even better with a great physical model. Since Bell was wrong you can't use his specific criteria to rig the game. That is just not fair. One only needs to use the EPR-Bohm criteria. Rigging the game unfairly is something the Bell followers really should stop doing.

Best,

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 23:09 GMT
But Fred, Vongehr doesn't even rise to the level of using Bell/CHSH criteria (read his paper). His proposal has no experimental criteria at all, just an inductive inference that is not independent of his expectations. Even a subtle rigging would be something worthwhile. The whole thing is just the biggest nonsense, and even his expected outcome is already falsified.

Tom

Michael James Goodband wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 16:28 GMT
On a more positive note. I have posted a description of how my work provides agreement with Joy Christian's conclusions and a possible means by which Joy's work may be extended to include relatistic dynamics more explicitly. On the 3 spaces considered in Bell's analysis, Bell could be viewed as actually being 0 for 3 and not just 2 for 3.

Michael

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 15:24 GMT
Thomas,

I understand you right?

Einstein: “Did God have a choice in creating the world?”)

Joy Christian: Yes

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 16:59 GMT
Yes. That is, I said that Joy's framework answers Einstein's question in the positive.

Tom

Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 11:07 GMT
My answer is negative, see my essay 1413

report post as inappropriate

Christian Corda wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 06:14 GMT
Hi Tom,

Good Essay. I am going to give you an high score.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 14:05 GMT
Thanks, Christian! You have probably surmised that I am pleased to reciprocate, for your insightful essay.

By the way, knowing that you were at the University of Pisa in the same period, I am reminded of delightful conversations I had in Vienna at Karl Popper 2002 with Guglielmo Tamburrini, then an associate professor in philosophy of science (now, I see, since 2005 Professor in philosophy of science at Universita' di Napoli Federico II). I'm afraid my own presentation didn't fare very well in this group of eminent scholars; I learned so much, though, and remember Guglielmo particularly with warmth and good feeling.

All best,

Tom

Christian Corda replied on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 06:07 GMT
Thanks Tom,

Actually, I do not personally know Guglielmo Tamburrini, but I well know that he his an excellent Philosopher of Science.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 12:48 GMT
Reproducing a post -- and including attachment -- of comments I made on George Ellis's essay site:

Hi George,

Sociological implications aside, your withering rebuke of the O.P. has much value for the scientific implications of a fully relativistic theory at multiple scales. That " ... existence of the Cooper pairs necessary for superconductivity is contingent on the nature of the ion lattice, which is at a higher level of description than that of the pairs ..." conveys the physical reality of uncollapsed potential; i.e., the information exchange between particles in the dynamic Cooper state has the particles conspiring to maintain zero angular momentum -- which IMO is fully translatable to higher levels of organization as pure unitary wave function. E.g., conceivably able to deal with questions of large scale phenomena, such as posed by Tanmay Vachaspati "What does an observer who falls into the collapsing object experience?" and Vesselin Petkov, "Can gravity be quantized?"

Point is, the distribution of causality at all levels of organization blurs the distinction between particles -- the "bottom" of the hierarchy -- and systems of particles interacting with other systems to create top down causality.

Back in May, I wrote a short piece that I never submitted or posted anywhere, "A fermionic condensate test of Bell's Inequality & local realism" that agrees with Lucien Hardy's statement, "I anticipate that quantum gravity will be a theory having indefinite causal structure whereas quantum theory has definite causal structure." I will attach it to a post on my own essay site ("The Perfect First Question"). I hope you get a chance to read it, as well as my essay.

George, your forum has become quite a clearinghouse for state of the art research in interdisciplinary science! I think it represents the best of what I perceive that FQXi is about.

All best,

Tom

attachments: fermionic_condensate_test.pdf

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 17:58 GMT
Tom,

As this response was buried by hang hie's (he should!) repetitions I re-post it here, and thank you and apologise for missing your post and not responding last month.

Tom,

...the asymmetry is purely a Doppler shift of the 'distance' between emission/waves/photons. The total energy is thus conserved; i.e. If the new medium is in rapid motion towards the source, yes the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 21:08 GMT
This is very interesting, Peter, though I can't pretend to grasp it all. I do understand the point about deriving relativity from quantum phenomena, though I'm working in the opposite direction of deriving discrete quantum mechanics from continuous functions.

I think that Bell's theorem forbids the derivation of any classical model from quantum rules, though the converse demonstrably doesn't apply. If what you say can be rigorously proved, then I would have to eat crow, because Joy Christian would then be totally right -- Bell's theorem doesn't prove anything at all.

