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

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - March 16, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

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.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 4:24am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Dean Waters: on 9/23/12 at 17:43pm UTC, wrote Jayakar, After a quick look at your essay it seems quite interesting. ...

Jayakar Joseph: on 9/23/12 at 15:04pm UTC, wrote Dear Dean Waters, Demonstrating the quantum entanglement that describes...

Benjamin Dribus: on 9/17/12 at 6:04am UTC, wrote Dean, My way of working is very visual too, though I didn't have space to...

Dean Waters: on 9/8/12 at 3:47am UTC, wrote Ben, Thank you for your kind comments. As with so many things, I'm not...

Benjamin Dribus: on 9/7/12 at 15:42pm UTC, wrote Dean, I really enjoyed reading your essay. While I agree with your motto...

Dean Waters: on 9/5/12 at 12:41pm UTC, wrote Essay Abstract In the spirit Einstein’s imaginative embrace of c...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: ""At least that's the premise." That's the problem. "the theorems that..." in Alternative Models of...

Malcolm Riddoch: "@Robert: ""This latter, Ψ(U), can't describe a 'drug test' can it?" For..." in Alternative Models of...

John Cox: "Lorraine, I briefly described the relationship of mass to inertia..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

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

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

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.

FQXi FORUM
January 24, 2020

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: How |Alice>, |Bob> and |Ellerman> Helped Save Entanglement From Violating Relativity by Dean L Waters [refresh]

Author Dean L Waters wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 12:41 GMT
Essay Abstract

In the spirit Einstein’s imaginative embrace of c as constant, the author suspends disbelief, asks |Alice>, |Bob>, and |Ellerman> for help taking seriously and discovers a ‘reference-frame’ for entanglement that makes it ‘structural’ and thus ‘non-communicating’ in way that may not violate relativistic or quantum empirical evidence. He then faces the terror of grappling with the implications.

Author Bio

Dean L. Waters is a father of six with a day job who loves troubleshooting complex systems.

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 15:42 GMT
Dean,

I really enjoyed reading your essay. While I agree with your motto "Think Crazy. Prove Yourself Wrong," I don't think your idea about entanglement is crazy. It has been noted that people who come up with important new ideas about topics in physics often do so very soon after first encountering them, so the fact that, as you say, you only recently thought of entanglement in this context, is probably an advantage!

I have been down a very similar path on the subject of entanglement, and more generally, locality. I finally decided that if things influence each other, they ought to be considered close together, and that denying this comes from taking the hypothesized structure of spacetime too seriously. This is part of what I call the causal metric hypothesis. I explain this further in my essay here: On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics.

On the specific subject of entanglement, things become a bit complicated in my opinion because it is a quantum-theoretic phenomenon; you have to ask whether effects that seem "nonlocal" arise from a misinterpretation of the metric structure of spacetime (which can be understood classically), or from a purely quantum mechanism like superposition. I don't know for sure what the answer is, but I think the idea you suggest should certainly be taken seriously.

Anyway, I wish you the best of luck with the contest! Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Author Dean L Waters replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 03:47 GMT
Ben,

As with so many things, I'm not quite sure by what you been by the misinterpreting the metric structure of space time in the context of nonlocality. I've been following entanglement since the early 1990's. It has taken me twenty years of beating my head against the concept of entanglement through popular literature and whatever papers I could get my hands on. I seemed to either get the math ... or thought experiments carrying a lot of linguistic baggage, but very little conceptual framework as to what allowed any of this to occur.

My understanding of relativity has considerably less depth. My degree is in Math & Comp. Sci, so I have a fair, but not adequate grasp of much of the mathematics. I do have a stubborn desire and ability to visualize and sketch consistent (or at least falsifiable or incrementally useful) metaphors for mathematical structures. Someone once said, "you can't visualize quarks" ... so of course, I've been trying ever since. Although this has led to some interesting visual metaphors, I haven't succeeded!

I do have a sense, though, that via the concept of duals, more than one kind of space can exist simultaneously with interacting references. (It occurs to me at the moment, that this is what I considered to be structure in the paper) These interacting-references show up in the orthogonal/complex-conjugating nature of the interactions of nature (measurements, observers, decoherence, colliders, etc.) as the jumpy and random aspects of quantum mechanics that seem so peculiar to a classical perspective.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of clear language to describe such things, and my confidence in my illustrations is still ... well, it is hard to *prove* an illustration if you can't describe the math! That may go a long way in explaining the hesitance in my descriptions.

Thanks again.

Dean

Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 06:04 GMT
Dean,

My way of working is very visual too, though I didn't have space to fit any of that into my essay. I have a ridiculous number of diagrams in my own LaTeX files though, probably upwards of 600. I find I don't mess things up as often if I make figures of everything I possibly can. Take care,

Ben

report post as inappropriate

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 15:04 GMT
Dear Dean Waters,

Demonstrating the quantum entanglement that describes the nonlocality of action at a distance is indicative of the string nature of the matters in universe.

With best wishes

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Author Dean L Waters replied on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 17:43 GMT
Jayakar,

After a quick look at your essay it seems quite interesting. While seeking to understand the role of charges and color of quarks I made several tetrahedral clay models and numerous drawings to explore the potential rotations of tetrahedra, as well as their potential links to non-local spaces so I look forward to reading your paper in more depth.

Dean

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 04:24 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.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate