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

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

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

**Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest**

*December 24, 2019 - March 16, 2020*

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**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.

read/discuss • winners

**Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Sergey Fedosin**: *on* 10/5/12 at 12:21pm UTC, wrote Dear Andrey, I rated your essay almost the best score. Sergey Fedosin

**Sergey Fedosin**: *on* 10/4/12 at 5:29am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

**vlad menbek**: *on* 10/2/12 at 12:46pm UTC, wrote The pulse mechanics Our installed Is a dense point in the Big Universe (B....

**vlad menbek**: *on* 10/2/12 at 12:41pm UTC, wrote A SINGLE UNIVERSE The geometry of the space of our universe the...

**vlad menbek**: *on* 10/2/12 at 12:35pm UTC, wrote ЕДИНАЯ...

**Steve Dufourny Jedi**: *on* 9/25/12 at 19:45pm UTC, wrote Hello Mr.Akhmeteli, I d say incomplete and overcomplete(irrational works...

**Hoang Hai**: *on* 9/19/12 at 15:33pm UTC, wrote Dear Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all of us are convinced...

**Anonymous**: *on* 9/15/12 at 19:13pm UTC, wrote Dear Benjamin, Thank you for your interest in my essay. Yes, when I speak...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Lorraine Ford**: "John, I would say that you need to think what you mean by “physical..."
*in* Emergent Reality: Markus...

**John Cox**: "Lorraine, That clarifies, thanks. I'd be in the camp that argues for a..."
*in* Emergent Reality: Markus...

**Steve Dufourny**: "We have a big philosophical problem with the strings and the photons like..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Steve Dufourny**: "If my equation is correct, E=mc^2+Xl^2 , so how can we take this enormous..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Lorraine Ford**: "Re "I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good..."
*in* Undecidability,...

**John Cox**: "George, We shouldn't conflate contradiction with inconsistency. QM has a..."
*in* Watching the Watchmen:...

**John Cox**: "Georgi, by and large I agree. Near the end of the discussion panel,..."
*in* Watching the Watchmen:...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**First Things First: The Physics of Causality**

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

**Can Time Be Saved From Physics?**

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

**Thermo-Demonics**

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

**Gravity's Residue**

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

**Could Mind Forge the Universe?**

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

FQXi FORUM

January 21, 2020

CATEGORY:
Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)
[back]

TOPIC: Quantum Theory: Complete? Incomplete? Overcomplete? by Andrey Akhmeteli [refresh]

TOPIC: Quantum Theory: Complete? Incomplete? Overcomplete? by Andrey Akhmeteli [refresh]

The measurement problem in quantum mechanics strongly suggests that quantum theory is overcomplete and, strictly speaking, wrong, as it contains mutually contradictory parts - unitary evolution and measurement theory. Modification of the latter enables construction of "no drama" quantum theory - a local realistic theory that has the same unitary evolution as a quantum field theory. The main premises and steps of this construction are as follows. Schr\"{o}dinger noted that the complex charged matter field in the Klein-Gordon equation or in scalar electrodynamics can be made real by a gauge transform, although it is generally believed that complex functions are required to describe charged fields. An extension of these results to the Dirac equation and spinor electrodynamics is proposed here: it is shown that the Dirac equation is generally equivalent to one fourth-order partial differential equation for one complex component, which can also be made real by a gauge transform. As the Dirac equation is one of the most fundamental, these results both belong in textbooks and can be used for development of new efficient methods and algorithms of quantum chemistry. Furthermore, the matter field can be algebraically eliminated both from scalar electrodynamics and from spinor electrodynamics in a certain gauge (for spinor electrodynamics, this is done after introduction of a complex electromagnetic four-potential, which leaves the electromagnetic fields unchanged). The resulting equations describe independent dynamics of the electromagnetic field. It is also shown that for these systems of equations, a generalized Carleman linearization (Carleman embedding) procedure generates systems of linear equations in the Hilbert space, which look like second-quantized theories and are equivalent to the original nonlinear systems on the set of solutions of the latter. Thus, the relevant local realistic models can be embedded into quantum field theories. Possible issues with the Bell theorem are discussed.

Andrey Akhmeteli obtained his PhD in theoretical and mathematical physics from Moscow University and has worked there, in other research and education institutions, and in industry.

Dear Andrey Akhmeteli,

You make so many excellent points it is hard to know where to begin. I agree that 'overcomplete' is very probably a significant problem, and I applaud your work toward a 'no drama' quantum theory.