I have my reservations and doubts. Godspeed, though!

Best,

Tom

Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 18:51 GMT
Tom

I appreciate your grasping even some of it. It's the tip of the iceberg, but I still made it far too dense, so most just glimpse parts of it then struggle to keep hold of it mentally. We think very differently, so your comprehension is very encouraging and rewarding.

I have a paper on some important optical aspects due out soon in the Hadronic Journal. I'd be very pleased if you'd look over it and comment. The main paper itself is turning into a bit of a toombe, as each falsification I try fails and just reveals more connections and evaporates more paradoxes and anomalies. It needs the sternest test, so a single figure finish here may give it that exposure.

I confirm I think yours also should be in the top 35 so will do what I can.

Best of luck

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 22:35 GMT
Sure, Peter, I'll be glad to take a look, with no guarantee that I will have the knowledge to evaluate it. Thanks for the kind comments.

Tom

Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 20:56 GMT

I have thought of yet another way to illustrate the difference between the inherently probabilistic measure of quantum correlations as described by Scott Aaronson in my essay, and the continuous measurement function of Joy Christian's model, in a head-to-head comparison.

Somewhat over a year ago, when I was reading papers by Joy's critics, I was struck by Marc Holman's honest and poignant observation that the Christian framework adds an extra degree of freedom to the measurement function. Holman rejected that solution as unphysical -- what he did not realize, however, is that topological orientability adds such a component without changing the measurement criteria, by merely allowing a left hand and right hand topological orientation (as Joy explains with technical content, in his one page paper)

I hope you agree that this information-theoretic illustration makes the case in an easy to read way.

All best,

Tom

Michael James Goodband replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 13:09 GMT
Hi Tom,

I think I've found the point of view for comparison with Joy's work, and it has a bearing on the construction of a 2D model.

View the hidden domain in Joy's work as having an enclosing S2 surface. The map of the rotation group space S3 to this S2 has 2 possible orientations for homotopy group PI3(S2)=Z2. The map of a S7 space associated with particle symmetries to S2 also has 2 orientations, PI7(S2)=Z2. When the hidden domain surface S2 only encloses empty space, the symmetry operations of rotation (S3) or particle symmetries (S7) are free to act everywhere to rotate +1 orientation into -1 orientation as they are reachable through S3 or S7. BUT when the hidden domain encloses holes in space (as in STUFT) or singularities where the symmetry operators do not apply, this is not possible and the hidden domain S2 surface will have an orientation (see my reply to Jonathan Sept 25 on my site for more).

The 2D equivalent is topological vortices, such as occur in both the theory and reality of superfluid helium. Using the right hand rule and defining orientation to be the vortex direction at the point between two vortices, the pair LR have orientation Down LR=D, and RL have orientation Up RL=U. As U=-D this notation gives LR=-RL, the same non-commutativity AB=-BA displayed by the quaternions S3 and octonions S7. New notation is needed because complex numbers are commutative. Now enclose a singlet vortex pair inside a circle S1 that defines the boundary of a hidden domain, such that the vortex orientation LR or RL is hidden. The same argument as for S3 and S7 also applies to this vortex scenario, and the S1 hidden domain boundary has either orientation U or D. So as in the S3 and S7 cases of Joy, in this S1 case the hidden variable is the orientation.

Do you think that such a vortex scenario could give a demonstrative model of the form you describe?

Michael

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 16:10 GMT
Hi Michael,

The plot thickens! Yes indeed, I think that " ... such a vortex scenario could give a demonstrative model of the form ..." and I wish even more strongly that you had been around last year when the fur was flying. There are a lot of things in my notebooks that I would have posted had I had indication that they could be understood, such as this entry 22 Aug 2011 that I framed as a lemma:

"Pair correlation (A|B) of nonrelativistic quantum events is independent of the continuous topology of S^7, in which correlated vector pairs of octonions correspond to bivectors in the spacetime of S^3, comprising an interval of simply connected information ranging all over S^3 and unitary to the initial condition."

That's inelegant,and I wouldn't have put it that way in public (just wanted to reveal my unfolding thinking process). I would have edited it to:

"All measured quantum correlations are independent of topology, such that continuous measurement functions in a simply connected space are unitary with the initial condition."

The proof of this lemma implies the theorem: "All physics is local." (Einstein)

Joy has been saying all along that the physical space is S^7, agreeing with your research that parallelization of simply connected S^0,S^1,S^3,S^7 is a space of complete measurement functions.