Lacking a strong opinion on "complex function required to describe charged fields" I would note that I am increasingly drawn toward Hestenes' Geometric Algebra interpretation of sqrt(-1) as a real rotation in space, and in that sense I think it is inherent in quantum theory. And while I do find your electrodynamic-based approach very worth while, I believe that de Broglie was clear that the 'pilot wave' was *not* the electro-magnetic field. Your focus on relativistic field equations is very appropriate, however I hope you will read the non-relativistic treatment in my essay, The Nature of the Wave Function. It is based on de Broglie's idea that the wave function is physically real and addresses both recent experimental support of the idea as well as recent 'no-go' theorems (PBR, and others) that support such reality. It is also compatible with your observation that "no positive experimental evidence exists for physical state-vector collapse."

As for Bell's theorem, I have recently pointed out d'Espagnat's claim that physics is based on realism, deductive reasoning, and locality. Most Bell believers have *chosen* to sacrifice local realism, but, as you point out, if "mutually contradictory assumptions (e.g. unitary evolution and the projection postulate) are required to prove the Bell theorem" then perhaps it is deductive reasoning that is the real problem.

The assumptions underlying "full drama" quantum theory are obviously problematical, and your essay is one of the best approaches to the problem I have seen. Good luck in the essay competition.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

You make so many excellent points it is hard to know where to begin. I agree that 'overcomplete' is very probably a significant problem, and I applaud your work toward a 'no drama' quantum theory.

Lacking a strong opinion on "complex function required to describe charged fields" I would note that I am increasingly drawn toward Hestenes' Geometric Algebra interpretation of sqrt(-1) as a real rotation in space, and in that sense I think it is inherent in quantum theory. And while I do find your electrodynamic-based approach very worth while, I believe that de Broglie was clear that the 'pilot wave' was *not* the electro-magnetic field. Your focus on relativistic field equations is very appropriate, however I hope you will read the non-relativistic treatment in my essay, The Nature of the Wave Function. It is based on de Broglie's idea that the wave function is physically real and addresses both recent experimental support of the idea as well as recent 'no-go' theorems (PBR, and others) that support such reality. It is also compatible with your observation that "no positive experimental evidence exists for physical state-vector collapse."

As for Bell's theorem, I have recently pointed out d'Espagnat's claim that physics is based on realism, deductive reasoning, and locality. Most Bell believers have *chosen* to sacrifice local realism, but, as you point out, if "mutually contradictory assumptions (e.g. unitary evolution and the projection postulate) are required to prove the Bell theorem" then perhaps it is deductive reasoning that is the real problem.

The assumptions underlying "full drama" quantum theory are obviously problematical, and your essay is one of the best approaches to the problem I have seen. Good luck in the essay competition.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Thank you very much for your kind words.

I have read your essay, and some of your ideas are close to what I considered some time ago. For example, I was interested in Hestenes' geometric algebra, but I don't feel I have a definite opinion on its advantages/drawbacks. However, I had some problems trying to understand your essay as, regrettably, I don't know much about general relativity.

I'd like to note that the following is a quote from Schlosshauer's article: "no positive experimental evidence exists for physical state-vector collapse."

I wish you every success

Andrey Akhmeteli

Thank you very much for your kind words.

I have read your essay, and some of your ideas are close to what I considered some time ago. For example, I was interested in Hestenes' geometric algebra, but I don't feel I have a definite opinion on its advantages/drawbacks. However, I had some problems trying to understand your essay as, regrettably, I don't know much about general relativity.

I'd like to note that the following is a quote from Schlosshauer's article: "no positive experimental evidence exists for physical state-vector collapse."

I wish you every success

Andrey Akhmeteli

Dear Andrey,

Very interesting essay. One question: when you speak of the theory of measurement in standard quantum theory, are you speaking only of the nonunitary behavior (i.e. "wave-function collapse") of the Copenhagen interpretation? The reason I ask is because "decoherence" has come to be viewed as almost "standard" in recent years, and I am wondering what you think about decoherence. Thanks, and take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Very interesting essay. One question: when you speak of the theory of measurement in standard quantum theory, are you speaking only of the nonunitary behavior (i.e. "wave-function collapse") of the Copenhagen interpretation? The reason I ask is because "decoherence" has come to be viewed as almost "standard" in recent years, and I am wondering what you think about decoherence. Thanks, and take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Dear Benjamin,

Thank you for your interest in my essay.

Yes, when I speak of the theory of measurement in standard quantum theory, I am speaking only of the nonunitary behavior (i.e. "wave-function collapse") of the Copenhagen interpretation. The reason is that it is collapse (say, in the form of the projection postulate) that is used in a typical proof of the Bell theorem (when they prove that the Bell inequalities can be violated in quantum theory).

I don't think decoherence changes anything (in principle), as far as my work is concerned: it is my understanding that decoherence is used to show how appearance of collapse arises, not collapse itself. Looks like the most decoherence picture can show is that collapse can be a good approximation. As long as collapse is an approximation, not a precise law, it's fine with me:-)

Thank you

Best regards

Andrey Akhmeteli

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your interest in my essay.

Yes, when I speak of the theory of measurement in standard quantum theory, I am speaking only of the nonunitary behavior (i.e. "wave-function collapse") of the Copenhagen interpretation. The reason is that it is collapse (say, in the form of the projection postulate) that is used in a typical proof of the Bell theorem (when they prove that the Bell inequalities can be violated in quantum theory).

I don't think decoherence changes anything (in principle), as far as my work is concerned: it is my understanding that decoherence is used to show how appearance of collapse arises, not collapse itself. Looks like the most decoherence picture can show is that collapse can be a good approximation. As long as collapse is an approximation, not a precise law, it's fine with me:-)

Thank you

Best regards

Andrey Akhmeteli

report post as inappropriate

Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Hello Mr.Akhmeteli,

I d say incomplete and overcomplete(irrational works and extrapolations).

I beleive that the main probelm is the lack of domains in the general analyzes. I d say also that the competition sometimes imply an ocean of pseudo irrational works and models. It is not a probelm this competition, it catalyzes. The probelm is when these irrational works govern the institute. It is not rational all that. Our knowledges are of course incomplete, the uncompleteness implies that we are simply far of our walls. The hidden variables are in fact in the same universal dynamic.

The Bell theorem, aahhhh this Bell theorem. I don't see the necessity to imply irrational hidden variables. The fact that our measurements are hidden does not mean that these variables are irrational. In fact our uncompleteness means that we are far of our walls. The violations of Bell inequalities does not mean that we loose our determinism. The pilot waves of De Broglie seems rational and deterministic. I don't see a necessity to imply multiverses with bizare things.

Uncompleteness does not mean bizare variables. Theys are simply far of us. We can compare the quantum road with the cosmological road, we have already difficulties to go at Mars , so you imagine the immensity of our Universal sphere. It is logic that we have a lot of unknowns. It is simply our young age at the universal scale.

and don't say me that alice and Bob are in the extradimensions of parallel universes please.Let's be rational.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

I d say incomplete and overcomplete(irrational works and extrapolations).

I beleive that the main probelm is the lack of domains in the general analyzes. I d say also that the competition sometimes imply an ocean of pseudo irrational works and models. It is not a probelm this competition, it catalyzes. The probelm is when these irrational works govern the institute. It is not rational all that. Our knowledges are of course incomplete, the uncompleteness implies that we are simply far of our walls. The hidden variables are in fact in the same universal dynamic.

The Bell theorem, aahhhh this Bell theorem. I don't see the necessity to imply irrational hidden variables. The fact that our measurements are hidden does not mean that these variables are irrational. In fact our uncompleteness means that we are far of our walls. The violations of Bell inequalities does not mean that we loose our determinism. The pilot waves of De Broglie seems rational and deterministic. I don't see a necessity to imply multiverses with bizare things.

Uncompleteness does not mean bizare variables. Theys are simply far of us. We can compare the quantum road with the cosmological road, we have already difficulties to go at Mars , so you imagine the immensity of our Universal sphere. It is logic that we have a lot of unknowns. It is simply our young age at the universal scale.

and don't say me that alice and Bob are in the extradimensions of parallel universes please.Let's be rational.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

A SINGLE UNIVERSE

The geometry of the space of our universe the two-dimensional. This plane created polarized continuous vacuum. Continuous vacuum is not a monolithic, digital, quantum. Continuous vacuum consists of the quantum vacuum, which defined the M.PLANK Their radius of 10 in -33 degrees centimeters, weight of 10 to -5 degrees grams. The quanta of the continuous vacuum pulse. The...

view entire post

The geometry of the space of our universe the two-dimensional. This plane created polarized continuous vacuum. Continuous vacuum is not a monolithic, digital, quantum. Continuous vacuum consists of the quantum vacuum, which defined the M.PLANK Their radius of 10 in -33 degrees centimeters, weight of 10 to -5 degrees grams. The quanta of the continuous vacuum pulse. The...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

The pulse mechanics

Our installed Is a dense point in the Big Universe (B. В), formed from counter sound (shock) waves in chaotic "matter". In our Universe for accident there is no place, in our Universe for accident there is no time. Only in B. В, in infinity and eternity, there can be such accident, that is, the ordered structure can casually be formed of CHAOS. Our Universe...

view entire post

Our installed Is a dense point in the Big Universe (B. В), formed from counter sound (shock) waves in chaotic "matter". In our Universe for accident there is no place, in our Universe for accident there is no time. Only in B. В, in infinity and eternity, there can be such accident, that is, the ordered structure can casually be formed of CHAOS. Our Universe...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

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 and was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have of points. After it anyone give you of points so you have of points and is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: or or In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points then the participant`s rating 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

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.