In a 2006 paper I proposed the measure space S^2 continuously projected between S^1 and S^3 with the result that non-commutative arithmetic functions exchange continuous curves for discrete points. (infinite quantization implies no quantization at all, which obviates collapse of the wave function.)

We're on the same beam -- commutativity of complex numbers implies the topological twist while preserving orientability of LH and RH elements as hidden variables.

Cool!

All best,

Tom

Jens Koeplinger wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 16:51 GMT
Hello Tom - thank you for pointing me to your essay. If you are proposing a quantum mechanical framework where wave functions don't collapse, then the first thought that came up is final-state interactions. It is outside the area that I would be comfortable writing about, but I thought I'd point you to it. In very rudimentary terms that reflect my basic understanding, final-state interactions are interactions of (parts of) a quantum system with itself (or parts of itself) after some initial (or partial) measurement has taken place. The way you're attempting to put symmetry around Schroedinger's cat, I would think that you could model such final-state interactions that would different from canonical quantum mechanical predictions. You would have to use 3 (or 5?) of such "spin 1/2" cats, I speculate. My personal research comes from the other end, to propose equations of motion and dynamics for certain systems, and then evaluate whether or not they're consistent with the observation. Your approach is no less important, of course, for evaluating patterns in the observation of quantum behavior and attempt to extrapolate properties of an underlying model.

Best wishes, Jens

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 12:27 GMT
Hi Jens,

Thanks for reading, and for your great comments. It isn't that I am proposing a quantum mechanical framework of noncollapsing wave functions -- it's that I am trying to explain (like Joy) the appearance of quantum phenomena in a classical framework. Bell's framework is itself classical.

The symmetry of Schrodinger's wave equation is already there -- as a continuous wave...

view entire post

Jens Koeplinger replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 03:02 GMT
Hello Tom - thanks for your detailed reply. Again, all I feel competent doing is to give you pointers. A specific example would be an excited three-quark state that decays into a ground state with production of a meson. If you understand that meson as a "cat / anti-cat" bound state, and assume time symmetry in quantum nature as you seem to propose, then I would expect the newly created meson to react with the three-quark state that ejected it. Not sure whether such a thing is possible with excited protons that would expell a pi meson when decaying back into the ground state ... something like that. It fall into the realm of what I understand as final-state interaction. Good luck! Jens

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 09:32 GMT
Right on, Jens! If you'll look a few posts above (18 Sept 1248 GMT), I posted an attachment of a draft paper I wrote in May proposing an EPR-Bell type experiment with fermionic condensate that depends on wave correlation rather than entanglement -- instead of particle ejection, we get singlet and triplet results and instead of particle-antiparticle annihilation and gamma radiation, we get angular momentum conservation.

I would be most interested if you would read and comment on the attachment. Thanks!

Tom

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 09:23 GMT
Dear Tom,

Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.

report post as inappropriate

Frederico Pfrimer wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 19:46 GMT
Dear Thomas,

Wow… The first perfect question surprised me. So simple but so deep. If the answer is no, then there is no way you could be asking it! And yes, there are many fundamental things that we cannot explain, at least not in the beginning.

I’ve never seen an approach like this to bell’s theorem. Very interesting. You connected it to other notions I’ve never listened about. I also believe that measurement is connected to connected to some kind of information flow and that there is information flowing everywhere. I think this notion will be essential for future physics.

Nice work! All the best

Frederico

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 10:31 GMT
Thanks, Frederico! You are very kind. Indeed, if physical reality is made of information alone, network connectedness and continuous flow are primary.

Warm regards,

Tom

Frederico Pfrimer replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 18:02 GMT
That’s true. I think this subject is more important than people usually think. I also believe the ideas in the community are not as clear and established as people think. For example, I think there is for now no theory that describes mathematically what is information flow. I mean, we know about it, but it is foundationally not finished, there I a lot of work to be done about it.

Regards,

Frederico

report post as inappropriate

David Rousseau wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 14:54 GMT
Dear Tom,

A nicely written and very important essay. Well done on showing so clearly that we cannot think about physical reality without thinking, and hence the problems of life and consciousness are 'in the game' from the outset, and although our theories are radically incomplete without taking them into account, we can make immediate important progress if we do take them into account. A great score coming, and good luck in the finals!

Best wishes,

David

report post as inappropriate

Member George F. R. Ellis wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 12:38 GMT
Hi Tom,

nice essay. I particularly like "physical measurement—which is based on local events whose causality is known, in measuring interactions bounded by arbitrarily chosen coordinate frames—has a constant relation to a metaphysical coordinate-free causality." However I disagree abut many worlds.

Best wishes

George

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 16:55 GMT
Hi Geroge,

Thanks! Yes, I know you disagree with the many worlds hypothesis. My view is that until we have a suitable alternative to collapse of the wave function, we need a place-holder for the middle value -- a coordinate-free system can never allow such a collapse because there is no particular point in the continuous range of measurement values into which it can collapse; i.e. the wave function is not probabilistic. So if Hawking ever actually said that the Everett hypothesis is "trivially true," I think that's what he meant. It's certainly what I mean.

OTOH, Joy Christian's topological structure of S^7 physical space solves the problem. Physical measures default to the non-trivial topology of S^3, with no collapse of the wave function.

All best,

Tom

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 15:06 GMT
Dear Tom,

This is an interesting essay, and particularly timely from my perspective because gives me some new ideas about a subject I recently encountered. A few thoughts come to mind.

1. The notion of "an infinite number of questions in an infinite length of time" (page 1 of your essay) also arises in pure mathematics in relation to Godel's incompleteness theorem (without the time factor, of course). The reason is that "proof" is taken to involve only a finite number of statements in terms of the axioms of the system (e.g. natural numbers), and one must be very lucky for this to suffice to prove a true general statement which may be true for different reasons for each of an infinite number of subsets of elements. One can always test the statement for particular choices of elements, or perhaps prove the statement for certain subsets, but in most cases one cannot decide the truth in a finite number of steps. This seems very analogous to the unbounded game of 20 questions.

2. You have an interesting perspective on locality, and one I will have to think more deeply about. I like the Poincare disk analogy. For some time, I have wondered about the meaning of locality because of the assumptions it involves; ordinarily some sort of metric concept comes into play (in order to define "close" and "far away"). But quantum gravity considerations cast doubt on the notion that spacetime is a metric manifold. Perhaps locality should be defined in terms of interaction: if two systems directly interact, they are considered local. Entanglement makes this definition completely incompatible with the manifold assumption.

More to say, but a student is pestering me. I enjoyed your essay, and wish you the best of luck in the contest! Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 17:50 GMT
Thanks, Ben ...

Interesting that your teaching duties interrupted you. My own work responsibilities interrupted my reading of your essay this morning (I'm traveling on business). Actually, I was re-reading since I read and rated your essay with a high score days ago. Still organizing my comments.

What is often called the "surprise version" of 20 questions (because the questioner is...

view entire post

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:07 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Janko Kokosar wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 00:03 GMT
I did not yet read all your essay, but I looked abstract and conclusion. There I find the first question, with which I agree: "Am I alive?"

I gave you 10 points maybe in the last minute, possible.

Best regards Janko Kokosar

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 01:39 GMT
Hello Tom,

Assuming there will be no more casting about; it is my pleasure to congratulate you as a finalist. I enjoyed your essay greatly, though it took a couple of readings for some ideas to sink in. I think it is especially poignant; the overlooked point that being an observer is inherently centric. Whatever information is being received, it is coming from a distance toward the observer. That's all an observer sees, and never the receding wave.

I made a similar point, once upon a time, though in a more philosophical setting or context. And I had to look through a lot of my old writings to find the references. Generally speaking; a point of view defines a frame of reference, and a sense of proximal and distal space. Toward and away are relative to the point of observation. And always it is that point at infinity which is bringing us information.

So yes; I think you deserve to be in the finals. May the judges treat you kindly.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 11:42 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

Thank you so much. You know that I also hold your research in high esteem, and it is the greatest reward for any of us to have like-minded friends "get it."

I am happy to return the congratulations, and wish you the greatest success in the contest, with your journal, and in all other endeavors.

All best,

Tom

James Putnam wrote on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 12:18 GMT
Hi Tom,

The conversation among you, Michael, and Joy was a very interesting sidebar to the contest. Your finish in the contest was deserved. In other words, you deserve to be bounced around good. :) Just kidding. Congratulations.

James

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 12:41 GMT
LOL! Thanks, James. It was bumpy ride, but most enjoyable. Not the least of it was your welcome contributions; your challenging questions, good humor and peacemaking! Thank you above all for being a mensch.

All best,

Tom

Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 09:29 GMT
While browsing *The Demon and the Quantum* by Robert Scully and Marlan Scully (good book - recommended)I came across (p. 148)a marvelous quote by George Ellis. Robert Scully relates that at a conference, Ellis was asked: "Do we need quantum mechanics to ensure free will?" Ellis is reported to have answered in a Zen koan-like manner: "On Monday, Wednesday and Friday, I think not. On Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, I think so."

Scully used the quote to support his contention that nobody knows " ... is classical chaos enough to provide freedom of choice, i.e., free will?" I think he missed the point of George's reply (which I am going to ask George himself to confirm or deny, in this forum) for the following reason:

Just a short number of pages prior (pp 130-132), Scully had noted that the quantum eraser proposed by Marlan Scully and Kai Druhl that when published in 1982 'shook the physics community' in the words of Aharonov and Zubairy " ... underscores the statement (that) information is a physical quantity. That is, information is real and the utilization of information is what the quantum eraser is all about."

In his figure 9.6, p 131, Scully shows the wavelike correlation between erased potential and detected information (which corresponds to figure 2 in my essay).

That is the single message of classical chaos, Wheeler delayed choice, and the quantum eraser: Information is real. I think that the opportunity Scully missed is in realizing that George's comment could only have come from a physicist so steeped in relativity that no other answer than "yes" is possible. We need the continuous measurement function equally with discrete quantum detection to have complete information -- and objective knowledge -- of the evolving state. What do you think, George?

Tom

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 1, 2012 @ 18:39 GMT
Tom,

Isn't the assumption of an observer-created reality at variance with the original notion of reality as something assumed to exist objectively? For instance, a wave can be observed at effectively the same location by different observers moving relative to the medium with different velocities. It is nonetheless just one wave with one velocity re medium.

What about singularities, see Fig. 3 of my essay.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Nov. 8, 2012 @ 15:38 GMT
I'm not ignoring you, Eckard. It's just that I don't have LaTex installed on my work computer and I want to use mathematical symbols. Time at my home computer has been very limited lately.

In the interim:

Yes, of course, I agree that reality is objective and local. I'll deal with the question of observer-wave correlation in my formal reply later. (Much of the answer is informally addressed in my essay.)

In re your figure 3: I think one has to see Dedekind's "pebble like" notion of number in the context of Dedekind Cuts. In that, for example, there do exist two numbers that when multiplied together produce sqrt2. We don't know what these numbers are, and we are unlikely to ever know what they are -- but we can know, by explicit construction, that they exist.

Dedekind's and Weyl's work on the Continuum is some of the deepest in mathematics (and something I have studied extensively), and I can't do justice to it here. I will venture to say, however, that I don't think that there is a *real* distinction between mathematical structures and physical reality, although in experimental science there is a very sharp and practical demarcation. So in this respect, I agree with Max Tegmark in the reality of mathematical continuity with physical phenomena -- though at the same time I am compelled to address all the nonsense written that identifies Tegmark's view as Platonic. True Platonism posits an ideal world independent of our physical reality (consider Plato's allegory of the cave). Tegmark's hypothesis is of a mathematical world identical to our physical reality.

If we speak simply of mathematical realism and leave Plato out of it -- we get a constructivist philosophy supported by eminent 20th century mathematicians whose work either strongly relates to, or is based in, physics. Not only Dedekind and Weyl, but Brouwer, Weierstrass, Poincare and others. Not a bad club to belong to.

Tom

Joy Christian wrote on Nov. 6, 2012 @ 09:53 GMT
Hi Tom,

I have put a new paper on the arXiv. I thought you might find it interesting.

I am also attaching a PDF file below for your convenience.

Best,

Joy

attachments: 1_Spinor.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Nov. 6, 2012 @ 11:26 GMT
Thanks, Joy! I haven't time to do more than scan it right now. I know I'm going to enjoy it, though. Years ago, I tried to follow the periodic newsletter on spinors/twistors that Roger Penrose published (perhaps still does)-- like so much of Sir Roger's work, for me, I found it tough going.

I have found your approach to classical orientation entanglement, geometry and topology much closer to my own understanding of the subjects.

Best,

Tom

John Merryman wrote on Dec. 13, 2012 @ 18:15 GMT
Tom,

"Do you know what you mean by that? I don't. In the conservation of angular momentum in a spinning object, the central point is fixed -- the speed of points equidistant from that point vary evenly from the origin to the extremus. That is, like an ice skater drawing her arms in to spin faster and extending them to slow -- the difference between fast and slow is conserved as a unitary...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Dec. 13, 2012 @ 18:43 GMT
Hi John,

Does this help?

Tom

John Merryman replied on Dec. 14, 2012 @ 01:48 GMT
Tom,

Ok. Let's not call it space, let's call it an unbounded frame of reference. It has no physical markers. You are on a merry-go-round, or rather the spacestation from 2001 A Space Odyssey. Presumably you would be able to tell how fast it is spinning relative to that frame, by the G forces, not by any reference to outside points.

So what is that frame, if it has virtually no other physical property than what the spin is relative to? What is this frame derived from? Algebra? Geometry? Space?

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray replied on Dec. 14, 2012 @ 11:04 GMT
John,

"Let's not call it space, let's call it an unbounded frame of reference."

I'm afraid that's what space is. Add boundary conditions and you can call it geometry.

"It has no physical markers. You are on a merry-go-round, or rather the spacestation from 2001 A Space Odyssey. Presumably you would be able to tell how fast it is spinning relative to that frame, by the G forces, not by any reference to outside points."

No you couldn't. This was the whole point of Einstein's elevator gedanken experiment -- that one cannot determine whether one, colloquially speaking, is being pulled up or pushed down, in the absence of an external reference.

"So what is that frame, if it has virtually no other physical property than what the spin is relative to? What is this frame derived from? Algebra? Geometry? Space?"

Pick one, or all three. Or a method yet to be invented. What is clear though, John, is that you are innocent of how classical physics works. I promise that if you study it, you will be rewarded with insights that not only answer your questions, but lead you right to the edge of the cliff overlooking the truly deep questions.

Tom

Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Apr. 4, 2013 @ 17:51 GMT
Having been engaged in a long dialogue with James Putnam on his essay site -- though we strongly disagree, I think it worthwhile to reproduce this post on my own site, because I think it adds to the argument in favor of abandoning nonlocality for a topological limit in the generalized Euclidean space.

James,

Thinking about your contention that "mass varies" reminded me that I constructed a mathematical picture of what a continuum of mass would look like, in my 2008 preprint "On Breaking the Time Barrier."

I have done more sophisticated (yet unpublished) work from this basis since. The gist is, though, that such a continuum demands negative mass in the n-dimension Hilbert space, and some criteria for nonlocal measure to make it viable. I wrote it before being exposed to Joy Christian's framework, by which I became convinced that the topological 8-dimension limit (7-sphere) is more physically realistic than the Hilbert space. I haven't taken it down from my site, however, because I think that it shows why a physical limit -- and not nonlocality in the n-dimension Hilbert space -- makes the generalization of Euclidean space up to S^7 (limit of the division algebras) a better bet for a real and complete description of reality.

I have extracted and attached the relevant pages from the paper.

Tom

attachments: 1_Pages_from_timebarrier80108.pdf

Paul Reed replied on Apr. 5, 2013 @ 06:29 GMT
Tom

The only problem being that e does not =mc2 , in the same way that other similar assertions are wrong. You discount c, but the real point here is that c cannot have any influence on physical existence. c is one of a number of physical attributes which has an influence on the physically existent entity known as light. Which is a representation of what physically occurred, not what occurred. c, etc, has an impact on the physically existent representation, not what was physically existent which it is representing.

The other underlying problem is that whatever is occurring is only spatial. It alters, to something else. And what was in existence ceases. The rate at which that occurs, ie the changeover from one state to another, is what time is about. There is no duration in physical existence, duration is associated with alteration thereto.

If one sorts out first, generically, what is happening, then it becomes much easier to identify what all these concepts can relate to.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Author Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Apr. 5, 2013 @ 10:38 GMT
"The only problem being that e does not =mc2"

The empirical data disagrees with you.

Tom

Paul Reed replied on Apr. 6, 2013 @ 05:03 GMT
Tom

Oh, and what 'empirical' data is this? Hopefully not something that is self fulfilling, ie start with a false premise, sort out facts accordingly, prove start point.

What I want to see is something which proves that the speed at which a physical effect in photons which, if received by the right entity, can be subsequently processed, has an influence in the physical characteristics, known as energy and mass, of physically existent entities. Or indeed, in the wider sense, how this physical effect, known as light, has any physical influence on physical existence. Because, just for a start, the light is created AFTER that physical existence has occurred! Which sounds to me like something of a showstopper, before disappearing any further into the trees and leaving complete sight of the forest.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.